DIS: Re: BUS: Deputisation for PM CFJs

[Aris Merchant]

Thanks for the timeline, but all of this is still giving me a headache. I
believe that the intent wasn’t specific enough and that all of the interns
are broken. How should I judge these?

-Aris

On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 12:28 PM D. Margaux  wrote:

> I CFJ: D. Margaux is the Prime Minister.
>
> I CFJ: twg is the Speaker.
>
> Arguements:
>
> 1) I won by cheating a while back (sorry!), and I think that triggered
> ATMunn’s obligation to reappoint me as a new speaker (even though I was
> already speaker).
>
> 2) Subsequently, Gaelan won by apathy, and that victory was upheld as
> valid in a CFJ. (But maybe intents are broken? So is it really clear that e
> actually did win by apathy?)
>
> 3) Then I declared a intent to deputise for PM “to appoint a new speaker”
> (or similarly generic language), which G. challenged as perhaps not
> specific enough to be a proper intent.
>
> 4) Then twg and I declared victory by apathy (probably?—but again, that
> doesn’t work if intents are broken; and if intents _are_ broken, then how
> did Gaelan win?).
>
> 5) I then declared an intent to deputise for PM to appoint twg
> specifically to be speaker.
>
> and then 6) I executed those intents by deputising as PM to appoint twg to
> be speaker (if laureled); otherwise Gaelan (if laureled); otherwise D.
> Margaux.
>
> So, the questions are—did twg and I win by apathy (or are intents broken)?
> If we did win, then both CFJs are TRUE (I think).
>
> If we didn’t win by apathy, the other question is whether my “general”
> intent was enough to deputise for PM? If so, then I am PM but twg isn’t
> Speaker. And in that case, is Gaelan the Speaker or am I?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Another useful string for future reference

[Cuddle Beam]

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Aenean quis metus
a enim pretium vulputate porttitor sit amet justo. Maecenas et sollicitudin
ipsum. Ut laoreet erat a nisi ornare pellentesque. Sed tempus lectus velit,
non efficitur dolor feugiat eu. Proin pulvinar turpis et leo elementum
suscipit. Etiam sed facilisis nisl. Nam auctor erat purus, in interdum enim
eleifend sed. In quis ante interdum, dictum elit et, tincidunt nunc.
Suspendisse sollicitudin turpis vitae fringilla sagittis


On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 01:25, D. Margaux  wrote:

> Potato gridiron Sasquatch alphabetical tangelo arthropod
>
> > On Feb 18, 2019, at 7:26 PM, Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
> >
> > d8dcc8184c9160ce7f09a369127580b4
> >
> > --
> > Trigon
> >
> >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 17:22 Madeline  >>
> >> 347e6994e340b1887cb464eed0a980f5dd708170f25dd5eda31d318fdc
> >>
> >>
> 1aeb71e07bab1ed854b51a9303d574f3bf086044146fcdfb8f8f4e82951d37eec0aa5939e458c490617
> >> 614c2970d08d161190fe0a50
> >> 2012c8d6da48df899382751889975ece9c334fc1b3222
> >> 1f7042dc25ecce54d6a5aed39f4024a95fa8e4f68e42c8
> >> b2b4564793ce6ca10fd8323df9ec9239c6dbbf79a1abe82e4
> >> 398489f18ba9c37d18a233fe3427d4c5e528f94
> >> 5699c069ff45c208c735dd373ebbd402346f6b5c2e4
> >> 6750f3e4af341b76db7fe7b60c57e759dd74
> >>
> >>> On 2019-02-19 10:55, D. Margaux wrote:
> >>> Just in case too:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> 29B9A02A56E8A3E15EC1E0E5ABE816C27686A7B1A6A7E6C7D6A1F7059E48A688C96855481739012E592A8D65EAC7AD95F6D30E0EFFC6B27A2745B2A63BBF72E6
> >>>
>  On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:47 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> 
> >>
> gwt-uMHZuFGagIXdvlHIu9GIl1Wa0BCajVXbg82b0BSesVmcpRnblBSZ2FGagwiclRWYlJHIyFWZkBCL19WW
> 
> 
>  ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:52 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> >> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 784743443F7C486AF33A5FEA440ECD9F92B02CA7B12E19EBFB5330863B050F7C
> > A1196E9457A2E1FFCE97EC027FC82CD4790CCB33C666734DE474C3A5B358400E
> 
> >>
> >>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

[Reuben Staley]

Someone has to ask the inevitable question: to what extent should 
cleaning self-ratify? What if the clause that is to be cleaned shouldn't 
even exist? The reality is that some elements of rules are lost when 
applying rule changes. Is it fair to say that when a clause mistakenly 
left in the ruleset is cleaned, the entire text of that rule is then 
ratified? There's a definite Rulekeepor scam in self-ratifying 
cleanings, and trying to mitigate this scammability will be difficult.


On 2/18/19 10:34 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:


This probably isn't a problem, unless past cleanings were broken (in
which case it still isn't really a problem but we might want to retry
the cleanings in order to make sure all our typos are gone). Dependent
actions otherwise tend not to change the ruleset much, and proposal
results self-ratify.


Perhaps it would be a good idea to make cleanings self-ratifying for the 
future.


Greetings,
Ørjan.


--
Trigon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:


This probably isn't a problem, unless past cleanings were broken (in
which case it still isn't really a problem but we might want to retry
the cleanings in order to make sure all our typos are gone). Dependent
actions otherwise tend not to change the ruleset much, and proposal
results self-ratify.


Perhaps it would be a good idea to make cleanings self-ratifying for the 
future.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

[Gaelan Steele]

It’s a pretty intents situation.

Sorry.

Gaelan

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 5:18 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:
> 
> This is such a mess lol.



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

[Kerim Aydin]

On 2/18/2019 5:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote:

This is such a mess lol.


Patent title suggestion for everyone involved in the mess:
"Badge of the Best Intents".

H. Assessor, when the dust has settled I'd also propose that Falsifian is a
good candidate for our first MacGyver award (with this proposal, I seriously
feel like we're watching em choose which of the red and blue wires to cut to
stop the game from exploding, as we yell advice at em in the background).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

[Aris Merchant]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 5:22 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 20:18 -0500, D. Margaux wrote:
> > > On Feb 18, 2019, at 8:15 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" <
> ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > Just to make sure you're aware: this can't change the Rules
> > > (penultimate paragraph of R105), just the rest of the gamestate.
> > >
> > > This probably isn't a problem, unless past cleanings were broken (in
> > > which case it still isn't really a problem but we might want to retry
> > > the cleanings in order to make sure all our typos are gone). Dependent
> > > actions otherwise tend not to change the ruleset much, and proposal
> > > results self-ratify.
> >
> > Maybe we can just ratify the Ruleset with the cleanings in them? This is
> such a mess lol.
>
> I'd prefer to just repeat the cleanings. Mass changes to the ruleset
> are one of the riskiest things you can do in Agora (which is why there
> are so many protections preventing them being done by accident).
>
> --
> ais523
>

We’re due for a ruleset ratification anyway, may as well fix the problems
at the same time.

-Aris

>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

[ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk]

On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 20:18 -0500, D. Margaux wrote:
> > On Feb 18, 2019, at 8:15 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" 
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > Just to make sure you're aware: this can't change the Rules
> > (penultimate paragraph of R105), just the rest of the gamestate.
> > 
> > This probably isn't a problem, unless past cleanings were broken (in
> > which case it still isn't really a problem but we might want to retry
> > the cleanings in order to make sure all our typos are gone). Dependent
> > actions otherwise tend not to change the ruleset much, and proposal
> > results self-ratify.
> 
> Maybe we can just ratify the Ruleset with the cleanings in them? This is such 
> a mess lol. 

I'd prefer to just repeat the cleanings. Mass changes to the ruleset
are one of the riskiest things you can do in Agora (which is why there
are so many protections preventing them being done by accident).

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

[D. Margaux]

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 8:15 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" 
>  wrote:
> 
> Just to make sure you're aware: this can't change the Rules
> (penultimate paragraph of R105), just the rest of the gamestate.
> 
> This probably isn't a problem, unless past cleanings were broken (in
> which case it still isn't really a problem but we might want to retry
> the cleanings in order to make sure all our typos are gone). Dependent
> actions otherwise tend not to change the ruleset much, and proposal
> results self-ratify.

Maybe we can just ratify the Ruleset with the cleanings in them? This is such a 
mess lol. 

DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

[ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk]

On Tue, 2019-02-19 at 01:07 +, James Cook wrote:
> The gamestate is changed to what it would have been if the text of the
> following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined whether Agora was
> Satisfied with any dependent action attempted after Proposal 7815,
> rather than the text of what Rule 2124 was at that time. To the extent
> allowed by the rules, this change is designated as a convergence.
Just to make sure you're aware: this can't change the Rules
(penultimate paragraph of R105), just the rest of the gamestate.

This probably isn't a problem, unless past cleanings were broken (in
which case it still isn't really a problem but we might want to retry
the cleanings in order to make sure all our typos are gone). Dependent
actions otherwise tend not to change the ruleset much, and proposal
results self-ratify.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

[James Cook]

> Thank you for all this work you've put in to fixing this! I would give you 
> some karma, but I've already used my Notice of Honour for the week, and it's 
> only Monday so I want to save Corona's in case something truly astonishing 
> happens later on.

It's my pleasure. I'm certainly getting what I signed up for! I'm
grateful for all the help.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Another useful string for future reference

[D. Margaux]

Potato gridiron Sasquatch alphabetical tangelo arthropod 

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 7:26 PM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
> 
> d8dcc8184c9160ce7f09a369127580b4
> 
> --
> Trigon
> 
>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 17:22 Madeline > 
>> 347e6994e340b1887cb464eed0a980f5dd708170f25dd5eda31d318fdc
>> 
>> 1aeb71e07bab1ed854b51a9303d574f3bf086044146fcdfb8f8f4e82951d37eec0aa5939e458c490617
>> 614c2970d08d161190fe0a50
>> 2012c8d6da48df899382751889975ece9c334fc1b3222
>> 1f7042dc25ecce54d6a5aed39f4024a95fa8e4f68e42c8
>> b2b4564793ce6ca10fd8323df9ec9239c6dbbf79a1abe82e4
>> 398489f18ba9c37d18a233fe3427d4c5e528f94
>> 5699c069ff45c208c735dd373ebbd402346f6b5c2e4
>> 6750f3e4af341b76db7fe7b60c57e759dd74
>> 
>>> On 2019-02-19 10:55, D. Margaux wrote:
>>> Just in case too:
>>> 
>>> 
>> 29B9A02A56E8A3E15EC1E0E5ABE816C27686A7B1A6A7E6C7D6A1F7059E48A688C96855481739012E592A8D65EAC7AD95F6D30E0EFFC6B27A2745B2A63BBF72E6
>>> 
 On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:47 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
 
 
>> gwt-uMHZuFGagIXdvlHIu9GIl1Wa0BCajVXbg82b0BSesVmcpRnblBSZ2FGagwiclRWYlJHIyFWZkBCL19WW
 
 
 ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:52 PM, Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 784743443F7C486AF33A5FEA440ECD9F92B02CA7B12E19EBFB5330863B050F7C
> A1196E9457A2E1FFCE97EC027FC82CD4790CCB33C666734DE474C3A5B358400E
 
>> 
>> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Another useful string for future reference

[Reuben Staley]

d8dcc8184c9160ce7f09a369127580b4

--
Trigon

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 17:22 Madeline  347e6994e340b1887cb464eed0a980f5dd708170f25dd5eda31d318fdc
>
> 1aeb71e07bab1ed854b51a9303d574f3bf086044146fcdfb8f8f4e82951d37eec0aa5939e458c490617
> 614c2970d08d161190fe0a50
> 2012c8d6da48df899382751889975ece9c334fc1b3222
> 1f7042dc25ecce54d6a5aed39f4024a95fa8e4f68e42c8
> b2b4564793ce6ca10fd8323df9ec9239c6dbbf79a1abe82e4
> 398489f18ba9c37d18a233fe3427d4c5e528f94
> 5699c069ff45c208c735dd373ebbd402346f6b5c2e4
> 6750f3e4af341b76db7fe7b60c57e759dd74
>
> On 2019-02-19 10:55, D. Margaux wrote:
> > Just in case too:
> >
> >
> 29B9A02A56E8A3E15EC1E0E5ABE816C27686A7B1A6A7E6C7D6A1F7059E48A688C96855481739012E592A8D65EAC7AD95F6D30E0EFFC6B27A2745B2A63BBF72E6
> >
> >> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:47 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> gwt-uMHZuFGagIXdvlHIu9GIl1Wa0BCajVXbg82b0BSesVmcpRnblBSZ2FGagwiclRWYlJHIyFWZkBCL19WW
> >>
> >>
> >> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> >>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:52 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 784743443F7C486AF33A5FEA440ECD9F92B02CA7B12E19EBFB5330863B050F7C
> >>> A1196E9457A2E1FFCE97EC027FC82CD4790CCB33C666734DE474C3A5B358400E
> >>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Another useful string for future reference

[Madeline]

347e6994e340b1887cb464eed0a980f5dd708170f25dd5eda31d318fdc
1aeb71e07bab1ed854b51a9303d574f3bf086044146fcdfb8f8f4e82951d37eec0aa5939e458c490617
614c2970d08d161190fe0a50
2012c8d6da48df899382751889975ece9c334fc1b3222
1f7042dc25ecce54d6a5aed39f4024a95fa8e4f68e42c8
b2b4564793ce6ca10fd8323df9ec9239c6dbbf79a1abe82e4
398489f18ba9c37d18a233fe3427d4c5e528f94
5699c069ff45c208c735dd373ebbd402346f6b5c2e4
6750f3e4af341b76db7fe7b60c57e759dd74

On 2019-02-19 10:55, D. Margaux wrote:

Just in case too:

29B9A02A56E8A3E15EC1E0E5ABE816C27686A7B1A6A7E6C7D6A1F7059E48A688C96855481739012E592A8D65EAC7AD95F6D30E0EFFC6B27A2745B2A63BBF72E6


On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:47 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

gwt-uMHZuFGagIXdvlHIu9GIl1Wa0BCajVXbg82b0BSesVmcpRnblBSZ2FGagwiclRWYlJHIyFWZkBCL19WW


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:52 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:



784743443F7C486AF33A5FEA440ECD9F92B02CA7B12E19EBFB5330863B050F7C
A1196E9457A2E1FFCE97EC027FC82CD4790CCB33C666734DE474C3A5B358400E

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent (+SPOOKY)

[Gaelan Steele]

I slightly mind, but I probably would have done the same thing so meh. Also, 
come to think of it, I also abused that contract to your detriment, so maybe 
this is just karma. 

Gaelan 

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 3:36 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:
> 
> Good point! Based on his recent hashes, he probably is. Therefore:
> 
> If Aris’s message initiates any Agoran Decisions, then I vote, and I cause L, 
> ATMunn, and Gaelan to vote, for the first of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, Gaelan} which 
> is a valid option.
> 
> Gaelan, I hope you don’t mind my changing your vote for you, but at least I 
> changed it to you...
> 
>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:32 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
>> 
>> Hold on, are we sure G. isn't in on it?
>> 
>> -twg
>> 
>> 
>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:31 PM, D. Margaux  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Like Gaelan, I do the following, and I cause ATMunn to do the following:
>>> 
>>> -   object to any intents announced in the quoted message.
>>> -   if quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, vote for the first of 
>>> {AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
>>> -   if the quoted message contains an attempt to Ratify Without Objection 
>>> an incorrect document, point a thumb at Aris for the class-8 crime of 
>>> Endorsing Forgery.
>>> 
>>>   If the quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, I cause L to vote 
>>> for the first of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
>>> 
>>> 
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 10:31 PM, Aris Merchant 
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote:
> I give notice that I intend to activate The Protocol, according to the
> timetable specified for activations thereof. (If anyone remembers what 
> this
> means, please contact me rather than trying to block it; we may be able to
> work something out.)
> -Aris
>> 
>> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Another useful string for future reference

[D. Margaux]

Just in case too:

29B9A02A56E8A3E15EC1E0E5ABE816C27686A7B1A6A7E6C7D6A1F7059E48A688C96855481739012E592A8D65EAC7AD95F6D30E0EFFC6B27A2745B2A63BBF72E6

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:47 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> gwt-uMHZuFGagIXdvlHIu9GIl1Wa0BCajVXbg82b0BSesVmcpRnblBSZ2FGagwiclRWYlJHIyFWZkBCL19WW
> 
> 
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:52 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 784743443F7C486AF33A5FEA440ECD9F92B02CA7B12E19EBFB5330863B050F7C
>> A1196E9457A2E1FFCE97EC027FC82CD4790CCB33C666734DE474C3A5B358400E
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Another useful string for future reference

[D. Margaux]

!!!

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:47 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> gwt-uMHZuFGagIXdvlHIu9GIl1Wa0BCajVXbg82b0BSesVmcpRnblBSZ2FGagwiclRWYlJHIyFWZkBCL19WW
> 
> 
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:52 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 784743443F7C486AF33A5FEA440ECD9F92B02CA7B12E19EBFB5330863B050F7C
>> A1196E9457A2E1FFCE97EC027FC82CD4790CCB33C666734DE474C3A5B358400E
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent (+SPOOKY)

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

I think you need to retract the previous ballots first (though "changing" a 
vote is accepted shorthand)

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:36 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

> Good point! Based on his recent hashes, he probably is. Therefore:
>
> If Aris’s message initiates any Agoran Decisions, then I vote, and I cause L, 
> ATMunn, and Gaelan to vote, for the first of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, Gaelan} which 
> is a valid option.
>
> Gaelan, I hope you don’t mind my changing your vote for you, but at least I 
> changed it to you...
>
> > On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:32 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> > Hold on, are we sure G. isn't in on it?
> > -twg
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> >
> > > On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:31 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com 
> > > wrote:
> > > Like Gaelan, I do the following, and I cause ATMunn to do the following:
> > >
> > > -   object to any intents announced in the quoted message.
> > > -   if quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, vote for the first 
> > > of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
> > > -   if the quoted message contains an attempt to Ratify Without Objection 
> > > an incorrect document, point a thumb at Aris for the class-8 crime of 
> > > Endorsing Forgery.
> > >
> > > If the quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, I cause L to vote 
> > > for the first of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
> > >
> > > > > On Feb 17, 2019, at 10:31 PM, Aris Merchant 
> > > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > I give notice that I intend to activate The Protocol, according to the
> > > > > timetable specified for activations thereof. (If anyone remembers 
> > > > > what this
> > > > > means, please contact me rather than trying to block it; we may be 
> > > > > able to
> > > > > work something out.)
> > > > > -Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: Another useful string for future reference

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

gwt-uMHZuFGagIXdvlHIu9GIl1Wa0BCajVXbg82b0BSesVmcpRnblBSZ2FGagwiclRWYlJHIyFWZkBCL19WW


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:52 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> 784743443F7C486AF33A5FEA440ECD9F92B02CA7B12E19EBFB5330863B050F7C
> A1196E9457A2E1FFCE97EC027FC82CD4790CCB33C666734DE474C3A5B358400E

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

Oh, I was thinking that the designation of a change as a convergence is itself 
a(nother) change.

In any case, since this phrasing of the retroactivity clause doesn't rewrite 
the history of rule changes, I don't think it matters much either way. But I 
think "to the extent allowed by the rules" works fine, yes.

Thank you for all this work you've put in to fixing this! I would give you some 
karma, but I've already used my Notice of Honour for the week, and it's only 
Monday so I want to save Corona's in case something truly astonishing happens 
later on.

-twg

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:22 PM, James Cook  wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 23:15, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
>
> > On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:05 PM, James Cook jc...@cs.berkeley.edu 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in
> > > accordance with the rules" in R214.
> >
> > I think this part of R106 accounts for that:
> >
> > Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal that
> >   takes effect CAN and does, as part of its effect, apply the
> >   changes that it specifies.
> >
> >
> > The same thing also happened in Proposal 8129, with nobody complaining, 
> > though I guess that doesn't necessarily mean it worked.
>
> How exactly does that apply? Are you saying that because the proposal
> CAN apply the change it specified, and that it specified a change
> designated as a convergence, it did in fact apply a change designated
> as a convergence? I feel a bit uncertain; maybe the proposal fails to
> designate its own specified change as a convergence (because the rules
> don't explicitly allow a proposal to do that), but does apply the
> change.
>
> Anyway, is the text "To the extent allowed by the rules" harmless at least?
>
> James

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] vote for the best Ruleset find

[James Cook]

I vote {Gaelan, Telnaior, twg, CuddleBeam}. (Following twg's logic,
except bumping twg's up since it would have been pretty grave had it
worked. All four are interesting finds.)

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 21:35, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
>
> My vote is {Gaelan, Telnaior, CuddleBeam, twg} - ordered firstly by whether 
> or not it actually works (ruleset glitches notwithstanding), and secondly by 
> how serious the implications are.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:00 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > VOTE!
> > Who had the best loophole, bug, or scam during Read the Ruleset week?
> > VOTE!
> >
> > Here starts an UNOFFICIAL AGORAN DECISION with the following modifications:
> >
> > -   Ranked choice: It's not bad form to vote for yourself, but please
> > consider 2nd, 3rd, etc.
> >
> > -   Counting long term-watchers' votes too! If ais523, Ørjan, or other
> > watchers would like to opine.
> >
> > -   Using the Auction method for ending the decision (4 days since last
> > vote, no more than 7 days total).
> >
> > -   I'll give my own votes in 24-48 hours.
> >
> > OPTIONS (vote for the person)
> >
> > Telnaior illustrating that contracts can make infinitely-rewarding 
> > reports:
> > 
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039875.html
> >
> > (unjudged; arguments for it working stronger than arguments against IMO,
> > fix proposed).
> >
> > Gaelan's attempt to win by Apathy, by using two messages for the same
> > intent:
> > 
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039934.html
> >
> > (Judged to have succeeded on reconsideration, though caught up in 
> > broader
> > issues of Satisfaction, fix proposed).
> >
> > CuddleBeam arguing that Agora is a Contract, possibly a worldview shift:
> > 
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039955.html
> > (Judged to be true, may be more of a curiosity than a practical matter, 
> > but
> > it's a curiosity very much in the Agoran spirit).
> >
> > twg attempt to use contracts to induct the unwilling:
> > 
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039950.html
> > (Judged to have failed, but pointed out the need for clearer wording or
> > stronger protections in the Rules).
> >
> > Honorable Mentions:
> >
> > D. Margaux working the Contract Bug:
> > 
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039896.html
> > (and when twg scooped em, followed up with a different approach):
> > 
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039953.html
> >
> > CuddleBeam pointing out that space wins are infinite:
> > 
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039895.html
> >
> > Falsifian, for pointing out that Satisfaction has been borked for over 2
> > years (unfortunately late for the contest! But the biggest bug 
> > correction
> > for a while and Falsifian is working hard on a fix).
> > 
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/040023.html
> >
> > twg's assertion that Rule 2571 is guilty of violating Rule 105. (also 
> > too
> > late to enter):
> > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33517.html
> >
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent (+SPOOKY)

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

Hold on, are we sure G. isn't in on it?

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:31 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

> Like Gaelan, I do the following, and I cause ATMunn to do the following:
>
> -   object to any intents announced in the quoted message.
> -   if quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, vote for the first of 
> {AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
> -   if the quoted message contains an attempt to Ratify Without Objection an 
> incorrect document, point a thumb at Aris for the class-8 crime of Endorsing 
> Forgery.
>
> If the quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, I cause L to vote 
> for the first of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
>
>
> > > On Feb 17, 2019, at 10:31 PM, Aris Merchant 
> > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I give notice that I intend to activate The Protocol, according to the
> > > timetable specified for activations thereof. (If anyone remembers what 
> > > this
> > > means, please contact me rather than trying to block it; we may be able to
> > > work something out.)
> > > -Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

[James Cook]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 23:15, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:05 PM, James Cook  
> wrote:
> > Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in
> > accordance with the rules" in R214.
>
> I think this part of R106 accounts for that:
>
> Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal that
>   takes effect CAN and does, as part of its effect, apply the
>   changes that it specifies.
>
> The same thing also happened in Proposal 8129, with nobody complaining, 
> though I guess that doesn't necessarily mean it worked.

How exactly does that apply? Are you saying that because the proposal
CAN apply the change it specified, and that it specified a change
designated as a convergence, it did in fact apply a change designated
as a convergence? I feel a bit uncertain; maybe the proposal fails to
designate its own specified change as a convergence (because the rules
don't explicitly allow a proposal to do that), but does apply the
change.

Anyway, is the text "To the extent allowed by the rules" harmless at least?

James

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

[D. Margaux]

I am tempted to suggest that we insert something that says: “notwithstanding 
the foregoing, Agora is never satisfied with an intent to activate the 
Protocol, which is of no force or effect whatsoever.”

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:05 PM, James Cook  wrote:
> 
> Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in
> accordance with the rules" in R214.
> 
> Is there anything wrong with D. Margaux's latest suggestion? I like
> the fact that it doesn't try to retroactively change the rule's
> history. (Though the retroactive rule change might be harmless, based
> on G's research and my hope that nothing requires the Rulekeepor to
> change the history or amendment number in the FLR.)
> 
> Current draft, based on D. Margaux's latest + a note about convergence:
> 
> 
> 
> The gamestate is changed to what it would have been if the text of the
> following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined whether Agora was
> Satisfied with any dependent action attempted after Proposal 7815,
> rather than the text of what Rule 2124 was at that time. To the extent
> allowed by the rules, this change is designated as a convergence.
> 
> Rule 2124 is amended by replacing its text with the following:
> 
>  A Supporter of an intent to perform an action is an eligible
>  entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn.
>  "consent") for an announcement of that intent. An Objector to an
>  intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly
>  posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of
>  that intent.
> 
>  The entities eligible to support or object to an intent to perform
>  an action are, by default, all players, subject to modification by
>  the document authorizing the dependent action. However, the
>  previous sentence notwithstanding, the initiator of the intent is
>  not eligible to support it.
> 
>  Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
>  unless at least one of the following is true:
> 
>  1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and there
> are at least N Objectors to that intent.
> 
>  2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are
> fewer than than N Supporters of that intent.
> 
>  3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the
> number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N
> times the number of Objectors to the intent.
> 
>  The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and
>  an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within
>  the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent.
> 
>  The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent
>  if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours.
> 
>  A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent
>  before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same
>  type of response.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:05 PM, James Cook  wrote:
> Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in
> accordance with the rules" in R214.

I think this part of R106 accounts for that:

Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal that
  takes effect CAN and does, as part of its effect, apply the
  changes that it specifies.

The same thing also happened in Proposal 8129, with nobody complaining, though 
I guess that doesn't necessarily mean it worked.

-twg

DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanliness

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

Because it's spelled as "Judgement" everywhere else in the rule.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:12 PM, James Cook  wrote:

> I object to the below-quoted intention.
>
> (Based on some brief research, both spellings are common. For example,
> I think Judgment is as common as Judgement, or nearly so, in both
> American and British English, and historically Judgment was more
> common. Was there another reason to make the change?)
>
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 17:32, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
>
> > I intend, without objection, to clean Rule 2479, "Official Justice", by 
> > replacing "Summary Judgment" with "Summary Judgement".

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

[James Cook]

Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in
accordance with the rules" in R214.

Is there anything wrong with D. Margaux's latest suggestion? I like
the fact that it doesn't try to retroactively change the rule's
history. (Though the retroactive rule change might be harmless, based
on G's research and my hope that nothing requires the Rulekeepor to
change the history or amendment number in the FLR.)

Current draft, based on D. Margaux's latest + a note about convergence:



The gamestate is changed to what it would have been if the text of the
following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined whether Agora was
Satisfied with any dependent action attempted after Proposal 7815,
rather than the text of what Rule 2124 was at that time. To the extent
allowed by the rules, this change is designated as a convergence.

Rule 2124 is amended by replacing its text with the following:

  A Supporter of an intent to perform an action is an eligible
  entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn.
  "consent") for an announcement of that intent. An Objector to an
  intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly
  posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of
  that intent.

  The entities eligible to support or object to an intent to perform
  an action are, by default, all players, subject to modification by
  the document authorizing the dependent action. However, the
  previous sentence notwithstanding, the initiator of the intent is
  not eligible to support it.

  Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
  unless at least one of the following is true:

  1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and there
 are at least N Objectors to that intent.

  2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are
 fewer than than N Supporters of that intent.

  3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the
 number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N
 times the number of Objectors to the intent.

  The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and
  an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within
  the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent.

  The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent
  if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours.

  A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent
  before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same
  type of response.

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3718 assigned

[ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk]

On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 17:30 -0500, D. Margaux wrote:
> Proto judgement:
> 
> FALSE, by application of the ISIDTID ruling of CFJ 1774 (Judge G.
> presiding) The quang precedent does not compel a TRUE judgement.
> Quang is a shorthand for a particular action, and that shorthand
> arguably has entered the Agora lexicon. “I state what is necessary to
> perform action X” has not. 

My thoughts on this: I haven't been following the recent economic rules
much, but I know that the word "quang", as defined, has an implication
of stating a value of 5 coins.

As such, if the number of coins needs to be stated, and the actual
value is 5, "quang" would correctly inform me as to how many coins are
involved, but a statement like "the correct number of coins" would not.

This in turn means that quanging will cease to be effective if the
rules are ever changed to give a different award.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] vote for the best Ruleset find

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

My vote is {Gaelan, Telnaior, CuddleBeam, twg} - ordered firstly by whether or 
not it actually works (ruleset glitches notwithstanding), and secondly by how 
serious the implications are.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:00 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> VOTE!
> Who had the best loophole, bug, or scam during Read the Ruleset week?
> VOTE!
>
> Here starts an UNOFFICIAL AGORAN DECISION with the following modifications:
>
> -   Ranked choice: It's not bad form to vote for yourself, but please
> consider 2nd, 3rd, etc.
>
> -   Counting long term-watchers' votes too! If ais523, Ørjan, or other
> watchers would like to opine.
>
> -   Using the Auction method for ending the decision (4 days since last
> vote, no more than 7 days total).
>
> -   I'll give my own votes in 24-48 hours.
>
> OPTIONS (vote for the person)
>
> Telnaior illustrating that contracts can make infinitely-rewarding 
> reports:
> 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039875.html
>
> (unjudged; arguments for it working stronger than arguments against IMO,
> fix proposed).
>
> Gaelan's attempt to win by Apathy, by using two messages for the same
> intent:
> 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039934.html
>
> (Judged to have succeeded on reconsideration, though caught up in broader
> issues of Satisfaction, fix proposed).
>
> CuddleBeam arguing that Agora is a Contract, possibly a worldview shift:
> 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039955.html
> (Judged to be true, may be more of a curiosity than a practical matter, 
> but
> it's a curiosity very much in the Agoran spirit).
>
> twg attempt to use contracts to induct the unwilling:
> 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039950.html
> (Judged to have failed, but pointed out the need for clearer wording or
> stronger protections in the Rules).
>
> Honorable Mentions:
>
> D. Margaux working the Contract Bug:
> 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039896.html
> (and when twg scooped em, followed up with a different approach):
> 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039953.html
>
> CuddleBeam pointing out that space wins are infinite:
> 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039895.html
>
> Falsifian, for pointing out that Satisfaction has been borked for over 2
> years (unfortunately late for the contest! But the biggest bug correction
> for a while and Falsifian is working hard on a fix).
> 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/040023.html
>
> twg's assertion that Rule 2571 is guilty of violating Rule 105. (also too
> late to enter):
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33517.html
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter

[Gaelan Steele]

AFAIK that you have no reason not to deny the CoE right now.

Gaelan

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 11:32 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:17 PM, D. Margaux  
> wrote:
> 
>> CoE—My blots were ratified to 0 without objection. Of course, intents are 
>> broken, but I need to put in this CoE so that ratification of this report 
>> won’t overwrite the retroactive effect of any fix.
> 
> Can you not just play _normally_ for once? :P
> 
> Revision upcoming.
> 
> -twg



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report

[Gaelan Steele]

Isn’t this ISIDTID?

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 11:03 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/17/2019 1:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Herald’s Weekly report
>> Date of Last Report: 04 Feb 2018
>> Date of This Report: 17 Feb 2019
> 
> I state what is necessary to be Rewarded for the above-referenced report.
> 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Cuddle Beam]

I was starting to be concerned tbh lol.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:32 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
> On 2/18/2019 12:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > Dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> > dada...
>
> (that dada thing was meant to be silly, not angry - i realized afterwards
> that it sounded kinda shouty like what the dadaists did - sorry).
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Cuddle Beam]

Kinky.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:33 PM D. Margaux  wrote:

> I point my toes at G. and cuddle beam for Faking.
>
> > On Feb 18, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> >
> > maah uyntz asee as myself and sunt Dictatorship, also, the game is now
> > Ossified and nobody can perform any game actions, having R1698 been
> broken
> > and whatnot.
> >
> >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:10 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada
> dada
> >> dada
> >>
> >>> On 2/18/2019 11:58 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >>> No, I disagree. The point is that quang was a definition in the Agoran
> >>> dialect, the same as if the relevant verb had been defined in standard
> >>> English (we’ve never made a specific ruling on linguistic
> acceptability,
> >>> beyond the comprehension of the players). Here, you’re just saying
> >>> something and expecting someone to go look it up, without providing a
> >>> specific definition. Quang worked because all or most of the players
> >>> “already” knew.
> >>>
> >>> -Aris
> >>>
>  On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:48 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
>  This is a clear and direct application of Judge Murphy's
> interpretation
> >> of
>  the Rewards Rule.  If "quang" is allowed to reference a random
> cultural
>  definition, I don't see why referencing something that is directly
>  contained
>  in the ruleset ("whatever is necessary to claim a reward") would fail
> >> when
>  we allow this sort of unofficial jargon to succeed.
> 
>  In case your CoE denial succeded:
> 
>  CoE:  The latest Treasuror's Report is missing an
> appropriately-claimed
>  reward for my most recent Herald's Report.
> 
> 
> > On 2/18/2019 11:41 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > You mean this?
> >
> > On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:03 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> >> wrote:
> >> On 2/17/2019 1:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >>> Herald’s Weekly report
> >>> Date of Last Report: 04 Feb 2018
> >>> Date of This Report: 17 Feb 2019
> >>
> >> I state what is necessary to be Rewarded for the above-referenced
>  report.
> >
> > I did miss that, yes, but even now I see it I'm not at all clear that
> >> it
>  works - seems to be a case of ISIDTID.
> >
> > For comparison, I state whatever is necessary to publish a revision
> to
>  the below-referenced report.
> >
> > -twg
> >
> >
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:17 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> CoE: missing my most recent claim of reward for the herald's report
> >> (crossed in the mail?)
> >>
> >>> On 2/18/2019 11:13 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Date of this weekly report: 2019-02-18
> >>> Date of last weekly report: 2019-01-29
> >
> >
> 
> >>
> >>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Kerim Aydin]

> On 2/18/2019 11:41 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>> I did miss that, yes, but even now I see it I'm not at all clear that it
>> works - seems to be a case of ISIDTID.
>>
>> For comparison, I state whatever is necessary to publish a revision to
>> the below-referenced report.

Here's a a more careful elaboration: in my case, the "what is necessary to
be rewarded" leads directly to the 5 Coin Reward level in the rules for a
weekly report, there's really no alternate reference (it's the only way
we're really using 'Reward' right now), and it's a direct substitution like
"quang".  In your case "publishing a revision", it's unclear what the text
is: it could be anything.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Aris Merchant]

No, I disagree. The point is that quang was a definition in the Agoran
dialect, the same as if the relevant verb had been defined in standard
English (we’ve never made a specific ruling on linguistic acceptability,
beyond the comprehension of the players). Here, you’re just saying
something and expecting someone to go look it up, without providing a
specific definition. Quang worked because all or most of the players
“already” knew.

-Aris

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:48 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
> This is a clear and direct application of Judge Murphy's interpretation of
> the Rewards Rule.  If "quang" is allowed to reference a random cultural
> definition, I don't see why referencing something that is directly
> contained
> in the ruleset ("whatever is necessary to claim a reward") would fail when
> we allow this sort of unofficial jargon to succeed.
>
> In case your CoE denial succeded:
>
> CoE:  The latest Treasuror's Report is missing an appropriately-claimed
> reward for my most recent Herald's Report.
>
>
> On 2/18/2019 11:41 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > You mean this?
> >
> > On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:03 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >> On 2/17/2019 1:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >>> Herald’s Weekly report
> >>> Date of Last Report: 04 Feb 2018
> >>> Date of This Report: 17 Feb 2019
> >>
> >> I state what is necessary to be Rewarded for the above-referenced
> report.
> >
> > I did miss that, yes, but even now I see it I'm not at all clear that it
> works - seems to be a case of ISIDTID.
> >
> > For comparison, I state whatever is necessary to publish a revision to
> the below-referenced report.
> >
> > -twg
> >
> >
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:17 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> CoE: missing my most recent claim of reward for the herald's report
> >> (crossed in the mail?)
> >>
> >> On 2/18/2019 11:13 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> >>
> >>> Date of this weekly report: 2019-02-18
> >>> Date of last weekly report: 2019-01-29
> >
> >
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:17 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

> CoE—My blots were ratified to 0 without objection. Of course, intents are 
> broken, but I need to put in this CoE so that ratification of this report 
> won’t overwrite the retroactive effect of any fix.

Can you not just play _normally_ for once? :P

Revision upcoming.

-twg

DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

I diagnose pressing Fn+S instead of Ctrl+S. :P Fixed for the next report.

I think the intended meaning is obvious enough that nothing unpleasant 
self-ratifies.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:18 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> "34    CuddleBeams": First time I've been referred to as CuddlebeamS (I think 
> all of my Agoran aliases so far are Cuddlebeam, CuddleBeam and Cuddle Beam, 
> lol) 
>
> I don't know if that's a big enough issue to CoE or not.
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 8:13 PM Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
>
> > Date of this weekly report: 2019-02-18
> > Date of last weekly report: 2019-01-29
> >
> > ASSET INDEX
> > 
> > This section does not self-ratify.
> >
> >    Asset class    Recordkeepor        Ownership
> >    ---        -
> >    Coins          Treasuror (twg)     Agora, players, contracts
> >    Balloons       Clork (twg)         Players
> >    Favours        Clork (twg)         Players
> >    Blots          Referee (twg)       Persons
> >    Spaceships     Astronomor (twg)    Players
> >    Energy         Astronomor (twg)    Spaceships
> >
> > COIN BALANCES
> > 
> > This section self-ratifies.
> >
> >    Coins    Active player
> >    -    -
> >      106    ATMunn
> >       70    Aris
> >       10    Baron von Vaderham
> >       34    CuddleBeams
> >      829    D. Margaux
> >       10    Falsifian
> >      573    G.
> >       50    Gaelan
> >       78    Jacob Arduino
> >      112    Murphy
> >       61    omd
> >       20    Telnaior
> >      355    Trigon
> >      672    twg
> >       49    V.J. Rada
> >
> >    Coins    Zombie
> >    -    --
> >        0    Corona
> >        0    Hālian
> >       10    L.
> >        0    nichdel
> >        0    Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >       45    Tarhalindur
> >
> >    Coins    Non-player entity
> >    -    -
> >     1172    Agora
> >       87    Lost and Found Department
> >
> > RECENT HISTORY
> > 
> > This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify.
> >
> > Entity             Change  Date (UTC)        Reason
> > 
> > D. Margaux         +  5c.  2019-02-15 15:32  Reward (CFJ )
> > Agora              + 10c.  2019-02-14 12:24  Transfer from CuddleBeam
> > CuddleBeam         - 10c.  2019-02-14 12:24  Transfer to Agora
> > D. Margaux         +  5c.  2019-02-13 22:54  Reward (CFJ )
> > G.                 +  5c.  2019-02-13 15:24  Reward (CFJ 3708)
> > G.                 +  5c.  2019-02-13 15:24  Reward (CFJ 3705)
> > Falsifian          + 10c.  2019-02-13 00:59  Welcome Package
> > D. Margaux         +  5c.  2019-02-12 21:22  Reward (CFJ 3702)
> > D. Margaux         +  5c.  2019-02-12 14:57  Reward (Registrar monthly)
> > D. Margaux         +  5c.  2019-02-12 14:57  Reward (Registrar weekly)
> > D. Margaux         -  2c.  2019-02-11 23:20  Payment for Favour
> > D. Margaux         -  2c.  2019-02-11 23:20  Payment for Favour
> > D. Margaux         -  2c.  2019-02-11 23:20  Payment for Favour
> > D. Margaux         -  2c.  2019-02-11 23:20  Payment for Favour
> > twg                +  5c.  2019-02-11 22:55  Reward (Clork weekly)
> > twg                +  5c.  2019-02-11 22:55  Reward (Referee weekly)
> > Jacob Arduino      + 40c.  2019-02-10 13:16  Transfer from nichdel
> > nichdel            - 40c.  2019-02-10 13:16  Transfer to Jacob Arduino
> > Agora              +  2c.  2019-02-10 13:16  Transfer from Jacob Arduino
> > Jacob Arduino      -  2c.  2019-02-10 13:16  Transfer to Agora
> > Trigon             + 43c.  2019-02-09 00:38  Transfer from P.S.S.
> > P.S.S.             - 43c.  2019-02-09 00:38  Transfer to Trigon
> > Agora              +  5c.  2019-02-09 00:38  Transfer from Trigon
> > Trigon             -  5c.  2019-02-09 00:38  Transfer to Agora
> > twg                + 76c.  2019-02-07 22:25  Transfer from Corona
> > Corona             - 76c.  2019-02-07 22:25  Transfer to twg
> > Agora              +  1c.  2019-02-07 22:25  Transfer from twg
> > twg                -  1c.  2019-02-07 22:25  Transfer to Agora
> > D. Margaux         +  5c.  2019-02-07 18:15  Reward (Registrar weekly)
> > D. Margaux         +  5c.  2019-02-07 18:15  Reward (Arbitor weekly)
> > G.                 + 45c.  2019-02-07 15:16  Transfer from Hālian
> > Hālian             - 45c.  2019-02-07 15:16  Transfer to G.
> > Agora              + 10c.  2019-02-07 15:16  Transfer from G.
> > G.                 - 10c.  2019-02-07 15:16  Transfer to Agora
> > D. Margaux         +  5c.  2019-02-05 12:01  Reward (Registrar weekly)
> > von Vaderham       + 10c.  2019-02-04 20:45  Welcome Package
> > Lost & Found       + 30c.  2019-02-03 21:25  

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] vote for the best Ruleset find

[Kerim Aydin]

On 2/18/2019 11:12 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
> I vote {Gaelan, Telnaior, twg, CB}, and cause L to vote the same if we are
> counting zombie votes which probably we shouldn’t.

Erm... here's me trying to decide if "zombie votes" are in the category of
"reasons to not strictly abide by the decision results".  Let's just see if
that makes much difference first.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

[Cuddle Beam]

"34CuddleBeams": First time I've been referred to as CuddlebeamS (I
think all of my Agoran aliases so far are Cuddlebeam, CuddleBeam and Cuddle
Beam, lol)

I don't know if that's a big enough issue to CoE or not.

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 8:13 PM Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

> Date of this weekly report: 2019-02-18
> Date of last weekly report: 2019-01-29
>
>
> ASSET INDEX
> 
> This section does not self-ratify.
>
>Asset classRecordkeeporOwnership
>----
>Coins  Treasuror (twg) Agora, players, contracts
>Balloons   Clork (twg) Players
>FavoursClork (twg) Players
>Blots  Referee (twg)   Persons
>Spaceships Astronomor (twg)Players
>Energy Astronomor (twg)Spaceships
>
>
> COIN BALANCES
> 
> This section self-ratifies.
>
>CoinsActive player
>--
>  106ATMunn
>   70Aris
>   10Baron von Vaderham
>   34CuddleBeams
>  829D. Margaux
>   10Falsifian
>  573G.
>   50Gaelan
>   78Jacob Arduino
>  112Murphy
>   61omd
>   20Telnaior
>  355Trigon
>  672twg
>   49V.J. Rada
>
>CoinsZombie
>---
>0Corona
>0Hālian
>   10L.
>0nichdel
>0Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   45Tarhalindur
>
>CoinsNon-player entity
>--
> 1172Agora
>   87Lost and Found Department
>
>
> RECENT HISTORY
> 
> This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify.
>
> Entity Change  Date (UTC)Reason
> 
> D. Margaux +  5c.  2019-02-15 15:32  Reward (CFJ )
> Agora  + 10c.  2019-02-14 12:24  Transfer from CuddleBeam
> CuddleBeam - 10c.  2019-02-14 12:24  Transfer to Agora
> D. Margaux +  5c.  2019-02-13 22:54  Reward (CFJ )
> G. +  5c.  2019-02-13 15:24  Reward (CFJ 3708)
> G. +  5c.  2019-02-13 15:24  Reward (CFJ 3705)
> Falsifian  + 10c.  2019-02-13 00:59  Welcome Package
> D. Margaux +  5c.  2019-02-12 21:22  Reward (CFJ 3702)
> D. Margaux +  5c.  2019-02-12 14:57  Reward (Registrar monthly)
> D. Margaux +  5c.  2019-02-12 14:57  Reward (Registrar weekly)
> D. Margaux -  2c.  2019-02-11 23:20  Payment for Favour
> D. Margaux -  2c.  2019-02-11 23:20  Payment for Favour
> D. Margaux -  2c.  2019-02-11 23:20  Payment for Favour
> D. Margaux -  2c.  2019-02-11 23:20  Payment for Favour
> twg+  5c.  2019-02-11 22:55  Reward (Clork weekly)
> twg+  5c.  2019-02-11 22:55  Reward (Referee weekly)
> Jacob Arduino  + 40c.  2019-02-10 13:16  Transfer from nichdel
> nichdel- 40c.  2019-02-10 13:16  Transfer to Jacob Arduino
> Agora  +  2c.  2019-02-10 13:16  Transfer from Jacob Arduino
> Jacob Arduino  -  2c.  2019-02-10 13:16  Transfer to Agora
> Trigon + 43c.  2019-02-09 00:38  Transfer from P.S.S.
> P.S.S. - 43c.  2019-02-09 00:38  Transfer to Trigon
> Agora  +  5c.  2019-02-09 00:38  Transfer from Trigon
> Trigon -  5c.  2019-02-09 00:38  Transfer to Agora
> twg+ 76c.  2019-02-07 22:25  Transfer from Corona
> Corona - 76c.  2019-02-07 22:25  Transfer to twg
> Agora  +  1c.  2019-02-07 22:25  Transfer from twg
> twg-  1c.  2019-02-07 22:25  Transfer to Agora
> D. Margaux +  5c.  2019-02-07 18:15  Reward (Registrar weekly)
> D. Margaux +  5c.  2019-02-07 18:15  Reward (Arbitor weekly)
> G. + 45c.  2019-02-07 15:16  Transfer from Hālian
> Hālian - 45c.  2019-02-07 15:16  Transfer to G.
> Agora  + 10c.  2019-02-07 15:16  Transfer from G.
> G. - 10c.  2019-02-07 15:16  Transfer to Agora
> D. Margaux +  5c.  2019-02-05 12:01  Reward (Registrar weekly)
> von Vaderham   + 10c.  2019-02-04 20:45  Welcome Package
> Lost & Found   + 30c.  2019-02-03 21:25  Deregistration of pokes
> pokes  - 30c.  2019-02-03 21:25  Deregistration
> Lost & Found   + 10c.  2019-02-03 21:25  Deregistration of 天火狐
> 天火狐  - 10c.  2019-02-03 21:25  Deregistration
> Trigon +  5c.  2019-02-02 22:00  Reward (CFJ 3699)
> Trigon +  5c.  2019-02-02 22:00  Reward (Rulekeepor weekly)
> Trigon +  5c.  2019-02-02 22:00  Reward (Rulekeepor weekly)
> twg+  5c.  2019-02-02 14:45 

DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] vote for the best Ruleset find

[D. Margaux]

I vote {Gaelan, Telnaior, twg, CB}, and cause L to vote the same if we are 
counting zombie votes which probably we shouldn’t. 

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 2:00 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> VOTE!
> Who had the best loophole, bug, or scam during Read the Ruleset week?
> VOTE!
> 
> Here starts an UNOFFICIAL AGORAN DECISION with the following modifications:
> -  Ranked choice:  It's not bad form to vote for yourself, but please
>   consider 2nd, 3rd, etc.
> -  Counting long term-watchers' votes too!  If ais523, Ørjan, or other
>   watchers would like to opine.
> -  Using the Auction method for ending the decision (4 days since last
>   vote, no more than 7 days total).
> -  I'll give my own votes in 24-48 hours.
> 
> OPTIONS (vote for the person)
> 
> Telnaior illustrating that contracts can make infinitely-rewarding reports:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039875.html
>  
> (unjudged; arguments for it working stronger than arguments against IMO,
> fix proposed).
> 
> 
> Gaelan's attempt to win by Apathy, by using two messages for the same
> intent:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039934.html
>  
> (Judged to have succeeded on reconsideration, though caught up in broader
> issues of Satisfaction, fix proposed).
> 
> 
> CuddleBeam arguing that Agora is a Contract, possibly a worldview shift:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039955.html
> (Judged to be true, may be more of a curiosity than a practical matter, but 
> it's a curiosity very much in the Agoran spirit).
> 
> 
> twg attempt to use contracts to induct the unwilling:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039950.html
> (Judged to have failed, but pointed out the need for clearer wording or
> stronger protections in the Rules).
> 
> 
> Honorable Mentions:
> 
> D. Margaux working the Contract Bug:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039896.html
> (and when twg scooped em, followed up with a different approach):
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039953.html
> 
> CuddleBeam pointing out that space wins are infinite:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039895.html
> 
> Falsifian, for pointing out that Satisfaction has been borked for over 2
> years (unfortunately late for the contest!  But the biggest bug correction
> for a while and Falsifian is working hard on a fix).
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/040023.html
> 
> twg's assertion that Rule 2571 is guilty of violating Rule 105.  (also too
> late to enter):
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33517.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Re: More Politicking

[D. Margaux]

That’s fine. Honestly better for me for it to be INEFFECTIVE, because part of 
the idea was to invest some more influence before e became host, which ended up 
not happening.



> On Feb 18, 2019, at 1:41 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> Yes, I think it does make it INEFFECTIVE, per 2579's "must state the correct 
> set of assets for the fee". But feel free to CFJ.
> 
> -twg
> 
> 
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 12:39 AM, D. Margaux  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:04 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I pay 2 COS favours to gain 3 influence over Ronald Ray Gun.
>> 
>> Oops; that was supposed to be 2:2, not 2:3... I think?
>> 
>> Don’t know if that makes it INEFFECTIVE, or what. But wanted to point it out 
>> for H. Clork’s benefit.
> 
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: Registration

[David Seeber]

I don’t think I was in the latest Report either.. 



Baron von Vaderham



-Original Message-
From: agora-business  On Behalf Of Timon 
Walshe-Grey
Sent: 18 February 2019 18:20
To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org
Subject: Re: BUS: Registration



I act on Corona's behalf to Point eir Finger at me for Galaxy Neglect - I did 
not create a Sector for Baron von Vaderham's Spaceship. (I haven't done it for 
Falsifian either, but the time limit for that hasn't expired yet.)



I will do both shortly, but in the meantime I resolve the above Finger Pointing 
by levying a fine of 3 blots on myself for the conduct in question.



I think this and the other one I posted are the only crimes I actually 
committed. (Except Tardiness, but we haven't punished anyone for that for 
nearly half a year.)



-twg





‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On Monday, February 4, 2019 8:10 PM, David Seeber 
mailto:davidsee...@outlook.com>> wrote:



> I register as a player.

>

> Baron Von Vaderham

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Read the Ruleset week - summary of entries

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

Oh, good point lol. Ignore me. :P

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 1:47 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> AFAICT it wasn't submitted during Read the Ruleset Week?
>
> On 2/17/2019 4:36 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > Ooh, in that case can we count my assertion that Rule 2571 is guilty of 
> > violating Rule 105? :P
> > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33517.html
> > I also kind of feel that scams that don't actually work (i.e. mine) should 
> > be disqualified by default.
> > -twg
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > On Thursday, February 14, 2019 7:13 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
> >
> > > Didn't notice that was meant as a specific entry as opposed to
> > > follow-on conversation! The brief was "most interesting or fun
> > > Rules loophole or unexpected Rules interaction" and this is definitely
> > > an interesting and unexpected Rules interaction (and while it didn't
> > > turn out to be dangerous, the result pointed out things like 'destroy
> > > all contracts' that would be unexpectedly dangerous). Profit or scam
> > > not necessary. And now I also notice that I said "whomever points
> > > out" so you don't have to "officially enter" beyond pointing something
> > > out.
> > > So I'll add that one.
> > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:00 AM Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Damn, I thought my Agora = Contract thing would count but it's true 
> > > > that it
> > > > doesn't really scam anything, it's just a perspective shift on the
> > > > Ruleset.
> > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 7:28 PM Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Read the Ruleset Week Contest - update
> > > > > Before I give opinions or try to start a process to determine the
> > > > > winner, here's a list of all the entries I saw (Telnaior, Gaelan,
> > > > > CuddleBeam, twg, D. Margaux). Did I miss anyone?
> > > > > Telnaior illustrating that contracts can make infinitely-rewarding 
> > > > > reports:
> > > > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039875.html
> > > > > Gaelan's attempt to win by Apathy, by using two messages for the same
> > > > > intent:
> > > > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039934.html
> > > > > CuddleBeam pointing out that space wins are infinite:
> > > > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039895.html
> > > > > twg attempt to use contracts to induct the unwilling:
> > > > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039950.html
> > > > > D. Margaux working on the same thing:
> > > > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039896.html
> > > > > (and when twg scooped em, followed up with a different approach):
> > > > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039953.html

Re: DIS: Re: More Politicking

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

Yes, I think it does make it INEFFECTIVE, per 2579's "must state the correct 
set of assets for the fee". But feel free to CFJ.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 12:39 AM, D. Margaux  wrote:

>
>
> > On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:04 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I pay 2 COS favours to gain 3 influence over Ronald Ray Gun.
>
> Oops; that was supposed to be 2:2, not 2:3... I think?
>
> Don’t know if that makes it INEFFECTIVE, or what. But wanted to point it out 
> for H. Clork’s benefit.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

[Reuben Staley]

I would say that the reading of the proposal in question would imply an 
override of all the amendments since 7815. I haven't been following this 
thread so I don't know what a better solution would be.


On 2/18/19 9:21 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On 2/18/2019 7:07 AM, James Cook wrote:

The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken effect
immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had been
made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of Rule 2124 is now
as described in the amendment, since the Rules are changed by this
proposal as part of the gamestate.)


Can the Rulekeepor (or anyone) comment how this will be recorded in the 
FLR?

Will we lose amendment numbers?  I wouldn't want to lose any historical
annotations if we "set the gamestate" so that they didn't happen.  (given
that they were important to figuring this out just now!)

And are there any side issues like this unclear enough to run against the
"any ambiguity" standards of R105?


--
Trigon

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Space Battle 003

[Kerim Aydin]

Compare this:
  A player CAN publish a Notice of Honour. For a Notice of Honour
  to be valid, it must: [...]

If some bit of text is labeled a Notice of Honour, but doesn't have one of
the other properties right, is it an "invalid Notice of Honour" or just a
mislabeled string of text?  I suspect the answer would be IRRELEVANT.

On 2/18/2019 9:48 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:

On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 18:46 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote:

I’m pretty convinced about this but I’ve had people not believe it
before
in a similar case elsewhere so I figured I’d ask just in case:

An INEFFECTIVE X, is not formally an X, right?

For example, an INEFFECTIVE Proposal isn’t a Proposal.


Only actions can be INEFFECTIVE.

A proposal isn't an action.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Space Battle 003

[Kerim Aydin]

I think the best solution to this is to get the Hash thing working, so the
Astronomor can be the resolver even when e's a combatant   (I had a proto
for that, but it's been busy around here lately).  Either that or tolerate
much more error from the resolver since all a non-Astronomor resolver should
really have to do is reveal the contents of received messages, not
interpret results.

In the first space battle (when I submitted a negative number), I thought it
problematic because the Resolver had to make a private decision whether a
number was successfully communicated or not before deciding to reveal - and
if e makes the wrong decision, e's guilty of revealing stuff too early.  (I
half-thought a negative number wouldn't even count as a submission, because
it wasn't an "amount of energy", but no one argued that in the CFJ).

If the requirement is just to "reveal the exact messages received" then this
problem is fixed.

On 2/18/2019 9:42 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Sorry, I keep forgetting you don't have an up-to-date Astronomor report to work 
off. I apologise. You are correct, but you need to say it to the public forum.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 5:40 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:


I was afraid you’d say that. I think this reduces twg’s armor from 10 to 0 and 
Gaelan’s stays at 10? I confess I haven’t paid much attention to the space 
rules though recently.
If this is accurate I’ll resend to official


On Feb 18, 2019, at 12:37 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
(Pssst! For this to be EFFECTIVE I think you also have to say by how much each 
of our Armour was reduced by.)
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐


On Monday, February 18, 2019 5:34 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote:
Resolved battle 003:
Gaelan spent 11 energy.
Twg spent 0 energy.
I think that means Gaelan wins.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Space Battle 003

[Cuddle Beam]

Ah, well, an INEFFECTIVE Proposal submission then.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 18:48, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 18:46 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > I’m pretty convinced about this but I’ve had people not believe it
> > before
> > in a similar case elsewhere so I figured I’d ask just in case:
> >
> > An INEFFECTIVE X, is not formally an X, right?
> >
> > For example, an INEFFECTIVE Proposal isn’t a Proposal.
>
> Only actions can be INEFFECTIVE.
>
> A proposal isn't an action.
>
> --
> ais523
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Space Battle 003

[ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk]

On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 18:46 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I’m pretty convinced about this but I’ve had people not believe it
> before
> in a similar case elsewhere so I figured I’d ask just in case:
> 
> An INEFFECTIVE X, is not formally an X, right?
> 
> For example, an INEFFECTIVE Proposal isn’t a Proposal.

Only actions can be INEFFECTIVE.

A proposal isn't an action.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Space Battle 003

[Cuddle Beam]

I’m pretty convinced about this but I’ve had people not believe it before
in a similar case elsewhere so I figured I’d ask just in case:

An INEFFECTIVE X, is not formally an X, right?

For example, an INEFFECTIVE Proposal isn’t a Proposal.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 18:37, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

> (Pssst! For this to be EFFECTIVE I think you also have to say by how much
> each of our Armour was reduced by.)
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Monday, February 18, 2019 5:34 PM, D. Margaux 
> wrote:
>
> > Resolved battle 003:
> >
> > Gaelan spent 11 energy.
> >
> > Twg spent 0 energy.
> >
> > I think that means Gaelan wins.
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Space Battle 003

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

Sorry, I keep forgetting you don't have an up-to-date Astronomor report to work 
off. I apologise. You are correct, but you need to say it to the public forum.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 5:40 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

> I was afraid you’d say that. I think this reduces twg’s armor from 10 to 0 
> and Gaelan’s stays at 10? I confess I haven’t paid much attention to the 
> space rules though recently.
> If this is accurate I’ll resend to official
>
> > On Feb 18, 2019, at 12:37 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> > (Pssst! For this to be EFFECTIVE I think you also have to say by how much 
> > each of our Armour was reduced by.)
> > -twg
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> >
> > > On Monday, February 18, 2019 5:34 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com 
> > > wrote:
> > > Resolved battle 003:
> > > Gaelan spent 11 energy.
> > > Twg spent 0 energy.
> > > I think that means Gaelan wins.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Space Battle 003

[D. Margaux]

I was afraid you’d say that. I think this reduces twg’s armor from 10 to 0 and 
Gaelan’s stays at 10? I confess I haven’t paid much attention to the space 
rules though recently. 
If this is accurate I’ll resend to official
> On Feb 18, 2019, at 12:37 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> (Pssst! For this to be EFFECTIVE I think you also have to say by how much 
> each of our Armour was reduced by.)
> 
> -twg
> 
> 
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 5:34 PM, D. Margaux  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Resolved battle 003:
>> 
>> Gaelan spent 11 energy.
>> 
>> Twg spent 0 energy.
>> 
>> I think that means Gaelan wins.
> 
> 

DIS: Re: OFF: Space Battle 003

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

(Pssst! For this to be EFFECTIVE I think you also have to say by how much each 
of our Armour was reduced by.)

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 5:34 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

> Resolved battle 003:
>
> Gaelan spent 11 energy.
>
> Twg spent 0 energy.
>
> I think that means Gaelan wins.

Re: DIS: Impossible. Perhaps the archives are incomplete.

[D. Margaux]

Apologies—will send now. Thanks for alerting me. 

Also if anyone else is waiting for me, please feel free to let me know.  

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 12:22 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> D. Margaux,
> 
> Did you ever get around to resolving Space Battle 3 (Gaelan vs. me)? I have 
> an Energy value privately sent by me to you in my outbox, and I think I 
> recall Gaelan saying e'd sent you one as well, but I can't find any 
> resolution message from you.
> 
> Furthermore, going forward, can I request that Space Battle resolutions be 
> sent to OFF like Assessor resolutions? It would make them much easier to 
> find. (I haven't been doing this either but I will start.) I have an idea for 
> a R2593 amendment which will remove obligations on the Prime Minister and omd 
> to help resolve tricky Space Battles, which I'm sure will please G., so 
> nobody except us should need to remember to do it.
> 
> -twg

DIS: Impossible. Perhaps the archives are incomplete.

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

D. Margaux,

Did you ever get around to resolving Space Battle 3 (Gaelan vs. me)? I have an 
Energy value privately sent by me to you in my outbox, and I think I recall 
Gaelan saying e'd sent you one as well, but I can't find any resolution message 
from you.

Furthermore, going forward, can I request that Space Battle resolutions be sent 
to OFF like Assessor resolutions? It would make them much easier to find. (I 
haven't been doing this either but I will start.) I have an idea for a R2593 
amendment which will remove obligations on the Prime Minister and omd to help 
resolve tricky Space Battles, which I'm sure will please G., so nobody except 
us should need to remember to do it.

-twg

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

An alternative is: "Change the gamestate [including the ruleset] to what it 
would have been if the below amendment had taken effect immediately after 
Proposal 7815, and if no further changes had been made to Rule 2124 since. 
Designate this change as a convergence." I believe this would allow the 
Rulekeepor to present a convenient legal fiction in the FLR, provided e also 
recorded the fact that a convergence occurred.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 4:34 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

> To address G’s concern, what if the proposal were to say something like this:
>
> The gamestate is changed to what it would have been if the text of the 
> following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined whether Agora was Satisfied 
> with any dependent action attempted after Proposal 7815, rather than the text 
> of what Rule 2124 was at that time.
>
> Rule 2124 is amended as follows: [amended text]
>
> > On Feb 18, 2019, at 11:21 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
> >
> > > On 2/18/2019 7:07 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > > The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken effect
> > > immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had been
> > > made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of Rule 2124 is now
> > > as described in the amendment, since the Rules are changed by this
> > > proposal as part of the gamestate.)
> >
> > Can the Rulekeepor (or anyone) comment how this will be recorded in the FLR?
> > Will we lose amendment numbers? I wouldn't want to lose any historical
> > annotations if we "set the gamestate" so that they didn't happen. (given
> > that they were important to figuring this out just now!)
> > And are there any side issues like this unclear enough to run against the
> > "any ambiguity" standards of R105?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

[Kerim Aydin]

More generally, have we ever done a true retroactive rule change that
overwrites known rules history?

I'm wondering about a slight wording change to side-step making true
retroactive rules changes:  The rule is amended going forward, but "the rest
of the gamestate" is set to what it would have been had this been the text
all along.  Or am I being overly-paranoid here?

On 2/18/2019 8:21 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:> On 2/18/2019 7:07 AM, James Cook 
wrote:>> The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken 
effect>> immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had 
been>> made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of Rule 2124 is 
now>> as described in the amendment, since the Rules are changed by this>> 
proposal as part of the gamestate.)> > Can the Rulekeepor (or anyone) 
comment how this will be recorded in the FLR?> Will we lose amendment 
numbers?  I wouldn't want to lose any historical> annotations if we "set the 
gamestate" so that they didn't happen.  (given> that they were important to 
figuring this out just now!)> > And are there any side issues like this 
unclear enough to run against the> "any ambiguity" standards of R105?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

[D. Margaux]

To address G’s concern, what if the proposal were to say something like this:

The gamestate is changed to what it would have been if the text of the 
following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined whether Agora was Satisfied 
with any dependent action attempted after Proposal 7815, rather than the text 
of what Rule 2124 was at that time.

Rule 2124 is amended as follows: [amended text]

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 11:21 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 2/18/2019 7:07 AM, James Cook wrote:
>> The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken effect
>> immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had been
>> made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of Rule 2124 is now
>> as described in the amendment, since the Rules are changed by this
>> proposal as part of the gamestate.)
> 
> Can the Rulekeepor (or anyone) comment how this will be recorded in the FLR?
> Will we lose amendment numbers?  I wouldn't want to lose any historical
> annotations if we "set the gamestate" so that they didn't happen.  (given
> that they were important to figuring this out just now!)
> 
> And are there any side issues like this unclear enough to run against the
> "any ambiguity" standards of R105?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

[ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk]

On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 08:21 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 2/18/2019 7:07 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken effect
> > immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had been
> > made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of Rule 2124 is now
> > as described in the amendment, since the Rules are changed by this
> > proposal as part of the gamestate.)
> 
> Can the Rulekeepor (or anyone) comment how this will be recorded in the FLR?
> Will we lose amendment numbers?  I wouldn't want to lose any historical
> annotations if we "set the gamestate" so that they didn't happen.  (given
> that they were important to figuring this out just now!)
> 
> And are there any side issues like this unclear enough to run against the
> "any ambiguity" standards of R105?

Our normal fix to this sort of issue is to allow the proposal to alter
the SLR, but not any information contained in the FLR unless it's also
contained in the SLR.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

[Kerim Aydin]

On 2/18/2019 7:07 AM, James Cook wrote:

The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken effect
immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had been
made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of Rule 2124 is now
as described in the amendment, since the Rules are changed by this
proposal as part of the gamestate.)


Can the Rulekeepor (or anyone) comment how this will be recorded in the FLR?
Will we lose amendment numbers?  I wouldn't want to lose any historical
annotations if we "set the gamestate" so that they didn't happen.  (given
that they were important to figuring this out just now!)

And are there any side issues like this unclear enough to run against the
"any ambiguity" standards of R105?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

[Kerim Aydin]

On 2/17/2019 9:59 PM, James Cook wrote:

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:52, Kerim Aydin  wrote:



Here are the others since then:

  > Amended(20) by R2430, 24 May 2017
I don't know what this is - lots of rules have this comment but I can't find
the event.


It's for cleaning rules. By design, I doubt the change could matter.
E.g. this SLR has a version of it:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08000.html


Sorry, was unclear there - I meant that a lot of rules in the FLR have
a "cleaning event" recorded for 24 May 2017, but I couldn't find message
that triggered it.  Thanks though - I hadn't searched for "cleanup"
specifically.  It was a list label reformat:

> Amend the following rules by replacing (1), (2), etc. with 1., 2., etc,
> and removing one space before wrapped lines to preserve alignment:
> “Common Definitions”
> “Agoran Satisfaction”
> “Determining the Will of Agora"

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[D. Margaux]

What if we approach this from the other direction—i.e., what kind of a thing 
could this “Protocol” action possibly be?

If this Protocol action isn’t somehow authorized (directly or indirectly) by 
the Rules, then it cannot be used to perform regulated actions and so there’s 
no reason for us to care. 

No Rule creates a Protocol action that can be invoked in this way. 

A proposal cannot continue to have effect after it is adopted, so a proposal 
can’t have created this Protocol action. 

Maybe this Protocol is defined in a contract, but it’s not clear why anyone who 
isn’t a party to that contract should care. As per a recent judgement, 
contracts can’t bind non-parties.

Where does that leave us?

What kind of a thing could this Protocol even be?

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 4:18 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> The closest thing I could find is this:
> 
> 
> 
> which relates to UNDEAD, but to the best of my knowledge Aris registered well 
> after UNDEAD was a major thing.
> 
> My default assumption whenever something like this happens is that whoever's 
> responsible is just trolling, although I concede that isn't very 
> characteristic for Aris.
> 
> ais523 mentioned something about the original definition being NttPF - we've 
> already checked the a-d archives, but maybe there was once something in the 
> IRC channel? Or does anyone know of any other discussion forums that have 
> been active since Aris registered? (Don't have time to look back through old 
> Registrar reports right now.)
> 
> If Aris remembers it but Gaelan doesn't, then the thing that needs 
> remembering must presumably have happened in late 2016 or early 2017, 
> assuming neither of them is being misleading.
> 
> -twg
> 
> 
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:41 AM, Cuddle Beam  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> The Protocol seems like something that could be interacted with but it’s
>> too obscure for uninformed people to properly react to (“if you remember”
>> and whatnot, implying it requires some kind of past knowledge, and there’s
>> nothing on the archives so I have no idea), I did the same lol.
>> 
>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 09:32, Gaelan Steele g...@canishe.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> This is incredibly frustrating. That being said:
>>> I object to any intents announced in the quoted message.
>>> If the quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, I vote for the first
>>> of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
>>> If the quoted message contains an attempt to Ratify Without Objection an
>>> incorrect document, I point my finger at Aris for the class-8 crime of
>>> Endorsing Forgery.
>>> (Honestly, I doubt that any of that did anything. But it was fun to think
>>> through)
>>> Notice of honor:
>>> An extremely begrudging +1 to Aris for this frustrating puzzle
>>> -1 to CuddleBeam for taking the “slang” thing way past when it was funny
>>> Gaelan
>>> 
 On Feb 17, 2019, at 10:31 PM, Aris Merchant <
 thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
 I give notice that I intend to activate The Protocol, according to the
 timetable specified for activations thereof. (If anyone remembers what
 this
 means, please contact me rather than trying to block it; we may be able
 to
 work something out.)
 -Aris
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[D. Margaux]

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 4:18 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> ais523 mentioned something about the original definition being NttPF - we've 
> already checked the a-d archives, but maybe there was once something in the 
> IRC channel? Or does anyone know of any other discussion forums that have 
> been active since Aris registered? (Don't have time to look back through old 
> Registrar reports right now.)

Maybe e meant that the original definition wasn’t even sent to a discussion 
forum, which would be consistent with some sort of UNDEAD-like scam. That would 
be NttPF too.  

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

The closest thing I could find is this:



which relates to UNDEAD, but to the best of my knowledge Aris registered well 
after UNDEAD was a major thing.

My default assumption whenever something like this happens is that whoever's 
responsible is just trolling, although I concede that isn't very characteristic 
for Aris.

ais523 mentioned something about the original definition being NttPF - we've 
already checked the a-d archives, but maybe there was once something in the IRC 
channel? Or does anyone know of any other discussion forums that have been 
active since Aris registered? (Don't have time to look back through old 
Registrar reports right now.)

If Aris remembers it but Gaelan doesn't, then the thing that needs remembering 
must presumably have happened in late 2016 or early 2017, assuming neither of 
them is being misleading.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:41 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> The Protocol seems like something that could be interacted with but it’s
> too obscure for uninformed people to properly react to (“if you remember”
> and whatnot, implying it requires some kind of past knowledge, and there’s
> nothing on the archives so I have no idea), I did the same lol.
>
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 09:32, Gaelan Steele g...@canishe.com wrote:
>
> > This is incredibly frustrating. That being said:
> > I object to any intents announced in the quoted message.
> > If the quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, I vote for the first
> > of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
> > If the quoted message contains an attempt to Ratify Without Objection an
> > incorrect document, I point my finger at Aris for the class-8 crime of
> > Endorsing Forgery.
> > (Honestly, I doubt that any of that did anything. But it was fun to think
> > through)
> > Notice of honor:
> > An extremely begrudging +1 to Aris for this frustrating puzzle
> > -1 to CuddleBeam for taking the “slang” thing way past when it was funny
> > Gaelan
> >
> > > On Feb 17, 2019, at 10:31 PM, Aris Merchant <
> > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I give notice that I intend to activate The Protocol, according to the
> > > timetable specified for activations thereof. (If anyone remembers what
> > > this
> > > means, please contact me rather than trying to block it; we may be able
> > > to
> > > work something out.)
> > > -Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[Cuddle Beam]

The Protocol seems like something that could be interacted with but it’s
too obscure for uninformed people to properly react to (“if you remember”
and whatnot, implying it requires some kind of past knowledge, and there’s
nothing on the archives so I have no idea), I did the same lol.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 09:32, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> This is incredibly frustrating. That being said:
>
> I object to any intents announced in the quoted message.
>
> If the quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, I vote for the first
> of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
>
> If the quoted message contains an attempt to Ratify Without Objection an
> incorrect document, I point my finger at Aris for the class-8 crime of
> Endorsing Forgery.
>
> (Honestly, I doubt that any of that did anything. But it was fun to think
> through)
>
> Notice of honor:
> An extremely begrudging +1 to Aris for this frustrating puzzle
> -1 to CuddleBeam for taking the “slang” thing way past when it was funny
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Feb 17, 2019, at 10:31 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I give notice that I intend to activate The Protocol, according to the
> > timetable specified for activations thereof. (If anyone remembers what
> this
> > means, please contact me rather than trying to block it; we may be able
> to
> > work something out.)
> >
> > -Aris
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:24 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> I hngah 50 coins for Aris Merchant

//
Title: 50 coins
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: CuddleBeam


Aris Merchant

//

-twg