DIS: [Distributor] List update
I've mostly finished switching the list's SMTP server from notqmail (a qmail fork) to Haraka. Kind of a funny juxtaposition. Qmail is a C program whose design was already traditionalist when it was written in 1995, and it hasn't changed much since then. These days it's used mostly by hipsters. ;) Haraka, on the other hand, is written in node.js! As much as I like qmail, I wanted to take advantage of Haraka's flexible plugin system to implement the functionality I want: custom From address munging applied on a per-recipient level, only after an initial un-munged delivery attempt fails. I haven't actually finished that yet, but it's close. I first set up Haraka last weekend, reimplemented the subscribers-only filter, and trialed it by having Mailman use it to deliver only list messages I wrote myself. (That way I could test deliverability to everyone without spamming them with test messages, while minimizing disruption if it didn't work.) This weekend, I didn't have enough energy to do much, but since logs didn't show any delivery failures for the handful of messages I've sent since then, I thought I might as well finish switching to Haraka. It's now handling all deliveries as well as incoming mail. Please let me know if there are any issues.
Re: DIS: [Reporter] Some questions, some thoughts, and a proposed newsletter
On 2/9/2020 7:18 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: > Falsifian wrote: > >> 1b. Agora's nature as a broadcast email list seems to put limits on >> how many active players it can practically sustain. If 100 >> players were all sending interesting proposals and arguments and >> so on, it would be impractical for anyone to keep up. I'm not >> claiming to remove this limitation outright, but I do believe >> that having a system in place for summarizing information has >> the potential to increase the manageable rate of participation. >> Maybe the weekly summaries can be a beginning. > > We did once get a bunch more registrations from a Slashdot bump, I'd > guess from this post: > https://developers.slashdot.org/story/05/04/14/1643251/perlnomic---an-experiment-in-cooperative-coding > (though the Registrar history doesn't bear that out). I don't think it > ever got close to 100 (not counting corporate persons) but I want to say > it was up in the 30-50 range for a year or so. That slashdot bump was how I found this place, and I registered right afterwards, so it was a little before 04-Feb-01. IIRC Agora was mentioned in a comment on a story on cooperative games or something, so it was just a minor mention. There were I'd say a dozen of us or so from that bump, but the uptick brought some old players out (e.g. Lindrum). A registrar's report I just glanced at from July 2001 shows 33 players (5 of them zombies). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [attn Promotor] Proposal: Fix Auctions
Aris wrote: You might want to check the AI on that? -Aris On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 6:13 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: Proposal: Fix Auctions Amend Rule 2549 (Auction Initiation) by replacing this text: An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots. with this text: An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is able to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots; however, if the Auctioneer is Agora, then it CAN give them away at will. I did; I know some of the Auction and/or Zombie rules are Power 2, but Rule 2549 is only Power 1. And (unless I'm missing something) a CAN defined at Power 1 should still be respected by Power 2 rules, unless they explicitly say CANNOT somewhere.
Re: DIS: [proto] Standard Model of Agoran Economics
Alexis wrote: Definition and Continuity of Entities may result in this happening automatically. The easiest fix may be to simply condition around it, so that the result works regardless of whether or not D applies. Hmm, point, but ambiguous; the new name isn't identical to the old, just contains it, as do some others with a looser connection. Actually the easiest fix would probably be to explicitly destroy all Coins at the start (which clearly cuts D out of the picture), then re-create at the end as currently written.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor, attn Treasuror] Proposal Rewards
G. wrote: On 2/9/2020 1:43 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: Oh, right, I have to do this now: This was broken due to no "by announcement" in R2496 - is it fixed now? Well, if it isn't, then at least we know what to re-post once it is.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Attn Promotor] Four proposals
Alexis wrote: On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 15:37, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: Proposal: Consistent ADoP duties (AI = 2) Amend Rule 2154 (Election Procedure) by appending to this text: If at any point an uncontested election has a single candidate, then any player CAN by announcement declare em the winner of the election, thereby causing em to win the election. If at any point an uncontested election has no candidates, then any player CAN declare the election ended with no winner by announcement. this text: In each of these cases, the ADoP SHALL so announce in a timely fashion, unless someone else has already done so. [I think the recent resolutions of Treasuror and Tailor, while still effective resolutions, didn't count as temporary deputisation because the ADoP wasn't required to do them.] I don't think this is needed, see existing text: After the nomination period ends, the ADoP CAN and, in a timely fashion, SHALL: 2) If POSSIBLE per the following paragraph, end the election immediately. Yeah, you're right. IMO it could still do with a reword for clarity, though. Proto: Clarify ADoP duties (AI = 2) Amend Rule 2154 (Election Procedure) by replacing this text: After the nomination period ends, the ADoP CAN and, in a timely fashion, SHALL: 1) If the election is contested, initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the election (the poll). For this decision, the Vote Collector is the ADoP, the valid options are the candidates for that election (including those who become candidates after its initiation), and the voting method is instant runoff. When the poll is resolved, its outcome, if a player, wins the election. If the outcome is not a player, the election ends with no winner. 2) If POSSIBLE per the following paragraph, end the election immediately. If at any point an uncontested election has a single candidate, then any player CAN by announcement declare em the winner of the election, thereby causing em to win the election. If at any point an uncontested election has no candidates, then any player CAN declare the election ended with no winner by announcement. with this text: After the nomination period ends: 1) If the election is contested, the ADoP CAN, and SHALL in a timely fashion, initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the election (the poll). For this decision, the Vote Collector is the ADoP, the valid options are the candidates for that election (including those who become candidates after its initiation), and the voting method is instant runoff. When the poll is resolved, its outcome, if a player, wins the election. If the outcome is not a player, the election ends with no winner. 2) If at any point an uncontested election has a single candidate, then any player CAN by announcement declare em the winner of the election, thereby causing em to win the election. If at any point an uncontested election has no candidates, then any player CAN declare the election ended with no winner by announcement. In either of these cases, the ADoP SHALL do so in a timely fashion, unless someone else already has.
Re: DIS: [Reporter] Some questions, some thoughts, and a proposed newsletter
Falsifian wrote: 1b. Agora's nature as a broadcast email list seems to put limits on how many active players it can practically sustain. If 100 players were all sending interesting proposals and arguments and so on, it would be impractical for anyone to keep up. I'm not claiming to remove this limitation outright, but I do believe that having a system in place for summarizing information has the potential to increase the manageable rate of participation. Maybe the weekly summaries can be a beginning. We did once get a bunch more registrations from a Slashdot bump, I'd guess from this post: https://developers.slashdot.org/story/05/04/14/1643251/perlnomic---an-experiment-in-cooperative-coding (though the Registrar history doesn't bear that out). I don't think it ever got close to 100 (not counting corporate persons) but I want to say it was up in the 30-50 range for a year or so. Not sure how many of them really participated beyond 'cast a few votes then wander off', though. If the number of players participating at a comparable level kept increasing, then at some point we might look at splitting off some of the discussion to a forum system (even if it was all cc'd to an Everything List). Probably not everyone is going to be equally interested in every single thing, I know I end up skimming past some of the longer and more abstract protos at least.
DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 20:29, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > As do I. I never intended to keep Rulekeepor this long, and I can see > why people would want to replace me, given the recent delay in reporting. I just felt that if you've been in office this long, no reason for you to not be properly elected to it. No complaints about the quality of work; holding off on the report this week was justified. -Alexis
DIS: [Promotor] Draft
Here is a draft report.
-Aris
---
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
---
8322* Falsifian, Alexis, twg 3.0 Unrepetition v1.1
8323* Jason3.0 Secure Ribbons
8324l Falsifian2.0 Democratic unassignment
8325e Falsifian2.0 Inflation Vote
3526* Falsifian3.0 Attempted cleanup
3527l Falsifian1.0 Blink test v1.2
3528* Falsifian3.0 The Eternal Sprit
3529# Alexis 1.0 RtRW Reschedule
3530* G. 3.0 No looting white ribbons
3531# Warrigal 1.7 Promissory cleanliness
3532f Murphy, Alexis 1.0 Switch Responsibility Responsibility
3533# Murphy, Alexis 2.0 Meaningful extra votes
3534# Murphy, Alexis 2.0 Meaningless extra coins
3535# Murphy 2.0 Consistent ADoP duties
3536* Jason3.0 Define "publicly"
3537# Murphy 1.0 Fix Auctions
The proposal pool is currently empty.
Legend: * : 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: 8322
Title: Unrepetition v1.1
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Falsifian
Co-authors: Alexis, twg
For each of Proposals 8287-8307, if the proposal took effect more than
once, then any changes to rule text caused by the second and later
times the proposal took effect are considered "extra" for the purposes
of this proposal.
Reverse all such "extra" changes, in the reverse of the order in which
they occurred.
[Comment: See
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-February/056587.html
for context. I think the changes this undoes are relatively benign,
but it's nice to have certainty about the state of the ruleset.]
//
ID: 8323
Title: Secure Ribbons
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2438 (Ribbons) by replacing the text "Ribbon Ownership is a
person switch" with the text "Ribbon Ownership is a secured person switch".
//
ID: 8324
Title: Democratic unassignment
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Falsifian
Co-authors:
If Proposal 8320 (Promotorial Assignment) has been adopted, then amend
the rule entitled "Proposal Chambers" by replacing "If a proposal in
the Proposal Pool has its chamber unset" with "If the chamber of an
ordinary proposal in the Proposal Pool is unset".
//
ID: 8325
Title: Inflation Vote
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Falsifian
Co-authors:
[Comments:
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.
There's been some talk of a larger re-working of the economy. In the
meantime, this proposal calls for players to vote on a new number to
replace the 1,000 coin victory fee. The median vote wins, favouring the
higher vote if there are two middle votes.
]
For the purpose of this proposal:
* An Inflation Ballot is a body of text published during the voting
period of this proposal that clearly, directly and without
obfuscation specifies a single non-negative integer and that it is an
Inflation Ballot.
* Each player's Inflation Vote is the integer specified in the last
Inflation Ballot they published, or "none" if they never published
one.
* P is the number of players with Inflation Votes other than "none".
* Median is the (unique) integer such that that at least P/2 Inflation
Votes are integers greater than or equal to Median, and at least
(P/2+0.5) Inflation votes are integers less than or equal to Median.
Amend Rule 2483 (Economics) by replacing "1,000" with Median, written
in decimal with commas separating groups of three digits, as in
"12,345,678".
//
ID: 8326
Title: Attempted cleanup
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Falsifian
Co-authors:
Repeal Rule 2604 ("Nothing to see here, Rule 1030,") and Rule 2600 ("Boo!!").
//
ID: 3527
DIS: Re: BUS: [attn Promotor] Proposal: Fix Auctions
You might want to check the AI on that? -Aris On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 6:13 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > > Proposal: Fix Auctions > > Amend Rule 2549 (Auction Initiation) by replacing this text: > >An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is able >to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots. > > with this text: > >An Auction also CANNOT be initiated unless the Auctioneer is able >to give away each item in each of the Auction's lots; however, if >the Auctioneer is Agora, then it CAN give them away at will.
DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents
I started to implement some rulekeepor automation a while back. I was getting really fancy, (manually) converting proposals to a machine-readable format and automatically applying them to the ruleset. I might finish that up and take up Rulekeepor, but I’m not sure. Gaelan > On Feb 9, 2020, at 5:29 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business > wrote: > > On 2/9/20 7:55 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: >> Alexis wrote: >> >>> I intend, with 2 Support, to initiate an election for each of the >>> following offices: >>> >>> * Assessor, as I'm dissatisfied with the sparse content of resolutions; >>> * Notary, as it is a brand new office; >>> * Rulekeepor, as it is interim; and >>> * Prime Minister, as it is interim. >> I support each of the last three. > > > As do I. I never intended to keep Rulekeepor this long, and I can see > why people would want to replace me, given the recent delay in reporting. > > -- > Jason Cobb >
Re: DIS: Fixing zombie auctions
On 2/9/2020 4:51 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 19:41, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: >> I've been thinking for a while that zombies should be transferable >> assets. It's really simple to implement too: You just need to create a >> "control idol" or something, and say that a zombie's owner is defined >> as the owner of their control idol. >> >> -Aris > > I think this is a good idea regardless tbh; I just don't want to have > to do all the fiddling to account for zombies owned by things like the > LFD or an Escrow trust. Had the currency rules of the time been more stable (it was a period of troubles with the definition of "pay" or something typical like that), I would have gone with this method instead of the switch. -G.
DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP, attn Treasuror] Salaries
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 21:24, Edward Murphy via agora-official
wrote:
> Proposal 8295 moved office salary reporting to the ADoP.
>
> Wed Jan 29 2020 03:26:29 UTC - initial alleged resolution
> Sat Feb 1 2020 02:24:44 UTC - CoE accepted, corrected resolution
>
> I grant 5 coins to each of these players for publishing these reports,
> except for:
>
> [1] Preceded initial alleged resolution, no grant
> [2] Preceded corrected resolution, no grant
I believe this won't work until Proposal 8311 is adopted. Proposal
8311 adds a missing method ("by announcement") to the relevant rule.
Also, note that the Treasuror has been tracking a similar list of
reports in eir weekly report, since Proposal 8311 is going to issue
the missing rewards. (You may still be responsible for issuing these
rewards too, though.)
- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Editorial Guidelines
Warrigal wrote: On Wed, Jan 29, 2020, 12:31 Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: You kids and your timely fashions. When I was young, we did things as soon as possible both ways and we liked it! You know, I *still* think of VVLOP and second-class persons (and second-class persons with nonzero VVLOP) as being part of Agora's heart and soul—presumably just because those two things happened to be in the rules at the time that I joined. I'm still sad that we changed "first-class person" to "person" and simply did away with "second-class person" with no replacement. It's never too late! We do have at least two founding members of the Association of Federated Organizations around, with a third possibly lurking as a watcher... (The AFO was my experiment with "what'll happen if a corporate person can be controlled by any member unilaterally, without any mandatory consensus process to slow it down". As I recall, it also raised lots of questions of "what constitutes fair punishment of the member(s) if they cause it to break rules", and was eventually a major part of the whole class of entities being repealed or at least seriously nerfed.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Attn Promotor] Four proposals
On Mon, 2020-02-10 at 01:16 +, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 20:37, Edward Murphy via agora-business > wrote: > > Proposal: Meaningless extra coins > > (AI = 2, co-author = Alexis) > > > > Amend Rule 2483 (Economics) by appending this text: > > > >Upon doing so, eir remaining Coins (if any) are destroyed. > > It would be more fun if it destroyed everyone's Coins. For High Score wins (which are quite similar to this), Agora historically went back and forth with respect to how large the reset should be. A full reset has the issue that players who have no chance to win first aren't motivated to maintain a buffer of points / Coins / whatever at all, effectively locking them out of the game until the win occurs (unless they have something else that they can spend them on). Meanwhile, a lack of reset has its own issues, meaning that there's no real interaction between players. The best method of doing things appears to be somewhere in between; a 50% reset historically worked fairly well. (There are other ways to produce a partial reset, too, such as increasing the victory requirement whenever someone wins; IIRC someone suggested that fairly recently.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: [Attn Promotor] Four proposals
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 20:37, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > Proposal: Meaningless extra coins > (AI = 2, co-author = Alexis) > > Amend Rule 2483 (Economics) by appending this text: > >Upon doing so, eir remaining Coins (if any) are destroyed. It would be more fun if it destroyed everyone's Coins. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I register
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 18:09, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: > On 1/24/2020 3:25 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > > > I, R. Lee, do register > > I have a registration recorded from 12/29/2019, I suppose that was also > ineffective due to the Troubles, though? In a couple of places, we defined The Troubles as ending December 28 --- [0], [1]. I received R. Lee's Dec. 29 registration attempt, and judging from twg's response on the thread you're quoting, I think at least e did to. I believe the consensus is that R. Lee was already registered when e sent that message. - Falsifian [0] https://listserver.tue.nl/pipermail/agora/2019-December/000383.html [1] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-January/041787.html
Re: DIS: Question for the promotor
On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 3:58 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > > If resubmitting an failed proposal without changes, do you prefer to > have it repeated or is it enough to let you copy-paste it? Letting me copy-paste it would be easier (I can keep the formatting), but please give the number. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents
On 2/9/20 7:29 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > I would absolutely prefer to see the full version from that site > posted to the mailing lists as it makes it much easier to work out. > Last time I mentioned conditional votes I believe you didn't mention > this site, and that was definitely one of the things. For this > particular draft, I definitely dislike the lack of additional > information about the proposal (class,chamber) and the way you show > voting strength using only symbols, but I would reasonably accept an > undertaking to address those as this is the first real resolution with > the new system. It would be ideal I think if the voting strength > calculation included, somewhere, at least a little breakdown of the > calculation (e.g. +1 from Speaker, -1 from blots, +4 from office > interest), but that's definitely going the extra mile. Chamber and class can probably be worked in (though I'll have to figure out how to deal with old resolutions somewhat cleanly). Voting strengths were done with symbols just because that was what I thought would be the most compact (and, honestly, easiest to implement). I previously just listed all of the voting strengths (along with the reason for them) at the top because they were the same for each of the decisions, but that's not really an option now. If it would be easier to read, I could also do: FOR: Alexis (4), Gaelan (487), nch (0) As for the format, I just tried to mirror the one my predecessor (D. Margaux) used. Switching to a tabular format would probably be a lot of work, but I would consider it if there was more demand. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Fixing zombie auctions
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 19:41, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > I've been thinking for a while that zombies should be transferable > assets. It's really simple to implement too: You just need to create a > "control idol" or something, and say that a zombie's owner is defined > as the owner of their control idol. > > -Aris I think this is a good idea regardless tbh; I just don't want to have to do all the fiddling to account for zombies owned by things like the LFD or an Escrow trust. (Also, we could make "owned by Agora" be "owned by the Zombie Ranch" or something, too). If you're willing to work on that, I could work on a proposal to address the auction side of things. I think my first preference would be to try to simply get rid of the general auction rules and replace them with more limited-scope ones based off of Agoran decisions (all the machinery is already there, with a few small tweaks), but I can modify the current rules to work with escrow if we really want. One nice approach to doing it this way is that they could be independent. -Alexis
Re: DIS: The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)
omd wrote: Each mbox file is append-only, so you can use the "continue download" option of your favorite tool to sync without having to redownload the whole thing: wget -c https://agora:no...@mailman.agoranomic.org/archives/agora-business.mbox I just set up my home server to do this monthly for all three lists, so that's one level of protection at least.
Re: DIS: [cotc] state of the cfj archives
> On Jan 24, 2020, at 2:01 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > (with that wonderful currently-missing technology: search) For what it’s worth, I used grep against a clone of your archive on GitHub (AgoraNomic/cases) while researching my last CFJ, and it worked quite well. Gaelan
Re: DIS: Fixing zombie auctions
On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 4:37 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > > I'd like to fix zombie auctions, but the current rules are complex and > I am not sure the best way to approach it. I was working on a proto > that created an Escrow Trust which would hold assets up for auction... > except that zombies aren't assets and therefore cannot be transferred; > we already have a weird patch in for auctions to work at all but > trying to make it work for an Escrow Trust would require a bunch of > work in the zombie rules to deal with the "agora as master" thing to > mean an unowned zombie. > > Here are a bunch of (not necessarily mutually-exclusive) ideas: > > - Implement the Escrow Trust ideas, and to make them work for Zombies, one of: > - Make zombie ownership 'act like' an asset, extending the possible > values to include an Escrow Trust and adjusting the zombie rules > accordingly. > - Change zombie status to a boolean switch with an ownership asset > that relies on asset, not switch, rules, and do the same. > - Try to unify assets and asset-like switches in the rules, and do the same. > - Explicitly special-case the way that zombie auctions work. > - Change the auction rules to address these and all other (currently > nonexistent) auctions of assets not owned by players. > - Remove the auction rules and: > - Refactor auctions to actually be a form of Agoran decision, with > some bespoke handling for zombies. > - Make bespoke, smaller-scope rules for the zombie auction. I've been thinking for a while that zombies should be transferable assets. It's really simple to implement too: You just need to create a "control idol" or something, and say that a zombie's owner is defined as the owner of their control idol. -Aris
DIS: Fixing zombie auctions
I'd like to fix zombie auctions, but the current rules are complex and I am not sure the best way to approach it. I was working on a proto that created an Escrow Trust which would hold assets up for auction... except that zombies aren't assets and therefore cannot be transferred; we already have a weird patch in for auctions to work at all but trying to make it work for an Escrow Trust would require a bunch of work in the zombie rules to deal with the "agora as master" thing to mean an unowned zombie. Here are a bunch of (not necessarily mutually-exclusive) ideas: - Implement the Escrow Trust ideas, and to make them work for Zombies, one of: - Make zombie ownership 'act like' an asset, extending the possible values to include an Escrow Trust and adjusting the zombie rules accordingly. - Change zombie status to a boolean switch with an ownership asset that relies on asset, not switch, rules, and do the same. - Try to unify assets and asset-like switches in the rules, and do the same. - Explicitly special-case the way that zombie auctions work. - Change the auction rules to address these and all other (currently nonexistent) auctions of assets not owned by players. - Remove the auction rules and: - Refactor auctions to actually be a form of Agoran decision, with some bespoke handling for zombies. - Make bespoke, smaller-scope rules for the zombie auction. -Alexis
Re: DIS: [cotc] state of the cfj archives
G. wrote: omd inherited these from Murphy, who stored these in a mysql database PostgreSQL. (with that wonderful currently-missing technology: search). The translation from mysql to flat files left some odd quirks, in particular with people's names. Murphy had inherited that database from someone else (forget who), and I don't know the history before that. Eris, who AFAIK originally created it, along with web view and CHUI maintenance scripts (I eventually translated the latter to the web as well). I also had some flat files for really old CFJs and was backfilling them into the database, but didn't get that far with it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 19:17, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2/9/20 7:14 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote: > > * Assessor, as I'm dissatisfied with the sparse content of resolutions; > > What other content would you like in the resolutions? I'll also point > out there is more information at https://agoranomic.org/assessor/ since > I try to keep the messages short for the mailing list. I would absolutely prefer to see the full version from that site posted to the mailing lists as it makes it much easier to work out. Last time I mentioned conditional votes I believe you didn't mention this site, and that was definitely one of the things. For this particular draft, I definitely dislike the lack of additional information about the proposal (class,chamber) and the way you show voting strength using only symbols, but I would reasonably accept an undertaking to address those as this is the first real resolution with the new system. It would be ideal I think if the voting strength calculation included, somewhere, at least a little breakdown of the calculation (e.g. +1 from Speaker, -1 from blots, +4 from office interest), but that's definitely going the extra mile. For many years, resolutions were done in table format, which I personally found easier to read, but I just realized this long predates you joining the game. Here's some examples: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07793.html or https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg04982.html Alexis -Alexis
DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents
On 2/9/20 7:14 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-business wrote: > * Assessor, as I'm dissatisfied with the sparse content of resolutions; What other content would you like in the resolutions? I'll also point out there is more information at https://agoranomic.org/assessor/ since I try to keep the messages short for the mailing list. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [Registrar] February zombie auction status
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 19:04, Gaelan Steele via agora-business
wrote:
> The way zombie auctions work, you can’t bid for yourself—you just bid on the
> auction in general, and then whoever has the highest bid gets Trigon, whoever
> has the second highest gets Nch, whoever has the third highest gets you, and
> so on. So if you want to win yourself, you’ll have to make sure you stay
> exactly in third place.
>
> CFJ: { CuddleBeam bid in an auction in the quoted message. }
>
> Arguments: {
> I could imagine the message being parsed two ways:
>
> A: I bid 15 coins in the action, for the purpose of winning myself
> B: I bid 15 coins in the [nonexistent] auction for myself
>
> If it’s A, CuddleBeam’s bid was probably EFFECTIVE: we include non-normative
> commentary in BUS messages all the time, and we consider actions EFFECTIVE
> even when they obviously don’t do what the actor was trying to do.
>
> If it’s B, it’s ineffective, because it’s trying to bid in a nonexistent
> auction.
> }
>
> Gaelan
Gratuitous: FALSE, since Alexis pointed out in this same thread that
this auction was probably never initiated. (This argument assumes
zombie auctions don't work, which I think Alexis is planning to find
soon in eir judgement of CFJ 3793.)
- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Registrar] February zombie auction status
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 at 21:15, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 at 12:17, James Cook via agora-business > wrote: > > > > This is an unofficial report on the ongoing zombie auction. All times UTC. > > > > Note: it is not clear that zombie auctions work. It is possible the > > winners will not receive their lots but will still be required to pay. > > The judgement of CFJ 3793 is expected to address this. > > R2549 seems to prevent auction initiation if the lots can't be > transferred. I believe that auctions have simply been ineffective. > > -Alexis Thanks for pointing that out. I will continue to go through the motions until you judge whether auctions work (assuming you're planning to set a precedent beyond Gaelan). - Falsifian
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: [Assessor] Draft resolutions of Proposals 8308-8321
On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 4:10 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 19:00, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > On 2/9/20 6:42 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > > > The original AI was 2 when it was submitted. Noticing this error > > > within the week of distribution would invalidate it for lack of > > > clarity, but it's self-ratified, so I believe it's properly > > > distributed at AI=2 now. > > > > > > -Alexis > > > > > > I think we're all in luck, because I CoE'd that proposal for a > > completely different reason: > > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-February/042099.html > > Ah, right! So the distribution failed. > > I withdraw the proposal 'Zombie trade'. I point my finger at Aris for > failing to respond to the cited CoE in a timely fashion. Whoops. I think I saw that at one point, but it totally slipped my mind. I apologize to everyone for the mess, and throw myself upon the Referee’s mercy. -Aris > >
Re: DIS: [Assessor] Draft resolutions of Proposals 8308-8321
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 18:58, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
wrote:
> I’m not so sure it self-ratified, actually.
>
> 1551/21 reads, in part: {
> An internally inconsistent document generally cannot be ratified; however, if
> such a document can be divided into a summary section and a main section,
> where the only purpose of the summary section is to summarize information in
> the main section, and the main section is internally consistent, ratification
> of the document proceeds as if it contained only the main section.
> }
>
> 1607/47 reads, in part: {
> The Promotor's report includes a list of all proposals in the Proposal Pool,
> along with their text and attributes. This portion of a public document
> purporting to be a Promotor's report is self-ratifying.
> }
>
> The Promotor’s message listed the attributes twice, and the text once, of
> each proposal. So this depends on what “this portion” means: does it mean the
> list at the top as well as the full proposals below, or just the full
> proposals below?
>
> If it means just the full proposals, then the proposal ratified at AI 1.
>
> If it means both, then we’ve got an internally inconsistent document,
> according to the 1551 clause I quoted. The question, then, is whether or not
> the "document can be divided into a summary section and a main section, where
> the only purpose of the summary section is to summarize information in the
> main section.” The key bit here is “only purpose”—the list at the top is
> actually part of another action (“I hereby distribute each listed
> proposal…”), but that action isn’t part of the self-ratifying document, so
> maybe in this context it only serves on purpose?
>
> If the “summary” clause applies, then it ratified at AI 1.
>
> If not, the document is internally inconsistent and didn’t ratify at all.
>
> Gaelan
The document, although internally inconsistent, is not what's actually
ratified. Only the fact that the notice is valid is actually ratified.
-Alexis
Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
Yep, https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Ruleset-Viewer > On Feb 9, 2020, at 4:01 PM, omd via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 1:11 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: >> FYI, for anyone in need of a more up-to-date ruleset, my online ruleset >> viewer (https://agora-ruleset.gaelan.me) is based on the Rulekeepor’s GitHub >> repository, so it may be (and is, at the moment) more up to date than the >> latest SLR. > > Cool. Is the source code for the generator available anywhere?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3792 Judgement
G. wrote: FWIW, it comes to the same answer (FALSE). Alexis cited the precedent of CFJ 3645 as a specific issue against my judgement. CFJ 3645 found, without much analysis, that publishing a link to information is the same as publishing the information itself, for the purposes of R2143. But it ignored the standing precedent, where CFJ 3410 found, on a plain reading of R2143, that a requirement "publish all such information" means - well - that you actually need to publish the information. While CFJ 3645 is more recent, it ignored the standing precedent without discussion, and is against the plain reading of rules text. So I was going to opine that, while overruling a precedent can be done, doing so without discussion (and against the plain language of the rule) meant that CFJ 3645 was an inappropriate judgement and CFJ 3410 should remain the standing precedent (which removes that as an objection to my current judgement). https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3410 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3645 Yeah, re-reading that, I should have gone the other way on 3645, I think I was focusing on "was the info reasonably available and accurate", but overlooking "clearly specifying X" being a weaker standard than "publishing X".
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3787 Assigned to omd
On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 10:00 AM Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: > I'm also generally catching up on ADoP recordkeeping. Little over half > done, so a report should be coming up within the next hour or two. Welcome back :)
Re: DIS: [Assessor] Draft resolutions of Proposals 8308-8321
On 2/9/20 6:42 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > The original AI was 2 when it was submitted. Noticing this error > within the week of distribution would invalidate it for lack of > clarity, but it's self-ratified, so I believe it's properly > distributed at AI=2 now. > > -Alexis I think we're all in luck, because I CoE'd that proposal for a completely different reason: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-February/042099.html -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 1:11 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > FYI, for anyone in need of a more up-to-date ruleset, my online ruleset > viewer (https://agora-ruleset.gaelan.me) is based on the Rulekeepor’s GitHub > repository, so it may be (and is, at the moment) more up to date than the > latest SLR. Cool. Is the source code for the generator available anywhere?
Re: DIS: [Assessor] Draft resolutions of Proposals 8308-8321
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 18:30, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2/9/2020 3:21 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > PROPOSAL 8317 (Zombie trade) > > FOR (5): Alexis%, Bernie, Gaelan, omd, twg& > > AGAINST (6): Aris, Falsifian$, G., Jason, Rance, o > > PRESENT (0): > > BALLOTS: 11 > > AI (F/A): 21/19 (AI=1.0) > > OUTCOME: ADOPTED > > This one is very broken if its AI is 1 because it tries to modify a bunch > of power=2 rules. In the distribution message, it is listed as AI-2 in > the top part: > > 8317e Alexis 2.0 Zombie trade > > and AI-1 in the bottom part: > > > ID: 8317 > > Title: Zombie trade > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > I'm guessing it's really AI-2 (and thus fails completely?) because I doubt > the author would make that big a mistake (including creating a "new > power-2 Rule") but I could be wrong? The original AI was 2 when it was submitted. Noticing this error within the week of distribution would invalidate it for lack of clarity, but it's self-ratified, so I believe it's properly distributed at AI=2 now. -Alexis
Re: DIS: [Assessor] Draft resolutions of Proposals 8308-8321
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 18:21, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > Because this is the first distribution with ministries (and my code > probably contains bugs), here's a draft resolution. (I've already hand > checked the voting strengths, bu I could have missed something). This would be far, far easier to check if you listed each proposal's class and chamber. Alexis
Re: DIS: [proto] Standard Model of Agoran Economics
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 18:27, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Feb 9, 2020, at 3:06 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion > > wrote: > > > > Proto-Proposal: Standard Model of Agoran Economics > > (AI = 2) > > > > [Reintroduce diversification of currencies. Probably needs tweaking.] > > > > Amend Rule 2483 (Economics) to read: > > > > The following are currencies, tracked by the Treasuror. They can > > be owned by Agora, players, and contracts. > > > >* Up coins > >* Down coins > >* Strange coins > >* Charm coins > > I’ll have you know that I literally yelled out “YES!” as I read this list. > It’s so perfectly Agoran. > > Gaelan We can start a betting pool on how long until we have truth and beauty coins too. Alexis
Re: DIS: [Proto-Proposals] The beginnings of reform
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 21:57, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > > Love the concept—I imagine many players (including me) had some vague plan of > writing this up at some point. > > Feedback inline. > > Gaelan Yeah, I've seen variations on this sort of thing enough times now that it feels like it is worthwhile to simply roll up our sleeves and get on with it. > > Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an instrument other than a > > statute CANNOT become binding on a person without eir willful consent, > > however, consent can be given by implication. In particular, > > consenting to be bound to an instrument can imply consent to be bound > > by amendments to it and consent to be bound by other instruments. > > I believe we state that registration is consent to be bound by the rules, so > I don’t think we need this exception. Maybe it’s useful as a failsafe? This applies to everything *except* registration (registration is a fundamental right in R101). It's intended as a generalization of the concept of contracts. However, it does actually need an exception for other public law like Regulations. A rule of any power already binds all players, so I'm tempted to say it should be unsecured but that the default is that only instruments that are part of a body of law defined as a public body of law can bind players without consent. > Ooh, this would make Fool Season a lot easier to implement. Fool Season, regulations, tournaments, contracts... there's a lot of options here. > > An ephemeral instrument is one that takes effect only briefly, to > > effect a number of changes on the game. When it takes effect, the > > changes specified in its text are applied, provided that the > > instrument has the power to effect them. If not otherwise specified by > > Should this be something more broad, such as “provided that the instrument > CAN effect them”? "the power" was meant to mean possibility, yes, not specifically Power. I can see that this language needs cleaning. The trick is to find a good language to make clear that this imparts a general power on instruments to effect change, but does not override specific prohibitions. Maybe the language of "mechanism" applies, since R2125 Regulated Actions, and similar language, are the main thing we want to overcome, in keeping with how the rules provide a general mechanism that allows R2125 not to prevent proposals from working since proposal enactment provides a mechanism, but specific prohibitions such as power controlling mutability, illegal values of switches, and so on, do generally still apply. An alternative would simply be to make explicit the carve-out in R2125, with the consequence that things that "CANNOT be performed except as described in this rule" would bind proposals too. Arguably they do currently, but that would make it more clear. > > the instrument, the changes are applied sequentially in the order they > > appear in the instrument. Unless otherwise specified by the > > instrument, the provisions of an instrument is applied sequentially > > and regardless of whether any other provision succeeds or fails in its > > effect. I just noticed that the last sentence here was intended to replace the previous one, but went after it instead. > > Retitle Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) to "Adopting Proposals" and > > amend it to read as follows: > > What a creative retitling! lol > > }} > > > > Repeal the rule "Statutory Instrumentation Simultaneity" enacted > > earlier in this proposal. > > Might be safer to repeal this after the simultaneous batch, so we’re sure it > has effect the whole time. This is. The simultaneous batch ends at the }}. > > }}}. It overrides non-statute instruments implicitly, except to the > > extent that it specifies otherwise, but overrides statutes only > > explicitly." > > Got some stray text here. Good catch. Alexis
Re: [attn: promotor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
On 2/9/2020 3:01 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > I strongly oppose this. In my view, inquiry cases should generally > *not* be the officer making the initial interpretation, at least not > preferentially. Inquiry cases are effectively the fallback appeal > mechanism, and should remain a balanced system. I would rather see a > separate path for administrative interpretations. Skeletal outline for simple memorandum: * A valid memorandum is considered "game custom" for the purposes of interpreting law; * a memorandum is invalid only if a CFJ finds it is arbitrary and capricious or reckless in its disregard for the rules text; * elected offices only; * a non-interim officeholder CAN issue a memorandum w/2 Agoran Consent; * valid memoranda are tracked with the officer's most frequent report; * when an new person is elected to an office, all previous memoranda for that office become invalid; * during the nomination period of an election, a nominee can publish a document listing memoranda for the office. If e is elected, those memoranda become valid;
Re: DIS: [Assessor] Draft resolutions of Proposals 8308-8321
On 2/9/2020 3:21 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > PROPOSAL 8317 (Zombie trade) > FOR (5): Alexis%, Bernie, Gaelan, omd, twg& > AGAINST (6): Aris, Falsifian$, G., Jason, Rance, o > PRESENT (0): > BALLOTS: 11 > AI (F/A): 21/19 (AI=1.0) > OUTCOME: ADOPTED This one is very broken if its AI is 1 because it tries to modify a bunch of power=2 rules. In the distribution message, it is listed as AI-2 in the top part: > 8317e Alexis 2.0 Zombie trade and AI-1 in the bottom part: > ID: 8317 > Title: Zombie trade > Adoption index: 1.0 I'm guessing it's really AI-2 (and thus fails completely?) because I doubt the author would make that big a mistake (including creating a "new power-2 Rule") but I could be wrong?
Re: DIS: [proto] Standard Model of Agoran Economics
> On Feb 9, 2020, at 3:06 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Proto-Proposal: Standard Model of Agoran Economics > (AI = 2) > > [Reintroduce diversification of currencies. Probably needs tweaking.] > > Amend Rule 2483 (Economics) to read: > > The following are currencies, tracked by the Treasuror. They can > be owned by Agora, players, and contracts. > >* Up coins >* Down coins >* Strange coins >* Charm coins I’ll have you know that I literally yelled out “YES!” as I read this list. It’s so perfectly Agoran. Gaelan > > Charm coins are the official currency of Agora. The others are > semi-official currencies of Agora. > > A player CAN gain a number of a non-Charm type of coin by paying a > fee of an equal number of Charm coins. > > A player CAN win the game by paying a fee containing at least one > of each type of Coin, with the smallest amount equal to at least > half the largest amount, and totaling at least 1,000. > > Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing "coins" as follows: > > (first section) "Up coins" > (second section) "Strange coins" > (third and fourth sections) "Down coins" > > (fifth section) "Charm coins" > > Amend Rule 2559 (Paydays) by replacing "coins" as follows: > > (first section) "Charm coins" > (second section) "Down coins" > > then by inserting this as the new first section, and renumbering the > others accordingly: > > 1. Each entity with Charm coins has 1/N (rounded to the nearest > integer, breaking ties upward) of eir Charm coins destroyed, > where N is the number of semi-official currencies of Agora; > then > > Amend Rule 2499 (Welcome Packages), Rule 2585 (Birthday Gifts), and > Rule 2602 (Glitter) by replacing "coins" with "Charm coins". > > Amend Rule 1885 (Zombie Auctions) by replacing this text: > > The Registrar is the announcer, > > with this text: > > The Registrar is the announcer, the currency is a semi-official > currency of Agora of eir choice, > > Each entity gains a number of Charm coins equal to the number of Coins > it possessed immediately before this proposal was adopted.
Re: DIS: Proto: Interesting Chambers v3
twg wrote: Trigon's "Interesting Chambers" idea got a great deal of popular support and doesn't deserve to be dropped solely because e left us, so I've Meh, I'd lost track of that. I suppose a future zombie auction will be unusually competitive, then...
Re: [attn: promotor] BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
Here’s another proto: {
Title: Calls with Memoranda
AI: 2
Co-authors: Aris, G, Alexis
Create a new Power-2 rule titled “Administrative Opinions”: {
An officer may publish an Administrative Opinion for a judicial case,
specifying a valid judgement for that case. Officers SHALL [SHOULD?] only
assign Administrative Opinions to cases with which eir office is primarily
concerned. An officer who has published an Administrative Opinion for an
unassigned case may, without objection, Administratively Close a case, causing
em to become the judge for the case and eir Administrative Opinion to become
the judgment for the case. The Arbitor SHOULD NOT assign a judge to a case
while proceedings to Administratively Close it are ongoing.
}
}
Gaelan
> On Feb 9, 2020, at 3:01 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 17:59, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> mailto:agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>>
> wrote:
>> I mean, didn’t we just do that, without any explicit rule at all? All we
>> need is an informal policy that we go with the officer’s interpretation
>> unless a CfJ decides otherwise.
>>
>> Alternatively, here’s a lightweight attempt to implement memoranda, either
>> as an alternative to the above informal mechanism or because it becomes a
>> dispute: I create the proposal {
>> Title: Calls for Memoranda
>> AI: 2
>> Co-authors: Aris, G
>>
>> Amend rule 991 by appending “All other things being equal, the Arbitor
>> SHOULD assign Calls for Judgement to the officer most concerned with its
>> content.” after the sentence "The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such
>> that all interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.”
>> }
>>
>> Maybe if we wanted to get fancy, we could implement some way for the officer
>> to assign themselves, so they could note their interpretation in the CfJ log
>> simply by calling and resolving the CfJ in the same message.
>>
>> Gaelan
>
> I strongly oppose this. In my view, inquiry cases should generally
> *not* be the officer making the initial interpretation, at least not
> preferentially. Inquiry cases are effectively the fallback appeal
> mechanism, and should remain a balanced system. I would rather see a
> separate path for administrative interpretations.
>
> -Alexis
DIS: [Assessor] Draft resolutions of Proposals 8308-8321
Because this is the first distribution with ministries (and my code probably contains bugs), here's a draft resolution. (I've already hand checked the voting strengths, bu I could have missed something). RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8308-8321 = I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals. The quorum for all below decisions was 5. Voting Strengths Strength is 3 unless otherwise noted. $: player has voting strength 4 %: player has voting strength 5 ^: player has voting strength 6 &: player has voting strength 7 PROPOSALS = PROPOSAL 8308 (Imposing order on the order) FOR (8): Aris, Bernie, Falsifian$, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, omd, twg AGAINST (1): Alexis PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 25/3 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8309 (A Degree of Inefficiency) FOR (0): AGAINST (9): Alexis, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian$, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, omd, twg PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 0/28 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: REJECTED PROPOSAL 8310 (Deputisation timeliness) FOR (1): Gaelan AGAINST (4): Alexis, Falsifian$, Jason, Rance PRESENT (4): Aris, Bernie, omd, twg BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 3/13 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: REJECTED PROPOSAL 8311 (Rewards Patch & Equitable Remedy) FOR (9): Alexis%, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian$, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, omd, twg& AGAINST (0): PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 34/0 (AI=1.0) OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8312 (On Possibility) FOR (0): AGAINST (9): Alexis%, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian^, Gaelan, Jason%, Rance, omd, twg PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 0/34 (AI=1.0) OUTCOME: REJECTED PROPOSAL 8313 (Support of the Person) FOR (3): Alexis, Falsifian$, Gaelan AGAINST (3): Aris, Bernie, twg PRESENT (3): Jason, Rance, omd BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 10/9 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: REJECTED PROPOSAL 8314 (Finite Gifting) FOR (9): Alexis%, Aris, Bernie, Falsifian$, Gaelan, Jason, Rance, omd, twg& AGAINST (0): PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 34/0 (AI=1.0) OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8315 (Clearer Resolutions) FOR (2): Alexis, Gaelan AGAINST (7): Aris, Bernie, Falsifian$, Jason, Rance, omd, twg PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 6/22 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: REJECTED PROPOSAL 8316 (Zombie voting package) FOR (2): Alexis, Gaelan AGAINST (7): Bernie, Falsifian$, G., Jason, Rance, o, twg PRESENT (2): Aris, omd BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 6/22 (AI=3.0) OUTCOME: REJECTED PROPOSAL 8317 (Zombie trade) FOR (5): Alexis%, Bernie, Gaelan, omd, twg& AGAINST (6): Aris, Falsifian$, G., Jason, Rance, o PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 11 AI (F/A): 21/19 (AI=1.0) OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8318 (Notorial Economy) FOR (7): Aris, Bernie, Falsifian^, Gaelan, Jason%, Rance, twg AGAINST (1): Alexis% PRESENT (1): omd BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 26/5 (AI=1.0) OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8319 (Sergeant-at-Arms) FOR (9): Alexis%, Aris%, Bernie, Falsifian$, Gaelan, Jason&, Rance, omd, twg AGAINST (0): PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 36/0 (AI=2.0) OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8320 (Promotorial Assignment) FOR (9): Alexis%, Aris%, Bernie, Falsifian$, Gaelan, Jason&, Rance, omd, twg AGAINST (0): PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 36/0 (AI=2.0) OUTCOME: ADOPTED PROPOSAL 8321 (Untying Quorum) FOR (8): Aris%, Bernie, Falsifian$, Gaelan, Jason&, Rance, omd, twg AGAINST (1): Alexis% PRESENT (0): BALLOTS: 9 AI (F/A): 31/5 (AI=2.0) OUTCOME: ADOPTED The full text of each ADOPTED proposal 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: 8311 Title: Rewards Patch & Equitable Remedy Adoption index: 1.0 Author: twg Co-authors: Amend Rule 2496, "Rewards", by replacing "CAN once" with "CAN once by announcement". Amend Rule 2602, "Glitter", by replacing "CAN once" with "CAN once by announcement". For the purposes of this proposal, the "recession" is defined as the period of time starting at 03:00 am UTC on 29th January 2020 and ending the instant before the adoption of this proposal. For each time a player met a reward condition during the recession, grant that player the assets associated with the reward condition, or if e is no longer a player, grant the same assets to the Lost and Found Department. For each time a player was awarded Glitter during the recession, grant that player a quantity of coins determined in the manner specified by Rule 2602, or if e is no longer a player, grant the same quantity to the Lost and Found Department. [This ensures no loss of coins, but shifts the responsibility for evaluating the
Re: DIS: [proto] Standard Model of Agoran Economics
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 18:06, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: > Proto-Proposal: Standard Model of Agoran Economics > (AI = 2) > > [Reintroduce diversification of currencies. Probably needs tweaking.] > > Amend Rule 2483 (Economics) to read: > >The following are currencies, tracked by the Treasuror. They can >be owned by Agora, players, and contracts. > > * Up coins > * Down coins > * Strange coins > * Charm coins > >Charm coins are the official currency of Agora. The others are >semi-official currencies of Agora. > >A player CAN gain a number of a non-Charm type of coin by paying a >fee of an equal number of Charm coins. > >A player CAN win the game by paying a fee containing at least one >of each type of Coin, with the smallest amount equal to at least >half the largest amount, and totaling at least 1,000. > > Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing "coins" as follows: > >(first section) "Up coins" >(second section) "Strange coins" >(third and fourth sections) "Down coins" > >(fifth section) "Charm coins" > > Amend Rule 2559 (Paydays) by replacing "coins" as follows: > >(first section) "Charm coins" >(second section) "Down coins" > > then by inserting this as the new first section, and renumbering the > others accordingly: > >1. Each entity with Charm coins has 1/N (rounded to the nearest > integer, breaking ties upward) of eir Charm coins destroyed, > where N is the number of semi-official currencies of Agora; > then > > Amend Rule 2499 (Welcome Packages), Rule 2585 (Birthday Gifts), and > Rule 2602 (Glitter) by replacing "coins" with "Charm coins". > > Amend Rule 1885 (Zombie Auctions) by replacing this text: > >The Registrar is the announcer, > > with this text: > >The Registrar is the announcer, the currency is a semi-official >currency of Agora of eir choice, > > Each entity gains a number of Charm coins equal to the number of Coins > it possessed immediately before this proposal was adopted. Definition and Continuity of Entities may result in this happening automatically. The easiest fix may be to simply condition around it, so that the result works regardless of whether or not D applies. Proto-proto: Allow entities enacting rule changes to explicitly specify the effects wrt D I am uncertain how I feel about it otherwise. I do like multi-dimensional currencies in general but they can sometimes take richness away rather than add it. -Alexis
Re: DIS: [Proto-Proposals] The beginnings of reform
On Wed, 29 Jan 2020 at 21:36, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > > A few comments: > > * "Body of law" is a very long phrase for such an important concept. > Could we try to come up with something shorter? If not, we could > shorten it to "BoL", though that doesn't have quite the same ring as > "CoE". Any ideas? > * Your proposal titles are very long, and the Promotor's office would > really appreciate it if they could be shortened. Aww. > * The first proposal is extremely complicated, which gives me an urge > to oppose it on principle, but I think I like it. > * The first proposal represents a huge, utterly massive change to > Agoran law of the sort that could easily hit the ossification > protections; this isn't a reason to vote against it, but I encourage > everyone to apply the appropriate level of scrutiny. > > -Aris Yes, please. This is a very hard area of law to touch on, which is in party why I'm trying to do things slowly. There's a lot more that could be added. I think that the "Regulated Actions" amendments could be separated out into a separate proposal, actually, but the rest seems too linked together to really tease out. There are some options, though, for instance I could also propose the current redefinition of "instrument" to "statute". Would that be good, do you think? -Alexis
Re: [attn: promotor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 3:02 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 17:59, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > I mean, didn’t we just do that, without any explicit rule at all? All we
> > need is an informal policy that we go with the officer’s interpretation
> > unless a CfJ decides otherwise.
> >
> > Alternatively, here’s a lightweight attempt to implement memoranda, either
> > as an alternative to the above informal mechanism or because it becomes a
> > dispute: I create the proposal {
> > Title: Calls for Memoranda
> > AI: 2
> > Co-authors: Aris, G
> >
> > Amend rule 991 by appending “All other things being equal, the Arbitor
> > SHOULD assign Calls for Judgement to the officer most concerned with its
> > content.” after the sentence "The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time
> > such that all interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to
> > judge.”
> > }
> >
> > Maybe if we wanted to get fancy, we could implement some way for the
> > officer to assign themselves, so they could note their interpretation in
> > the CfJ log simply by calling and resolving the CfJ in the same message.
> >
> > Gaelan
>
> I strongly oppose this. In my view, inquiry cases should generally
> *not* be the officer making the initial interpretation, at least not
> preferentially. Inquiry cases are effectively the fallback appeal
> mechanism, and should remain a balanced system. I would rather see a
> separate path for administrative interpretations.
>
> -Alexis
Same here, except maybe "oppose" instead of "strongly oppose" for me.
-Aris
DIS: [proto] Standard Model of Agoran Economics
Proto-Proposal: Standard Model of Agoran Economics (AI = 2) [Reintroduce diversification of currencies. Probably needs tweaking.] Amend Rule 2483 (Economics) to read: The following are currencies, tracked by the Treasuror. They can be owned by Agora, players, and contracts. * Up coins * Down coins * Strange coins * Charm coins Charm coins are the official currency of Agora. The others are semi-official currencies of Agora. A player CAN gain a number of a non-Charm type of coin by paying a fee of an equal number of Charm coins. A player CAN win the game by paying a fee containing at least one of each type of Coin, with the smallest amount equal to at least half the largest amount, and totaling at least 1,000. Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing "coins" as follows: (first section) "Up coins" (second section) "Strange coins" (third and fourth sections) "Down coins" (fifth section) "Charm coins" Amend Rule 2559 (Paydays) by replacing "coins" as follows: (first section) "Charm coins" (second section) "Down coins" then by inserting this as the new first section, and renumbering the others accordingly: 1. Each entity with Charm coins has 1/N (rounded to the nearest integer, breaking ties upward) of eir Charm coins destroyed, where N is the number of semi-official currencies of Agora; then Amend Rule 2499 (Welcome Packages), Rule 2585 (Birthday Gifts), and Rule 2602 (Glitter) by replacing "coins" with "Charm coins". Amend Rule 1885 (Zombie Auctions) by replacing this text: The Registrar is the announcer, with this text: The Registrar is the announcer, the currency is a semi-official currency of Agora of eir choice, Each entity gains a number of Charm coins equal to the number of Coins it possessed immediately before this proposal was adopted.
Re: [attn: promotor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
On 2/9/2020 2:59 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > Amend rule 991 by appending “All other things being equal, the Arbitor SHOULD > assign Calls for Judgement to the officer most concerned with its content.” > after the sentence "The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all > interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.” I'm not so keen on this for a couple reasons - in part because of needing to seek impartial judges and balancing judicial workload, but more importantly because the idea of a memorandum is it's not necessarily binding on the next holder of the same office, while a CFJ would be. -G.
Re: [attn: promotor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 17:59, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
wrote:
> I mean, didn’t we just do that, without any explicit rule at all? All we need
> is an informal policy that we go with the officer’s interpretation unless a
> CfJ decides otherwise.
>
> Alternatively, here’s a lightweight attempt to implement memoranda, either as
> an alternative to the above informal mechanism or because it becomes a
> dispute: I create the proposal {
> Title: Calls for Memoranda
> AI: 2
> Co-authors: Aris, G
>
> Amend rule 991 by appending “All other things being equal, the Arbitor SHOULD
> assign Calls for Judgement to the officer most concerned with its content.”
> after the sentence "The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all
> interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.”
> }
>
> Maybe if we wanted to get fancy, we could implement some way for the officer
> to assign themselves, so they could note their interpretation in the CfJ log
> simply by calling and resolving the CfJ in the same message.
>
> Gaelan
I strongly oppose this. In my view, inquiry cases should generally
*not* be the officer making the initial interpretation, at least not
preferentially. Inquiry cases are effectively the fallback appeal
mechanism, and should remain a balanced system. I would rather see a
separate path for administrative interpretations.
-Alexis
Re: [attn: promotor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
On Sun, 2020-02-09 at 14:59 -0800, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
wrote:
> I mean, didn’t we just do that, without any explicit rule at all? All
> we need is an informal policy that we go with the officer’s
> interpretation unless a CfJ decides otherwise.
>
> Alternatively, here’s a lightweight attempt to implement memoranda,
> either as an alternative to the above informal mechanism or because
> it becomes a dispute: I create the proposal {
> Title: Calls for Memoranda
> AI: 2
> Co-authors: Aris, G
>
> Amend rule 991 by appending “All other things being equal, the
> Arbitor SHOULD assign Calls for Judgement to the officer most
> concerned with its content.” after the sentence "The Arbitor SHALL
> assign judges over time such that all interested players have
> reasonably equal opportunities to judge.”
> }
I actually really like this (as an alternative to memoranda). It gives
a new method of changing the way that CFJs are made, without confusing
any of the existing principles of how CFJs work.
--
ais523
[attn: promotor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
I mean, didn’t we just do that, without any explicit rule at all? All we need
is an informal policy that we go with the officer’s interpretation unless a CfJ
decides otherwise.
Alternatively, here’s a lightweight attempt to implement memoranda, either as
an alternative to the above informal mechanism or because it becomes a dispute:
I create the proposal {
Title: Calls for Memoranda
AI: 2
Co-authors: Aris, G
Amend rule 991 by appending “All other things being equal, the Arbitor SHOULD
assign Calls for Judgement to the officer most concerned with its content.”
after the sentence "The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all
interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.”
}
Maybe if we wanted to get fancy, we could implement some way for the officer to
assign themselves, so they could note their interpretation in the CfJ log
simply by calling and resolving the CfJ in the same message.
Gaelan
> On Feb 9, 2020, at 2:43 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/9/2020 2:22 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 17:19, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business
>> wrote:
>>> On Bernie's behalf, Notice of Honour:
>>> -1 Gaelan (applying the CSS for eir ruleset primarily via arbitrary
>>> emoji. I don't know why you would do this)
>>> +1 Jason (having to assess two consecutive large proposal distributions,
>>> including proposals that change voting strengths)
>>>
>>> -twg
>>
>> I will be treating this as invalid, per R2510:
>>
>>> A player CAN publish a Notice of Honour. ... When a Notice of Honour is
>>> published...
>>
>> Since publishing a document an out-of-game action with in-game effect,
>> I believe it cannot be done via acting on behalf.
>>
>> I'm happy to accept a CFJ on it if you disagree.
>
> This is the perfect example of where "officer's interpretation" (i.e.
> memorandum) would be great. After a little discussion a while back I'd
> come to the conclusion that a NoH was, in R2466 language, a "specific
> action within a message" rather than the message itself, thus doable. But
> I don't think(?) it was a cfj, nor will I personally dispute your conclusion.
>
> -G.
>
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
Alexis wrote: > I will be treating this as invalid, per R2510: > > > A player CAN publish a Notice of Honour. ... When a Notice of Honour is > > published... > > and R2466: > > > ... A person CANNOT act > > on behalf of another person to do anything except perform a game > > action; in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another > > person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that > > might be taken within a message. > > Since publishing a document an out-of-game action with in-game effect, > I believe it cannot be done via acting on behalf. > > I'm happy to accept a CFJ on it if you disagree. Hmm, interesting one! We've all been doing this for ages without ever questioning whether it was actually POSSIBLE. As far as I can tell, the earliest usage was by D. Margaux in 2018 (https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg32681.html), but nobody CFJed it because we got distracted by a related CFJ from Trigon (later withdrawn? can't find any record of it in G.'s archive) and an argument between Aris and G. Definitely worth a judgement. On balance, I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation. The effect of a Notice of Honour is "considered to be a 'transfer' of karma" (R2510), and asset transfers are undeniably a game action; it would be a bit of a stretch to argue that karma transfers are not. So although publication itself is excluded from acting-on-behalf, I would argue that karma transfers are perfectly kosher, and therefore that "[an] agent CAN perform the action in the same manner in which the principal CAN do so" (R2466) - i.e. by means of publishing a Notice of Honour. I CFJ, barring Alexis: "It is generally POSSIBLE to act on behalf of a zombie to transfer karma." -twg
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
On 2/9/2020 2:22 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 17:19, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business > wrote: >> On Bernie's behalf, Notice of Honour: >> -1 Gaelan (applying the CSS for eir ruleset primarily via arbitrary >>emoji. I don't know why you would do this) >> +1 Jason (having to assess two consecutive large proposal distributions, >> including proposals that change voting strengths) >> >> -twg > > I will be treating this as invalid, per R2510: > >> A player CAN publish a Notice of Honour. ... When a Notice of Honour is >> published... > > Since publishing a document an out-of-game action with in-game effect, > I believe it cannot be done via acting on behalf. > > I'm happy to accept a CFJ on it if you disagree. This is the perfect example of where "officer's interpretation" (i.e. memorandum) would be great. After a little discussion a while back I'd come to the conclusion that a NoH was, in R2466 language, a "specific action within a message" rather than the message itself, thus doable. But I don't think(?) it was a cfj, nor will I personally dispute your conclusion. -G.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
For the record, the CSS here is applied using CSS Modules [0], which randomizes class names in order to avoid conflicts between classes of the same name defined in different places. It normally uses an alphanumeric string, but it has an option for doing emoji instead, so why the hell not? Also, I’ll note that each class name contains its original name as well as the emoji, so it’s not like it’s obfuscated or anything. [0]: https://github.com/css-modules/css-modules Gaelan > On Feb 9, 2020, at 2:18 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business > wrote: > > -1 Gaelan (applying the CSS for eir ruleset primarily via arbitrary > emoji. I don't know why you would do this)
Re: DIS: Re: [proposal] Re: BUS: Redecoration
On 2/9/2020 2:17 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > G. wrote: >> On 2/8/2020 5:38 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >>> >>> * I act on behalf of Bernie to award myself a White Ribbon. >>> >> >> This is one of the few things that can permanently and adversely affect a >> player's future participation while e's a zombie, as most other things can >> be undone. It's a valuable thing, too (I didn't do this with Bernie or >> Rance for this reason). Fine to keep it, but let's shut the door, and >> give it back to Bernie as well? > > Oh, I'm sorry! It's precisely because nobody's done it (recently?) that > it didn't occur to me it would be controversial. Totally on board with > this proposal. Oh no sweat at all. I was sorely tempted myself a couple times, so this is just me thinking "hmm - maybe that's not fair on the zombie" - I'm pretty sure it's never been done or even discussed. If enough people vote against and want to keep it as-is then I don't have to feel bad if I try it sometime ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 17:19, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business wrote: > On Bernie's behalf, Notice of Honour: > -1 Gaelan (applying the CSS for eir ruleset primarily via arbitrary >emoji. I don't know why you would do this) > +1 Jason (having to assess two consecutive large proposal distributions, > including proposals that change voting strengths) > > -twg I will be treating this as invalid, per R2510: > A player CAN publish a Notice of Honour. ... When a Notice of Honour is > published... and R2466: > ... A person CANNOT act > on behalf of another person to do anything except perform a game > action; in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another > person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that > might be taken within a message. Since publishing a document an out-of-game action with in-game effect, I believe it cannot be done via acting on behalf. I'm happy to accept a CFJ on it if you disagree. -Alexis
Re: DIS: [Assessor] Request for office confirmation
Alexis wrote: > Gaelan is Notary. Notary doesn't have a ministry yet, though. Although I suppose it will come to have one partway though the resolution... We seem to be intent on making proposals that are difficult to resolve, don't we? -twg
DIS: Re: [proposal] Re: BUS: Redecoration
G. wrote: > On 2/8/2020 5:38 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > * I act on behalf of Bernie to award myself a White Ribbon. > > > > This is one of the few things that can permanently and adversely affect a > player's future participation while e's a zombie, as most other things can > be undone. It's a valuable thing, too (I didn't do this with Bernie or > Rance for this reason). Fine to keep it, but let's shut the door, and > give it back to Bernie as well? Oh, I'm sorry! It's precisely because nobody's done it (recently?) that it didn't occur to me it would be controversial. Totally on board with this proposal. -twg
DIS: humble agoran farmer makes Agora visible
Agora, by CFJ 3706, is a contract by nature. It's a contract because of the
way it exists.
And it's probably still invisible because the Ruleset and all of its
parties (players) still haven't been posted as a *single* publication, all
together ("this publication must include its full provisions and list of
parties, along with a certification or adequate proof of their accuracy and
completeness"). If it continues to be invisible, it will block this thing
from ever happening, because it can't destroy Agora as part of its effects:
"When the transitional period is ended, each invisible contract or pledge
ceases to exist in the order they were created, and then this rule amends
itself by deleting this paragraph."
We'd also need "certification or adequate proof for their accuracy and
completeness", which I think the Rulekeepor and Registrar would be
appropriate for.
What do you guys think?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A Modest Proposal
> On Feb 8, 2020, at 2:32 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 at 17:22, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: >> >> Seems reasonable. Minor thing: it would be nice if this had a self-repeal >> provision. >> >> Gaelan > > But that would move it back afterward. > > -Alexis Bleh, that means this is one of those this things we’ll need to keep in the ruleset forever? IMO, we should just remove it afterward—nothing depends on when RTRW was anyway (and I’m not even sure if your interpretation was right; I’d argue that “was it RTRW on this date?” is dependent on the rules of that date, not now, but I’m not sure if that’s consistent with our precedent). Gaelan
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor, attn Treasuror] Proposal Rewards
On 2/9/2020 1:43 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: > Oh, right, I have to do this now: This was broken due to no "by announcement" in R2496 - is it fixed now?
DIS: Re: (all recent threads marked "attn Treasuror")
Murphy wrote: > Proposal 8295 moved office salary reporting to the ADoP. > > Wed Jan 29 2020 03:26:29 UTC - initial alleged resolution > Sat Feb 1 2020 02:24:44 UTC - CoE accepted, corrected resolution > > I grant 5 coins to each of these players for publishing these reports Jason wrote: > Oh, right, I have to do this now: [...] These all fail because R2496 lacks a "by announcement". Proposal 8311 will fix this and award the missed coins. Don't worry, I'm keeping track. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: [proposal] Re: BUS: Redecoration
On 2/9/2020 12:48 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > n Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 15:36, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: >> >> >> On 2/9/2020 12:25 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 15:16, Kerim Aydin via agora-business >>> wrote: On 2/8/2020 5:38 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > * I act on behalf of Bernie to award myself a White Ribbon. > This is one of the few things that can permanently and adversely affect a player's future participation while e's a zombie, as most other things can be undone. It's a valuable thing, too (I didn't do this with Bernie or Rance for this reason). Fine to keep it, but let's shut the door, and give it back to Bernie as well? >>> >>> You need to explicitly prevent a player from acting on another's >>> behalf to award a Ribbon; otherwise act-on-behalf could be chained. >> >> The person actually making the award can only do so if acting on eir own >> behalf - not sure how that's chainable? > > "I act on Bernie's behalf to act on eir own behalf to award me a White > Ribbon." > > -Alexis Ah, there's the confusion - there's a precedent I believe that "act on eir own behalf" means that e was the one that actually sent the message and so forth, so "acting on someone's behalf to act on their own behalf" is a contradiction. But I'll find the precedent to be sure (can't remember the context) and will fix the proposal if I can't find it. -G.
DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
FYI, for anyone in need of a more up-to-date ruleset, my online ruleset viewer (https://agora-ruleset.gaelan.me) is based on the Rulekeepor’s GitHub repository, so it may be (and is, at the moment) more up to date than the latest SLR. Gaelan
DIS: Re: BUS: [Attn Promotor] Four proposals
> On Feb 9, 2020, at 12:37 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-business > wrote: > > Proposal: Switch Responsibility Responsibility > (co-author = Alexis, chamber = Efficiency) > > Amend Rule 2603 (Switch Responsibility) by appending this text: > > The ADoP CAN appoint a player to such an office by announcement, > and SHOULD appoint the player primarily responsible for its > existence. 1006/44 already states, in its last paragraph, "When a proposal takes effect and creates a new office, if the proposal does not specify otherwise, the author of that proposal becomes the holder of the office.” That’s what I had in mind when writing that rule; do we believe it doesn’t work? Additionally, it’s with noting that I intentionally didn’t allow these offices to be reappointed, on the theory that it would encourage us to assign the switches to a proper office (by proposal) instead of keeping the interim office indefinitely. Gaelan > > - > > Proposal: Meaningful extra votes > (AI = 2, co-author = Alexis) > > Amend Rule 2423 (First Among Equals) by replacing "voting strength is > increased by 1" to "voting strength is doubled". > > [I think this is a no-op due to Interesting Chambers, though.] > > Amend Rule 103 (The Speaker) by replacing "voting strength one greater > than e would have" with "voting strength twice what e would have". > > - > > Proposal: Meaningless extra coins > (AI = 2, co-author = Alexis) > > Amend Rule 2483 (Economics) by appending this text: > > Upon doing so, eir remaining Coins (if any) are destroyed. > > - > > Proposal: Consistent ADoP duties > (AI = 2) > > Amend Rule 2154 (Election Procedure) by appending to this text: > > If at any point an uncontested election has a single candidate, > then any player CAN by announcement declare em the winner of the > election, thereby causing em to win the election. If at any point > an uncontested election has no candidates, then any player CAN > declare the election ended with no winner by announcement. > > this text: > > In each of these cases, the ADoP SHALL so announce in a timely > fashion, unless someone else has already done so. > > [I think the recent resolutions of Treasuror and Tailor, while still > effective resolutions, didn't count as temporary deputisation because > the ADoP wasn't required to do them.]
Re: DIS: Re: [proposal] Re: BUS: Redecoration
n Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 15:36, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 2/9/2020 12:25 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 15:16, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > > wrote: > >> On 2/8/2020 5:38 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > >>> > >>> * I act on behalf of Bernie to award myself a White Ribbon. > >>> > >> > >> This is one of the few things that can permanently and adversely affect a > >> player's future participation while e's a zombie, as most other things can > >> be undone. It's a valuable thing, too (I didn't do this with Bernie or > >> Rance for this reason). Fine to keep it, but let's shut the door, and > >> give it back to Bernie as well? > > > > You need to explicitly prevent a player from acting on another's > > behalf to award a Ribbon; otherwise act-on-behalf could be chained. > > The person actually making the award can only do so if acting on eir own > behalf - not sure how that's chainable? "I act on Bernie's behalf to act on eir own behalf to award me a White Ribbon." -Alexis
DIS: Re: BUS: [Attn Promotor] Four proposals
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 15:37, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > Proposal: Consistent ADoP duties > (AI = 2) > > Amend Rule 2154 (Election Procedure) by appending to this text: > >If at any point an uncontested election has a single candidate, >then any player CAN by announcement declare em the winner of the >election, thereby causing em to win the election. If at any point >an uncontested election has no candidates, then any player CAN >declare the election ended with no winner by announcement. > > this text: > >In each of these cases, the ADoP SHALL so announce in a timely >fashion, unless someone else has already done so. > > [I think the recent resolutions of Treasuror and Tailor, while still > effective resolutions, didn't count as temporary deputisation because > the ADoP wasn't required to do them.] I don't think this is needed, see existing text: > After the nomination period ends, the ADoP CAN and, in a timely > fashion, SHALL: > 2) If POSSIBLE per the following paragraph, end the election > immediately. -Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: [proposal] Re: BUS: Redecoration
On 2/9/2020 12:25 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 15:16, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: >> On 2/8/2020 5:38 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >>> >>> * I act on behalf of Bernie to award myself a White Ribbon. >>> >> >> This is one of the few things that can permanently and adversely affect a >> player's future participation while e's a zombie, as most other things can >> be undone. It's a valuable thing, too (I didn't do this with Bernie or >> Rance for this reason). Fine to keep it, but let's shut the door, and >> give it back to Bernie as well? > > You need to explicitly prevent a player from acting on another's > behalf to award a Ribbon; otherwise act-on-behalf could be chained. The person actually making the award can only do so if acting on eir own behalf - not sure how that's chainable? > Also I'm not sure that "act on eir own behalf" necessarily implies "by > announcement". Better might just be an explicit prohibition against > doing it on another player's behalf; Ribbons is high-power enough to > deal with precedence. There's a "by announcement" at the end of the whole sentence (it should probably be re-arranged a bit, but it's there). -G.
DIS: Re: [proposal] Re: BUS: Redecoration
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 15:16, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > On 2/8/2020 5:38 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > * I act on behalf of Bernie to award myself a White Ribbon. > > > > This is one of the few things that can permanently and adversely affect a > player's future participation while e's a zombie, as most other things can > be undone. It's a valuable thing, too (I didn't do this with Bernie or > Rance for this reason). Fine to keep it, but let's shut the door, and > give it back to Bernie as well? You need to explicitly prevent a player from acting on another's behalf to award a Ribbon; otherwise act-on-behalf could be chained. Also I'm not sure that "act on eir own behalf" necessarily implies "by announcement". Better might just be an explicit prohibition against doing it on another player's behalf; Ribbons is high-power enough to deal with precedence. -Alexis
Re: DIS: [Assessor] Request for office confirmation
On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 at 20:39, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > > Jason wrote: > > Because there hasn't been an ADoP report in over a month (I hope > > Murphy's okay), I'd just like to confirm office holdings because the > > assessments depend on it: > > > > The latest report is at [0]. As far as I know, the changes from then are: > > > > * Herald is held by Alexis. > > * Prime Minister is held by Alexis. > > * Treasuror is held by twg > > * Tailor is held by twg Gaelan is Notary. -Alexis
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Weekly report
On 2/9/20 1:48 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:
> If Notary does not have Ministry set, then I set it to {Economy}.
I believe you can only do this without objection, per Proposal 8291's
rule "ministries".
--
Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: I register
On 1/24/2020 3:25 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: I, R. Lee, do register I have a registration recorded from 12/29/2019, I suppose that was also ineffective due to the Troubles, though?
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3787 Assigned to omd
omd wrote: === CFJ 3787 === Murphy initiated an election for Prime Minister on or about Sun, Dec 22 2019 (18:48:16) UTC. To sum up, Murphy's message was not a public message because it was not "sent via" the list to a large-enough subset of subscribers. Therefore no election was initiated at that time. FALSE. In accordance with this judgement, I've expunged this attempted election from the ADoP database, including fixing the office's last-election date (redundantly stored in the 'offices' table). I'm also generally catching up on ADoP recordkeeping. Little over half done, so a report should be coming up within the next hour or two.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3806 Assigned to Gaelan
G. wrote:
> The below CFJ is 3806. I assign it to Gaelan.
>
> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3806
>
> === CFJ 3806 ===
>
> In the attached message, I submitted a public petition to the
> ADoP, as described by Rule 2143.
>
> ==
>
> Caller:twg
>
> Judge: Gaelan
>
> ==
>
> History:
>
> Called by twg:30 Jan 2020 01:37:47
> Assigned to Gaelan: [now]
>
> ==
>
> Caller's Evidence:
>
> I wrote:
> > Gaelan wrote:
> >> NOTARY'S REPORT OF JANUARY 29 2020
> >
> > Ooh, just occurred to me you don't have a Ministry set! That probably
> > wants doing. I reckon Economy probably fits best, since the Ministries
> > rule specifically calls out contracts ("private enterprise") as falling
> > under Economy.
> >
> > Only the ADoP can do that though, which might be tricky with Murphy
> > absent (hope e's ok). Proposal, or is this not that urgent?
> >
> > -twg
>
> ==
Gratuitous:
It's not been published in the SLR yet, but Rule 2143 was amended by
Proposal 8302 to add the following text:
> 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.
My message above clearly identifies (a) an action, (b) the relevant
circumstances, (c) the fact that I thought the action ought to be taken
and (d) the officer for whom the action is a discretionary power, but it
stops short of (e) an actual imperative instruction to the officer.
So the core question is - is part (e) actually required for a message to
be considered a petition? (And I have no idea what the answer is.)
-twg
