Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3805 judged TRUE
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 9:29 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 23:46, Aris Merchant via agora-business > wrote: > > > > [Sorry if this came out a bit confusing or has errors. I'm a bit > > rushed and I don't have time to edit ATM.] > > I'm disappointed that you didn't go for PROBABLY instead. I can also see strong arguments in favor of I GUESS. However, the rules have unfortunately narrow strictures about acceptable adjudication. -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3805 judged TRUE
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 23:46, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > [Sorry if this came out a bit confusing or has errors. I'm a bit > rushed and I don't have time to edit ATM.] I'm disappointed that you didn't go for PROBABLY instead.
Re: DIS: [Reporter] Some questions, some thoughts, and a proposed newsletter
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 8:16 PM James Cook wrote: > > On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 02:42, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 6:25 PM James Cook via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > > > > > Questions for anyone interested in Agora: > > > > > > 1. Would you be interested in seeing an Agoran newsletter? Not like > > >"Last week in Agora"; I mean something more carefully written and > > >covering a longer span of time. > > > > Yes. We've tried this in the past, and it's been great when it worked, > > but we've had repeated problems with low activity. The office was > > called the Reportor, I think. It has worked in the past, but it only > > works when someone is willing to take it on for a long period of time. > > For some reason, it needs more commitment than most offices to > > function. I'm not suggesting that you should be obliged to commit to > > run it long term, just making a factual statement about the historical > > trends. > > That's good to know. On the topic of long-term commitment: I'm hoping > that a commitment to the weekly summaries will be enough to make other > journalistic tasks feasible on a more ad-hoc basis. I've kept those up > for 3+ months so far, but might try to set up a rotation or something. 3 months is a long time; I didn't realize you'd been going that long. That pretty much cures any concern I had about commitment. > > Am I interested? Definitely. Will I actually do it? Almost certainly > > not. I've considered doing a "interesting proposals" summary as > > Promotor, but I inevitably fail to have the time. However, I did > > contribute last time around by editing the newspapers for publication > > on the Agoran blog [1], and I could possibly resume that task. > > > > [1] https://agoranomic.org/blog/ > > Editing would be helpful! > > I had been imagining the more substantial newsletter being close to > quarterly. Looking at that blog, it looks like at least some of them > had shorter periods in mind. Any opinions on the relative benefits of > different frequencies? We tried a week; that seems to be too short in practice. Perhaps monthly? I can see quarterly having advantages as well, but it'd be nice to see more than four a year. It's ultimately your call. I don't think anyone would quibble with your decision, given how excellent a job you're doing. We do need to start paying you for it though. > I've got about a quarter's worth of summaries so far, so it might make > sense for at least the first one to cover that time period, regardless > of any future frequency. > > Is there any way to find the blog starting from > https://agoranomic.org/ ? I don't think I'd seen it before. Nope! I broke the CSS at one point (now I fixed it), and then the newspaper fell through, and it stopped getting updated. I don't know how to add it to the header, or to add the header to it. I might be able to figure it out, or someone else could do it; it's never quite seemed worth it, given that the blog is dead, but if we revitalize it that would change. -Aris
Re: DIS: [Reporter] Last Week in Agora
On 2/7/20 12:07 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: >> Thanks! I added it because Aris suggested some interpretive element >> would be nice in the weekly summaries. Seems like a good payoff for >> not much extra effort. > Yeah, I really do like it! It somehow changes the character of the > piece from a pure recounting of facts to something that feels more > meaningful or personal. I'm glad you went with it and that it's not > too much extra work. > > -Aris I agree. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [Reporter] Last Week in Agora
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 8:04 PM James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 23:52, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Falsifian wrote: > > > Welcome Tcbapo! > > > > > > A lot happened last week. twg won the game the hard way. Many parts of > > > the rules are changed after the adoption of twelve proposals, and > > > voting began on several more, including ways to make the decision > > > process smoother. The Herald invents the Patent Title of Little Ricky > > > Tables (read why below), and a degree is being awarded. > > > > > > The usual combination of proposals, CFJs and other rules questions are > > > discussed, along with a Prophecy of Doom and our first official > > > Editorial Guidelines. > > > > > > A game of blackjack continues, showing that many are eager to have fun > > > even while all this Serious Business is afoot. > > > > I really like this new summary section! Gives a great high-level view of > > what's going on. > > > > -twg > > Thanks! I added it because Aris suggested some interpretive element > would be nice in the weekly summaries. Seems like a good payoff for > not much extra effort. Yeah, I really do like it! It somehow changes the character of the piece from a pure recounting of facts to something that feels more meaningful or personal. I'm glad you went with it and that it's not too much extra work. -Aris
DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On 2/6/20 7:26 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business wrote: > I object to the lists one because the example given is very confusing. > It's not an inline list because it's separated from the surrounding > prose, and it's not a block list because the elements aren't separated > by line breaks. And why are those spacing restrictions needed anyway > when R2429 lets you, as Rulekeepor, change spacing freely? The intention was that "newline" before and after each element meant that was on its own line, not that it had a blank line before and after each element; sorry that wasn't clear. I agree that some more drafting is probably needed. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [Reporter] Some questions, some thoughts, and a proposed newsletter
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 02:42, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 6:25 PM James Cook via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > Questions for anyone interested in Agora: > > > > 1. Would you be interested in seeing an Agoran newsletter? Not like > >"Last week in Agora"; I mean something more carefully written and > >covering a longer span of time. > > Yes. We've tried this in the past, and it's been great when it worked, > but we've had repeated problems with low activity. The office was > called the Reportor, I think. It has worked in the past, but it only > works when someone is willing to take it on for a long period of time. > For some reason, it needs more commitment than most offices to > function. I'm not suggesting that you should be obliged to commit to > run it long term, just making a factual statement about the historical > trends. That's good to know. On the topic of long-term commitment: I'm hoping that a commitment to the weekly summaries will be enough to make other journalistic tasks feasible on a more ad-hoc basis. I've kept those up for 3+ months so far, but might try to set up a rotation or something. > Am I interested? Definitely. Will I actually do it? Almost certainly > not. I've considered doing a "interesting proposals" summary as > Promotor, but I inevitably fail to have the time. However, I did > contribute last time around by editing the newspapers for publication > on the Agoran blog [1], and I could possibly resume that task. > > [1] https://agoranomic.org/blog/ Editing would be helpful! I had been imagining the more substantial newsletter being close to quarterly. Looking at that blog, it looks like at least some of them had shorter periods in mind. Any opinions on the relative benefits of different frequencies? I've got about a quarter's worth of summaries so far, so it might make sense for at least the first one to cover that time period, regardless of any future frequency. Is there any way to find the blog starting from https://agoranomic.org/ ? I don't think I'd seen it before. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [Reporter] Some questions, some thoughts, and a proposed newsletter
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 13:34, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sat, Feb 1, 2020, 21:25 James Cook via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > 2. Do you think my "Last Week in Agora" summaries are useful? Any other > >comments? So far I've acted unilaterally in writing them, just to > >get something started, but I'm open to doing things differently. > > > > I really like them. It's nice to have a three-thousand-foot view of what's > going on. > > —Warrigal Thanks, good to know. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: [Reporter] Last Week in Agora
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 23:52, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > Falsifian wrote: > > Welcome Tcbapo! > > > > A lot happened last week. twg won the game the hard way. Many parts of > > the rules are changed after the adoption of twelve proposals, and > > voting began on several more, including ways to make the decision > > process smoother. The Herald invents the Patent Title of Little Ricky > > Tables (read why below), and a degree is being awarded. > > > > The usual combination of proposals, CFJs and other rules questions are > > discussed, along with a Prophecy of Doom and our first official > > Editorial Guidelines. > > > > A game of blackjack continues, showing that many are eager to have fun > > even while all this Serious Business is afoot. > > I really like this new summary section! Gives a great high-level view of > what's going on. > > -twg Thanks! I added it because Aris suggested some interpretive element would be nice in the weekly summaries. Seems like a good payoff for not much extra effort. - Falsifian
DIS: Re: [Reporter] Last Week in Agora
> voting began on several more, including ways to make the decision > process smoother. Small correction: I think only one proposal currently being voted on is related to improving the decision process. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 22:06, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 2/6/20 7:47 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote: > > "I intend, with Agoran consent, to enact the following Editorial > > Guidelines:" > > > > does not seem like multiple separate intents. > > > Whoops, you're right. I was thinking the rule said CAN enact a > (singular) Guideline, not CAN enact (plural) Guidelines. Sorry! Even then, it's not clear to me that the dependent action rules break out separate intents, actually...
DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
On 2/6/20 7:47 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote: > "I intend, with Agoran consent, to enact the following Editorial Guidelines:" > > does not seem like multiple separate intents. Whoops, you're right. I was thinking the rule said CAN enact a (singular) Guideline, not CAN enact (plural) Guidelines. Sorry! -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
I wrote:
> I object to the capitalisation one for the same reason as Alexis.
>
> I object to the lists one because the example given is very confusing.
> It's not an inline list because it's separated from the surrounding
> prose, and it's not a block list because the elements aren't separated
> by line breaks. And why are those spacing restrictions needed anyway
> when R2429 lets you, as Rulekeepor, change spacing freely?
>
> I support the pronouns one, although I think it could do with amending
> to specify the other declensions ("eir", "eirs", "emself") too.
Sorry, this comes across more negative than I intended. I do support
editorial guidelines in general and I approve of the things you're
trying to do with them! - just that these could do with a bit more
drafting.
-twg
Re: DIS: [Reporter] Last Week in Agora
Falsifian wrote: > Welcome Tcbapo! > > A lot happened last week. twg won the game the hard way. Many parts of > the rules are changed after the adoption of twelve proposals, and > voting began on several more, including ways to make the decision > process smoother. The Herald invents the Patent Title of Little Ricky > Tables (read why below), and a degree is being awarded. > > The usual combination of proposals, CFJs and other rules questions are > discussed, along with a Prophecy of Doom and our first official > Editorial Guidelines. > > A game of blackjack continues, showing that many are eager to have fun > even while all this Serious Business is afoot. I really like this new summary section! Gives a great high-level view of what's going on. -twg -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Let's deal with the temporary rules.
Falsifian wrote:
> Sigh. I repeal Blink test v1.1 and submit:
>
> Title: Blink test v1.2
> AI: 1
> Chamber: Legislation
> Co-authors: Jason
> Text: {
>
> Amend Rule 2601 to read in full:
>
> If this is the only paragraph in this rule, and it has been at
> least one week since this rule was last amended, then any player
> CAN Close the Eye by announcement. When that happens, this rule
> repeals itself.
>
> }
NttPF.
-twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [DoV] [Proposal] Closing the door behind me
Falsifian wrote: >> hope that the economy gets reset or something Also sorry: I was planning to try something hyper-inflationary on my Agoran Birthday earlier this week, to try to force the need for a reset (e.g. pledging to give back 2/3 of coins of anyone who gave me them) but it's been a heck of a week over here and I just plum forgot.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Help with Forgotten Announcements, Support Improvements
> My apologies for the delayed reply here, but this was intentional and > I would ask that everyone who voted against it for this reason > consider voting in favour. This is done to match up with the way that > proposals work: an AI=1 proposal requires a strict majority, but an > AI=2 proposal can be passed with 2 FOR and 1 AGAINST. This is also in > keeping with most interpretations of parliamentary procedure I have > seen: a "vote of two thirds" is passed at 2:1, not failed, for > instance. The previous wording for Agoran consent correctly required > that 1 Agoran consent have a majority in favour, but incorrectly > required that higher values also have an extra vote in favour. The > first condition that S <= O ensures that 1 Agoran consent is left > unchanged. > > In effect, there are two independent changes here: one is to allow the > initiator to count when evaluating support for all intents, and the > other is to change the Agoran consent definition to line up with the > way that supermajority votes normally work. I apologize for not making > this clearer in the proposal. > > Alexis Sounds good to me. Thanks for the explanation. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [DoV] [Proposal] Closing the door behind me
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 11:55 AM James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 18:09, James Cook wrote: > > Are we just going to let a steady stream of sufficiently dedicated > > players claim their standard victories? I say we raise the bar a > > little. > > By the way, I don't mean for this comment to take away from G.'s > victory. G. built quite a large balance over a long time, and eirs is > the first Coin victory I've seen. > > Victory should be a rare and celebrated achievement. Now that someone > has beaten the Coins game (and now that I've slipped a victory in too, > thank you very much) let's close that and start on something new. I'll > be voting for a fairly high fee in the hope that the economy gets > reset or something before anyone reaches it. An effect of victories that don't reset things for everyone is that there's a long race for the first winner, but then lots of people are close and cross the finish line relatively quickly after that. If you don't want a "glut" of winners (but also don't want a complete reset of everyone upon a win), a couple interesting ideas (that we haven't tried IIRC) are (1) an automatic increase in the threshold when someone wins, which in this case would reduce the incentive to just sit on a winning amount of coins until you feel like winning or (2) actually formally recording in the Herald's Report, for a particular type of win, who got 1st place, 2nd place, etc. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Help with Forgotten Announcements, Support Improvements
On Fri, 31 Jan 2020 at 11:24, James Cook wrote: > > 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 My apologies for the delayed reply here, but this was intentional and I would ask that everyone who voted against it for this reason consider voting in favour. This is done to match up with the way that proposals work: an AI=1 proposal requires a strict majority, but an AI=2 proposal can be passed with 2 FOR and 1 AGAINST. This is also in keeping with most interpretations of parliamentary procedure I have seen: a "vote of two thirds" is passed at 2:1, not failed, for instance. The previous wording for Agoran consent correctly required that 1 Agoran consent have a majority in favour, but incorrectly required that higher values also have an extra vote in favour. The first condition that S <= O ensures that 1 Agoran consent is left unchanged. In effect, there are two independent changes here: one is to allow the initiator to count when evaluating support for all intents, and the other is to change the Agoran consent definition to line up with the way that supermajority votes normally work. I apologize for not making this clearer in the proposal. Alexis
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8308-8321
On Thu, 30 Jan 2020 at 23:42, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote: > >> 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. Good catch!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [DoV] [Proposal] Closing the door behind me
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 14:55, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 18:09, James Cook wrote: > > Are we just going to let a steady stream of sufficiently dedicated > > players claim their standard victories? I say we raise the bar a > > little. > > By the way, I don't mean for this comment to take away from G.'s > victory. G. built quite a large balance over a long time, and eirs is > the first Coin victory I've seen. > > Victory should be a rare and celebrated achievement. Now that someone > has beaten the Coins game (and now that I've slipped a victory in too, > thank you very much) let's close that and start on something new. I'll > be voting for a fairly high fee in the hope that the economy gets > reset or something before anyone reaches it. > > - Falsifian I think that economic wins are a valuable and important part of the game. I don't think we should necessarily change the mechanism every time, but I do generally prefer to see them come with a built-in reset (whole or partial). Wins where the goal is to amass a collection, like Ribbons, are different sometimes, but I do like the idea that purely economic activity-based wins should come with resets. -Alexis
DIS: Re: BUS: [DoV] [Proposal] Closing the door behind me
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 18:09, James Cook wrote: > Are we just going to let a steady stream of sufficiently dedicated > players claim their standard victories? I say we raise the bar a > little. By the way, I don't mean for this comment to take away from G.'s victory. G. built quite a large balance over a long time, and eirs is the first Coin victory I've seen. Victory should be a rare and celebrated achievement. Now that someone has beaten the Coins game (and now that I've slipped a victory in too, thank you very much) let's close that and start on something new. I'll be voting for a fairly high fee in the hope that the economy gets reset or something before anyone reaches it. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Let's deal with the temporary rules.
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 18:52, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 2/6/20 1:49 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > Title: Blink test v1.1
> > AI: 1
> > Chamber: Legislation
> > Text: {
> >
> > Amend Rule 2601 to read in full:
> >
> > If this is the only sentence in this rule, and it has been at
> > least one week since this rule was last amended, then any player
> > CAN Close the Eye by announcement. When that happens, this rule
> > repeals itself.
> >
> > }
>
>
> Err... this is impossible to trigger because the rule now has two sentences?
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
Sigh. I repeal Blink test v1.1 and submit:
Title: Blink test v1.2
AI: 1
Chamber: Legislation
Co-authors: Jason
Text: {
Amend Rule 2601 to read in full:
If this is the only paragraph in this rule, and it has been at
least one week since this rule was last amended, then any player
CAN Close the Eye by announcement. When that happens, this rule
repeals itself.
}
- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Let's deal with the temporary rules.
On 2/6/20 1:49 PM, James Cook wrote:
> Title: Blink test v1.1
> AI: 1
> Chamber: Legislation
> Text: {
>
> Amend Rule 2601 to read in full:
>
> If this is the only sentence in this rule, and it has been at
> least one week since this rule was last amended, then any player
> CAN Close the Eye by announcement. When that happens, this rule
> repeals itself.
>
> }
Err... this is impossible to trigger because the rule now has two sentences?
--
Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Let's deal with the temporary rules.
On 2/6/20 1:41 PM, James Cook via agora-business wrote: > least one week since this rule was last amended, then any player > CAN repeal this rule by announcement. Per Rule 105, only Instruments can cause rule changes, and persons are not Instruments. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3788 Assigned to Jason Cobb
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 17:58, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 9:47 AM James Cook via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 17:34, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > > On 2/6/20 12:02 PM, James Cook wrote: > > > > It's not clear to me your judgement would break self-ratification of > > > > switch reports. Aris's documents were written in an unusual way: they > > > > said that at some earlier date, the values of two switch instances > > > > changed. Self-ratifying switch reports generally just directly say > > > > what the values of the switches are, so I don't think they get tangled > > > > up in the problem you consider in your judgement. > > > > > > I was referring to the interpretation that only updates the historical > > > record likely breaking self-ratification. But I agree, the R217 appeal > > > probably isn't necessary (and was kind of wedged in there as an > > > afterthought, anyway). > > > > I'm not sure that would break it, though. A ratified document saying > > "switch instance X has value Y" in the present tense pretty clearly > > forces the minimally modified gamestate to include that switch value > > in order to be "as true and accurate as possible"; I don't think the > > historical record comes into it. Aris's documents were instead written > > as facts about the past. > > Well, technically they were a second in the past, yes. I don't see why > that changes the situation as far as the history goes though. > > -Aris Hm... okay, I guess if they had been written as "At this instant, the fora agora-official and agora-bisuness become discussion fora" then Jason's judgement would also seem to apply. I guess it's writing it as "this changed happened" vs "this is the value of the switch" that I believe would affect whether the issues Jason considers are relevant. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3788 Assigned to Jason Cobb
On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 9:47 AM James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 17:34, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On 2/6/20 12:02 PM, James Cook wrote: > > > It's not clear to me your judgement would break self-ratification of > > > switch reports. Aris's documents were written in an unusual way: they > > > said that at some earlier date, the values of two switch instances > > > changed. Self-ratifying switch reports generally just directly say > > > what the values of the switches are, so I don't think they get tangled > > > up in the problem you consider in your judgement. > > > > I was referring to the interpretation that only updates the historical > > record likely breaking self-ratification. But I agree, the R217 appeal > > probably isn't necessary (and was kind of wedged in there as an > > afterthought, anyway). > > I'm not sure that would break it, though. A ratified document saying > "switch instance X has value Y" in the present tense pretty clearly > forces the minimally modified gamestate to include that switch value > in order to be "as true and accurate as possible"; I don't think the > historical record comes into it. Aris's documents were instead written > as facts about the past. Well, technically they were a second in the past, yes. I don't see why that changes the situation as far as the history goes though. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3788 Assigned to Jason Cobb
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 17:34, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2/6/20 12:02 PM, James Cook wrote: > > It's not clear to me your judgement would break self-ratification of > > switch reports. Aris's documents were written in an unusual way: they > > said that at some earlier date, the values of two switch instances > > changed. Self-ratifying switch reports generally just directly say > > what the values of the switches are, so I don't think they get tangled > > up in the problem you consider in your judgement. > > I was referring to the interpretation that only updates the historical > record likely breaking self-ratification. But I agree, the R217 appeal > probably isn't necessary (and was kind of wedged in there as an > afterthought, anyway). I'm not sure that would break it, though. A ratified document saying "switch instance X has value Y" in the present tense pretty clearly forces the minimally modified gamestate to include that switch value in order to be "as true and accurate as possible"; I don't think the historical record comes into it. Aris's documents were instead written as facts about the past. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3788 Assigned to Jason Cobb
On 2/6/20 12:02 PM, James Cook wrote: > It's not clear to me your judgement would break self-ratification of > switch reports. Aris's documents were written in an unusual way: they > said that at some earlier date, the values of two switch instances > changed. Self-ratifying switch reports generally just directly say > what the values of the switches are, so I don't think they get tangled > up in the problem you consider in your judgement. I was referring to the interpretation that only updates the historical record likely breaking self-ratification. But I agree, the R217 appeal probably isn't necessary (and was kind of wedged in there as an afterthought, anyway). -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3788 Assigned to Jason Cobb
Thought of another comment: On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 22:56, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > that revert what it has already done. Additionally, this interpretation > would likely break self-ratification of switch reports, which would be > against the best interests of the game, so Rule 217 suggests that I > should reject it. It's not clear to me your judgement would break self-ratification of switch reports. Aris's documents were written in an unusual way: they said that at some earlier date, the values of two switch instances changed. Self-ratifying switch reports generally just directly say what the values of the switches are, so I don't think they get tangled up in the problem you consider in your judgement. I don't think you really need the appeal to 217. Maybe (if it's not too bold) you could delete the word "arguably" from the judgement :-) (I think in the thread where Aris originally published those documents, I suggested that the documents could simply have stated the values of the switches, rather than saying they were changed in the past.) - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3788 Assigned to Jason Cobb
On Sun, 2 Feb 2020 at 22:56, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2/1/20 7:05 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > On 2/1/20 6:57 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > >> I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a motion to reconsider. > > I self-file a motion to reconsider in CFJ 3788. > > > > > > Alright, a less insane and non-procrastinated draft judgement that I can > leave up for more than a day: > > REVISED JUDGEMENT IN CFJ 3788 Thanks, looks good to me! One nitpick: you go to the trouble of quoting Rule 1551, but the sentence immediately following refers to a part you left out of the quote, which seems odd. - Falsifian
DIS: [Reporter] Last Week in Agora
Archived at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reporter/tree/master/weekly_summaries Report for the week of 2020-01-27..02-02: # Summary Welcome Tcbapo! A lot happened last week. twg won the game the hard way. Many parts of the rules are changed after the adoption of twelve proposals, and voting began on several more, including ways to make the decision process smoother. The Herald invents the Patent Title of Little Ricky Tables (read why below), and a degree is being awarded. The usual combination of proposals, CFJs and other rules questions are discussed, along with a Prophecy of Doom and our first official Editorial Guidelines. A game of blackjack continues, showing that many are eager to have fun even while all this Serious Business is afoot. # Meta * Your humble Reporter asks you some questions: see thread "[Reporter] Some questions, some thoughts, and a proposed newsletter" on agora-discussion. # Victory * twg wins by raising a banner. Thread: "And in lighter news... [DoV]" * "without a doubt, the hardest and most noble way to win the game." -Aris * The final ribbon was a Lime ribbon e earned from this week's adopted proposals, by submitting proposals through eir zombie. twg is kind enough to award eir zombie Red and Orange ribbons for eir help. * Some uncertainty about the H. Assessor's first attempt to resolve proposals means it's unclear whether twg's first attempt to raise a banner worked, because it depended on em getting a lime ribbon. After the H. Assessor sends a corrected message resolving proposals, twg repeats eir actions in case they failed the first time. Thread: "[Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307" * Our new H. Herald Alexis awards G. the Patent Title of Champion for winning the game last week by paying a fee of 1000 Coins. There is some discussion of which category of victory to count it as. Thread: "[Herald] Hear, ye! Hear, ye! A new Champion!" # Games * Warrigal deals some blackjack hands, and players respond. E set up a game last week by means of a pledge. Threads: "Blackjack, anyone?", "[dicelog] Blackjack hands 2020-01-29" # Resolution of proposals * Voting ends on proposals 8287-8307 and they are resolved. This is a large batch, with 21 proposals, 12 of which were adopted. * A summary of the adopted proposals: * Large efforts fairly long in the making: * A reform to how contracts and pledges work, including the creation of the office of the Notary. "Contract Patency v3" * twg points out the Notary doesn't have a ministry, and suggests it should be set to Economy. * The establishment of the Ministries of Justice, Efficiency, Legislation, Participation and Economy. Officers who are part of those ministries have increased voting power on proposals related to them. Originally written by currently-absent player Trigon, and then picked up again by twg. "Interesting Chambers v3.1" * A clarification (or fix) to the wording of Rule 2602 (Glitter). * An increase of the maximum voting strength from 5 to 14. * Remove the possibility for a CFJ to count as a doubt that blocks self-ratification. * Make officers responsible for granting rewards and glitter rather than having each player claim eir own rewards. * A follow-up to this that defines a notion called "in an officially timely fashion". * Removing things: * Remove the notion of a "convergence". * Remove an obsolete provision about the no-longer-defined "Imminence" proposal switch. * Making regulations tracked by the Rulekeepor. * A generic method for petitions, replacing a specific one that was set up only for patent titles. * Replace gendered degree names with gender-neutral versions. * twg points out an error in the resolution: the increased maximum voting strength wasn't taken into account in the proposals resolved after that proposal. Jason Cobb sends an updated message resolving the proposals taking twg's point into account. * There's then some uncertainty about whether some proposals took effect twice. * There are various proposals that stem out of this, listed in the "Proposals and proposed proposals" and "Discussions about possible broad rule changes" sections of this document. * Alexis proposes some changes to the rules around resolving Agoran decisions, partly to clarify some ambiguity around what constitutes a valid announcement resolving a decision. Thread: "[Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8287-8307" # Voting * Voting begins on Proposals 8308-8321. Some potential problems with the proposals are discussed in the same thread. # Culture and Academics * The H. Herald announces intents to award twg either the degree of Associate of Nomic or of Baccalaureate of Nomic, depending which gets the most
