Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 3796 Assigned to omd
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 9:25 PM Tanner Swett via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> Gratuitous postmortem arguments on CFJ 3796:
>
> I don't think it's necessary to bring Rule 217 into this at all; scams
> of this type simply can't work. I'll explain why I think that.
>
> Imagine that the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan enacts an ordinance
> which states that, the United States Constitution notwithstanding, the
> ordinance itself is the supreme law of the United States and takes
> precedence over all other United States law. Further suppose that the
> ordinance contains sufficient language that it does not "leave
> anything out" in the way that H. omd says that Gaelan's rule does—the
> language of the ordinance is airtight and claims precedence in every
> necessary way.
>
> Would this ordinance have any "fighting chance" against the United
> States Constitution? One may say that yes, it would. After all, the
> Constitution is part of United States law, and the ordinance is also
> part of United States law. The Constitution claims precedence over the
> ordinance ("This Constitution [...] shall be the supreme Law of the
> Land"), but the ordinance also claims precedence over the
> Constitution. And there is (as far as I know) no "third law"
> explaining how to resolve conflicts between the Constitution and city
> ordinances.
>
> But that's nonsense, isn't it? The Constitution is supreme, and other
> laws can't wrest this supremacy away from it simply by saying so. Or,
> at least, that's the conclusion we would like to be able to come to.
> And in order to come to this conclusion, we have to hold, as an axiom
> of law, that supremacy is "sticky"—if circumstances change such that
> two laws each claim precedence over each other, then the law which was
> supreme before the change remains supreme after the change.
>
> I think many would agree that the supreme law of Agora currently
> consists of those rules whose Power is 3 or greater. Those rules have
> unlimited capacity to make rule changes and govern the game, and all
> other rules are subordinate to those rules. If a new rule is enacted
> which claims to be supreme over those rules, supremacy nevertheless
> "sticks" to the Power 3-or-greater rules and does not pass to the new
> rule without a particular reason why it should.
>
> —Warrigal, who, in the eyes of Agora's rules, is subordinate to all of them
Gratuitous postmortem counterarguments:
With the greatest respect for Warrigal, I opine that e is
misinterpreting the situation. I agree with eir example about Grand
Rapids, Michigan, I just disagree about the reasons why the
Constitution maintains supremacy, and I shall counter with another
fictional example.
Back in the early days before the Constitution, the city of
Shortsightedness, Rhode Island, had an independent streak (for reasons
that will be apparent to anyone who knows the founding story of Rhode
Island). Shortsightedness was so independent that, upon its founding,
it passed an ordinance to the effect that "the ordinances of the city
of Shortsightedness shall be the supreme law of the land, and the
people of the city and the judges thereof shall be bound by those
ordinances and only those ordinances, and no other law shall be
binding upon the city or the people or judges thereof".
At the time of its founding, the city of Shortsightedness was not
bound by any other legal document, because a royal charter had not yet
been issued for the colony of Rhode Island. When the charter was
issued, it did not ever claim supremacy over the ordinance, and the
issue never arose. The people of the city of Shortsightedness
contributed taxes to the Rhode Island Colony, always taking care to
tell the tax collectors that their compliance was purely voluntary,
and that they were not bound by the laws of the Rhode Island legi
doslature. The tax collectors laughed and took the money.
When the Constitution was ratified by Rhode Island, the city of
Shortsightedness was bitterly opposed. Having just rebelled against a
king, they had no interest in a new "federal government". When the
first federal taxes came around, they refused to pay. They pointed out
that under their ordinance, which long predated the Constitution, they
were not bound by federal law.
Under Warrigal's stickiness theory, it's clear what happens next.
Shortsightedness is right. Its laws are supreme, because, having never
abandoned their supremacy, they retain it. Under our actual theory,
things are different. If the city tried to present its arguments in
court, they'd be laughed out of the courtroom. The reason the
Constitution is binding is not that it is senior in age, it is that it
represents a magical and legally omnipotent force, the Supreme Will of
the People of the United States. The Supreme Will of the People of the
United States does not care about the puny ordinances of the puny city
of Shortsightedness. Those laws are irrelevant before its grandeur.
The reason the ordinance of Grand Rapids,
Re: DIS: [Proto] [Possibly Urgent] Ratification Changes
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 18:18, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > 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. R2034 doesn't say the outcome is ratified. It does say it had "the number of voters indicated", but I'm not sure the gamestate modification needs to invent a particular change to the set of voters. The past is already a legal fiction contained in the gamestate; does the "number of voters" recorded in that legal fiction need to match the size of the "set of voters" recorded in that fiction? I don't really like the "minimally modified" language because of questions like this, but it's possible this one works out. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [Proto] [Possibly Urgent] Ratification Changes
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 12:21 AM James Cook wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 at 01:30, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion > wrote: > > 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. > > "earliest public message indicating the belief" doesn't quite seem > right. Consider this timeline: > > T1: I submit proposal X, which most people think will have effect Y, > but actually has effect Z. > T2: Before X is adopted, I start acting as if effect Y has already > happened. People assume I'm being goofy and ignore me. > T3: Proposal X is adopted. > ...60 days pass; everyone acts as if the proposal had effect Y... > T4: I point out due to subtle phrasing, the effect of the proposal was > actually Z. This rule triggers, and the "earliest public message > indicating" belief Z was at time T2, not T3. Ooh, clever. (I'm guessing that in the description of T4, instead of the second mention of Z, you meant Y.) Perhaps it would have to be changed to something like "the earliest public message indicating that the belief was held reasonably." (Then again, I don't think anyone—including me—is particularly interested in enacting an "automatic implicit ratification" proposal like this one in the first place.) —Warrigal
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 3796 Assigned to omd
Gratuitous postmortem arguments on CFJ 3796:
I don't think it's necessary to bring Rule 217 into this at all; scams
of this type simply can't work. I'll explain why I think that.
Imagine that the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan enacts an ordinance
which states that, the United States Constitution notwithstanding, the
ordinance itself is the supreme law of the United States and takes
precedence over all other United States law. Further suppose that the
ordinance contains sufficient language that it does not "leave
anything out" in the way that H. omd says that Gaelan's rule does—the
language of the ordinance is airtight and claims precedence in every
necessary way.
Would this ordinance have any "fighting chance" against the United
States Constitution? One may say that yes, it would. After all, the
Constitution is part of United States law, and the ordinance is also
part of United States law. The Constitution claims precedence over the
ordinance ("This Constitution [...] shall be the supreme Law of the
Land"), but the ordinance also claims precedence over the
Constitution. And there is (as far as I know) no "third law"
explaining how to resolve conflicts between the Constitution and city
ordinances.
But that's nonsense, isn't it? The Constitution is supreme, and other
laws can't wrest this supremacy away from it simply by saying so. Or,
at least, that's the conclusion we would like to be able to come to.
And in order to come to this conclusion, we have to hold, as an axiom
of law, that supremacy is "sticky"—if circumstances change such that
two laws each claim precedence over each other, then the law which was
supreme before the change remains supreme after the change.
I think many would agree that the supreme law of Agora currently
consists of those rules whose Power is 3 or greater. Those rules have
unlimited capacity to make rule changes and govern the game, and all
other rules are subordinate to those rules. If a new rule is enacted
which claims to be supreme over those rules, supremacy nevertheless
"sticks" to the Power 3-or-greater rules and does not pass to the new
rule without a particular reason why it should.
—Warrigal, who, in the eyes of Agora's rules, is subordinate to all of them
Re: DIS: [Proto] [Possibly Urgent] Ratification Changes
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 at 01:30, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion wrote: > 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. "earliest public message indicating the belief" doesn't quite seem right. Consider this timeline: T1: I submit proposal X, which most people think will have effect Y, but actually has effect Z. T2: Before X is adopted, I start acting as if effect Y has already happened. People assume I'm being goofy and ignore me. T3: Proposal X is adopted. ...60 days pass; everyone acts as if the proposal had effect Y... T4: I point out due to subtle phrasing, the effect of the proposal was actually Z. This rule triggers, and the "earliest public message indicating" belief Z was at time T2, not T3. Probably there's some way to work this could contribute to a diabolical scam. - Falsifian
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307
Are we sure the first attempt at resolving the decisions didn't succeed? I've lost track. In case we're a the situation like Alexis outlined, where the first succeeds platonically and this one succeeds via self-ratification, I tried to work out what happened if these proposals were enacted twice. Generally harmless, but may result in unintended repetition in some rule text: > 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 Would result in "(Assessor)" being appended twice to the first item, and similarly for the other offices appended to list items. > PROPOSAL 8302 (Generic Petitions) > FOR (8): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, twg > AGAINST (0): > PRESENT (3): G.$, o, omd > BALLOTS: 11 > AI (F/A): 24/0 (AI=1.5) > OUTCOME: ADOPTED Would append this paragraph twice to R2143: If an office has a discretionary power, and a player publicly petitions the officer to apply that power in a specific case or manner, the officer SHALL publicly respond in a timely fashion. > PROPOSAL 8303 (Contract Patency v3) > FOR (4): Aris, Falsifian, Jason, Rance > AGAINST (0): > PRESENT (5): Alexis, Bernie, Gaelan, omd, twg > BALLOTS: 9 > AI (F/A): 12/0 (AI=3.0) > OUTCOME: ADOPTED Would add "A pledge ceases to exist at the end of its time window." twice to the end of the first paragraph of R2450. > PROPOSAL 8304 (Rewards Reform Act - v1.1 Patch) > FOR (8): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, twg > AGAINST (1): omd > PRESENT (0): > BALLOTS: 9 > AI (F/A): 24/3 (AI=2.0) > OUTCOME: ADOPTED Would add the "in an officially timely fashion" list item twice. > PROPOSAL 8305 (Keeping Up With the Times) > FOR (7): Alexis, Bernie, Falsifian, G.$, o, omd, twg > AGAINST (1): Aris > PRESENT (3): Gaelan, Jason, Rance > BALLOTS: 11 > AI (F/A): 22/3 (AI=3.0) > OUTCOME: ADOPTED May cause patent titles to be renamed a second time, but to the names they already had, so probably that's fine? - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Chamber and Other Fixes
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 03:50, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > --- > Title: Promotorial Assignment > Adoption index: 2.0 > Author: Aris > Co-author(s): > Chamber: Legislation > > Amend the rule entitled "Proposal Chambers" by adding the text > "If a proposal in the Proposal Pool has its chamber unset, the Promotor > CAN set the chamber to a specified ministry by announcement." at the beginning > of the last paragraph. Maybe change "a proposal" to "an ordinary proposal"? More clear, and without the change I think it's conceivable that this action applied to a democratic proposal would cause it to become ordinary (since that's the only way for its chamber to be set). - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Zombie proposals
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 03:25, Alexis Hunt via agora-business
wrote:
> Amend Rule 2574 (Zombie Life Cycle) by:
> - replacing the first two paragraphs with: {
> Any player CAN, with notice, putrefy player who has not made a public
missing word? "putrefy a player"
> announcement in the past 60 days. When a player is putrefied:
> - if e is not a zombie, eir master switch is flipped to Agora; and then
> - eir integrity is set to 2.
I haven't read the proposal carefully, but it looks like "eir
integrity is set to 2" isn't guarded by "if e is not a zombie", so
anyone could keep refreshing a zombie's integrity so they are never
deregistered.
- Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8308-8321
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 at 22:15, omd via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > 8316* Alexis 3.0 Zombie voting package > PRESENT; the fact that the new Rule 683 clause forces default votes to > be "valid" means that they could be submitted even by ineligible > voters. However, this would be scammable only as a Power 2->3 > escalation, thanks to the securing clause, so whatever. > dammit > > 8317e Alexis 2.0 Zombie trade > FOR; I like it. (But does this maintain existing resale values? I > think it does not, because it has an intermediate state where there > are rules mentioning both "resale value" and "integrity", which > probably prevents the name change from qualifying for the last > paragraph of Rule 1586.) > I'm not sure D applies because these are attributes, not entities. But I can see an argument that it creates a new switch with a new default, rather than replacing the existing one. -Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3805 Assigned to Aris
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 at 18:17, Aris Merchant via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > I support. For those who don’t understand the reference, see [1][2] (at > > least I think the first one is part of it; I know the second is). > > > > [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ricardo_Jr. > > [2] https://xkcd.com/327/ > > > > -Aris > Nah, the Ricky is just because e chose to rickroll. -Alexis
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3805 Assigned to Aris
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 3:10 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 at 15:37, Kerim Aydin via agora-official < > agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > The below CFJ is 3805. I assign it to Aris. > > > > === CFJ 3805 > === > > > > G really ought to make sure the string doesn’t adversely > > affect eir archive. > > > > I intend, with 2 Agoran consent, to award Gaelan the Patent Title of Little > Ricky Tables. > > -Alexis I support. For those who don’t understand the reference, see [1][2] (at least I think the first one is part of it; I know the second is). [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricky_Ricardo_Jr. [2] https://xkcd.com/327/ -Aris
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: A quirk in the CFJ archives
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 at 15:44, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 1/31/20 3:42 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > For the record, I just sent the case assignment message, it tripped my > > spam filter on the return so dunno if enough people will see the > > assignment to make it public :) > > > I got it. > As did I. -Alexis
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Fwd: [Arbitor] CFJ 3796 Assigned to omd
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 2:09 AM omd wrote: > This leaves the text as "inconsistent", and Rule 217 informs us to > augment it by the usual factors. In this case, "game custom" clearly > supports higher-power rules taking precedence over lower-power ones. > So does "common sense": the ruleset as a whole is clearly designed > with that expectation, This isn't motion-worthy or anything, but it's worth pointing out that if "common legal definitions" are used, you get the opposite conclusion. At least in the U.S., standard interpretation (e.g. of constitutional law) is that later amendments overrule earlier ones in a conflict.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: A quirk in the CFJ archives
On 1/31/20 3:42 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > For the record, I just sent the case assignment message, it tripped my > spam filter on the return so dunno if enough people will see the > assignment to make it public :) I got it. -- Jason Cobb
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: A quirk in the CFJ archives
For the record, I just sent the case assignment message, it tripped my spam filter on the return so dunno if enough people will see the assignment to make it public :) On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 11:46 AM Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business wrote: > > Notice of Honour: > +1 Gaelan >(I knew what was going to happen and it was still one of the most >hilarious things I've seen in Agora.) > -1 Baron von Vaderham (presently designated karma source) > > -twg
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: A quirk in the CFJ archives
We're in boss just hold em off for a minute while I download the files.
(nice on the "last activity" window didn't know where that part would show up)
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 11:22 AM Gaelan Steele via agora-business
wrote:
>
> Alright, one more try. I withdraw my CFJ, and submit this one: {
> G really ought to make sure the string window.
> onload=()=>{(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.
> }
>
> I pledge to stop trying if this one doesn’t work.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Jan 31, 2020, at 8:22 AM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> > wrote:
> >
> > I Grumble Very Loudly, withdraw *that* CFJ, and submit the following one,
> > now wrapped at 68 (and, as an additional safety, uses ES6’s ` strings which
> > should work across lines): {
> > 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
> >
> >> On Jan 31, 2020, at 7:42 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Pasted that one in the 3805 record, still getting bad line breaks it looks
> >> like unless I made a copy/paste error? I could alter line breaks by hand
> >> but
> >> I'm purposefully not gonna help you there (this is a script insertion
> >> challenge not a social engineering challenge...)
> >
>
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: A quirk in the CFJ archives
On 1/31/20 11:22 AM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
> I Grumble Very Loudly, withdraw *that* CFJ, and submit the following one, now
> wrapped at 68 (and, as an additional safety, uses ES6’s ` strings which
> should work across lines): {
> 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.
> }
This one doesn't work, but it looks like it does work if you have '.hist
b' use ES6 strings as `.hist b`.
--
Jason Cobb
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: A quirk in the CFJ archives
this one is up now (again lmk if it looks like copy/paste errors happened).
On 1/31/2020 8:22 AM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
> I Grumble Very Loudly, withdraw *that* CFJ, and submit the following one, now
> wrapped at 68 (and, as an additional safety, uses ES6’s ` strings which
> should work across lines): {
> 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
>
>> On Jan 31, 2020, at 7:42 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
>> wrote:
>>
>> Pasted that one in the 3805 record, still getting bad line breaks it looks
>> like unless I made a copy/paste error? I could alter line breaks by hand but
>> I'm purposefully not gonna help you there (this is a script insertion
>> challenge not a social engineering challenge...)
>
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Deputisation timeliness
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 21:49, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote: > I have two other suggestions after thinking about how to reduce Cyan > Ribbon shenanigans and make it a more interesting thing to obtain that > genuinely requires working the officer's duties. First, make it so that a > player cannot have held the office in the preceding 14 days either; this > gives a space for another player to take the office so that a player cannot > immediately unresign and, more importantly, prevents a player from > resigning an office then immediately deputizing back into it for a Cyan > Ribbon. Suggested wording "The player has not at any point in the last 14 > days held the office." That is how I earn the Cyan ribbon to support my Transparent ribbon. But I'm not sure how I feel about reducing someone's ability to deputise just to make the ribbon game harder. Maybe the now requirements should be specifically attached to Cyan ribbons? - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Help with Forgotten Announcements, Support Improvements
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 21:46, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote: > 3. Replacing "The action is to be performed with N Agoran consent, and > the number > of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N times the number of > Objectors to the intent." with "The action is to be performed with N Agoran > consent, and the number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal > to O or less than N * O, where O is the number of Objectors to the intent." I think you got this part backward. You've increased the effective number of supporters, but your change to point 3 reduces the number of supporters required. E.g. Alice initiates, Bob supports, Carol objects. Before, it couldn't be done with 1 Agoran Consent (1 supporter, 1 objector, objectors win). Now it can even be done with 2 Agoran consent: 2 supporters > 1 objector, so the "less than or equal to O" condition isn't triggered, and 2 supporters is not less than 2 * 1 objector, so the second condition isn't triggered either. - Falsifian
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: A quirk in the CFJ archives
I Grumble Very Loudly, withdraw *that* CFJ, and submit the following one, now
wrapped at 68 (and, as an additional safety, uses ES6’s ` strings which should
work across lines): {
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
> On Jan 31, 2020, at 7:42 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
> Pasted that one in the 3805 record, still getting bad line breaks it looks
> like unless I made a copy/paste error? I could alter line breaks by hand but
> I'm purposefully not gonna help you there (this is a script insertion
> challenge not a social engineering challenge...)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Help with Forgotten Announcements, Support Improvements
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 02:46, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 1:45 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business > wrote: > > Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Default Mechanisms" reading as follows: > > I feel like this makes more sense in a high-power rule so it doesn't > break with secured actions. > > The broad wording also makes me very nervous about scams. Admittedly, > after a cursory search, I can't find anything in the ruleset that > would be clearly scammable. But I did find this: > > A rule can also designate that a part of one public > message is considered a public message in its own right. > > Can any person, by Agoran Consent, cause a rule to designate that part > of a public message is considered a public message in its own right? > If not, where do the Rules "state the mechanism by which" a rule can > do so? Admittedly, the intended mechanism is clear, but it's not > explicitly mentioned in connection with this clause. Is it implicitly > "stated" as part of the sentence as a whole? Or perhaps some of the > wording in Rule 2141's first paragraph (e.g. "A rule's content takes > the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope.") counts as "stating" a > mechanism? The latter sounds more plausible to me, and I think I'd > judge that it does, but it's still a close call. > > That said, being able to pull off a scam with Agoran Consent would not > be the end of the world either. What is the motivation behind letting persons cause non-person entities to perform actions? Also, what is the text "...they specify that an entity can perform that action even if no appropriate entity currently exists" supposed to do? Does that make it so that if the rules say "sprockets can award Coins" but no sprockets exist, then any player can, with Agoran consent, cause a (fictional) sprocket to award Coins anyway? If so, what's the point of that? - Falsifian
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: A quirk in the CFJ archives
G. wrote: > Pasted that one in the 3805 record, still getting bad line breaks it looks > like unless I made a copy/paste error? I could alter line breaks by hand but > I'm purposefully not gonna help you there (this is a script insertion > challenge not a social engineering challenge...) Mm, looks like because of the indentation, there are only 68 characters per line to work with, not 72. -twg
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: A quirk in the CFJ archives
Pasted that one in the 3805 record, still getting bad line breaks it looks
like unless I made a copy/paste error? I could alter line breaks by hand but
I'm purposefully not gonna help you there (this is a script insertion
challenge not a social engineering challenge...)
On 1/31/2020 6:43 AM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
> I withdraw that CFJ, and submit this one: {
> 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.
> }
>
> (The new one’s modified to fit within 72 characters, so it shouldn’t run into
> word-wrap issues)
>
>> On Jan 31, 2020, at 2:24 AM, omd via agora-discussion
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:32 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
>> wrote:
>>> Drat kinda boring:
>>> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3805
>>
>> The word wrapping broke the script.
>
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Thesis Committee for twg
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 22:37 Alexis Hunt via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > 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 support. 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. > I object. In other words, the degree which twg will be awarded will be the most > strongly-supported degree, breaking ties in favour of Baccalaureate. > Given that Baccalaureate is a higher degree than Associate, wouldn't it make sense to award Baccalaureate if that has achieved Consent, and Associate only if Baccalaureate has not achieved Consent? —Warrigal >
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: A quirk in the CFJ archives
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:32 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Drat kinda boring: > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3805 The word wrapping broke the script.
