Re: BUS: Re: DIS: A quirk in the CFJ archives
Drat kinda boring:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3805
On 1/30/2020 9:37 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
> TTttPF
>
>> On Jan 30, 2020, at 9:36 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 30, 2020, at 8:20 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
On 1/30/2020 7:27 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
During research for CFJ 3888, I discovered that there appears to have
been a bug ... somewhere in the history.
From the (arbitrarily selected) text of CFJ 2991 in the Github backup [0]:
>
> Request for reconsideration by :
> Arguments from Quazie: > There is a meta question involved with CFJ
> 2991, mostly are state > verbs able to be used in place of action
> verbs ('I am a player' vs 'I > become a player') - it seems to me that
> by CFJ 2991 being judged true > then we are setting a precedent that
> state verbs are equivalent to > action verbs.
>
I assume that "" was never in fact a
player, despite what eir name may claim. Interestingly, with the HTML
archives [1], Chrome decides "yep, that's an HTML tag right there" and
therefore doesn't render anything, leaving a blank where the name should
be.
>>>
>>> So, this is from the era of the mysql database. The mysql database actually
>>> had fields like "Caller" and "Judge" as lookups. This was looked up live
>>> when
>>> you queried the database for a case. One place this was used was
>>> nicknames,
>>> those were live fill-ins. If you changed your nickname, then the CotC
>>> updated
>>> the database, queries ("retroactively") inserted your new nickname into the
>>> older cases.
>>>
>>> Lookup fields were only put in the headers and "arguments from" and the
>>> like.
>>> Not the arguments. When the data base was retired and this was dumped to
>>> flat
>>> files, this led to oddities. I changed my nickname from Goethe to G. during
>>> this time, so all of the dumped cases list "Judge: G." but any place I'm
>>> referred to in arguments or the statement text it's "Goethe". (btw this is
>>> why I'm strictly keeping the source material as flat text files to avoid
>>> this
>>> sort of thing).
>>>
>>> And obviously, there were some bugs in that final dump! Hadn't seen this
>>> one
>>> before. And the missing name is... me (naturally). Here's the original
>>> message:
>>> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2011-April/028187.html
>>>
Seeing as this means HTML tags aren't escaped, I'm tempted to write a
CFJ with XSS in its arguments...
>>>
>>> Because of this and some other quirks, I tend to email cases to myself from
>>> the archive, inspect them for errors, then forward them to the list. You
>>> could try if you like :)
>>>
>>
>> I CFJ: {
>> G really ought to make sure the string
>> (window.location.href.includes('?'))?window.location.href='https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0':a=['I
>> GUESS','PROBABLY','WHO KNOWS','OH GOD, DEFINITELY NOT',"DON'T ASK ME","THE
>> ONLY REAL ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THIS IS WISHFUL THINKING",'A TYPICAL EXAMPLE
>> OF "I SAY I DO, THEREFORE I DO", WHICH HAS PLAGUED AGORA FOR A LONG
>> TIME','IF YOU SAY SO'];document.querySelectorAll('.hist
>> b').forEach(x=>x.innerHTML=a[Math.floor(Math.random()*a.length)])
>> doesn’t adversely affect eir archive.
>> }
>>
>> Gaelan
>
Re: DIS: A quirk in the CFJ archives
On 1/30/2020 8:31 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 1/30/20 11:20 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
>
>> So, this is from the era of the mysql database. The mysql database actually
>> had fields like "Caller" and "Judge" as lookups. This was looked up live
>> when
>> you queried the database for a case. One place this was used was nicknames,
>> those were live fill-ins. If you changed your nickname, then the CotC
>> updated
>> the database, queries ("retroactively") inserted your new nickname into the
>> older cases.
>>
>> Lookup fields were only put in the headers and "arguments from" and the like.
>> Not the arguments. When the data base was retired and this was dumped to
>> flat
>> files, this led to oddities. I changed my nickname from Goethe to G. during
>> this time, so all of the dumped cases list "Judge: G." but any place I'm
>> referred to in arguments or the statement text it's "Goethe". (btw this is
>> why I'm strictly keeping the source material as flat text files to avoid this
>> sort of thing).
>
> So, I've done something similar for the assessor automation, where
> there's not really versioning in the code, so when someone changes eir
> nickname, all of the past assessments in the archive also get updated.
> It's probably not as bad with assessments because there aren't arguments
> or anything, but would you recommend changing that? (I'd also love
> comments from everyone else on whether this makes the website more or
> less usable.)
Hm yeah I think it's situational - CFJs have so many names in them (the most
common CFJ statement type is "[person] is a player", we care about who
presented every single argument, etc. etc.) Just seems important to keep each
case log consistent throughout. Probably not as big a deal for assessments.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Thesis Committee for twg
Oh, wonderful ruleset, always ready with another surprise just as you start to believe you understand all its intricacies. Gaelan > On Jan 30, 2020, at 8:58 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 23:48, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> Wait, I’m curious about the legal basis for this conditional intent—I’ve >> never seen something like it before. I guess there’s an argument to be made >> that the “announcement of intent” required by 2595/1 could be subject to >> conditions? >> >> Gaelan >> > > R2595 bullet 6. > > -Alexis
Re: DIS: A quirk in the CFJ archives
> On Jan 30, 2020, at 8:20 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
>
> On 1/30/2020 7:27 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>> During research for CFJ 3888, I discovered that there appears to have
>> been a bug ... somewhere in the history.
>>
>> From the (arbitrarily selected) text of CFJ 2991 in the Github backup [0]:
>>
>>>
>>> Request for reconsideration by :
>>> Arguments from Quazie: > There is a meta question involved with CFJ
>>> 2991, mostly are state > verbs able to be used in place of action
>>> verbs ('I am a player' vs 'I > become a player') - it seems to me that
>>> by CFJ 2991 being judged true > then we are setting a precedent that
>>> state verbs are equivalent to > action verbs.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I assume that "" was never in fact a
>> player, despite what eir name may claim. Interestingly, with the HTML
>> archives [1], Chrome decides "yep, that's an HTML tag right there" and
>> therefore doesn't render anything, leaving a blank where the name should be.
>
> So, this is from the era of the mysql database. The mysql database actually
> had fields like "Caller" and "Judge" as lookups. This was looked up live when
> you queried the database for a case. One place this was used was nicknames,
> those were live fill-ins. If you changed your nickname, then the CotC updated
> the database, queries ("retroactively") inserted your new nickname into the
> older cases.
>
> Lookup fields were only put in the headers and "arguments from" and the like.
> Not the arguments. When the data base was retired and this was dumped to flat
> files, this led to oddities. I changed my nickname from Goethe to G. during
> this time, so all of the dumped cases list "Judge: G." but any place I'm
> referred to in arguments or the statement text it's "Goethe". (btw this is
> why I'm strictly keeping the source material as flat text files to avoid this
> sort of thing).
>
> And obviously, there were some bugs in that final dump! Hadn't seen this one
> before. And the missing name is... me (naturally). Here's the original
> message:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2011-April/028187.html
>
>> Seeing as this means HTML tags aren't escaped, I'm tempted to write a
>> CFJ with XSS in its arguments...
>
> Because of this and some other quirks, I tend to email cases to myself from
> the archive, inspect them for errors, then forward them to the list. You
> could try if you like :)
>
I CFJ: {
G really ought to make sure the string
(window.location.href.includes('?'))?window.location.href='https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0':a=['I
GUESS','PROBABLY','WHO KNOWS','OH GOD, DEFINITELY NOT',"DON'T ASK ME","THE
ONLY REAL ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THIS IS WISHFUL THINKING",'A TYPICAL EXAMPLE OF
"I SAY I DO, THEREFORE I DO", WHICH HAS PLAGUED AGORA FOR A LONG TIME','IF YOU
SAY SO'];document.querySelectorAll('.hist
b').forEach(x=>x.innerHTML=a[Math.floor(Math.random()*a.length)])
doesn’t adversely affect eir archive.
}
Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Thesis Committee for twg
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 23:48, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Wait, I’m curious about the legal basis for this conditional intent—I’ve > never seen something like it before. I guess there’s an argument to be made > that the “announcement of intent” required by 2595/1 could be subject to > conditions? > > Gaelan > R2595 bullet 6. -Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8308-8321
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 23:41, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > 8315* Alexis 3.0 Clearer Resolutions > > ENDORSE Alexis, because I don’t have any idea what’s going on with this > mess and it seems like e does > I can go back to actually embedding forcethrough scams in my core gameplay tweaks if you'd like. -Alexis
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Thesis Committee for twg
Wait, I’m curious about the legal basis for this conditional intent—I’ve never seen something like it before. I guess there’s an argument to be made that the “announcement of intent” required by 2595/1 could be subject to conditions? Gaelan > On Jan 30, 2020, at 7:37 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-official > wrote: > > Peer review for twg's thesis has concluded, and the thesis committee can > now begin to award em a degree for eir thesis "Letter to an Anti-Scamster: > On the Importance of Loopholes in Agoran Culture", accessible below at > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg35420.html. > All Agorans are invited to participate in the committee by supporting or > objecting to the below intents. > > Based on peer review, either an Associate of Nomic or a Baccalaureate of > Nomic could potentially be an appropriate degree. Therefore: > > I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award twg the Patent Title of Associate > of Nomic, subject to the conditions that the person performing the award > pursuant to this intent is the Herald, the following intent has not been > resolved, and the ratio of supporters to objectors of this intent is > greater than that of the following intent. > > I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award twg the Patent Title of > Baccalaureate of Nomic, subject to the conditions that the person > performing the award pursuant to this intent is the Herald, the previous > intent has not been resolved, and the ratio of supporters to objectors of > this intent is equal to or greater than that of the following intent. > > In other words, the degree which twg will be awarded will be the most > strongly-supported degree, breaking ties in favour of Baccalaureate. > > -Alexis
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3788 Assigned to Jason Cobb
On 1/25/20 9:55 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > The below CFJ is 3788. I assign it to Jason Cobb. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3788 > > === CFJ 3788 === > > If the two documents quoted above were ratified, the first one > would have the effect of modifying the historical record twice and > the publicity switches of the relevant fora twice, in the manner > stated as interpretation a above. > > == > > Caller:Aris > Barred:Falsifian > > Judge: Jason Cobb > > == > > History: > > Called by Aris: 01 Jan 2020 07:02:48 > Assigned to Alexis: 12 Jan 2020 20:07:17 > Alexis recused: 19 Jan 2020 02:49:10 > Assigned to Jason Cobb: [now] > > == A draft judgement since this is a complicated area of the game and I'm probably going to get this very wrong on the first try: In this judgement, I will use the "effective date" as listed in the document, and the "modification date" as "Dec 14 00:15:00 UTC 2019". First, I find that Rule 1551's clause about "multiple substantially distinct possible modifications" being equally appropriate does not apply; I believe that exactly one of Falsifian's offered interpretations must be correct, and that would be more "appropriate" than the other interpretations. Rule 2162/13 states that: > "To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a > given value. "To become X" (where X is a possible value of > exactly one of the subject's switches) is to flip that switch to > X. Thus the document is equivalent to "At , the instances of Publicity possessed by agora-official and agora-business both came to have the value Discussion." Rule 1551 states that the gamestate is "minimally modified to make the ratified document as true and accurate as possible". I find that it would be less true and accurate for only the history of the instances of the switch to be updated than for both the history and value to be updated. Thus, at the modification date, the two instances of Publicity were in fact flipped, and their values did change; this rules out interpretation c. However, I also find that changing the gamestate after the modification date is not required for the document to be true and accurate, and doing so would constitute additional changes besides the minimum modification required by Rule 1551. This applies both to Falsifian's suggested "then immediately after, became Public fora again" (from option b), and what the caller appears to be arguing for - changing all future values of the switches (until they are flipped again). Because ratification of the document in question does not the values of the switches immediately after the modification date, their values remain Public. As a consequence, by the definition of "flip" in Rule 2162, immediately after the modification date, the switches have been "flipped" back to Public, as the switches came to have a value of Public solely through a lack of change by ratification, which was different from their previous value of Discussion. The ratification of the document would have the effects specified in interpretation a, even if it would also have the effects specified in interpretation b. TRUE. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8308-8321
> On Jan 30, 2020, at 6:29 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official
> wrote:
>
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> quorum is 7, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
> options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
> conditional votes).
>
> ID Author(s)AITitle
> ---
> 8308& Falsifian3.0 Imposing order on the order
FOR
> 8309* Alexis 3.0 A Degree of Inefficiency
AGAINST (IIRC we found that this was problematic?)
> 8310& Jason, Alexis3.0 Deputisation timeliness
FOR. Notice of Honor:
-1 to Jason for a proposal that requires an intimate familiarity with the
existing rule to figure out what the hell it does, without an explanatory note
in the proposal
+1 to Alexis for responsibly pointing out that something’s broken, instead of
practicing the all-too-common Agoran Shove Under the Rug
> 8311e twg, omd 1.0 Rewards Patch & Equitable Remedy
FOR
> 8312f Alexis 1.0 On Possibility
AGAINST, because it seems scammable and we should generally avoid defaults that
encourage ambiguity in rules, IMO
> 8313* Alexis, G. 3.0 Support of the Person'
FOR
> 8314e Aris 1.0 Finite Gifting
FOR
> 8315* Alexis 3.0 Clearer Resolutions
ENDORSE Alexis, because I don’t have any idea what’s going on with this mess
and it seems like e does
> 8316* Alexis 3.0 Zombie voting package
FOR
> 8317e Alexis 2.0 Zombie trade
FOR, although I note that there’s a minor scam: you can prevent a zombie from
expiring by putrefying it after it’s already been putrified to increase its
integrity.
> 8318f Aris 1.0 Notorial Economy
FOR
> 8319l Aris 2.0 Sergeant-at-Arms
FOR
> 8320l Aris 2.0 Promotorial Assignment
FOR
> 8321l Aris 2.0 Untying Quorum
FOR
>
> The proposal pool is currently empty.
>
> Legend: & : Classless proposal.
>* : Democratic proposal.
># : Ordinary proposal, unset chamber.
>e : Economy ministry proposal.
>f : Efficiency ministry proposal.
>j : Justice ministry proposal.
>l : Legislation ministry proposal.
>p : Participation ministry proposal.
>
>
> The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
>
>
> //
> ID: 8308
> Title: Imposing order on the order
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Falsifian
> Co-authors:
>
>
> If Proposal 8291 has been passed, and Rule 2350 does not have the list
> item "* A chamber to which the proposal shall be assigned upon it
> creation.", add that list item to the end of the list. If the list
> item is present, but it is not at the end of the list, or it is
> unclear or otherwise difficult or impossible to determine where in the
> list it is, put it at the end of the list.
>
> //
> ID: 8309
> Title: A Degree of Inefficiency
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Alexis
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2595 (Performing a Dependent Action) by inserting ", and did not
> subsequently withdraw, " immediately after "published" in the first
> paragraph.
>
> //
> ID: 8310
> Title: Deputisation timeliness
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Jason
> Co-authors: Alexis
>
>
> Amend Rule 2160 to read, in whole:
>
> {
>
> A player acting as emself (the deputy) CAN perform an action ordinarily
> reserved for an office-holder as if e held the office if
>
> 1. the player does not hold that office;
>
> 2. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, other than
> by deputisation, if e held the office;
>
> 3. either (i) there exists an obligation on the holder of that office,
> by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action, or (ii) the
> office is vacant;
>
> 4. either (i) a time limit applicable to that obligation has been
> violated, and the end of that time limit was fewer than 90 days ago, or
> (ii) the office is vacant;
>
> 5. if the office is not interim, the deputy announced between two and
> fourteen days earlier that e intended to deputise for that office for
> the purposes of the particular action; and
>
> 6. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e is doing so
> by deputisation or by temporary deputisation.
>
>
> When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the holder of
> that office, unless the action being performed would already install
> someone into that
Re: DIS: A quirk in the CFJ archives
On 1/30/20 11:20 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> So, this is from the era of the mysql database. The mysql database actually
> had fields like "Caller" and "Judge" as lookups. This was looked up live when
> you queried the database for a case. One place this was used was nicknames,
> those were live fill-ins. If you changed your nickname, then the CotC updated
> the database, queries ("retroactively") inserted your new nickname into the
> older cases.
>
> Lookup fields were only put in the headers and "arguments from" and the like.
> Not the arguments. When the data base was retired and this was dumped to flat
> files, this led to oddities. I changed my nickname from Goethe to G. during
> this time, so all of the dumped cases list "Judge: G." but any place I'm
> referred to in arguments or the statement text it's "Goethe". (btw this is
> why I'm strictly keeping the source material as flat text files to avoid this
> sort of thing).
So, I've done something similar for the assessor automation, where
there's not really versioning in the code, so when someone changes eir
nickname, all of the past assessments in the archive also get updated.
It's probably not as bad with assessments because there aren't arguments
or anything, but would you recommend changing that? (I'd also love
comments from everyone else on whether this makes the website more or
less usable.)
--
Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: A quirk in the CFJ archives
On 1/30/2020 7:27 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> During research for CFJ 3888, I discovered that there appears to have
> been a bug ... somewhere in the history.
>
> From the (arbitrarily selected) text of CFJ 2991 in the Github backup [0]:
>
>>
>> Request for reconsideration by :
>> Arguments from Quazie: > There is a meta question involved with CFJ
>> 2991, mostly are state > verbs able to be used in place of action
>> verbs ('I am a player' vs 'I > become a player') - it seems to me that
>> by CFJ 2991 being judged true > then we are setting a precedent that
>> state verbs are equivalent to > action verbs.
>>
>
>
> I assume that "" was never in fact a
> player, despite what eir name may claim. Interestingly, with the HTML
> archives [1], Chrome decides "yep, that's an HTML tag right there" and
> therefore doesn't render anything, leaving a blank where the name should be.
So, this is from the era of the mysql database. The mysql database actually
had fields like "Caller" and "Judge" as lookups. This was looked up live when
you queried the database for a case. One place this was used was nicknames,
those were live fill-ins. If you changed your nickname, then the CotC updated
the database, queries ("retroactively") inserted your new nickname into the
older cases.
Lookup fields were only put in the headers and "arguments from" and the like.
Not the arguments. When the data base was retired and this was dumped to flat
files, this led to oddities. I changed my nickname from Goethe to G. during
this time, so all of the dumped cases list "Judge: G." but any place I'm
referred to in arguments or the statement text it's "Goethe". (btw this is
why I'm strictly keeping the source material as flat text files to avoid this
sort of thing).
And obviously, there were some bugs in that final dump! Hadn't seen this one
before. And the missing name is... me (naturally). Here's the original
message:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2011-April/028187.html
> Seeing as this means HTML tags aren't escaped, I'm tempted to write a
> CFJ with XSS in its arguments...
Because of this and some other quirks, I tend to email cases to myself from
the archive, inspect them for errors, then forward them to the list. You
could try if you like :)
Re: DIS: [Proto] [Possibly Urgent] Ratification Changes
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 20:11, omd via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > A legal fiction must be defined with respect to a specific point in > > time, or to a specific period of time, which CANNOT be in, or extend > > into, the future beyond its creation. > > By analogy with the officeholder-despite-non-player example, if a > legal fiction is established that a second legal fiction exists > despite the point in time being in the future, does that state persist > until disturbed? > That's a good catch, I would exempt the rules about legal fictions from being subject to the impossible-state exception. > > A legal fiction's direct effects > > are retroactive to the time so specified, for which it operates > > notwithstanding any rule to the contrary. Beyond that time, its > > effects are limited to the natural consequences of its direct effects > > Missing a period at the end of the paragraph. > Good catch. Hopefully I remember to fix it when I address comments. What is a "direct effect"? What is a "natural consequence"? > > How complicated can the natural consequences be? You establish later > that it can be something like "Michael Norish is the Registrar despite > not being a player". Can the complexity be extended to effectively > amount to a rule, like "Michael Norrish CAN submit a proposal by > announcement, despite not being a player"? If not, it should be more > clear why not. > The intent is that a direct effect is the thing actually specified by the legal fiction, such as that a player is the officeholder. The natural consequences include both things that follow by forward reasoning at the time at which the legal fiction takes effect (say, that the person's voting strength is calculated based on eir holding the office) and consequences that occur at a later time (such as that the player is still the officeholder until something changes it). Suggestions to improve the wording are encouraged. As for the rule-by-legal-fiction, I don't want to say yes, but I do not see why not. It's worth noting that the entirety of the impossible-state thing is based on a) it was my belief that it matches existing jurisprudence, but this appears to be more complicated, as I discus below b) it promotes clarification of uncertainty even when such has silly results. As for jurisprudence, I totally missed in my haste that the current ratification rules explicitly prohibit the creation of inconsistency between game state and rules, but I nonetheless thought that there was precedent that if, say, a rule came to hold a power greater than 4, it would remain such until some effect came along to change it. I am okay in principle with reintroducing the idea that inconsistency cannot be created, but we need to be more explicit about when we evaluate such inconsistency, something which the current ratification rules are unclear about on inspection. For instance, if a non-player was ratified to hold an office that e had attempted to resign after the ratification point, would the ratification succeed? The actual game state to be ratified would be consistent with the rules, even though the calculation based on the past would require the game to temporarily be in a consistent state. One other thought here that occurs is what should happen when the resulting game state is underspecified. The existing ratification rules address this by causing the ratification to fail. Should we do similar here? I imagine that the backwards reasoning prohibition goes a long way to preventing these sorts of things, but I'm not sure. > Regardless, there should be an office responsible for tracking ongoing > "natural consequences" of (known) legal fictions. > I think that this should be restricted to ongoing contradictions, possibly only in information that's otherwise tracked. I'm otherwise open to the idea but would prefer it as a separate proposal. > > A legal fiction does not operate retroactively prior to the specified > > time, nor does it reason backwards to affect the preconditions for the > > state it specifies. Thus, it CAN cause result in a state which would > > Extraneous "cause". > > > otherwise be IMPOSSIBLE to have attained under the rules at the time. > > Such an impossible state CAN persist beyond the time of effect, > > provided that nothing occurs or has occurred since to disturb it. > > "occurs or has occurred" is redundant; pick a tense. > > CAN is probably the wrong term here and elsewhere: what does it mean > exactly that "attempts to perform the described action are > successful"? (Under your other proto, could any person cause an > impossible state to persist beyond the time of effect with Agoran > Consent? You can't say it's not an action, since it says "action" > right in the definition.) I'd just say that the state does persist > beyond the time of effect. > I like it. > > [I would love to be more clear with the last sentence, but I do not > > want to be because either way
DIS: A quirk in the CFJ archives
During research for CFJ 3888, I discovered that there appears to have
been a bug ... somewhere in the history.
>From the (arbitrarily selected) text of CFJ 2991 in the Github backup [0]:
>
> Request for reconsideration by :
> Arguments from Quazie: > There is a meta question involved with CFJ
> 2991, mostly are state > verbs able to be used in place of action
> verbs ('I am a player' vs 'I > become a player') - it seems to me that
> by CFJ 2991 being judged true > then we are setting a precedent that
> state verbs are equivalent to > action verbs.
>
I assume that "" was never in fact a
player, despite what eir name may claim. Interestingly, with the HTML
archives [1], Chrome decides "yep, that's an HTML tag right there" and
therefore doesn't render anything, leaving a blank where the name should be.
Seeing as this means HTML tags aren't escaped, I'm tempted to write a
CFJ with XSS in its arguments...
[0]:
https://github.com/AgoraNomic/cases/blob/9811d919765ff3e3cd542de32903be4f6283dfac/2991
[1]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2991
--
Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Degree Naming Ideas (Attn. Herald)
On 1/30/2020 5:36 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > I had an idea for making degrees more interesting. I was thinking that > the Herald might, for instance, record twg's degree not as "A.N." (if > it ends up being an A.N.) but as "A.N. in Devious Oratory". We could > go back and find appropriate subjects for all of the existing degrees > with surviving theses. This could allow us to give the same individual > more than 1 instance of the same degree, and generally make the > process more fun. The change to recording could be done either > informally or by a rule change, while the more than 1 instance thing > would of course have to be a rule change. What does everyone think? I personally prefer the historical feeling of having qualified for the same degree as past giants in the field. Maybe that's just an academic thing - I'm always suspicious when someone's degree is "independent field of study" :) And even if we went with this for future, I definitely wouldn't want to retro-engineer titles. In terms of individual recognition, I think we really should have that thesis archive up on Agoranomic with a nice index! No reason the Scroll can't include links to each thesis or a link to the thesis page - that's where all the originality lies, after all. If the degree requires extra recognition, maybe with a concurrent by-acclaim separate title, like Orator was? I can see plusses and minuses on the "one instance" thing - could probably go either way on that one. -G.
DIS: Degree Naming Ideas (Attn. Herald)
I had an idea for making degrees more interesting. I was thinking that the Herald might, for instance, record twg's degree not as "A.N." (if it ends up being an A.N.) but as "A.N. in Devious Oratory". We could go back and find appropriate subjects for all of the existing degrees with surviving theses. This could allow us to give the same individual more than 1 instance of the same degree, and generally make the process more fun. The change to recording could be done either informally or by a rule change, while the more than 1 instance thing would of course have to be a rule change. What does everyone think? -Aris
Re: DIS: [Proto] [Possibly Urgent] Ratification Changes
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 5:30 PM Tanner Swett via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> I have a half-serious half-proto-proposal:
>
> "Implicit Ratification", AI: 3
>
> Repeal all rules relating to ratification. Enact the following rule: {
>
> In the course of playing the game, it is inevitable that from time to time,
> an error in recordkeeping will occur and go unnoticed for such a long time
> that it is difficult to determine what the correct gamestate is. In such
> circumstances, it is desirable to ignore the erroneousness of the reported
> gamestate and proceed as though it had been correct all along. Therefore:
>
> If, due to an error in recordkeeping or a similar mistake,
>
> (a) the player base at large has come to a belief about the gamestate, as
> clearly evidenced by public messages, and
> (b) these public messages indicate that the player base has had this belief
> for at least 60 days, but
> (c) the belief is false,
>
> then a legal fiction is established that the belief was true at the time of
> the earliest public message indicating the belief; and the gamestate is
> therefore altered as though the belief had been true at that time, in order
> to cause the gamestate to essentially match, as closely as possible, what
> the players believe it to be.
>
> }
60 days is way too long. No comment on the rest of it yet.
-Aris
Re: DIS: [Proto] [Possibly Urgent] Ratification Changes
I have a half-serious half-proto-proposal:
"Implicit Ratification", AI: 3
Repeal all rules relating to ratification. Enact the following rule: {
In the course of playing the game, it is inevitable that from time to time,
an error in recordkeeping will occur and go unnoticed for such a long time
that it is difficult to determine what the correct gamestate is. In such
circumstances, it is desirable to ignore the erroneousness of the reported
gamestate and proceed as though it had been correct all along. Therefore:
If, due to an error in recordkeeping or a similar mistake,
(a) the player base at large has come to a belief about the gamestate, as
clearly evidenced by public messages, and
(b) these public messages indicate that the player base has had this belief
for at least 60 days, but
(c) the belief is false,
then a legal fiction is established that the belief was true at the time of
the earliest public message indicating the belief; and the gamestate is
therefore altered as though the belief had been true at that time, in order
to cause the gamestate to essentially match, as closely as possible, what
the players believe it to be.
}
—Warrigal
Re: DIS: [Proto] [Possibly Urgent] Ratification Changes
I’m not Alexis, but I do have some replies of my own. On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 5:11 PM omd via agora-discussion wrote: > > > A legal fiction's direct effects > > are retroactive to the time so specified, for which it operates > > notwithstanding any rule to the contrary. Beyond that time, its > > effects are limited to the natural consequences of its direct effects > > Missing a period at the end of the paragraph. > > What is a "direct effect"? What is a "natural consequence"? > > How complicated can the natural consequences be? You establish later > that it can be something like "Michael Norish is the Registrar despite > not being a player". Can the complexity be extended to effectively > amount to a rule, like "Michael Norrish CAN submit a proposal by > announcement, despite not being a player"? If not, it should be more > clear why not. > > Regardless, there should be an office responsible for tracking ongoing > "natural consequences" of (known) legal fictions. I’m not sure I see the need, but if we do, the FLR annotations would seem to be the closest analogous model. > > > or > > whose establishment would paradoxically prevent itself from being > > established, > > Why include this? There's nothing inherently problematic about > ratifying a document which implies that the ratification process would > have failed – especially compared to the continuous rule-contradicting > effects that you allow elsewhere. Yes there is. If it implies that it’s own ratification failed, then does the legal fiction exist or does it not? > Wording could be improved to tie this better into the previous > paragraph: "ratifying the document ratifies only its main section" is > self-contradictory if taken literally. > > > Text which serves only to document the existence of legal fictions, > > and ratifications in particular, is exempt from ratification. > > Why? It’s in the current rules, and is a good safety catch to avoid chains of legal fictionality. > General notes: > > - You should add a clause about how CFJs interact with legal fictions – e.g. > they take into account legal fictions that existed at the time of > initiation, > but not ones established thereafter. I strongly agree, and also would prefer it be implemented as specified in your example. > > - I'm tentatively positive about this new approach, but even though it fixes a > lot of issues with ratification as it currently exists, it's scary in > entirely different ways. That's a good way of describing my position too. -Aris
Re: DIS: [Proto] [Possibly Urgent] Ratification Changes
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:18 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > A fact is either a natural fact or a legal fact. A natural fact is a > fact which is extrinsic to Agoran law, such as whether a message > expresses a particular intent, or whether or not an entity is an > organism. A legal fact is a fact which is intrinsic to Agoran law, > such as the state of a rule-defined value. A legal fiction is a kind > of legal fact which overrides other natural and/or legal facts. Legal > fictions must be established explicitly. I agree that it's not clear from this proto why we need to differentiate natural facts from legal facts. One potential reason I can think of is that the rules can change legal facts, whereas they can only paper over natural facts. But the definition of legal fiction here seems to pick the "paper over" approach regardless of the subject. > A legal fiction must be defined with respect to a specific point in > time, or to a specific period of time, which CANNOT be in, or extend > into, the future beyond its creation. By analogy with the officeholder-despite-non-player example, if a legal fiction is established that a second legal fiction exists despite the point in time being in the future, does that state persist until disturbed? > A legal fiction's direct effects > are retroactive to the time so specified, for which it operates > notwithstanding any rule to the contrary. Beyond that time, its > effects are limited to the natural consequences of its direct effects Missing a period at the end of the paragraph. What is a "direct effect"? What is a "natural consequence"? How complicated can the natural consequences be? You establish later that it can be something like "Michael Norish is the Registrar despite not being a player". Can the complexity be extended to effectively amount to a rule, like "Michael Norrish CAN submit a proposal by announcement, despite not being a player"? If not, it should be more clear why not. Regardless, there should be an office responsible for tracking ongoing "natural consequences" of (known) legal fictions. > A legal fiction does not operate retroactively prior to the specified > time, nor does it reason backwards to affect the preconditions for the > state it specifies. Thus, it CAN cause result in a state which would Extraneous "cause". > otherwise be IMPOSSIBLE to have attained under the rules at the time. > Such an impossible state CAN persist beyond the time of effect, > provided that nothing occurs or has occurred since to disturb it. "occurs or has occurred" is redundant; pick a tense. CAN is probably the wrong term here and elsewhere: what does it mean exactly that "attempts to perform the described action are successful"? (Under your other proto, could any person cause an impossible state to persist beyond the time of effect with Agoran Consent? You can't say it's not an action, since it says "action" right in the definition.) I'd just say that the state does persist beyond the time of effect. > [I would love to be more clear with the last sentence, but I do not > want to be because either way could have bad effects. If we become too > sensitive to definition changes, then they could cause massive > unwinding of legal fictions. But if we are too strict, then > redefinition of terms could cause previous legal fictions to propagate > in an undesirable manner. And I tried to think of an interpretive > guide based on the actual effect of a legal fiction relative to an > underlying fact, in the manner similar to focusing on the ratio > decendi of a judgment, but that undermines the idea that legal > fictions created by mechanisms like ratification are intended to > eliminate the need to look at the underlying facts.] Meh. I understand the motivation to avoid specificity, but the resulting text is *very* vague. The example helps, though. > Even with such a > rule, however, if a legal fiction was established that the person held > the office for a period of time, then e would be the officeholder for > that entire time, and would not constantly oscillate in and out of > office. While I understand what you mean, the use of this particular example is somewhat confusing given that typical ratification of office holdings (in the form of the ADoP's report) covers an instant rather than a period of time. > [Detailed examples are unusual in Agora, as in law, but I see no > reason not to include one here, and sometimes they serve as the best > interpretive guides.] I agree. > Legal fictions are evaluated in chronological order, What does it mean for a legal fiction to be evaluated? Does the first thing to be evaluated take precedence, or the last thing? > and CAN override > previous legal fictions or result in reinterpretation of history so as > to result in the establishment or non-establishment of legal fictions > in the intervening time. So it retroactively creates or destroys 'real' legal fictions? Or does it just create a
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 7:53 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Wed., Jan. 29, 2020, 23:29 Aris Merchant via agora-discussion, <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > > > 8312# Alexis 1.0 On Possibility
> > > >
> > > I intend, with 2 Agoran consent, to flip the chamber of this proposal
> to
> > > Efficiency.
> > >
> > > > 8317# Alexis 2.0 Zombie trade
> > > >
> > > I intend, with 2 Agoran consent, to flip the chamber of this proposal
> to
> > > Economy.
> > >
> > > -Alexis
> >
> >
> >
> > > You can do it by announcement by retracting and resubmitting the
> > proposal.
> > I won’t mind (especially given that we’re all just getting used to the
> new
> > order).
> >
> > -Aris
> >
>
> Arright, I retract the above proposals and resubmit ones that are identical
> but have the chambers indicated in the quoted message.
>
> Also, one other correction; I resubmit the proposal "Clearer Resolutions"
> and submit one that's identical except with the following added at the end:
> {{
> Amend Rule 2034 (Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges) to read:
> {
> A public message purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is a
> self-ratifying attestation that:
>
> 1. such a decision existed;
> 2. it had the outcome indicated;
> 3. if the indicated outcome was to adopt a proposal, that such a decision
> existed, was adopted, and took effect by virtue of the resolution;
> 4. if the indicated outcome was to elect a person to an office and if the
> person was eligible for that office, that that person won the election and
> took office.
> }
> }}
>
> (In the future, would you prefer that those sort of corrections be done by
> repasting the text? I've assumed not but I'm happy to continue them
> particularly for when I left a rule out like this. Whichever's easier for
> you.)
In general, if the text is changed, I’d strongly prefer to have the full
proposal reposted. That’s less important if it’s just one of the properties
that’s getting changed like this, though it’s still nice because it
increases the chances I’ll notice.
So I guess the rule of thumb is that a full resubmission is preferred in
general, except when the changes are made in response to a draft like your
chamber switchings were, and strongly requested for text changes regardless
of the circumstances.
-Aris
Re: DIS: [Proto] [Possibly Urgent] Ratification Changes
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:21 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 14:00, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Please cut the natural fact/legal fact distinction. It isn't helping > > anything, and is just confusing and unnecessary complexity. > > Hm, I'm not entirely sure it is, because this wording makes it very > clear that legal fictions override natural facts. If you have an > alternative wording that can accomplish the same goal, I'd appreciate > the suggestion. "A legal fiction is a fact, as defined by this rule, that is held to be true for game purposes, regardless of whether it is otherwise objectively correct". That's terrible wording, but I'm sure you can rephrase it a bit to come up with something you like. The key point is the "that is held to be true for game purposes", since it captures the idea that it is correct as far as the game is concerned. -Aris
Re: DIS: Rulekeeping Request (Attn. Rulekeepor)
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 5:08 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 1/30/20 1:31 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > > For rule cleanings, it would be nice (IMHO) to have who cleaned the rule be > > part of the annotation, for the historical record. One could tack something > > like “on the application of ” onto the end of the annotation so > > that we’d know who did it. Obviously, this wouldn’t apply retroactively > > unless someone wanted to go back and find the information. H. Rulekeepor, > > what do you think? > > > > -Aris > > > Err... it's already in the annotations? > > For instance the historical annotations from Rule 2422 are: > > > History: > > > > Enacted by P7629 'Do Things' (Alexis), 07 Apr 2014 > > Amended(1) by P7816 'Voting Strength Fix (PENDING, BUGGY)' (Alexis, o, > >aranea), 28 Oct 2016 > > Amended(2) by P7831 'Vigilante Justice' (Alexis), 05 Dec 2016 > > Amended(3) by P8122 'Middle of the road' (Murphy), 12 Nov 2018 > > Amended(4) by cleaning (Falsifian), 28 Apr 2019 > > Amended(5) by cleaning (Murphy), 03 Nov 2019 Erm... My sincere apologies. I must have looked at changes from before that started and assumed it was still current practice or something. -Aris
Re: DIS: [Proto] [Possibly Urgent] Ratification Changes
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 14:00, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > Please cut the natural fact/legal fact distinction. It isn't helping > anything, and is just confusing and unnecessary complexity. Hm, I'm not entirely sure it is, because this wording makes it very clear that legal fictions override natural facts. If you have an alternative wording that can accomplish the same goal, I'd appreciate the suggestion. > Oh, I caught another thing. For "Legal fictions are evaluated in > chronological order", is that chronological order of creation (which I > think you mean) or chronological order of > starttime/midtime/endtime/something else? Please make it explicit in > the text. > > -Aris Good catch, I thought I had specified chronological order of their establishment. I realized that there actually is some other cleanup attempt required to deal with the following scenario: - At point C, Legal Fiction 1 is established that something was true at point A. - At point D, Legal Fiction 2 is established that something was true at point B. - Legal Fiction 2's establishment requires either A or B being true. - Legal Fiction 1's establishment requires either A or B being false. So the application order looks like this: At point C, we apply LF1 at point A. We revise the timeline from points A to C. When we get to point C, we verify that the conditions for LF1 continue to apply. They do, so we are good. Subsequently, at point D, we apply LF2 at point B. We revise the timeline from points B to D. When we get to point C while revising the timeline, we discover that LF1 no longer applies because B and A are both true. Thus we need to re-revise the timeline from points A to C, which will be identical to the original from points A to B. When we get to point C while again revising the timeline, we discover that now LF1 does apply, because while B is still true, A is not. Paradox. This results in LF2 failing. However, if LF1 would I should also add "It is a defense to a charge of breaking the rules that the rules violation exists only due to subsequently established legal fiction, except if the person accused of having violated the rules was acting unreasonably in light of impending legal fictions of which e was aware." I know that retroactivity is dangerous, but I think that this route is probably the better one to go down if we can make it work. I'll definitely prioritize getting a proof of this out, though, and won't distribute that until it's done unless it requires some revision. -Alexis
Re: DIS: [Proto] [Possibly Urgent] Ratification Changes
Oh, I caught another thing. For "Legal fictions are evaluated in
chronological order", is that chronological order of creation (which I
think you mean) or chronological order of
starttime/midtime/endtime/something else? Please make it explicit in
the text.
-Aris
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:56 AM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:18 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> >
> > Ugh, so, I just realized with G.'s recent point about the tally of
> > votes in Agoran decisions possibly being self-ratifying, that
> > ratifying the outcome of a decision could have all sorts of
> > backwards-propagating effects and, in particular, possibly prevents
> > self-ratification of incorrect outcomes altogether, especially after
> > my currently pending proposal to make the tally not part of the
> > self-ratification.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > Well, the outcome is defined by a calculation given by the rules. So
> > if, say, an AI=1 proposal has votes FOR equal to votes AGAINST, then
> > its outcome is REJECTED. So ratifying outcome means ratifying that
> > F>A. But what does that mean, exactly? Do we ratify the existence of
> > one more vote FOR? If so, who cast it? I suspect this causes the
> > "unique minimal change" criterion to fail and the ratification overall
> > to fail.
>
> *groans*
>
> > Having ratification possibly have to compute backwards onto
> > preconditions was a terrible idea. My recent proposal
> >
> > I don't have any better ideas to fix this than the explicit legal
> > fiction idea I proposed before, so here is an approach to that:
> >
> > Proposal: Ratification by Legal Fiction (AI=3)
> > {{{
> > For greater certainty, text in square brackets in rule text in this
> > proposal is comments and is not included in the actual text enacted.
>
> Unnecessary; comments are now auto-stripped.
>
> > Enact a new Power-3.1 rule entitled Legal Fictions, reading as follows:
> > {
> > A fact is either a natural fact or a legal fact. A natural fact is a
> > fact which is extrinsic to Agoran law, such as whether a message
> > expresses a particular intent, or whether or not an entity is an
> > organism. A legal fact is a fact which is intrinsic to Agoran law,
> > such as the state of a rule-defined value. A legal fiction is a kind
> > of legal fact which overrides other natural and/or legal facts. Legal
> > fictions must be established explicitly.
>
> Please cut the natural fact/legal fact distinction. It isn't helping
> anything, and is just confusing and unnecessary complexity.
>
> > [Mostly per the proto-proto, except moving away from "Questions" and
> > focusing just on facts, in order to improve clarity and avoid the
> > other aspects which aren't currently needed.]
> >
> > A legal fiction must be defined with respect to a specific point in
> > time, or to a specific period of time, which CANNOT be in, or extend
> > into, the future beyond its creation. A legal fiction's direct effects
> > are retroactive to the time so specified, for which it operates
> > notwithstanding any rule to the contrary. Beyond that time, its
> > effects are limited to the natural consequences of its direct effects
> >
> > A legal fiction does not operate retroactively prior to the specified
> > time, nor does it reason backwards to affect the preconditions for the
> > state it specifies. Thus, it CAN cause result in a state which would
> > otherwise be IMPOSSIBLE to have attained under the rules at the time.
> > Such an impossible state CAN persist beyond the time of effect,
> > provided that nothing occurs or has occurred since to disturb it. When
> > a legal fiction specifies that something satisfies or does not satisfy
> > a definition, the amendment of that definition CAN, but does not
> > necessarily, amount to a natural consequence which disturbs the legal
> > fiction's effects. Whether it does or not is interpreted on a case by
> > case basis in accordance with the usual rules of interpretation.
> >
> > [I would love to be more clear with the last sentence, but I do not
> > want to be because either way could have bad effects. If we become too
> > sensitive to definition changes, then they could cause massive
> > unwinding of legal fictions. But if we are too strict, then
> > redefinition of terms could cause previous legal fictions to propagate
> > in an undesirable manner. And I tried to think of an interpretive
> > guide based on the actual effect of a legal fiction relative to an
> > underlying fact, in the manner similar to focusing on the ratio
> > decendi of a judgment, but that undermines the idea that legal
> > fictions created by mechanisms like ratification are intended to
> > eliminate the need to look at the underlying facts.]
> >
> > For instance, if only players can hold offices, then the establishment
> > of a legal fiction that a person, who was not a not a player, held an
> > office at a specific point in time causes em to, as of that particular
> > point, hold the office notwithstanding
Re: DIS: [Proto] [Possibly Urgent] Ratification Changes
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:18 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> Ugh, so, I just realized with G.'s recent point about the tally of
> votes in Agoran decisions possibly being self-ratifying, that
> ratifying the outcome of a decision could have all sorts of
> backwards-propagating effects and, in particular, possibly prevents
> self-ratification of incorrect outcomes altogether, especially after
> my currently pending proposal to make the tally not part of the
> self-ratification.
>
> Why?
>
> Well, the outcome is defined by a calculation given by the rules. So
> if, say, an AI=1 proposal has votes FOR equal to votes AGAINST, then
> its outcome is REJECTED. So ratifying outcome means ratifying that
> F>A. But what does that mean, exactly? Do we ratify the existence of
> one more vote FOR? If so, who cast it? I suspect this causes the
> "unique minimal change" criterion to fail and the ratification overall
> to fail.
*groans*
> Having ratification possibly have to compute backwards onto
> preconditions was a terrible idea. My recent proposal
>
> I don't have any better ideas to fix this than the explicit legal
> fiction idea I proposed before, so here is an approach to that:
>
> Proposal: Ratification by Legal Fiction (AI=3)
> {{{
> For greater certainty, text in square brackets in rule text in this
> proposal is comments and is not included in the actual text enacted.
Unnecessary; comments are now auto-stripped.
> Enact a new Power-3.1 rule entitled Legal Fictions, reading as follows:
> {
> A fact is either a natural fact or a legal fact. A natural fact is a
> fact which is extrinsic to Agoran law, such as whether a message
> expresses a particular intent, or whether or not an entity is an
> organism. A legal fact is a fact which is intrinsic to Agoran law,
> such as the state of a rule-defined value. A legal fiction is a kind
> of legal fact which overrides other natural and/or legal facts. Legal
> fictions must be established explicitly.
Please cut the natural fact/legal fact distinction. It isn't helping
anything, and is just confusing and unnecessary complexity.
> [Mostly per the proto-proto, except moving away from "Questions" and
> focusing just on facts, in order to improve clarity and avoid the
> other aspects which aren't currently needed.]
>
> A legal fiction must be defined with respect to a specific point in
> time, or to a specific period of time, which CANNOT be in, or extend
> into, the future beyond its creation. A legal fiction's direct effects
> are retroactive to the time so specified, for which it operates
> notwithstanding any rule to the contrary. Beyond that time, its
> effects are limited to the natural consequences of its direct effects
>
> A legal fiction does not operate retroactively prior to the specified
> time, nor does it reason backwards to affect the preconditions for the
> state it specifies. Thus, it CAN cause result in a state which would
> otherwise be IMPOSSIBLE to have attained under the rules at the time.
> Such an impossible state CAN persist beyond the time of effect,
> provided that nothing occurs or has occurred since to disturb it. When
> a legal fiction specifies that something satisfies or does not satisfy
> a definition, the amendment of that definition CAN, but does not
> necessarily, amount to a natural consequence which disturbs the legal
> fiction's effects. Whether it does or not is interpreted on a case by
> case basis in accordance with the usual rules of interpretation.
>
> [I would love to be more clear with the last sentence, but I do not
> want to be because either way could have bad effects. If we become too
> sensitive to definition changes, then they could cause massive
> unwinding of legal fictions. But if we are too strict, then
> redefinition of terms could cause previous legal fictions to propagate
> in an undesirable manner. And I tried to think of an interpretive
> guide based on the actual effect of a legal fiction relative to an
> underlying fact, in the manner similar to focusing on the ratio
> decendi of a judgment, but that undermines the idea that legal
> fictions created by mechanisms like ratification are intended to
> eliminate the need to look at the underlying facts.]
>
> For instance, if only players can hold offices, then the establishment
> of a legal fiction that a person, who was not a not a player, held an
> office at a specific point in time causes em to, as of that particular
> point, hold the office notwithstanding the prohibition. It does not,
> however, operate to make em a player at any point in time. If no
> effect exists which would have changed the officeholder since then,
> then e would be presently in that office and remain so until something
> does change the officeholder, such as eir resignation. However, if the
> rules provide that, when a non-player holds an office, it become
> vacant, such a rule would take effect immediately after the specified
> point in time and cause the office to
Re: DIS: [Proto] [Possibly Urgent] Ratification Changes
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 13:18, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> }
> }}}
>
> -Alexis
One missing paragraph:
{
Establish a legal fiction that, for each purported resolution of an
Agoran decision that would have self-ratified, but whose
self-ratification failed only because there were multiple distinct
modifications to the votes made by players on that decision that could
be made to effect the ratification, at the moment that the decision
would have self-ratified, a legal fiction was established that that
purported resolution did in fact resolve the decision with the outcome
it specifies, and if that outcome was to adopt a proposal, that such a
proposal existed, was adopted, and took effect.
}
Extra commentary: I have relatively high confidence that this is
paradox-proof and ambiguity-proof, but I would like to publish a proof
of this, possibly as a D.N.Sci thesis.
-Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Zombie proposals
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 3:05 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu., Jan. 30, 2020, 00:47 Aris Merchant via agora-discussion, < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > If you’re going to do a revision, I’d appreciate it if you made the zombie > > trust apply to all assets. > > > > -Aris > > > > The only other assets are blots which, in my opinion, ought to be excluded. I meant transferable assets, of course. But it's not forwards compatible at the moment, and also it doesn't work well with private assets (like those in the TCC/TTC proto, for instance). -Aris -Aris
DIS: [Proto] [Possibly Urgent] Ratification Changes
Ugh, so, I just realized with G.'s recent point about the tally of
votes in Agoran decisions possibly being self-ratifying, that
ratifying the outcome of a decision could have all sorts of
backwards-propagating effects and, in particular, possibly prevents
self-ratification of incorrect outcomes altogether, especially after
my currently pending proposal to make the tally not part of the
self-ratification.
Why?
Well, the outcome is defined by a calculation given by the rules. So
if, say, an AI=1 proposal has votes FOR equal to votes AGAINST, then
its outcome is REJECTED. So ratifying outcome means ratifying that
F>A. But what does that mean, exactly? Do we ratify the existence of
one more vote FOR? If so, who cast it? I suspect this causes the
"unique minimal change" criterion to fail and the ratification overall
to fail.
Having ratification possibly have to compute backwards onto
preconditions was a terrible idea. My recent proposal
I don't have any better ideas to fix this than the explicit legal
fiction idea I proposed before, so here is an approach to that:
Proposal: Ratification by Legal Fiction (AI=3)
{{{
For greater certainty, text in square brackets in rule text in this
proposal is comments and is not included in the actual text enacted.
Enact a new Power-3.1 rule entitled Legal Fictions, reading as follows:
{
A fact is either a natural fact or a legal fact. A natural fact is a
fact which is extrinsic to Agoran law, such as whether a message
expresses a particular intent, or whether or not an entity is an
organism. A legal fact is a fact which is intrinsic to Agoran law,
such as the state of a rule-defined value. A legal fiction is a kind
of legal fact which overrides other natural and/or legal facts. Legal
fictions must be established explicitly.
[Mostly per the proto-proto, except moving away from "Questions" and
focusing just on facts, in order to improve clarity and avoid the
other aspects which aren't currently needed.]
A legal fiction must be defined with respect to a specific point in
time, or to a specific period of time, which CANNOT be in, or extend
into, the future beyond its creation. A legal fiction's direct effects
are retroactive to the time so specified, for which it operates
notwithstanding any rule to the contrary. Beyond that time, its
effects are limited to the natural consequences of its direct effects
A legal fiction does not operate retroactively prior to the specified
time, nor does it reason backwards to affect the preconditions for the
state it specifies. Thus, it CAN cause result in a state which would
otherwise be IMPOSSIBLE to have attained under the rules at the time.
Such an impossible state CAN persist beyond the time of effect,
provided that nothing occurs or has occurred since to disturb it. When
a legal fiction specifies that something satisfies or does not satisfy
a definition, the amendment of that definition CAN, but does not
necessarily, amount to a natural consequence which disturbs the legal
fiction's effects. Whether it does or not is interpreted on a case by
case basis in accordance with the usual rules of interpretation.
[I would love to be more clear with the last sentence, but I do not
want to be because either way could have bad effects. If we become too
sensitive to definition changes, then they could cause massive
unwinding of legal fictions. But if we are too strict, then
redefinition of terms could cause previous legal fictions to propagate
in an undesirable manner. And I tried to think of an interpretive
guide based on the actual effect of a legal fiction relative to an
underlying fact, in the manner similar to focusing on the ratio
decendi of a judgment, but that undermines the idea that legal
fictions created by mechanisms like ratification are intended to
eliminate the need to look at the underlying facts.]
For instance, if only players can hold offices, then the establishment
of a legal fiction that a person, who was not a not a player, held an
office at a specific point in time causes em to, as of that particular
point, hold the office notwithstanding the prohibition. It does not,
however, operate to make em a player at any point in time. If no
effect exists which would have changed the officeholder since then,
then e would be presently in that office and remain so until something
does change the officeholder, such as eir resignation. However, if the
rules provide that, when a non-player holds an office, it become
vacant, such a rule would take effect immediately after the specified
point in time and cause the office to become vacant. Even with such a
rule, however, if a legal fiction was established that the person held
the office for a period of time, then e would be the officeholder for
that entire time, and would not constantly oscillate in and out of
office.
[Detailed examples are unusual in Agora, as in law, but I see no
reason not to include one here, and sometimes they serve as the best
interpretive guides.]
Legal
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 9:10 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 1/30/2020 9:03 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 16:55, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion > > wrote: > >> On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 10:32, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > >> wrote: > >>> Proto: "Pragmatic decisions", AI-3 > >>> > >>> Amend R208 by replacing: > >>> 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there > >>> was more than one valid option, provides a tally of the voters' > >>> valid ballots. > >>> with: > >>> 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there > >>> was more than one valid option, provides reasonably accurate > >>> tally of the voters' valid ballots. > >>> > >>> [The outcome still needs to be correct. The voting tallies can still be > >>> CoEd > >>> and a correction posted, but the effective resolution remains the first > >>> one > >>> with the correct outcome, provided the ballots are "reasonably" accurate]. > >> > >> No objections to changing to a standard of being reasonably correct, > >> but in this case I would like to see a requirement that the correct > >> tally be posted, even if that doesn't interfere with the > >> self-ratification. Also note that I have an in-flight proposal to > >> rewrite some of this. > > > > Here's a somewhat different way we could do it: > > > > * An announcement resolving a decision doesn't need to specify > > anything other than the decision --- not even the outcome. That causes > > the decision to resolve to the (platonically) correct outcome, and it > > is self-ratifying that that occurred. > > > > * The resolver SHALL include all that extra stuff in their resolution > > message (and maybe SHALL respond to CoEs). > > > > Is there anything wrong with that? I feel with the current system, > > even when we eventually figure out which proposals are adopted, > > there's some disturbing temporary uncertainty about when exactly they > > were adopted, which doesn't seem better than the temporary uncertainty > > this version would introduce about what the outcome was. > > Unless I'm misreading your suggestion, wouldn't this leave us open to saying > weeks/months/years later, if a deep error turns up, "since that result was > posted incorrectly, we've been playing under the wrong rules for a while"? That's what I'm getting too, and that worries me. The rule is called "Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges" because its point is to stop the results of decisions from being challenged after a certain time. Finding out that a proposal that was believed to have passed had failed, or vice versa, could be a huge mess with massive indirect effects. Decision results are actually one of the most important things to ratify, and I'd oppose stopping ratifying them. -Aris
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On 1/30/2020 9:23 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 9:20 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> I went back and forth on that as a possibility - I don't have a strong reason >> so maybe a SHALL is best - the only issue being what Alexis pointed out, that >> if we want (as e suggested) to require the Assessor respond to inaccurate >> tallies that don't change the result, we need to hard-code that, if the >> individual ballots don't self-ratify. (A special category of "no this >> doesn't >> self ratify but the Officer has to respond to the CoE anyway"). > > That's not how Rule 2201 is written. An officer always has to respond > to a CoE, whether the document is self-ratifying or not, so long as e > was required to publish the document. So creating an extra category is > unnecessary. :) Oh, thanks! I'd forgotten that change in R2201.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On 1/30/2020 9:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> Anyway, I like G.'s proposal, but why even require a reasonably >> accurate tally for it to be self-ratifying? Just require >> decision+outcome, and make the rest SHALL. > > I went back and forth on that as a possibility - I don't have a strong reason > so maybe a SHALL is best - the only issue being what Alexis pointed out, that > if we want (as e suggested) to require the Assessor respond to inaccurate > tallies that don't change the result, we need to hard-code that, if the > individual ballots don't self-ratify. (A special category of "no this doesn't > self ratify but the Officer has to respond to the CoE anyway"). So - just checking here. Under the current R208, it would be fine to say "the Decision on Proposal X had 8 voters, and a total strength of 18 FOR and 6 AGAINST, and was therefore ADOPTED" without mentioning any particular voter's name, right? Do we want to mandate actual name reporting? -G.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 9:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 1/30/2020 9:06 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 17:03, James Cook wrote: > >> Here's a somewhat different way we could do it: > >> > >> * An announcement resolving a decision doesn't need to specify > >> anything other than the decision --- not even the outcome. That causes > >> the decision to resolve to the (platonically) correct outcome, and it > >> is self-ratifying that that occurred. > >> > >> * The resolver SHALL include all that extra stuff in their resolution > >> message (and maybe SHALL respond to CoEs). > >> > >> Is there anything wrong with that? I feel with the current system, > >> even when we eventually figure out which proposals are adopted, > >> there's some disturbing temporary uncertainty about when exactly they > >> were adopted, which doesn't seem better than the temporary uncertainty > >> this version would introduce about what the outcome was. > > > > As I often do, I sent this just a little too soon and should have > > thought more. An obvious flaw with what I wrote is that we may never > > know for sure what exactly self-ratified, whereas the current system > > explicitly makes the outcome ratify. > > > > Anyway, I like G.'s proposal, but why even require a reasonably > > accurate tally for it to be self-ratifying? Just require > > decision+outcome, and make the rest SHALL. > > I went back and forth on that as a possibility - I don't have a strong reason > so maybe a SHALL is best - the only issue being what Alexis pointed out, that > if we want (as e suggested) to require the Assessor respond to inaccurate > tallies that don't change the result, we need to hard-code that, if the > individual ballots don't self-ratify. (A special category of "no this doesn't > self ratify but the Officer has to respond to the CoE anyway"). That's not how Rule 2201 is written. An officer always has to respond to a CoE, whether the document is self-ratifying or not, so long as e was required to publish the document. So creating an extra category is unnecessary. :) -Aris
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On 1/30/2020 9:06 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 17:03, James Cook wrote: >> Here's a somewhat different way we could do it: >> >> * An announcement resolving a decision doesn't need to specify >> anything other than the decision --- not even the outcome. That causes >> the decision to resolve to the (platonically) correct outcome, and it >> is self-ratifying that that occurred. >> >> * The resolver SHALL include all that extra stuff in their resolution >> message (and maybe SHALL respond to CoEs). >> >> Is there anything wrong with that? I feel with the current system, >> even when we eventually figure out which proposals are adopted, >> there's some disturbing temporary uncertainty about when exactly they >> were adopted, which doesn't seem better than the temporary uncertainty >> this version would introduce about what the outcome was. > > As I often do, I sent this just a little too soon and should have > thought more. An obvious flaw with what I wrote is that we may never > know for sure what exactly self-ratified, whereas the current system > explicitly makes the outcome ratify. > > Anyway, I like G.'s proposal, but why even require a reasonably > accurate tally for it to be self-ratifying? Just require > decision+outcome, and make the rest SHALL. I went back and forth on that as a possibility - I don't have a strong reason so maybe a SHALL is best - the only issue being what Alexis pointed out, that if we want (as e suggested) to require the Assessor respond to inaccurate tallies that don't change the result, we need to hard-code that, if the individual ballots don't self-ratify. (A special category of "no this doesn't self ratify but the Officer has to respond to the CoE anyway"). -G.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 12:10, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Unless I'm misreading your suggestion, wouldn't this leave us open to saying > weeks/months/years later, if a deep error turns up, "since that result was > posted incorrectly, we've been playing under the wrong rules for a while"? I agree. But the kernel of the idea, of providing an accurate time of resolution, is good. Currently, the following sequence is a problem: - There is an incorrect CoE made against a resolution. - The Assessor accepts it. - The Assessor posts a new resolution, which self-ratifies. The first resolution is correct and platnoically succeeds. The CoE does not interfere with this. The second resolution then ratifies the resolution again, possibly even adopting the proposal a second time. If it does not, there's uncertainty as to when it was resolved. But the core of Falsifian's idea it seem is that the resolution time is fixed upon the first attempt, and CoEs about the result only address what the result was, platonically, at the time of the resolution. I don't have time to draft a fix for this, though, as it seems relatively involved at first blush, since it requires separating out the various pieces of a resolution. Likely, we need something along the lines of making the decisions existence self-ratify, as well as the statement that its voting period has ended (an important oversight in the existing things ratified), and that it was resolved in this message. Then, separately, we have the statement of outcome self-ratify, as well as separate requirements for posting a tally, even if incorrect. And then we need to make sure that CoEs against these things work correctly. There's a much bigger issue I just nocied, though, and that I do have enough time to draft as I've already circulated a proto-proto and it's of smaller scope. I would like to get it out soon, so I will circulate a proto for that in hopes of being able to get it into this week's distribution (and note to the Promotor, I am prepared to distribute it myself via Manifesto, so don't worry about having to hold off if it's especially inconvenient to you). -Alexis
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On 1/30/2020 9:03 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 16:55, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 10:32, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion >> wrote: >>> Proto: "Pragmatic decisions", AI-3 >>> >>> Amend R208 by replacing: >>> 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there >>> was more than one valid option, provides a tally of the voters' >>> valid ballots. >>> with: >>> 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there >>> was more than one valid option, provides reasonably accurate >>> tally of the voters' valid ballots. >>> >>> [The outcome still needs to be correct. The voting tallies can still be >>> CoEd >>> and a correction posted, but the effective resolution remains the first one >>> with the correct outcome, provided the ballots are "reasonably" accurate]. >> >> No objections to changing to a standard of being reasonably correct, >> but in this case I would like to see a requirement that the correct >> tally be posted, even if that doesn't interfere with the >> self-ratification. Also note that I have an in-flight proposal to >> rewrite some of this. > > Here's a somewhat different way we could do it: > > * An announcement resolving a decision doesn't need to specify > anything other than the decision --- not even the outcome. That causes > the decision to resolve to the (platonically) correct outcome, and it > is self-ratifying that that occurred. > > * The resolver SHALL include all that extra stuff in their resolution > message (and maybe SHALL respond to CoEs). > > Is there anything wrong with that? I feel with the current system, > even when we eventually figure out which proposals are adopted, > there's some disturbing temporary uncertainty about when exactly they > were adopted, which doesn't seem better than the temporary uncertainty > this version would introduce about what the outcome was. Unless I'm misreading your suggestion, wouldn't this leave us open to saying weeks/months/years later, if a deep error turns up, "since that result was posted incorrectly, we've been playing under the wrong rules for a while"?
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 17:03, James Cook wrote: > Here's a somewhat different way we could do it: > > * An announcement resolving a decision doesn't need to specify > anything other than the decision --- not even the outcome. That causes > the decision to resolve to the (platonically) correct outcome, and it > is self-ratifying that that occurred. > > * The resolver SHALL include all that extra stuff in their resolution > message (and maybe SHALL respond to CoEs). > > Is there anything wrong with that? I feel with the current system, > even when we eventually figure out which proposals are adopted, > there's some disturbing temporary uncertainty about when exactly they > were adopted, which doesn't seem better than the temporary uncertainty > this version would introduce about what the outcome was. As I often do, I sent this just a little too soon and should have thought more. An obvious flaw with what I wrote is that we may never know for sure what exactly self-ratified, whereas the current system explicitly makes the outcome ratify. Anyway, I like G.'s proposal, but why even require a reasonably accurate tally for it to be self-ratifying? Just require decision+outcome, and make the rest SHALL. - Falsifian
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 16:55, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 10:32, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Proto: "Pragmatic decisions", AI-3 > > > > Amend R208 by replacing: > > 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there > > was more than one valid option, provides a tally of the voters' > > valid ballots. > > with: > > 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there > > was more than one valid option, provides reasonably accurate > > tally of the voters' valid ballots. > > > > [The outcome still needs to be correct. The voting tallies can still be > > CoEd > > and a correction posted, but the effective resolution remains the first one > > with the correct outcome, provided the ballots are "reasonably" accurate]. > > No objections to changing to a standard of being reasonably correct, > but in this case I would like to see a requirement that the correct > tally be posted, even if that doesn't interfere with the > self-ratification. Also note that I have an in-flight proposal to > rewrite some of this. Here's a somewhat different way we could do it: * An announcement resolving a decision doesn't need to specify anything other than the decision --- not even the outcome. That causes the decision to resolve to the (platonically) correct outcome, and it is self-ratifying that that occurred. * The resolver SHALL include all that extra stuff in their resolution message (and maybe SHALL respond to CoEs). Is there anything wrong with that? I feel with the current system, even when we eventually figure out which proposals are adopted, there's some disturbing temporary uncertainty about when exactly they were adopted, which doesn't seem better than the temporary uncertainty this version would introduce about what the outcome was. - Falsifian
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 10:32, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Proto: "Pragmatic decisions", AI-3 > > Amend R208 by replacing: > 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there > was more than one valid option, provides a tally of the voters' > valid ballots. > with: > 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there > was more than one valid option, provides reasonably accurate > tally of the voters' valid ballots. > > [The outcome still needs to be correct. The voting tallies can still be CoEd > and a correction posted, but the effective resolution remains the first one > with the correct outcome, provided the ballots are "reasonably" accurate]. No objections to changing to a standard of being reasonably correct, but in this case I would like to see a requirement that the correct tally be posted, even if that doesn't interfere with the self-ratification. Also note that I have an in-flight proposal to rewrite some of this. -Alexis
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On 1/30/2020 7:47 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 15:43, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On 1/30/20 10:21 AM, James Cook wrote: >>> Shouldn't you also say that you resolve these decisions? My >>> understanding is that you're not publishing a report here; you're >>> re-taking some by-announcement actions in case your first attempt at >>> those actions failed. >>> >>> - Falsifian >> >> >> You're probably right, although I think the resolutions would still be >> self-ratifying. > > I'm not sure. R2034 says a message that "purports to resolve" an > Agoran decision is self-ratifying. If we end up deciding your message > didn't constitute a by-announcement action resolving the decisions, we > might also decide by the same reasoning that your message didn't > purport to resolve them, unless there's some difference between > announcing that you do something and sending a message purporting to > do it. Dunno if it's relevant, but the tally of ballot options by voter may or may not self-ratify. The total number of voters (for quorum) and the option selected self-ratify. The question is whether the "as indicated" in "resolved as indicated" means just the outcome (the option selected), or includes the full tally. -G.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 15:43, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 1/30/20 10:21 AM, James Cook wrote: > > Shouldn't you also say that you resolve these decisions? My > > understanding is that you're not publishing a report here; you're > > re-taking some by-announcement actions in case your first attempt at > > those actions failed. > > > > - Falsifian > > > You're probably right, although I think the resolutions would still be > self-ratifying. I'm not sure. R2034 says a message that "purports to resolve" an Agoran decision is self-ratifying. If we end up deciding your message didn't constitute a by-announcement action resolving the decisions, we might also decide by the same reasoning that your message didn't purport to resolve them, unless there's some difference between announcing that you do something and sending a message purporting to do it. - Falsifian
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On 1/30/20 10:21 AM, James Cook wrote: > Shouldn't you also say that you resolve these decisions? My > understanding is that you're not publishing a report here; you're > re-taking some by-announcement actions in case your first attempt at > those actions failed. > > - Falsifian You're probably right, although I think the resolutions would still be self-ratifying. -- Jason Cobb
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On 1/30/2020 7:21 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 14:34, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: >> Draft revision, since this is complicated: >> >> All of these CoEs are accepted. >> >> Revised resolutions for 8292-8307: > > Shouldn't you also say that you resolve these decisions? My > understanding is that you're not publishing a report here; you're > re-taking some by-announcement actions in case your first attempt at > those actions failed. Proto: "Pragmatic decisions", AI-3 Amend R208 by replacing: 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there was more than one valid option, provides a tally of the voters' valid ballots. with: 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there was more than one valid option, provides reasonably accurate tally of the voters' valid ballots. [The outcome still needs to be correct. The voting tallies can still be CoEd and a correction posted, but the effective resolution remains the first one with the correct outcome, provided the ballots are "reasonably" accurate].
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 14:34, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > Draft revision, since this is complicated: > > All of these CoEs are accepted. > > Revised resolutions for 8292-8307: Shouldn't you also say that you resolve these decisions? My understanding is that you're not publishing a report here; you're re-taking some by-announcement actions in case your first attempt at those actions failed. - Falsifian
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
On 1/30/20 8:32 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: > Alright, fine. CoE on each resolution for a proposal with number not > less than 8292, as well as 8290: they're wrong. For the next seven > days, I pledge not to deny any of these CoEs. > > Updated assessments coming... eventually. I have to update my > automation for support for voting strengths per-proposal. The Logical > Rulesets will also be delayed until I can get the assessments out and > verify that the changes I've made are in fact correct. > Draft revision, since this is complicated: All of these CoEs are accepted. Revised resolutions for 8292-8307: PROPOSAL 8292 (Self-Ratification Simplification Act) FOR (6): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, omd, twg AGAINST (0): PRESENT (3): Gaelan, Jason, Rance BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 18/0 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8293 (CFJ Bait) FOR (5): Aris, Bernie, Jason, Rance, twg AGAINST (5): Alexis, G.$, Gaelan, o, omd PRESENT (1): Falsifian BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 15/16 (AI=1.0) OUTCOME: REJECTED PROPOSAL 8294 (Authorial Intent) FOR (0): AGAINST (9): Alexis, Aris, Falsifian, G.$, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, o, omd PRESENT (2): Bernie, twg BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 0/28 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: REJECTED PROPOSAL 8295 (Rewards Reform Act) FOR (8): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, twg AGAINST (1): omd PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 24/3 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8296 (Divergence) FOR (6): Alexis, Aris, G.$, Gaelan, o, omd AGAINST (1): Falsifian PRESENT (4): Bernie, Jason, Rance, twg BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 19/3 (AI=1.0) OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8297 (Imminent Failure) FOR (11): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, G.$, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, o, omd, twg AGAINST (0): PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 34/0 (AI=2.1) OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8298 (Administrative Adjudication v3) FOR (6): Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, Jason, Rance, twg AGAINST (5): Alexis, G.$, Gaelan, o, omd PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 18/16 (AI=2.0) OUTCOME: REJECTED PROPOSAL 8299 (The Reset Button v2) FOR (0): AGAINST (10): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, G.$, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, o, twg PRESENT (1): omd BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 0/31 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: REJECTED PROPOSAL 8300 (Patches) FOR (6): Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, Jason, Rance, twg AGAINST (5): Alexis, G.$, Gaelan, o, omd PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 18/16 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: REJECTED PROPOSAL 8301 (Consolidated Regulatory Recordkeeping v2) FOR (9): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, omd, twg AGAINST (2): G.$, o PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 27/7 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8302 (Generic Petitions) FOR (8): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, twg AGAINST (0): PRESENT (3): G.$, o, omd BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 24/0 (AI=1.5) OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8303 (Contract Patency v3) FOR (4): Aris, Falsifian, Jason, Rance AGAINST (0): PRESENT (5): Alexis, Bernie, Gaelan, omd, twg BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 12/0 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8304 (Rewards Reform Act - v1.1 Patch) FOR (8): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, twg AGAINST (1): omd PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 24/3 (AI=2.0) OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8305 (Keeping Up With the Times) FOR (7): Alexis, Bernie, Falsifian, G.$, o, omd, twg AGAINST (1): Aris PRESENT (3): Gaelan, Jason, Rance BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 22/3 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8306 (Deregistration) FOR (0): AGAINST (9): Alexis, Bernie, Falsifian, G.$, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, o, twg PRESENT (2): Aris, omd BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 0/28 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: REJECTED PROPOSAL 8307 (Deregistration) FOR (0): AGAINST (10): Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, G.$, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, o, omd, twg PRESENT (1): Alexis BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 0/31 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: REJECTED Revised resolution for 8290: PROPOSAL 8290 (More Headroom) FOR (11): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, G.$, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, o, omd, twg AGAINST (0): PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 34/0 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: ADOPTED Meaning of "$": player has voting strength 4. All proposal attributes are the same as the original resolutions for each proposals 8292-8307, and the same as the first revised resolution for 8290. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On 1/30/2020 3:44 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Thu., Jan. 30, 2020, 06:08 AIS523 wrote: >> I should note, though, that "in a timely fashion" is a relatively new >> phrasing. For a long time, the standard phrasing was "as soon as >> possible" (which was nonetheless defined to mean "within seven days"), >> which was perhaps even more quirkily Agoran, but very confusing to new >> players (as holding out the actions in question until the end of the >> seven-day window was accepted and often done intentionally). >> >> -- >> ais523 >> > > My recollection is that it was four when I joined, changed to seven when > the game started slowing down, and then the terminology was changed when it > was decided that seven days was really not as soon as possible. > The phrase "as soon as possible" was used for Speaker's duties in several places in the initial ruleset, without being defined. In 1994 the definition adopted was: > Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as > soon as possible", e is required to perform this action before > performing any other actions which have a less strictly defined > time requirement. then combined with a week limit (1994): > Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action > "as soon as possible", e is required to perform that action > within a week, and no later than any other action e is > subsequently required to perform. The "no later than" part was dropped in 2000: > Whenever a Player is required to perform an action "as soon > as possible", then e is required to perform the action within > a week. (all references above from Zefram's rules text) "In a timely fashion" was added as a synonym in 2008: > (a) The phrases "in a timely fashion" and "as soon as possible" > mean "within seven days". >From 2011-2013, and was actually a variable speed control with a minimum setting of five days: > The Speed switch is a single switch, tracked by the Assessor, > with values of Slow, Normal (default) and Fast. The Speed switch > is secured. [...] > (a) The phrases "in a timely fashion" and "as soon as possible" > mean "within X days", where X is 14 when the Speed is Slow, > 7 when it is Normal and 5 when it is Fast. Then in 2013, the "as soon as possible" was deleted (because it no longer meant that), and then the variable speed was repealed putting it back to a week. -G.
Re: DIS: Rulekeeping Request (Attn. Rulekeepor)
On 1/30/20 1:31 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > For rule cleanings, it would be nice (IMHO) to have who cleaned the rule be > part of the annotation, for the historical record. One could tack something > like “on the application of ” onto the end of the annotation so > that we’d know who did it. Obviously, this wouldn’t apply retroactively > unless someone wanted to go back and find the information. H. Rulekeepor, > what do you think? > > -Aris Err... it's already in the annotations? For instance the historical annotations from Rule 2422 are: > History: > > Enacted by P7629 'Do Things' (Alexis), 07 Apr 2014 > Amended(1) by P7816 'Voting Strength Fix (PENDING, BUGGY)' (Alexis, o, > aranea), 28 Oct 2016 > Amended(2) by P7831 'Vigilante Justice' (Alexis), 05 Dec 2016 > Amended(3) by P8122 'Middle of the road' (Murphy), 12 Nov 2018 > Amended(4) by cleaning (Falsifian), 28 Apr 2019 > Amended(5) by cleaning (Murphy), 03 Nov 2019 -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On Thu., Jan. 30, 2020, 06:08 AIS523--- via agora-discussion, < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2020-01-29 at 17:25 +, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora- > discussion wrote: > > Aris wrote: > > > For the record, I strongly disagree. I think Spivak is part of Agoran > > > culture at this point, like the “or” suffixes at the end of offices. > It’s > > > part of what makes Agora different and unique. In short, it’s a > dialectal > > > variation, and I think Agora having its own dialect, not just its own > > > terminology, is pretty awesome. > > > > Yeah, I'm with you on this one. Tbh I think Falsifian expressed it well > > when e talked about seeing the ruleset as some sort of ancient relic - > > the things like "-or" suffixes, Spivak pronouns, CAN/SHOULD/MUST, "in a > > timely fashion", etc. are all pieces of history reflecting how the game > > came to be the way it is. Heck, even a very small amount of the language > > from the prototypical Nomic is still in the current ruleset! > > I'm also in favour of retaining Spivak (although I'm not sure how much > weight my opinion should have when I'm not actually playing). > > I should note, though, that "in a timely fashion" is a relatively new > phrasing. For a long time, the standard phrasing was "as soon as > possible" (which was nonetheless defined to mean "within seven days"), > which was perhaps even more quirkily Agoran, but very confusing to new > players (as holding out the actions in question until the end of the > seven-day window was accepted and often done intentionally). > > -- > ais523 > My recollection is that it was four when I joined, changed to seven when the game started slowing down, and then the terminology was changed when it was decided that seven days was really not as soon as possible. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3793 judged FALSE (zombies work but not for Gaelan)
On Sun., Jan. 26, 2020, 15:51 Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business, < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Alexis wrote: > > I think this needs to be addressed properly in the judgment. I intend, > with > > 2 support, to group-file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3793. > > > > I will likely have more argument on this but not at the moment, figure I > > should get the intent going though. > > Aris wrote: > > I support. > > I support, and do so. > > -twg > Further arguments: I do not agree with the argument that an auction inherently acts as a mechanism, because of the existence of the last paragraph of Rule 2551. It says that when a lot is paid for, the transfer occurs automatically if the auctioneer can transfer at will, but otherwise only creates an obligation to transfer. This very clearly excludes situations where the auctioneer cannot transfer the lot at will from the scope of the automatic transfer. If an auction is implicitly a mechanism, then we have effectively the following: 1. If the auctioneer can transfer it at will, it happens automatically. 2. If the auctioneer can transfer it, but not at all, it does not happen automatically. 3. If the auctioneer cannot transfer it at all, it happens... automatically. This is rather absurd, and definitely not explicitly specified. See also the entirety of rule 2552, which allowed an auction to be terminated if the lot cannot be transferred away. It clearly envisions a world where something is up for auction but cannot be transferred, which could not be the case if R2545 provides a fallback mechanism. Finally, examine closely the reasoning in CFJ 3694. The judge found that R2545 requires, by necessary implication, that Agora CAN transfer zombies. This very well may be the case. But that begs the very question of the mechanism by which Agora can do so. R2125 is very clear in providing that, if the rules state something is possible but do not state, explicitly, the manner in which it can be done, then it cannot be done. It may well be that R2545 implies that Agora CAN transfer the zombies away, but it cannot also imply a mechanism. Reading it as implying a mechanism would mean that, somehow, the language in R2545 would be considered more explicit than text such as "The auctioneer CAN transfer the lot to the winner.", which clearly lacks a mechanism and would be ineffective. I think that the first paragraph of R2545 is best interpreted as descriptive text outlining the general purpose of auctions. This isn't different from similar language in other rules. The rules do include descriptive, non-normative text from time to time, such as in the description of some offices, or inscribed on our rather beautiful town fountain. Such an interpretation should not be entirely discounted. -Alexis >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On Wed, 2020-01-29 at 17:25 +, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora- discussion wrote: > Aris wrote: > > For the record, I strongly disagree. I think Spivak is part of Agoran > > culture at this point, like the “or” suffixes at the end of offices. It’s > > part of what makes Agora different and unique. In short, it’s a dialectal > > variation, and I think Agora having its own dialect, not just its own > > terminology, is pretty awesome. > > Yeah, I'm with you on this one. Tbh I think Falsifian expressed it well > when e talked about seeing the ruleset as some sort of ancient relic - > the things like "-or" suffixes, Spivak pronouns, CAN/SHOULD/MUST, "in a > timely fashion", etc. are all pieces of history reflecting how the game > came to be the way it is. Heck, even a very small amount of the language > from the prototypical Nomic is still in the current ruleset! I'm also in favour of retaining Spivak (although I'm not sure how much weight my opinion should have when I'm not actually playing). I should note, though, that "in a timely fashion" is a relatively new phrasing. For a long time, the standard phrasing was "as soon as possible" (which was nonetheless defined to mean "within seven days"), which was perhaps even more quirkily Agoran, but very confusing to new players (as holding out the actions in question until the end of the seven-day window was accepted and often done intentionally). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Zombie proposals
On Thu., Jan. 30, 2020, 00:47 Aris Merchant via agora-discussion, < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > If you’re going to do a revision, I’d appreciate it if you made the zombie > trust apply to all assets. > > -Aris > The only other assets are blots which, in my opinion, ought to be excluded. -Alexis >
