DIS: [Promotor] Draft
Here's a draft. I'm sorry if you're not twg and you submitted a proposal. I haven't been bribed, I assure you; this is just all I could find after poking around a bit. -Aris I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the quorum is 5, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional votes). IDAuthor(s) AITitle --- 8140 twg 0.1 Powerless Tangeloes 8141 twg 0.1 Tangeloes Taking Precedence 8142 twg 3.0 Powerful Tangeloes 8143 twg, G. 1.0 Bad Space Captaincy Legalisation 8144 twg, Trigon 1.0 Sharing the Wealth Again The proposal pool is currently empty. The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. // ID: 8140 Title: Powerless Tangeloes Adoption index: 0.1 Author: twg Co-authors: Enact a new rule "The Tangelo Rule" (Power=0.1) with the following text: Tangelo. All rules begin with the word "Tangelo". This rule automatically repeals itself 10 days after it is enacted. // ID: 8141 Title: Tangeloes Taking Precedence Adoption index: 0.1 Author: twg Co-authors: If a rule named "The Tangelo Rule" exists, amend it by replacing the text "All rules" with "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, all rules". // ID: 8142 Title: Tangeloes Taking Precedence Adoption index: 0.1 Author: twg Co-authors: If a rule named "The Tangelo Rule" exists, set its Power to 3.0. Otherwise, enact a new rule "The Tangelo Rule" (Power=3.0) with the following text: Tangelo. All rules begin with the word "Tangelo". This rule automatically repeals itself 10 days after it is enacted. // ID: 8143 Title: Bad Space Captaincy Legalisation Adoption index: 0.1 Author: twg Co-authors: G. Amend the Rule entitled "Space Battles" by changing the words "the combatants SHALL" to "the combatants SHOULD". Amend the Rule entitled "Space Battles" by removing the following paragraph: Failing to do so is the Class-2 Crime of Being a Bad Space Captain. // ID: 8144 Title: Sharing the Wealth Again Adoption index: 1.0 Author: twg Co-authors: Trigon Amend rule 2496 "Rewards" by replacing the list element beginning "Being the author" to read: * The following apply to adopted proposals: * Being the author: a number of coins equal to ((the total number of valid ballots cast FOR the decision - the total number of valid ballots cast AGAINST) times its adoption index) rounded up. * Being listed as a coauthor: the same amount, divided by 2 and rounded up. //
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Scam Part 2
In any case, I think it's clear that e must be given the maximum possible sentence. After all "The fine SHOULD be increased to the degree that the violation is willful, profitable, egregious, or an abuse of an official position.", and this is all of the above. -Aris On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 4:25 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > > Unfortunately, I think the common definition makes it rather clear what’s > going on. It’s definitely 1,000,000,000 actions, according to CFJ 3597, but I > think that CFJ may also suggest that we can only levy one fine (I’m not sure > about that though). > > -Aris > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 4:17 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> >> Oh, please say I can levy 1,000,000,000 fines. That would be awesome. >> >> ...Maybe not for D. Margaux. :/ >> >> Incidentally, I just did a brief ruleset skim for something that might >> indicate whether this was 1 action or 1,000,000,000, and uncovered a >> different issue: I can't find any definition of "award" for assets. The >> official verb in R2577 is "grant". Are we sure that "awarding" favours >> actually does anything at all? >> >> -twg >> >> >> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Monday, January 21, 2019 12:05 AM, Aris Merchant >> wrote: >> >> > Winning by flagrant rule violations is generally thought to be uncouth. I’m >> > not sure the Agoran public will be inclined to let you keep the win. I >> > would also like to point out that, technically, each favor gained may be a >> > seperate rule violation, depending on how exactly the relevant provisions >> > are written. The penalties incurred could be quite substantial. >> > >> > I intend to impeach the Arbitor with 2 Agoran Consent. >> > >> > -Aris >> > >> > On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 4:00 PM D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: >> > >> > > I have 25 balloons. I hereby spend 24 balloons to win the game. >> > > I point my finger at myself for giving out favours in violation of the >> > > rules and I throw myself on the mercy of the court. >> > > I CFJ: “D. Margaux won the game by politics in this message.” >> >>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Scam Part 2
Unfortunately, I think the common definition makes it rather clear what’s going on. It’s definitely 1,000,000,000 actions, according to CFJ 3597, but I think that CFJ may also suggest that we can only levy one fine (I’m not sure about that though). -Aris On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 4:17 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Oh, please say I can levy 1,000,000,000 fines. That would be awesome. > > ...Maybe not for D. Margaux. :/ > > Incidentally, I just did a brief ruleset skim for something that might > indicate whether this was 1 action or 1,000,000,000, and uncovered a > different issue: I can't find any definition of "award" for assets. The > official verb in R2577 is "grant". Are we sure that "awarding" favours > actually does anything at all? > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Monday, January 21, 2019 12:05 AM, Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Winning by flagrant rule violations is generally thought to be uncouth. > I’m > > not sure the Agoran public will be inclined to let you keep the win. I > > would also like to point out that, technically, each favor gained may be > a > > seperate rule violation, depending on how exactly the relevant provisions > > are written. The penalties incurred could be quite substantial. > > > > I intend to impeach the Arbitor with 2 Agoran Consent. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 4:00 PM D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > I have 25 balloons. I hereby spend 24 balloons to win the game. > > > I point my finger at myself for giving out favours in violation of the > > > rules and I throw myself on the mercy of the court. > > > I CFJ: “D. Margaux won the game by politics in this message.” > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Scam Part 2
Oh, please say I can levy 1,000,000,000 fines. That would be awesome. ...Maybe not for D. Margaux. :/ Incidentally, I just did a brief ruleset skim for something that might indicate whether this was 1 action or 1,000,000,000, and uncovered a different issue: I can't find any definition of "award" for assets. The official verb in R2577 is "grant". Are we sure that "awarding" favours actually does anything at all? -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, January 21, 2019 12:05 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Winning by flagrant rule violations is generally thought to be uncouth. I’m > not sure the Agoran public will be inclined to let you keep the win. I > would also like to point out that, technically, each favor gained may be a > seperate rule violation, depending on how exactly the relevant provisions > are written. The penalties incurred could be quite substantial. > > I intend to impeach the Arbitor with 2 Agoran Consent. > > -Aris > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 4:00 PM D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I have 25 balloons. I hereby spend 24 balloons to win the game. > > I point my finger at myself for giving out favours in violation of the > > rules and I throw myself on the mercy of the court. > > I CFJ: “D. Margaux won the game by politics in this message.”
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8143-8145 and 8142
This scam would be pretty dangerous. Initiating 495 excess cases would result in at least that many blots if someone pointed a finger at me for it! > On Jan 20, 2019, at 1:56 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Upon examination of R2478, I think that falsely declaring a Finger Pointing > to be Shenanigans may be IMPOSSIBLE, or if not, is certainly ILLEGAL. And > that would be a violation that the Arbitor _could_ take over the > investigation of. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 4:20 PM, D. Margaux >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Jan 16, 2019, at 3:48 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: >>> Even if I made that pledge, nobody would trust me, and rightly so. >> >> FWIW, I would trust you if you made that pledge. >> >> Theoretically, the pledge has a loophole if you’re the Referee, since you >> could decide any pointer finger regarding that pledge yourself. To make the >> pledge more airtight, you could also pledge that, if you remain as Referee >> at the time any finger is pointed for an alleged violation of the pledge, >> you would appoint the holder of the Arbitor’s office to act on your behalf >> to be investigator. (If you broke THAT pledge, I think that would be a >> violation related to your duties as referee, which the Arbitor could then >> investigate be announcement.) > >
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8143-8145 and 8142
Yes, but you could award yourself a single blot as a fine for breaking the pledge. But in any case i trust you not to break it regardless. > On Jan 20, 2019, at 1:56 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Upon examination of R2478, I think that falsely declaring a Finger Pointing > to be Shenanigans may be IMPOSSIBLE, or if not, is certainly ILLEGAL. And > that would be a violation that the Arbitor _could_ take over the > investigation of. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 4:20 PM, D. Margaux >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Jan 16, 2019, at 3:48 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: >>> Even if I made that pledge, nobody would trust me, and rightly so. >> >> FWIW, I would trust you if you made that pledge. >> >> Theoretically, the pledge has a loophole if you’re the Referee, since you >> could decide any pointer finger regarding that pledge yourself. To make the >> pledge more airtight, you could also pledge that, if you remain as Referee >> at the time any finger is pointed for an alleged violation of the pledge, >> you would appoint the holder of the Arbitor’s office to act on your behalf >> to be investigator. (If you broke THAT pledge, I think that would be a >> violation related to your duties as referee, which the Arbitor could then >> investigate be announcement.) > >
DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
NB: You might already have known this, but Politics creates a couple of new obligations for you: you are now supposed to track offices' Complexity and award favours for Efficiency (currently Substance Use Liberals favours) each week. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, January 20, 2019 6:36 PM, Edward Murphy wrote: > =Metareport= > You can find an up-to-date version of this report at > http://zenith.homelinux.net/adop/report.php > > Date of last report: 2019-01-06 > Date of this report: 2019-01-20 > > MISCELLANEOUS INFO > > --- > > Filled offices: 15/15 (100.00%) > Total officers: 8 > Consolidation[1]: 1.88 > Late reports: 2/10 (20.00%) > > - > > [1] This is the number of filled offices divided by the number of > officers. At 1, this means that all offices are filled by different > players; if it reached the number of filled offices, that would mean > that all offices are filled by one player. > > OFFICES > > Office Holder[1] Since Last Election > > - > > ADoP Murphy 2018-01-18 2018-01-18 > Arbitor D. Margaux 2018-10-20 2018-11-25 > Assessor twg 2018-07-19 (ongoing) > Astronomor *twg 2019-01-15 (never) > Clork *twg 2019-01-15 2017-12-07 > Distributor omd 2018-06-15 (never) [3] > Herald G. 2018-09-21 2018-09-21 > Prime Minister ATMunn 2018-10-30 2018-11-25 > Promotor Aris 2016-10-21 2017-09-21 > Referee twg 2018-11-01 2018-11-25 > Registrar D. Margaux 2019-01-10 2019-01-13 > Rulekeepor Trigon 2018-10-14 2018-11-25 > Speaker D. Margaux 2018-10-28 2014-04-21 [3] > Tailor twg 2018-08-02 2018-09-14 > Treasuror twg 2018-06-24 2018-06-24 > > --- > > [1] * = Interim office (vacant or holder not elected) > [2] Vacant since this date > [3] Currently imposed > > WEEKLY REPORTS > > Office Report Last Published Late[1] > > - > > ADoP Offices 2019-01-06[2] ! > Arbitor Judicial matters 2019-01-20 > Clork Politics 2019-01-15 > Herald Matters of Honour 2018-12-14 !!! > Promotor Proposal pool 2019-01-08 > Referee Rule violations 2019-01-14 > Registrar Players, Fora 2019-01-14 > Rulekeepor Short Logical Ruleset 2019-01-18 > Treasuror Coins, other currencies 2019-01-15 > > > > [1] ! = 1 period missed, !! = 2, !!! = 3+ > [2] Not including this report > > MONTHLY REPORTS > > Office Report Last Published Late > > > > Herald Patent titles 2018-12-31 > Registrar Player history 2018-12-08 > Rulekeepor Full Logical Ruleset 2019-01-18 > Tailor Ribbons 2019-01-08 > > - > > ELECTIONS > > Office Initiated Phase Candidates > > --- > > Assessor 2019-01-16 Post-nominating (none) > > --- > > UPCOMING ELECTIONS[1] > > Office Days Until Last Election > > - > > Promotor 00 Days 2017-09-21 > Clork 00 Days 2017-12-07 > ADoP 00 Days 2018-01-18 > Treasuror 00 Days 2018-06-24 > Tailor 00 Days 2018-09-14 > > > > [1] Anyone can start an election (with 2 support and also becoming a > candidate) 90
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8143-8145 and 8142
Upon examination of R2478, I think that falsely declaring a Finger Pointing to be Shenanigans may be IMPOSSIBLE, or if not, is certainly ILLEGAL. And that would be a violation that the Arbitor _could_ take over the investigation of. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 4:20 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > On Jan 16, 2019, at 3:48 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > Even if I made that pledge, nobody would trust me, and rightly so. > > FWIW, I would trust you if you made that pledge. > > Theoretically, the pledge has a loophole if you’re the Referee, since you > could decide any pointer finger regarding that pledge yourself. To make the > pledge more airtight, you could also pledge that, if you remain as Referee at > the time any finger is pointed for an alleged violation of the pledge, you > would appoint the holder of the Arbitor’s office to act on your behalf to be > investigator. (If you broke THAT pledge, I think that would be a violation > related to your duties as referee, which the Arbitor could then investigate > be announcement.)
Re: DIS: Poll: Abuse of Office
Shame. I was hoping to get some use out of Rule 2175. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, January 20, 2019 6:07 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > Nope but that’s a good one too! > > > On Jan 20, 2019, at 1:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > Is this the one where you initiate 500 trivial CFJs, assign them to > > yourself and judge them for Costume Conservatives favours? > > -twg > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > > On Sunday, January 20, 2019 5:29 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > How annoyed would people be if I abused an office to exploit a > > > gamebreaking bug in one of our mini-games?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
I understand and agree with your logic (and, incidentally, would find it
hilarious if this made me guilty of Masterminding Being a Bad Space Captain),
but I have a brief question that occurred to me yesterday about Rule 2519,
which says:
A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e, acting
as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action.
This seems to imply that it is possible for someone to act on behalf of someone
else to "publicly state" something, and explicitly excludes that ability. This
is almost the same as the language used in the Ribbons rule ("publicly
acknowledged the fact [that it is Agora's Birthday]").
Does this mean that the "acting as emself" clause in R2519 is simply
unnecessary? Or is "stating" something different from "sending a message that
states" something?
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, January 17, 2019 7:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> On 1/16/2019 5:37 AM, D. Margaux wrote:>
>
> > > On Jan 16, 2019, at 4:10 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
>
> > > If the original attempt failed at all, I would have expected it to be
>
> > > because of R2466's prohibition of sending-messages-on-behalf. I realise
>
> > > that contradicts CFJ 3649 but to be honest I'm not 100% certain, in
>
> > > hindsight, that that judgement was correct anyway.
>
> >
>
> > I agree that CFJ 3649 is poorly reasoned and probably shouldn’t be
>
> > followed. It’s not obvious that the judge of that CFJ knew of the
>
> > prohibition against sending messages when “acting on behalf.”
>
> I remember disagreeing with 3649 it at the time, can't remember if I
> attempted to file a Motion or just discussed it a bit and let it pass. In
> any case, here's my take on Tenhigitsune's case (proto-judgement):
>
> tl;dr you can't "communicate to" someone on behalf of a zombie because you
> can't send messages on their behalf.
>
> In general, in Agora, we abstract a lot of things (real currencies become
> virtual currencies, etc.) However, we are grounded in some baseline
> realities. Of course, some of those "realities", such as whether free will
> exists, are deep philosophical questions - over time, Agora has built up
> some precedents around those.
>
> One such precedent is in CFJ 1895 (a discussion of free will and
> Aristotelian causality). This found that a "baseline axiom" in Agora is
> that the game is played by discrete, identifiable agents of free will -
> i.e. "natural persons". The assumption is that "personhood" is absolute -
> you can create a legal construct that accepts one person's actions on
> behalf of another, but the agent never "becomes" the other person.
>
> This fundamental assumption extents to the concept of "knowledge". Because
> each person's knowledge is fundamentally independent, an actor cannot "pass
> on a principal's knowledge" (i.e. "communicate to") a third party. Again,
> we could put in Rules-language to create a legal fiction that allows it,
> but such communication cannot happen naturally.
>
> Currently, the R2466 explicitly forbids the legal fiction that an actor can
> act on behalf of a principal to "send a message". While the context of
> "send a message" is generally "send an email", in this case it should be
> taken colloquially and broadly - one can "send a message" in a variety of
> ways. So in the broader context, "sending a message" is simply to
> "communicate" to someone, whether via email, in-person, or a horse's head
> in someone's bed.
>
> So an actor cannot communicate with anyone on-behalf-of a principal. In
> R2466 this is explicit, but even without the prohibition in R2466, it is
> impossible: as per CFJ 1895 "Every assumed act of free will can be traced
> to a particular person's desire. Thus, as final cause and intention, this
> intention, and free will is, also non-transferable, in the most fundamental
> sense." The "act of communicating" is fundamentally an act of free will,
> an act traceable to a particular person's desire. And that person is the
> actor, not the principal[].
> The Rule "Space Battles" states that a certain action is accomplished by
> communicating to another party - the communication is the action. The Rule
> is Power-1. R2466 is power-3, so this trumps any ability that might be
> implied in lower-powered rules, and as discussed above, there's no
> "natural" ability for an actor to communicate on behalf of a principal[**].
> Therefore, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another to communicate the
> required information.
> [] This is specific to cases where the actor "originated" the originalthought
> (i.e. the origin of the message was the actor's free will, not the
> principal's). For example, if the Principal (of eir own accord) sends a
> message to a private party, and the private party forwards the message to a
> forum, it's possible to find that the Principal communicated with the forum
> "via the private party". But this is only true if the Principal, as an
> agent of free
Re: DIS: Poll: Abuse of Office
Nope but that’s a good one too! > On Jan 20, 2019, at 1:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Is this the one where you initiate 500 trivial CFJs, assign them to yourself > and judge them for Costume Conservatives favours? > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Sunday, January 20, 2019 5:29 PM, D. Margaux >> wrote: >> >> How annoyed would people be if I abused an office to exploit a gamebreaking >> bug in one of our mini-games? > >
Re: DIS: Poll: Abuse of Office
Is this the one where you initiate 500 trivial CFJs, assign them to yourself and judge them for Costume Conservatives favours? -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, January 20, 2019 5:29 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > How annoyed would people be if I abused an office to exploit a gamebreaking > bug in one of our mini-games?
DIS: Poll: Abuse of Office
How annoyed would people be if I abused an office to exploit a gamebreaking bug in one of our mini-games?
