DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Astronomor] State of the Universe
On 8/5/19 1:35 AM, James Cook wrote: Our business being concluded, I cease being a party to the contract called "Space Shenanigans 2: Electric Boogaloo". Thanks, Jason Cobb! No problem! :) (I'm trying not to lose track of what contracts I'm a party to. I *think* there are now none.) I've fallen into this trap, but I don't think any that I'm party to can actually do anything (although I think G. might be able to steal a coin from me, though e clearly doesn't need it). -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Patron Gods
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 04:55, Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 9:51 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 14:53, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > > On 8/4/19 2:57 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > > > I submit myself to the Agoran Gods! I submit the following rule to the
> > > > contest:
> > > >
> > > > {
> > > >
> > > > I dedicate this rule to ARCAS.
> > > >
> > > > Every new rule must be dedicated to exactly one Agoran God, called the
> > > > rule's Patron God. The Patron God must have been mentioned in a
> > previous
> > > > contest message.
> > > >
> > > > The validity requirements added by rules after this apply only to rules
> > > > dedicated to a different Patron God. (For example, if a rule dedicated
> > > > to the LORD said that new rules must rhyme, that requirement would only
> > > > apply to rules not dedicated to the LORD.)
> > > >
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > I praise the LORD. I thank ARCAS, god of the very land we live on. I
> > > > honour THE AGORAN SPIRIT OF THE GAME.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Clever, but does this work? If each future rule does not incorporate
> > > this provision, then a rule that violates a future rule (even if the
> > > same Patron God) would still be "inconsistent" with the rule that it is
> > > violating, which would make it invalid.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jason Cobb
> >
> > Good point, maybe it doesn't work.
>
>
> My understanding is that it’s part of the definition of saying “X is the
> Patron God” that the rule exempts all other rules with the same patron god.
>
> Aris
> Pontifex Maximus
Thank you for the clarification, Your Supreme Eminence. This
relatively straightforward gameplay is truly a divine gift.
--
- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Patron Gods
On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 9:51 PM James Cook wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 14:53, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > On 8/4/19 2:57 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > > I submit myself to the Agoran Gods! I submit the following rule to the
> > > contest:
> > >
> > > {
> > >
> > > I dedicate this rule to ARCAS.
> > >
> > > Every new rule must be dedicated to exactly one Agoran God, called the
> > > rule's Patron God. The Patron God must have been mentioned in a
> previous
> > > contest message.
> > >
> > > The validity requirements added by rules after this apply only to rules
> > > dedicated to a different Patron God. (For example, if a rule dedicated
> > > to the LORD said that new rules must rhyme, that requirement would only
> > > apply to rules not dedicated to the LORD.)
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > I praise the LORD. I thank ARCAS, god of the very land we live on. I
> > > honour THE AGORAN SPIRIT OF THE GAME.
> > >
> > >
> > Clever, but does this work? If each future rule does not incorporate
> > this provision, then a rule that violates a future rule (even if the
> > same Patron God) would still be "inconsistent" with the rule that it is
> > violating, which would make it invalid.
> >
> > --
> > Jason Cobb
>
> Good point, maybe it doesn't work.
My understanding is that it’s part of the definition of saying “X is the
Patron God” that the rule exempts all other rules with the same patron god.
Aris
Pontifex Maximus
>
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Patron Gods
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 14:53, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 8/4/19 2:57 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > I submit myself to the Agoran Gods! I submit the following rule to the
> > contest:
> >
> > {
> >
> > I dedicate this rule to ARCAS.
> >
> > Every new rule must be dedicated to exactly one Agoran God, called the
> > rule's Patron God. The Patron God must have been mentioned in a previous
> > contest message.
> >
> > The validity requirements added by rules after this apply only to rules
> > dedicated to a different Patron God. (For example, if a rule dedicated
> > to the LORD said that new rules must rhyme, that requirement would only
> > apply to rules not dedicated to the LORD.)
> >
> > }
> >
> > I praise the LORD. I thank ARCAS, god of the very land we live on. I
> > honour THE AGORAN SPIRIT OF THE GAME.
> >
> >
> Clever, but does this work? If each future rule does not incorporate
> this provision, then a rule that violates a future rule (even if the
> same Patron God) would still be "inconsistent" with the rule that it is
> violating, which would make it invalid.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
Good point, maybe it doesn't work.
--
- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More space shenanigans
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 04:02, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 8/5/19 12:01 AM, Rebecca wrote: > > Btw jason u made a tactical error in getting the fame first bc now the > > other lad can wait u out and assure themselves the speakership with intent > > reaolution > > Cool. > > -- > Jason Cobb We could just wait each other out, I think. But I think I'll let em win after me; e put more effort into this. -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More space shenanigans
On 8/5/19 12:01 AM, Rebecca wrote: Btw jason u made a tactical error in getting the fame first bc now the other lad can wait u out and assure themselves the speakership with intent reaolution Cool. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [FRC] Let the Festivities Commence!
On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 11:35 PM James Cook wrote: > > On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 03:38, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > 2. Variety. Contributions that move things in a new direction shall be > >rewarded. Contributions that merely repeat things that have come > >before shall be punished. Remember that there are three distinct goals > > for > >the contest; pursuing one that has been long abandoned by your fellow > >worshipers is likely to please the gods. > > Colud Your Supreme Eminence remind me of the three goals? My goal as > always is to please the AGORAN GODS in any way I can, but I see just > two ways to win listed in Regulation 7. I meant the three in the first paragraph: "to worship, in proper form, the Agoran Gods; to appropriately punish those Heretics and Blasphemers who show them disrespect; and to maintain their Rites and Rituals." Aris Pontifex Maximus
DIS: Re: BUS: More space shenanigans
Btw jason u made a tactical error in getting the fame first bc now the
other lad can wait u out and assure themselves the speakership with intent
reaolution
On Monday, August 5, 2019, Jason Cobb wrote:
> On 8/4/19 11:38 PM, James Cook wrote:
>
>> I will spend 1 energy in this space battle.
>>
>> - Falsifian
>>
>
> I cause G. to resolve the Space Battle between Jason Cobb and Falsifian as
> follows:
> {
> Falsfian wins this Space Battle.
> Falsfian spent 1 energy in this Space Battle. Jason Cobb spent 0 energy in
> this Space Battle.
> Falsfian's Spaceship spent 1 energy and now has 19 energy. Jason Cobb's
> Spaceship spent 0 energy and now has 19 energy.
> Falsfian's Spaceship's Armour decreased by 0, and is now 10. Jason Cobb's
> Spaceship's Armour decreased by 1 and is now 9.
> Falsfian's Fame increased by 1 to 6. Jason Cobb's Fame remains unchanged
> and is -10.
> }
>
> I cause Falsifian to destroy the Spaceship in eir possession, if any.
> I destroy the Spaceship in my possession, if any.
>
> I cause Falsifian to create a Spaceship in eir possession. This Spaceship
> is in sector 2, the lowest numbered empty sector.
> I create a Spaceship in my possession. This Spaceship is in sector 3, the
> lowest numbered empty sector.
> I cause my Spaceship to spend one Energy to move to sector 2.
>
> I challenge Falsifian to a Space Battle; for this battle, G., the Arbitor,
> is the resolver. I will spend 0 Energy in this Space Battle.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
>
--
>From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More space shenanigans
On 8/4/19 10:34 PM, James Cook wrote: I will spend 0 energy in this space battle. - Falsifian NttPF. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: More space shenanigans
On Sun., Aug. 4, 2019, 18:33 Jason Cobb, wrote:
> On 8/4/19 10:32 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > I will spend 0 energy in this space battle.
> >
> > - Falsifian
>
> I cause G. to resolve the Space Battle between Jason Cobb and Falsifian
> as follows:
> {
> Jason Cobb wins this Space Battle.
> Jason Cobb spent 1 energy in this Space Battle. Falsifian spent 0 energy
> in this Space Battle.
> Jason Cobb's Spaceship spent 1 energy and now has 18 energy. Falsifian's
> Spaceship spent 0 energy and now has 20 energy.
> Jason Cobb's Spaceship's Armour decreased by 0, and is now 20.
> Falsifian's Spaceship's Armour decreased by 1 and is now 19.
> Jason Cobb's Fame decreased by 1 to -7. Falsifian's Fame remains
> unchanged and is 0.
> }
>
> I cause Falsifian to destroy the Spaceship in eir possession, if any.
> I cause Falsifian to create a Spaceship in eir possession. This
> Spaceship is in sector 2, the lowest numbered empty sector.
>
> I destroy the Spaceship in my possession, if any.
> I create a Spaceship in my possession. This Spaceship is in sector 3,
> the lowest numbered empty sector.
> I cause my Spaceship to spend one Energy to move to sector 2.
>
> I challenge Falsifian to a Space Battle; for this battle, G., the
> Arbitor, is the resolver. I will spend 1 Energy in this Space Battle.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
I will spend 0 energy in this space battle.
- Falsifian
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 23:37, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If the proposal created a power 3.1 rule that said "nch is registered"
> then we could use rule 1030, but that's not what the clause does.
I think at this point it would only save nch one week, so I don't know
if I will bother submitting this. But here's a proto:
Title: Fresh start v3
Co-authors: G.
Adoption index: 3.1
Text: {
If nch has publicly consented to abide by the rules in clear reference
to this proposal, and not withdrawn consent, then enact a new
power-3.1 rule with the text: "The proposal that enacted this rule CAN
cause a player to be registered.", register nch, then repeal that
rule.
If nch is registered, grant em 1 blot.
}
--
- Falsifian
Re: DIS: [proto] ansible v0.2
On 8/4/2019 5:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > Side-note: I'm not sure that I understand the cable metaphor. How does one > "transmit" a cable? Cable (verb) contact or send a message to (someone) by cablegram. Cable (noun, lesser meaning) a cablegram, abbrev. "we cabled to a boat at sea, asking it to stop" "we received a cable" Maybe a bit archaic/19th Century.
Re: DIS: [proto] ansible v0.2
A person (the Transmitter) CAN transmit a Cable You capitalize "Cable" here, but nowhere else, similarly for "Transmitter", and "Hash". Side-note: I'm not sure that I understand the cable metaphor. How does one "transmit" a cable? The delivery is SUCCESSFUL, and the cable is considered to be Received by Agora (or just 'received') if and only if all of the following are true: - it occurs while the Delivery Window for that cable is open; - that cable has not been previously delivered; - SHA-256 produces the cable's hash as its output if the alleged plaintext is the input. I think this definition is broken. This would mean that a cable is only Received if "the cable has not been previously delivered". So, the cable would only be considered Received for an instant, since at any time after that instant, the cable would have been previously delivered. - SHA-256 produces the cable's hash as its output if the alleged plaintext is the input. Careful, there could be encoding issues here. I could pick some crazy encoding scheme and put the binary representation into SHA-256. [* I want to say "output of the SHA-256 algorithm" but that's kind of like saying "the ATM Machine" - what's the right grammar here?] I would say "the output when SHA-256 is applied to the input". Create the following Rule, "Terms of Engagement" You don't specify a power here. I know that the default is 1, but it would be clearer to just specify. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: [proto] ansible v0.2
- Just fixing the hash method at SHA-256, full-stop, dropped a bunch of text. - replacing "hashed communication" to "cable", and changing the terms-of-art to go with the "sending a cable" metaphor, makes it shorter and seems to read better (and avoids the overloaded term "communication"). Create the following Rule, "Cables", power-tbd: A person (the Transmitter) CAN transmit a Cable by publishing a text string (the cable's Hash) that is a SHA-256[*] output and labeling it as a cable, possibly associating the cable with other announcements in the same message. The transmitter CAN deliver a cable that e transmitted by publishing a clearly-delimited document (the plaintext), while in the same message clearly referencing the cable's transmission (including the hash and the context of the transmission). The delivery is SUCCESSFUL, and the cable is considered to be Received by Agora (or just 'received') if and only if all of the following are true: - it occurs while the Delivery Window for that cable is open; - that cable has not been previously delivered; - SHA-256 produces the cable's hash as its output if the alleged plaintext is the input. This process, from transmission to delivery, is known as "sending a cable". By default, the delivery window for a cable opens when the cable is transmitted, and closes 7 days later. The rules may set different delivery windows for specific types of cables. In delivering the cable, the necessary publication of the plaintext is considered quoted material (i.e. informational only) unless the transmitter, during delivery, specifies otherwise outside the plaintext. If a cable is transmitted in association with performing a regulated action (other than the sending of the cable itself), failure to deliver the cable within the delivery window is the Class-4 Crime of Losing the Codebook.[**] [* I want to say "output of the SHA-256 algorithm" but that's kind of like saying "the ATM Machine" - what's the right grammar here?] [** we need to make "taking back a move by not revealing the plaintext" expensive, so it's not seen as a legit gaming strategy.] Amend Rule 2593 (Space Battles) to read in full: If the Rules enable a player (the attacker) to initiate a space battle (syn: attack) between eir spaceship and another spaceship, that player initiates it by an announcement specifying the owner of the other spaceship (the defender) in a message that also transmits a cable associated with that battle (the targeting command). These two players are the "combatants" of the Space Battle, and the two Spaceships are then "engaging" in the Space Battle until it is resolved. The plaintext of the targeting command MUST clearly specify a valid amount of energy to spend in the battle (the attack value) - failure to do so is the Class-4 Crime of Bad Targeting, committed when Agora receives the cable. The delivery window for the targeting command opens either when the defender announces a defense value for the battle, as described below, or 4 days after the battle is initiated, whichever is sooner. The delivery window closes 7 days after it opens. The attack value for the battle is set when the targeting command is delivered; if it is not completed when the delivery window closes, or the plaintext of the targeting command when delivered does not clearly specify a valid attack value, the attack value is set to 0. In the 7 days after the battle is initiated, the defender CAN, once, and SHOULD, set the defense value (a valid amount of energy to spend in the specified battle) by announcement. If e does not do so within that 7 day period, the defense value for the battle is set to 0. After both the attack and defense values have been set for a battle, the Astronomor CAN, and SHALL in a timely fashion, resolve the Space Battle by announcing the changes in each Spaceship's Energy balance and Armour (described below), and the Winner (if any) of the Space Battle. When a Space Battle is resolved: 1) N Energy is revoked from each Spaceship, where N is the lesser of the Spaceship's Energy balance and the amount of Energy decided on by the Spaceship's owner, or 0 if the Spaceship's owner failed to do so; 2) each Spaceship's Armour is decreased by X, where X is the lesser of the Spaceship's Armour and the amount of Energy revoked from the other Spaceship; 3) the Winner of the Space Battle is the combatant, if any, whose Spaceship's Armour was reduced by a smaller amount than the other Spaceship's. Create the following Rule, "Terms of Engagement"
Re: DIS: [proto] the Ansible
On 8/4/2019 3:21 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > I'd say just enumerate the acceptable algorithms. You could probably just > start with SHA256 - it's secure and easy to find calculators for online. lol sure I suppose there's no point in coming up with an elegantly-crafted general definition (as pretty as it might be) if it just amounts to "use SHA 256 or higher".
Re: DIS: [proto] the Ansible
On 8/4/19 6:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 8/4/2019 3:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: On 8/4/19 6:09 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Sun, 2019-08-04 at 14:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: [* do we need to define what a "hash method" is or is that in common-enough use to leave to common definitions?] Fun though it would be to scam this myself, in the spirit of "catch loopholes rather than exploit them": the common definition of "hash method" is not what you're actually looking for here. (In particular, you probably want to confine to hashes with collision resistance, otherwise someone could prepare multiple plaintexts in advance and choose which to show based on events since.) I hereby define the TenHash hashing method: The hash is, and always will be, 10. I also just realized that I didn't require the hashing method to be generally computable by anyone with reasonable effort and the provided information, under this someone could use a method that requires secret info. So: I can give it a try, but if someone more expert than me wants to have a go at a definition, I'd love that! -G. I'd say just enumerate the acceptable algorithms. You could probably just start with SHA256 - it's secure and easy to find calculators for online. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [proto] the Ansible
On 8/4/2019 3:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: On 8/4/19 6:09 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Sun, 2019-08-04 at 14:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: [* do we need to define what a "hash method" is or is that in common-enough use to leave to common definitions?] Fun though it would be to scam this myself, in the spirit of "catch loopholes rather than exploit them": the common definition of "hash method" is not what you're actually looking for here. (In particular, you probably want to confine to hashes with collision resistance, otherwise someone could prepare multiple plaintexts in advance and choose which to show based on events since.) I hereby define the TenHash hashing method: The hash is, and always will be, 10. I also just realized that I didn't require the hashing method to be generally computable by anyone with reasonable effort and the provided information, under this someone could use a method that requires secret info. So: I can give it a try, but if someone more expert than me wants to have a go at a definition, I'd love that! -G.
Re: DIS: [proto] the Ansible
On 8/4/19 6:09 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Sun, 2019-08-04 at 14:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: [* do we need to define what a "hash method" is or is that in common-enough use to leave to common definitions?] Fun though it would be to scam this myself, in the spirit of "catch loopholes rather than exploit them": the common definition of "hash method" is not what you're actually looking for here. (In particular, you probably want to confine to hashes with collision resistance, otherwise someone could prepare multiple plaintexts in advance and choose which to show based on events since.) I hereby define the TenHash hashing method: The hash is, and always will be, 10. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [proto] the Ansible
On Sun, 2019-08-04 at 14:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > [* do we need to define what a "hash method" is or is that in > common-enough use to leave to common definitions?] Fun though it would be to scam this myself, in the spirit of "catch loopholes rather than exploit them": the common definition of "hash method" is not what you're actually looking for here. (In particular, you probably want to confine to hashes with collision resistance, otherwise someone could prepare multiple plaintexts in advance and choose which to show based on events since.) -- ais523
DIS: [proto] the Ansible
Proto: Ansible Summary: By requiring the initiator of a space battle to publish a hash of eir energy value when initiating the battle, we speed up the process, simplify the rule because we don't need to talk about multiple methods of private communication, and one officer (the Astronomor) can handle it all. The disadvantage is all attackers need to hash stuff to play. Additional bonus is a generic hash method. I'm sure lots 'o editing is needed here. Create the following Rule, "Hashed Communications", power-tbd: A person (the actor) initiates the communication of information by hash (a "hashed communication") by publishing a text string (the hash) clearly labeled as a hash and clearly specifying a hash method[*]. The initiation is UNSUCCESSFUL if, at the time of initiation, it is clear that the published hash could not be an output of the specified hash method. The actor completes a hashed communication that e initiated by publishing a clearly-delimited document (the plaintext), while in the same message clearly referencing the initiation of the communication (including the hash, the hash method, and the context of the initiation). The completion is SUCCESSFUL if and only if all of the following are true: - it occurs when the Revelation Window for that communication is open; - that communication has not been previously completed; - the specified hash method produces the hash as its output when the plaintext is used as the method's input. By default, the revelation window for a hashed communication opens when the communication is initiated, and closes 7 days later. The rules may set different revelation windows for specific types of hashed communications. A player is considered to have communicated the plaintext of a hashed communication only when the communication is completed. In completing the communication, the necessary publication of the plaintext is considered "informational only" and is not taken to perform any by-announcement actions. If a hashed communication is initiated in association with performing a regulated action (other than the communication itself), failure to complete the communication within the revelation window is the Class-4 Crime of Losing the Codebook.[**] [* do we need to define what a "hash method" is or is that in common-enough use to leave to common definitions?] [** we need to make "taking back a move by not revealing the plaintext" expensive, so it's not seen as a legit gaming strategy.] Amend Rule 2593 (Space Battles) to read in full: If the Rules enable a player (the attacker) to initiate a space battle (syn: attack) between eir spaceship and another spaceship, that player initiates it by an announcement specifying the owner of the other spaceship (the defender) in a message that also initiates a hashed communication associated with that battle (the targeting command). These two players are the "combatants" of the Space Battle, and the two Spaceships are then "engaging" in the Space Battle until it is resolved. The plaintext of the targeting command MUST clearly specify a valid amount of energy to spend in the battle (the attack value) - failue to do so is the Class-4 Crime of Bad Targeting, committed when the hashed communication is completed. The revelation window for the targeting command opens either when the defender announces a defense value for the battle, as described below, or 4 days after the battle is initated, whichever is sooner. The revelation window closes 7 days after it opens. The attack value for the battle is set when the hashed communication of the targeting command is completed; if it is not completed when the revelation window closes, or the plaintext of the targeting command when revealed does not clearly specify a valid attack value, the attack value is set to 0. In the 7 days after the battle is initated, the defender CAN, once, and SHOULD, set the defense value (a valid amount of energy to spend in the specified battle) by announcement. If e does not do so in a timely fashion, the defense value for the battle is set to 0. After both the attack and defense values have been set for a battle, the Astronomor CAN, and SHALL in a timely fashion, resolve the Space Battle by announcing the changes in each Spaceship's Energy balance and Armour (described below), and the Winner (if any) of the Space Battle. When a Space Battle is resolved: 1) N Energy is revoked from each Spaceship, where N is the lesser of the Spaceship's Energy balance and the amount of Energy
DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Burnt Offerings
On 8/4/19 2:53 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: This rule is dedicated to INTERCAL, the most esoteric of all the gods. Fie on thee, 0x44, thou fugitive! To each new fantasy rule, please allow a file to be attached, which file shall contain the ASCII art of exactly one animal which shall be sacrificed. I praise the LORD, first and foremost in our Pantheon. I give thanks to ARCAS, king of Arcadia. I bow before THE AGORAN SPIRIT OF THE GAME. I make myself more lowly than the HONOURLESS WORM, the overlooked. I surrender my mind to INTERCAL, the insane. I type messages of reference to ASCIIUS, without whom no form or order could descend upon computing. -- Trigon Sorry, I just want to make sure that attachments work (I'm sure that they do, but just to be safe). Also, you can see that I've been very creative with my animal. -- Jason Cobb I do hereby sacrifice this worm to the AGORAN GODS, praise be to them: --- | | | | ---
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: M
Also - it's not even clear if this will work. Even if you profess to deputize, what happens when someone sends me a private message and you don't get it... for some additional context - I'll be on vacation from Aug 8 - Aug 28. I was trying to decide whether to keep Arbitor and assume I could do the bare minimum (log in once a week to assign cases manually) or resign the office and pick it up when I get back if no one else does. potential pop-up requirements on spaaace were on my mind already and tilting me a bit towards resignation. On 8/4/2019 12:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Thanks for the heads-up, but I will resign as assessor and PM as an alternate - I really don't want to have to deal with this (even via contract). I was actually working on a proto to take the other offices out of the space loop - I really don't like the imposition of wholly unrelated tasks on a very tough office. It's one of the reasons I'm so ambivalent to space. sorry. On 8/4/2019 11:11 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: On 8/4/19 12:01 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: On 7/30/19 11:31 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: Having given intent, and having received 2 support, I initiate an election for Astronomor, also becoming a candidate. Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: M
On 8/4/2019 12:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Thanks for the heads-up, but I will resign as assessor... Er, "arbitor", my brain still autocompletes offices starting with 'a' with 'ssessor' even though 'arbitor' has been around a few years now...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: M
Thanks for the heads-up, but I will resign as assessor and PM as an
alternate - I really don't want to have to deal with this (even via
contract).
I was actually working on a proto to take the other offices out of the space
loop - I really don't like the imposition of wholly unrelated tasks on a
very tough office. It's one of the reasons I'm so ambivalent to space.
sorry.
On 8/4/2019 11:11 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 8/4/19 12:01 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 7/30/19 11:31 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Having given intent, and having received 2 support, I initiate an
election for Astronomor, also becoming a candidate.
Jason Cobb
The nomination period of the election has ended. To the best of my
knowledge, I am the only candidate.
This is an uncontested election. Pursuant to Rule 2154, I declare myself
the winner of this election.
G.:
I'm going to try (again) to pull of the free win, this time with Falsifian.
If you don't want to deal with all of the 20-some Space Battles, you can
consent to the following contract (which I consent to):
{
0. Only G. and Jason Cobb CAN be parties to this contract. If any other
person becomes a party to this contract, e immediately ceases to be a party
and, the rest of this contract notwithstanding, CANNOT perform any actions
authorized by this contract.
1. A party to this contract CAN cease being a party by announcement.
2. Jason Cobb is permitted to, and CAN, act on behalf of G. to resolve Space
Battles in which Jason Cobb is a combatant.
}
Re: DIS: On Ratification
On 8/4/2019 10:24 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 8/4/19 1:22 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> In R1551: >>the gamestate is modified to what it would be if, >> at the time the ratified document was published ... >> >> (later it says "if" the document has a different time then the publication >> date, use that instead. otherwise, the publication date is used). > > Yeah, realized that. Sorry for wasting your time. Not a waste - more often then we'd like, something like that (some basic function/phrase we all thought was there) turns out to have been accidentally broken or deleted with no one noticing. -G.
Re: DIS: On Ratification
On 8/4/19 1:22 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: In R1551: the gamestate is modified to what it would be if, at the time the ratified document was published ... (later it says "if" the document has a different time then the publication date, use that instead. otherwise, the publication date is used). Yeah, realized that. Sorry for wasting your time. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: On Ratification
On 8/4/2019 10:17 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: So, if I'm correct, this may be a fairly serious bug, but only if people do what I did and don't put the date in their self-ratifying reports. I think that if a report fails to state when it is true, then when it is self-ratified, it becomes true at the time that it is ratified, rather than at the time that it was published. Take, for example, my old Astronomor report (now fixed). If that were allowed to self-ratify (at least the asset reports and switch reports), then since it didn't specify when it was true, then under the first paragraph of Rule 1551, it would change the gamestate to be true _as of the time it ratified_. This would nuke everything between the time that the report was published and the time that it ratified, and could possibly cause inconsistencies between the rules and the gamestate (if the rules had changed since then), which Rule 1551 explicitly prohibits. Does this look right to everyone else? In R1551: the gamestate is modified to what it would be if, at the time the ratified document was published ... (later it says "if" the document has a different time then the publication date, use that instead. otherwise, the publication date is used).
Re: DIS: On Ratification
On 8/4/19 1:17 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: So, if I'm correct, this may be a fairly serious bug, but only if people do what I did and don't put the date in their self-ratifying reports. I think that if a report fails to state when it is true, then when it is self-ratified, it becomes true at the time that it is ratified, rather than at the time that it was published. Take, for example, my old Astronomor report (now fixed). If that were allowed to self-ratify (at least the asset reports and switch reports), then since it didn't specify when it was true, then under the first paragraph of Rule 1551, it would change the gamestate to be true _as of the time it ratified_. This would nuke everything between the time that the report was published and the time that it ratified, and could possibly cause inconsistencies between the rules and the gamestate (if the rules had changed since then), which Rule 1551 explicitly prohibits. Does this look right to everyone else? Wow I'm blind sorry, disregard this. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: On Ratification
So, if I'm correct, this may be a fairly serious bug, but only if people do what I did and don't put the date in their self-ratifying reports. I think that if a report fails to state when it is true, then when it is self-ratified, it becomes true at the time that it is ratified, rather than at the time that it was published. Take, for example, my old Astronomor report (now fixed). If that were allowed to self-ratify (at least the asset reports and switch reports), then since it didn't specify when it was true, then under the first paragraph of Rule 1551, it would change the gamestate to be true _as of the time it ratified_. This would nuke everything between the time that the report was published and the time that it ratified, and could possibly cause inconsistencies between the rules and the gamestate (if the rules had changed since then), which Rule 1551 explicitly prohibits. Does this look right to everyone else? -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: [Astronomor] Weekly Report
On 8/4/2019 9:54 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Other option, after reading more thoroughly: I think the later CFJ is > more > correct, personally - you could just assume that that one overruled the > previous and see if anyone *else* wants to CFJ that. Depends on which > one you (as Officer) think is most correct. More general reflection - if two CFJs contradict, then the later one is the "standing/current" interpretation. If the later one improperly ignored precedent when it was made, then the correct thing (outside the Motion/Moot window) is to call another CFJ requesting that the third case overrule the second one. However, if you're happy with/believe the later one, no CFJ required. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: [Astronomor] Weekly Report
On 8/4/2019 9:51 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 8/4/2019 9:15 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: > Yay, directly contradictory judgements. > > R2576 has never changed, so there's no reason for this contradiction, or to > think that either judgement would be invalidated between the time it was > issued and now. > > I don't know how I'm supposed to deal with that. Do I need to call yet > another CFJ? Since one didn't reference the other, yeah - a CFJ that mentions both of those is probably needed now. Or a ratification + legislative clarification and don't worry about what the past state was. Other option, after reading more thoroughly: I think the later CFJ is more correct, personally - you could just assume that that one overruled the previous and see if anyone *else* wants to CFJ that. Depends on which one you (as Officer) think is most correct. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: [Astronomor] Weekly Report
On 8/4/2019 9:15 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: > Yay, directly contradictory judgements. > > R2576 has never changed, so there's no reason for this contradiction, or to > think that either judgement would be invalidated between the time it was > issued and now. > > I don't know how I'm supposed to deal with that. Do I need to call yet > another CFJ? Since one didn't reference the other, yeah - a CFJ that mentions both of those is probably needed now. Or a ratification + legislative clarification and don't worry about what the past state was. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: [Astronomor] Weekly Report
On 8/4/19 3:01 AM, James Cook wrote: On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 06:42, Jason Cobb wrote: On 8/4/19 2:38 AM, Rebecca wrote: COE: I am not a player, so I dont own a spaceship. You also have to delete a sector for me and for nch. Accepted. Revision: What was R. Lee's spaceship is currently possessed by the Lost and Found Department, pursuant to CFJ 3699. -- Jason Cobb There's a newer judgement that seems to contradict that: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3729 Yay, directly contradictory judgements. R2576 has never changed, so there's no reason for this contradiction, or to think that either judgement would be invalidated between the time it was issued and now. I don't know how I'm supposed to deal with that. Do I need to call yet another CFJ? -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Politeness
On 8/4/19 11:29 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: Each worshiper must understand that only the AGORAN GODS, and, by extensions, their PHYSICAL EMBODIMENT, Eir Supreme Eminence, and, that in order to satisfy the AGORAN GODS enough to enforce their rules, each Novel Paragraph must once contain the word "PLEASE". I sincerely apologize, Eir Supreme Eminence, the Pontifex Maximums, for failure to include your full title in the text of this Rule. This was an unacceptable breach of decorum, and I will endeavor ensure that it never happens again. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Patron Gods
On 8/4/19 2:57 AM, James Cook wrote:
I submit myself to the Agoran Gods! I submit the following rule to the
contest:
{
I dedicate this rule to ARCAS.
Every new rule must be dedicated to exactly one Agoran God, called the
rule's Patron God. The Patron God must have been mentioned in a previous
contest message.
The validity requirements added by rules after this apply only to rules
dedicated to a different Patron God. (For example, if a rule dedicated
to the LORD said that new rules must rhyme, that requirement would only
apply to rules not dedicated to the LORD.)
}
I praise the LORD. I thank ARCAS, god of the very land we live on. I
honour THE AGORAN SPIRIT OF THE GAME.
Clever, but does this work? If each future rule does not incorporate
this provision, then a rule that violates a future rule (even if the
same Patron God) would still be "inconsistent" with the rule that it is
violating, which would make it invalid.
--
Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] Re-up judge interest please
On Thursday, August 1, 2019 2:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Please reply to this thread to indicate interest in judging. > > We've had people favor cases lately that are technically "uninterested" by > my tracking, and also people technically "interested" dropping cases. So > time for a refresh. > > If you want your favoring requests to be honored, please sign up as > interested and be willing to help clear cases in general. > (since I've got cases to assign, I'm still going to keep people who have > been timely at judging recently on the list, so this is a partial refresh). > > I think based on practical response times I'll bring back the "weekend > judge" (assigned every other rotation) but that distinction is only > meaningful if I get a couple more "weekday" judges. Sorry, forgot to reply to this when you originally sent it. As the CFJ judgement I gave yesterday suggests, yes, I am quite happy to stay on the interested list. -twg
Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 05:45, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 10:31 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > > On 8/4/19 1:23 AM, James Cook wrote: > > >Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN > > >Commune with the Wheel by announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or > > >Scissors. A player CAN Reach into the Past by announcement at any > > >time. If a player Communes the Wheel at a time T, and does not > > >Reach into the Past in the four days following T, then at time T > > >the value of the Roshambo Wheel is changed to the value e > > >specified. > > > > > > I've been grappling with this for a while now, and I'm not sure that > > this works. (Read: very, very unsure. It took me a while to decide to > > even send this message, and I've started writing and then discarded > > something like it several times.) > > > > Rule 2141 reads, in part: > > > > > A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the > > > game generally, and is always taking effect. A rule's content > > > takes the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope. > > > > This is the only place that states that the Rules actually take effect, > > and when they do so. Given the specification "at time T", I don't think > > that a Rule can point to an arbitrary time and say "disregard what time > > it is now, I'm taking effect _then_". > > > Even if this doesn’t actually work, we could probably understand it as > establishing a legal fiction for the purposes of that rule. Of course, > legal fictions can say whatever they want, so that wouldn’t be a problem. > Convincing another rule of higher power to accept the legal fiction is a > different matter, and why I don’t think this would work in general without > a high powered enabling rule. In this specific case, that isn’t a problem > because everything is self contained and no other rule needs to take notice > of the legal fiction. > > -Aris Argument in response to Jason Cobb, and a question: First, argument that this Rule can do what it says (trying not to rely on Aris's point that the legal fiction is self-contained): When the player Communes with the Wheel (at time T), the rule is in effect, and ordinarily could at that time say what the effect of an action (like Communing with the Wheel) is. To make the time at which the rule is having its effect more explicit, I could rephrase it to "When a player Communes with the Wheel, the Roshambo Wheel is changed to the value specified, as long as in the four days following the player does not Reach into the Past". Would that help? If you accept that much, then is there anything else special about referring to the future? Does this cause any trouble that wouldn't be caused by "The Roshambo Wheel is changed, unless the Pope is currently thinking about food?" I think that would also make the value of the wheel indeterminate (most of the time, anyway). I don't see what the legal consequences of that are beyond where indeterminacy is explicitly mentioned (R2202 (Ratification Without Objection) and R2162 (Switches)). Question: I don't think I quite understand how interaction with higher-powered rules is supposed to mess this up. I'm not necessarily suggesting we do this, but if winning one round caused one to immediately earn Coins (rather than after a delay of 4 days), would that break the "self contained" nature of this problem, and provide a test case for this? What would happen? -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 05:23, James Cook wrote: > > > Okay, a few things. > > > > * Defining “unconditional announcement” is probably overkill; any sane > > judge would arrive at that that anyway, and it adds a bit to bloat. > > * You should probably say "Roshambo Score is an integer player switch" (R > > 2509) > > * You should probably say "increased by 1" and "decreased by 1" (or > > incremented and decremented) instead of redefining those terms. (R2509) > > * I'd prefer an award of coins along with a SHOULD encouraging the Herald > > to give the patent title of "Time Lord" > > * I agree that this almost certainly works in this limited case. > > > > -Aris > > Thanks for the comments! Updated draft below. Oops, I forgot to remove the "by unconditional announcement" definition. There are probably many other errors, but here's an update that fixes that one: AI: 1 Co-authors: Aris, Jason Cobb Text: Enact a new power-0.5 rule titled "Clairvoyant Roshambo", with the following text. At every time, the Roshambo Wheel is set to exactly one of Rock, Paper or Scissors. When the Rules do not say that its value changes, it stays the same. If it would otherwise not be set to a value, it is set to Rock. Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN Commune with the Wheel by announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or Scissors. A player CAN Reach into the Past by announcement at any time. If a player Communes the Wheel at a time T, and does not Reach into the Past in the four days following T, then at time T the value of the Roshambo Wheel is changed to the value e specified. Rock beats Scissors, Scissors beats Paper, and Paper beats Rock. Roshambo Score is an integer player switch. Once per Agoran week, each player CAN Play Roshambo by announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or Scissors, but only if e has not Communed with the Wheel in the past 4 days. When e does so: * If e specifies a value that beats the current value of the Roshambo Wheel, then 4 days later, eir Roshambo Score is increased by 1. * If e specifies a value that is beaten by the current value of the Roshambo Wheel, then 4 days later, eir Roshambo Score is decreased by 1. The Medium is an office, and the recordkeepor of Roshambo Score. A player with a Roshambo Score of at least 10 CAN Transcend Time by announcement. When e does so, e wins the game, and all instances of the Roshambo Score switch are flipped to 0. -- - Falsifian
DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: [Astronomor] Weekly Report
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 06:42, Jason Cobb wrote: > > On 8/4/19 2:38 AM, Rebecca wrote: > > COE: I am not a player, so I dont own a spaceship. You also have to delete > > a sector for me and for nch. > > > Accepted. > > Revision: What was R. Lee's spaceship is currently possessed by the Lost > and Found Department, pursuant to CFJ 3699. > > -- > Jason Cobb There's a newer judgement that seems to contradict that: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3729 -- - Falsifian
DIS: Re: OFF: [FRC] Let the Festivities Commence!
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 03:38, Aris Merchant wrote: > 2. Variety. Contributions that move things in a new direction shall be >rewarded. Contributions that merely repeat things that have come >before shall be punished. Remember that there are three distinct goals for >the contest; pursuing one that has been long abandoned by your fellow >worshipers is likely to please the gods. Colud Your Supreme Eminence remind me of the three goals? My goal as always is to please the AGORAN GODS in any way I can, but I see just two ways to win listed in Regulation 7. -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] I submit myself to the Agoran Gods!
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 04:33, Jason Cobb wrote: > > On 8/4/19 12:24 AM, Rebecca wrote: > > I submit myself to the Agoran Gods! I join the FRC and create the following > > rule > > > > O Hark, the commandments of the LORD are upon us! The LORD demanding the > > respect he deserves, the LORD hereby decrees that all references to Agoran > > Gods shall refer to em in ALL CAPITALS. > > > > Praise the LORD > > > [This is not a challenge, and is not sent to the public forum] > > Does this make it impossible for new contestants to legally join? If all > references to the Agoran Gods must be in all capitals, then the header > "I submit myself to the Agoran Gods!" must be transformed to "I submit > myself to the AGORAN GODS!", but that might (?) violate my Fantasy Rule. > > -- > Jason Cobb People seem to be reading your rule as allowing the "I submit" part to be outside the text of the new rule itself, which might get around R. Lee's rule. -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: No August zombie auction for now
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 19:57, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Hello my bruddah and sistahs, please make way for my infinite swagger: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_izvAbhExY Hi Cuddle Beam! In case you're trying to not become a zombie, a reminder that you need to post to a public forum to prevent that. -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Email change
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 14:08, Nich Evans wrote: > In a decluttering effort, I'm going to start using this address. > > -- > Nich Evans Let me know if you'd like it to be included somewhere in the Registrar's reports. E.g. I could add it to your footnote at https://agoranomic.org/Registrar/monthly/fresh.txt -- - Falsifian
