DIS: Re: [Contract amendment] BUS: [Dragon] Faster Ordinary Proposals
at 8:33 PM, James Cook via agora-business wrote: An Ordinary Proposal has approval if the number of shares owned by members voting FOR it is greater than the number of Unsupportive players. So is this a scam or just a mistake? :) (Signed, a mere onlooker.)
DIS: Re: BUS: Registration - Fred
On 7/3/20 7:00 PM, Ca B via agora-business wrote: > I register. My preferred name is Fred. Welcome! We have an unofficial Discord guild at [0], if you would like to join. [0]: https://discord.gg/JCC6YGc -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] No July zombie auction
On 2020-07-04 2:49 a.m., Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/3/20 10:48 PM, Becca Lee via agora-business wrote: i intendto flip eirmaster switch to agora That might not be resolvable in four days because of talismans. Good point! I intend to flip Telnaior's master switch to Agora with notice. I intend to transfer the talisman of Telnaior to Agora with notice. -- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] No July zombie auction
Sorry to be pedantic, but R2595 says you have to unambiguously, clearly etc specify the method to be used, which in this case is with notice. - Falsifian On 2020-07-04 2:48 a.m., Becca Lee via agora-business wrote: i intendto flip eirmaster switch to agora On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 12:48 PM Falsifian via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: On 2020-07-04 2:26 a.m., Becca Lee via agora-business wrote: i flip telnaiors master switch to agora It's done with notice, so that didn't work. -- Falsifian -- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] No July zombie auction
On 7/3/20 10:48 PM, Becca Lee via agora-business wrote: > i intendto flip eirmaster switch to agora That might not be resolvable in four days because of talismans. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] No July zombie auction
On 2020-07-04 2:26 a.m., Becca Lee via agora-business wrote: i flip telnaiors master switch to agora It's done with notice, so that didn't work. -- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration - Fred
On 7/3/20 9:32 PM, Fred via agora-discussion wrote: > I have four midterms this coming week so I'll hold off this time around. > Thank you for the invite though! > > > Generally speaking, are tournaments a good way to get a feel for things? Tournaments are fairly rare events. This one is in celebration of Agora's 27th birthday. I'm not sure how well it'd help you learn Agora in general since it has its own sub rules. Besides the tournament we also have a bit of an economy going right now. When you got your Welcome Package you got some cards (1 each of Legislative, Victory, Judicial, and Voting). You can pay a set of 1-4 cards to get items related to those fields. You also have 10 coins. You can buy/sell/trade with other players to get more cards. There's also quite a few Contracts to interact with right now. Most but not all have something to do with the Cards. You can join whichever ones seem interesting to you. They're listed here: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg10267.html -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration - Fred
I have four midterms this coming week so I'll hold off this time around. Thank you for the invite though! Generally speaking, are tournaments a good way to get a feel for things? On 2020-07-03 6:23 p.m., Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: On 2020-07-03 11:00 p.m., Ca B via agora-business wrote: I register. My preferred name is Fred. Welcome to Agora, Fred. There's a lot going on right now. If you like Diplomacy and expect to have a lot of time on your hands over the next few weeks, I think there's still room to sign up for year's Birthday Tournament: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-July/013897.html (By my count, 5/7 spots are taken.)
Re: DIS: [Treasuror] Second draft of auction regulations
Looks mostly good.
We should probably require lot winners to pay their bid. I don't know if
SHALLs in these regulations are enforceable, but might as well try. (If
we're going to do that, I guess that would entail REQUIRE-ing bidders in
sealed bid auctions to reveal their bids?)
Some more comments inline.
On 2020-06-24 10:09 p.m., Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
This version should respond to all the feedback that I've received and
more. I made a boilerplate auction so that we could make more unique
auction methods without redefining everything. Think of the rest like
variations on a recipe or subtypes of an object. I wrote a rough
description of another type of auction (sealed-bid) to showcase the
benefits of the boilerplate that I made.
I tried to cut down on everything unnecessary because I don't want
another eight-rule-long definition for something that should just make
sense.
METHOD 0: Generalized Auction
Generalized auctions exist to give context to the form of other types of
auctions. They cannot be held directly. Other auction methods can
generally override attributes of generalized auctions, except when it is
explicitly stated that that attribute is not able to be overridden.
1. INITIATION:
* The auctioneer CAN begin an auction that e is authorized to by
creating a public message (henceforth the "initiation message"),
specifying the type of auction method that will be held, a list of
lots that will be auctioned off, and the currency that the auction
uses. Bidding is initally open.
* Auction methods cannot specify the exclusion of any information
listed above from the initiation message of auctions using that
method.
I don't know if this is enforceable. R2545 says these regulations
"define specific auction methods" but I could just run an auction that
doesn't refer to any of your definitions.
Maybe change "cannot" to "should not"?
2. BIDDING:
* Players CAN place a bid on an open auction by specifying an amount
of the auction's currency as eir bid not equal to the bid of
another player.
* Players CAN withdraw from an open auction by announcement.
3. TERMINATION:
* Bidding is closed four days after either the beginning of the
auction or after the most recent bid was placed, whichever is
later. The auction ends at this time as well.
4. AWARDING:
* For each auction, there are a number of awardees equal to the
number of lots. The Nth lot of an auction goes to the Nth awardee
of that auction. If the identity of an awardee is undecidable, then
that lot cannot be given away.
This doesn't allow for auctions where bidders can give preferences for
specific lots.
I don't have any immediate plans to run any like that, and I think I can
override these if I want to anyway, so it's not a big deal.
* Auction methods specify how awardees are picked for auctions using
that method.
* The auctioneer of an auction SHALL within, four days after the
ending of that auction, create a public message (henceforth the
"termination message") that contains a full history of bids on the
auction and withdrawals from the auction. It should also clearly
indicate each awardee and the lot e recieves.
5. CLAIMING:
* For a period of seven days after an auction ends, each awardee of
that auction CAN transfer (or create in eir own possession if the
item is new) the set of assets associated with the lot e won by
paying a fee corresponding to eir winning bid.
This doesn't allow auctions where the fee gets paid too some specific
entity. E.g. if we wanted to add free auctions again we'd want the owner
of the lots to get paid.
But the rules don't allow that yet so maybe that's not an issue.
METHOD 1: Forward Auctions
Forward auctions function like Generalized Auctions except:
* The Nth awardee for a forward auction is the non-withdrawn player who
submitted the Nth-highest bid in the set of all players' highest bids
(i.e. if Alice bids 10, Bob bids 20, and Alice bids 30, then the set
of highest bids is {Alice with 30, Bob with 20} so Alice is the first
awardee with her bid of 30 and Bob is the second awardee with is bid
of 20).
What about ties?
--
Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Agoran Directory
On 7/3/2020 9:46 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/3/20 9:45 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/3/20 9:43 PM, Falsifian via agora-official wrote: Zombie master and resale value switches (self-ratifying) Resale Last owned Due to flip Zombie Master value by Agora to Agora -- -- --- --- --- twg G. 1 2020-06-11 20:16 2020-09-09 20:16 Tcbapo Agora 0 now I intend to deregister Tcbapo with notice. Weird, I didn't receive the message this was in reply to. Nevermind, I have it now. On 2020-07-04 1:50 a.m., ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > Same thing happened with me. Something weird must have happened with the > mailing list. I'm running my first mail server, and I didn't start actively using this email address until today. Maybe it has something to do with that, though I don't know what it would be. -- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Upvotes
On 7/3/2020 5:48 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > at 5:19 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion > wrote: >>> An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement >>> by its owner to another entity, subject to modification by its >>> backing document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its >>> backing document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is >>> liquid. >> >> >> I think this falls under "subject to modification by its backing document”. > > Note that I have "Karma cannot otherwise be transferred or destroyed.” at > the end. I think that should suffice as "modification by its backing > document”. > ha looks like I trimmed that end line out of my reply before reading in detail - that's exactly the sort of sentence I was looking for. we're good.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Agoran Directory
Same thing happened with me. Something weird must have happened with the mailing list. On 7/3/2020 9:46 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/3/20 9:45 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/3/20 9:43 PM, Falsifian via agora-official wrote: Zombie master and resale value switches (self-ratifying) Resale Last owned Due to flip Zombie Master value by Agora to Agora -- -- --- --- --- twg G. 1 2020-06-11 20:16 2020-09-09 20:16 Tcbapo Agora 0 now I intend to deregister Tcbapo with notice. Weird, I didn't receive the message this was in reply to. Nevermind, I have it now. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Agoran Directory
On 7/3/20 9:45 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 7/3/20 9:43 PM, Falsifian via agora-official wrote: >>> Zombie master and resale value switches (self-ratifying) >>> >>> Resale Last owned Due to flip >>> Zombie Master value by Agora to Agora >>> -- -- --- --- --- >>> twg G. 1 2020-06-11 20:16 2020-09-09 20:16 >>> Tcbapo Agora 0 now >> I intend to deregister Tcbapo with notice. >> > Weird, I didn't receive the message this was in reply to. > Nevermind, I have it now. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Agoran Directory
On 7/3/20 9:43 PM, Falsifian via agora-official wrote: >> Zombie master and resale value switches (self-ratifying) >> >> Resale Last owned Due to flip >> Zombie Master value by Agora to Agora >> -- -- --- --- --- >> twg G. 1 2020-06-11 20:16 2020-09-09 20:16 >> Tcbapo Agora 0 now > I intend to deregister Tcbapo with notice. > Weird, I didn't receive the message this was in reply to. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Registration - Fred
On 2020-07-03 11:00 p.m., Ca B via agora-business wrote: I register. My preferred name is Fred. Welcome to Agora, Fred. There's a lot going on right now. If you like Diplomacy and expect to have a lot of time on your hands over the next few weeks, I think there's still room to sign up for year's Birthday Tournament: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-July/013897.html (By my count, 5/7 spots are taken.) -- Falsifian
Re: DIS: I'm stupid, and we've got a problem.
On 2020-07-03 10:20 p.m., Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: I think that we have time to fix this during the joining period, but I'm not sure what the best solution is, so I'm seeking thoughts on the best solution, and I have a few days to propose a specific fix. As it stands, all of the provisions relating to amendment don't work because of the following clause: Rule 2495/2 (Power=1) The Birthday Tournament This title may thereafter be amended only by the Herald or eir designee Without 3 Objections. My first thought is to separate out the internal rules — those outside of zero through five — into some sort of subset with fewer protections, but I'm not sure about how best to execute it. That sounds reasonable. Seems like this would be an issue any time the tournament allows rule changes. Maybe Aris's FRC last year could serve as a template if you are unsure about how regulations can talk about "rules" that aren't really rules or regulations in the Agoran sense. https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2019-August/013081.html -- Falsifian
Re: Fwd: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: is this too morbid?
How about a version that says "a player can't cease being a person while
they are a player"? Then we could respectfully deregister someone if the
worst happens and not worry too much about 'forever'.
-G.
That would solve most recordkeeping problems, but it would still mean
Tailor and Referee reports could be incorrect without our knowledge.
Hmm - Fugitive blots decay, and ribbons are probably easy to reconstruct
(slow moving). Not perfect but also doesn't propagate errors like
registration, etc.?
We could try defining personhood by saying any entity meeting the
conditions becomes a person if e wasn't already, and not adding any
conditions under which an entity stops being a person, thus avoiding the
word "forever", but that would be kind of weird.
Maybe we should go with our suggested text.
I don't mind too much if "forever" is truly the cleanest way, that won't
kill my vote this time.
-G.
Another way to avoid "forever":
{
Amend Rule 896 by inserting the following sentence after the first:
Anyone who was a person in the past, according to the definition in
the previous sentence, is still a person now.
after the first sentence.
}
I'm assuming your objection to "forever" is that then the rule might be
claiming that anyone who's a person now stays a person forever even if
we amend the definition of person later to be more restrictive. Is that
right? I think this version avoids that (but is more wordy).
--
Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Upvotes
at 5:21 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: I'm not sure whether this is enough to have R1586 automatically transfer switch karma to asset karma. Fair point. I’ll change it to be more explicit before pending this (if I ever get enough cards to pend anything, anyway :).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Upvotes
at 5:19 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement by its owner to another entity, subject to modification by its backing document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid. I think this falls under "subject to modification by its backing document”. Note that I have "Karma cannot otherwise be transferred or destroyed.” at the end. I think that should suffice as "modification by its backing document”.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Upvotes
On 7/3/20 7:32 PM, omd via agora-business wrote: > Multiply all positive Karma values by 3 (to compensate existing Karma holders > for expected inflation). Replace all negative Karma values with 0 (because > Karma will become a currency). > > Amend Rule 2510 (Such is Karma) to read: > >Karma is a currency tracked by the Herald. > >Up to once per week, each player CAN grant a specified other >player 1 Karma by announcement. A player CAN also transfer any >amount of eir own Karma to another player by announcement. In >both cases, for this to be effective, e must give a reason why >the other player should gain Karma. > >At the beginning of each quarter, the Karma of every >Unregistered person is halved (rounding towards 0). > >Karma cannot otherwise be transferred or destroyed. I'm not sure whether this is enough to have R1586 automatically transfer switch karma to asset karma. It otherwise seems mechanically sound, but I'm probably PRESENT at most. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Upvotes
On 7/3/20 8:17 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >>Up to once per week, each player CAN grant a specified other >>player 1 Karma by announcement. A player CAN also transfer any >>amount of eir own Karma to another player by announcement. In >>both cases, for this to be effective, e must give a reason why >>the other player should gain Karma. > This doesn't overrule the general ability to transfer Karma, in other > words, "A player CAN also transfer..." is already in the rules because > it's a liquid currency by default. > > But you want to keep it out of contracts I'm guessing, so limit the > currency to being owned by players? > > An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. given) by announcement > by its owner to another entity, subject to modification by its > backing document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its > backing document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is > liquid. I think this falls under "subject to modification by its backing document". -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Upvotes
On 7/3/2020 4:32 PM, omd via agora-business wrote:
> Proposal: Upvotes (AI=1)
> {
>
> Multiply all positive Karma values by 3 (to compensate existing Karma holders
> for expected inflation). Replace all negative Karma values with 0 (because
> Karma will become a currency).
>
> Amend Rule 2510 (Such is Karma) to read:
>
>Karma is a currency tracked by the Herald.
>Up to once per week, each player CAN grant a specified other
>player 1 Karma by announcement. A player CAN also transfer any
>amount of eir own Karma to another player by announcement. In
>both cases, for this to be effective, e must give a reason why
>the other player should gain Karma.
This doesn't overrule the general ability to transfer Karma, in other
words, "A player CAN also transfer..." is already in the rules because
it's a liquid currency by default.
But you want to keep it out of contracts I'm guessing, so limit the
currency to being owned by players?
> But we've had Karma for around three years, and it had several
> predecessors before that. There's a benefit to shaking things up.
Any technical hitches aside, +1^.
(let's make ^ shorthand for some part of this process?)
-G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Upvotes
On 7/3/20 7:32 PM, omd via agora-business wrote: > Proposal: Upvotes (AI=1) I think I'll probably vote PRESENT or AGAINST on this because I like the status quo, but I really appreciate the work you've put into this well thought out alternative. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Upvotes
My initial reaction was a sort of "but the balanced system!" But after
reading your arguments, I think this is a good idea to shake things up.
On 7/3/2020 7:32 PM, omd via agora-business wrote:
Proposal: Upvotes (AI=1)
{
Multiply all positive Karma values by 3 (to compensate existing Karma
holders
for expected inflation). Replace all negative Karma values with 0 (because
Karma will become a currency).
Amend Rule 2510 (Such is Karma) to read:
Karma is a currency tracked by the Herald.
Up to once per week, each player CAN grant a specified other
player 1 Karma by announcement. A player CAN also transfer any
amount of eir own Karma to another player by announcement. In
both cases, for this to be effective, e must give a reason why
the other player should gain Karma.
At the beginning of each quarter, the Karma of every
Unregistered person is halved (rounding towards 0).
Karma cannot otherwise be transferred or destroyed.
[Basically, I want an easy way to congratulate people on things, from the
author of a well-written proposal or judgement to the perpetrator of a
clever
scam. Karma almost fits the bill, but it feels too expensive, in multiple
ways:
- You have to name someone to lose karma, which has social overhead, so to
speak. You can avoid that by naming yourself, but you still have to
give a
reason why you should lose karma, and...
- Karma values are really low, making each transfer carry too much weight.
Most players have to avoid transferring karma values from themselves
on a
regular basis, as they could easily end up the Honourless Worm that
way. (As
of the last Herald's report, the lowest Karma value is -4, while only 3
players have Karma above +3 – though the Shogun is at +7.)
- The once-per-week limit seems about right as an average rate of
transfer, but
it creates an opportunity cost: before sending a NoH, you have to
consider
the likelihood that someone will perform an even-more-laudable action
later
in the week. And laudable actions tend to come in bunches, as part
of bursts
of game activity.
With this proposal, in contrast (in reverse order of points):
- There's a once-per-week limit for free karma awards, but you can transfer
your own karma to others with no limits, and you don't have to come
up with a
reason why you should lose karma. Most players should end up with a
reserve
of karma they can spend during bursts of activity.
- Since karma awards are free, the supply of karma will significantly
increase,
making each point less valuable. That does mean that an individual
transfer
will be less dramatic. But there's a reason I called the proposal
"Upvotes".
Whereas currently an action is considered sufficiently rewarded if a
single
player decides to award karma for it, under this proposal I expect
multiple
players will award karma for the same action. Instead of a single award
being dramatic, it will be dramatic when you see a long chain of "me
too"s.
(That does create more work for the Herald.)
- The ability to take away others' karma is removed. I didn't want to
do this,
since I think the 'balanced karma' system is a quite interesting
mechanic.
But for karma transfers to feel cheap, I think you have to be able to
perform
them without penalizing someone else, at least sometimes. Penalties
could be
kept as optional, but I think that would make them even more socially
awkward
than they already are.
In particular, one alternative I thought of is requiring you to first
penalize someone's karma, which would grant you N tokens, each of
which could
then be spent to award karma. That would make it so you still have to
penalize people, but not as frequently as you reward them. However,
it would
also create a separation between penalty and reward, which I think
would make
the penalty part feel more like an attack.
An interesting possibility for a different medium would be making it
random:
you award karma, then roll a dice to see if you're required to penalize
someone else. But neither randomness nor unexpected obligations work
well in
mailing lists.
Overall, as much as I like the 'balanced karma' system, I think it just
doesn't fit well with what I have in mind. Of course, that might be
a good
reason to vote against this proposal, if you like it better than what
I came
up with. But we've had Karma for around three years, and it had several
predecessors before that. There's a benefit to shaking things up.]
}
--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary here :)
DIS: Re: BUS: Registration - Fred
Thanks, ATMunn! On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 4:02 PM ATMunn via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Welcome, Fred! I cause Fred to receive a Welcome Package if e has not > received one already. > > On 7/3/2020 7:00 PM, Ca B via agora-business wrote: > > I register. My preferred name is Fred. > > > > -- > ATMunn > friendly neighborhood notary here :) >
Re: DIS: wait what now?
Oh. I guess I did. Don't even remember that, lol. I think that must have been one of those times where I only came back for a very brief period before things got busy and I stopped playing again. On 7/3/2020 6:38 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/3/2020 2:45 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: I was scrolling through the CFJ archives and found this: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3722 And this message's subject line was basically my reaction. Apparently I "was indisputably Prime Minister" at one point while I was a zombie. Like what? how? Can somebody give me some context? I'm very intrigued by this. You stopped being a zombie before the relevant election: 06-Oct-18 18:51:47 ATMunn flips eir master switch back to emself. You nominated yourself here: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039406.html You were elected here: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-November/039600.html -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: wait what now?
On 7/3/2020 2:45 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > I was scrolling through the CFJ archives and found this: > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3722 > > And this message's subject line was basically my reaction. > > Apparently I "was indisputably Prime Minister" at one point while I was > a zombie. Like what? how? > > Can somebody give me some context? I'm very intrigued by this. > You stopped being a zombie before the relevant election: > 06-Oct-18 18:51:47 ATMunn flips eir master switch back to emself. You nominated yourself here: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039406.html You were elected here: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-November/039600.html
DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament Regulations v1.1
On 7/3/2020 6:19 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 3:09 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: On 7/3/20 6:00 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-official wrote: I resolve the below intent, enacting and promulgating the below regulations. I enter the contest, thus becoming a Contestant. I enter the contest, thus becoming a Contestant. I'm not sure I understand how all of this works, but I'll figure it out... somehow. Anyone have advice on how to do that? -Aris You can probably google some videos on how to play Diplomacy. Only problem is a lot of them are really old. There's also Backstabbr, an online service for playing Diplomacy. It has an overview of the rules (obviously a bit different since that's regulated by a computer, this is regulated by a person and also is a nomic, but it should give you the gist) and a sandbox where you can mess around. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament Regulations v1.1
On 7/3/2020 3:19 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 3:09 PM Jason Cobb wrote: >> On 7/3/20 6:00 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-official >> wrote: >>> I resolve the below intent, enacting and promulgating the below >> regulations. >> >> >> I enter the contest, thus becoming a Contestant. > > > I enter the contest, thus becoming a Contestant. I'm not sure I understand > how all of this works, but I'll figure it out... somehow. > > Anyone have advice on how to do that? Once countries have been assigned I'm sure I'll have plenty of advice for you :)
DIS: I'm stupid, and we've got a problem.
I think that we have time to fix this during the joining period, but I'm not sure what the best solution is, so I'm seeking thoughts on the best solution, and I have a few days to propose a specific fix. As it stands, all of the provisions relating to amendment don't work because of the following clause: Rule 2495/2 (Power=1) The Birthday Tournament This title may thereafter be amended only by the Herald or eir designee Without 3 Objections. My first thought is to separate out the internal rules — those outside of zero through five — into some sort of subset with fewer protections, but I'm not sure about how best to execute it. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: Birthday Tournament Regulations v1.1
On 7/3/20 6:06 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > On 7/3/2020 3:00 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >>> 1. Until July 7 or 7 days after the promulgation of these regulations, >>> whichever is later, any person CAN enter the contest (becoming a >>> Contestant) by announcement, acting as emself, as long as no more than >>> six other persons have already done so. > > I enter the contest (did you give it a name for reference, just > Diplonomic? Or Diplonomic 2020?). > > -G. > I didn't, but I think Diplonomic 2020 or 2020 Birthday Tournament refer to it unambiguously. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
DIS: [@nobody this subject line was too long] referee CFJs
On 7/3/2020 2:55 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticuswrote: > On 7/3/20 5:39 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> On 7/2/20 6:15 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote: CFJ, submitted to Referee: The above-quoted attempt to pay cards on nch’s behalf was unsuccessful because attempting to pay 18 Victory Cards and/or 18 Justice Cards in 4 sets of 4 is self-contradictory. >>> >>> I assign this CFJ to Jason. I believe that it is CFJ 3861, but I will >>> leave it to the Clerk of the Courts to assign. >>> >> Judged FALSE. > I grant a reward of 5 coins to Jason for eir timely judgment. > > For the cases that were submitted to me, do I have to issue a weekly report? > hmmm... Rule 991/33 > The Arbitor's weekly report includes a summary of recent judicial > case activity, including open and recently-judged cases, recent > judicial assignments, and a list of players interested in judging. Does this imply "specific case" reporting obligations that would transfer due to the text below, or is more of a bulk specification? >From Rule 2246/6 > When a CFJ is submitted to the Referee, the Referee receives all > obligations and powers for the specific case that the Arbitor > would otherwise receive due to being Arbitor. This takes > precedence over Rules that would otherwise assign duties and < powers regarding a judicial case to the Arbitor. No idea! Arguments for bulk: accidentally leaving out one Arbitor-submitted case from a larger report wouldn't be a gross error, and therefore (by precedent) the report missing a case would still satisfy my weekly duty. Therefore there's no "per-case" obligation for the Referee to receive. [I'm not forbidden from putting them in my report anyway so I will.] -G.
DIS: wait what now?
I was scrolling through the CFJ archives and found this: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3722 And this message's subject line was basically my reaction. Apparently I "was indisputably Prime Minister" at one point while I was a zombie. Like what? how? Can somebody give me some context? I'm very intrigued by this. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: Fwd: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: is this too morbid?
On 7/3/2020 1:33 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: > On 2020-07-03 7:56 p.m., Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 7/3/2020 12:24 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: >>> Maybe worth also mentioning: back in February I tried to patch over >>> this problem with Proposal 8328, The Eternal Sprit [sic... didn't >>> notice the typo until now] >>> >>> Proposal text was 'Amend Rule 869 by replacing the text "is a person" >>> with "is forever a person".' Final F/A was 21/12 for AI 3.0. >> >> Looks like my vote against wasn't strongly against and I was just vaguely >> nervous about the word "forever": >> >> I wrote: 8328* Falsifian3.0 The Eternal Sprit >>> AGAINST. I dislike this sort of asserting-of-permanence for reasons I >>> can't quite put my finger on. >> >> How about a version that says "a player can't cease being a person while >> they are a player"? Then we could respectfully deregister someone if the >> worst happens and not worry too much about 'forever'. >> >> -G. > > That would solve most recordkeeping problems, but it would still mean > Tailor and Referee reports could be incorrect without our knowledge. Hmm - Fugitive blots decay, and ribbons are probably easy to reconstruct (slow moving). Not perfect but also doesn't propagate errors like registration, etc.? > We could try defining personhood by saying any entity meeting the > conditions becomes a person if e wasn't already, and not adding any > conditions under which an entity stops being a person, thus avoiding the > word "forever", but that would be kind of weird. > > Maybe we should go with our suggested text. > I don't mind too much if "forever" is truly the cleanest way, that won't kill my vote this time. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3860 judged FALSE
On 7/3/2020 5:09 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/3/2020 1:45 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: Even if it turns out my arguments are terrible and it gets reconsidered, I'm glad I put the effort into it. At a first read, this looks comprehensive and well-done. Thanks for putting in the substantial effort when you could have just stuck with your original. I've got an honor debt to you for when I can next give honor. Minor formatting thing: Do you mind if I mark the multi-line quoted sections of your arguments with >'s when I put it in the archive? Nope, go ahead. Also on this bit: The judge's definition of "buried" seems a bit odd to me. In poking around the discussion at the time I now think e meant "buried" in the strict sense of "part of a quoted section" (buried) versus "in a break in the quoted section" (not buried). Not important at all but a little less mysterious in that context! Ah, that would make sense. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: Re: [Treasuror] Reward Re: BUS: CFJ 3860 judged FALSE
On 7/3/2020 2:18 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > On 7/3/20 5:15 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> >> Signalling question: I've been interpreting [Treasusor] subject lines as >> things that are strictly *from* the treasuror (as opposed to [attn. >> Treasuror]). Is that the best way to distinguish - in particular are >> officers searching for [Officer] but not [attn. Officer]? >> >> -G. >> > > I think you're right; I apologize for doing it wrong. > Just didn't remember the suggested list so thought I might be wrong myself! I also like the @ solution and will try to use that. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: @Notary @Treasuror, I do the scam anyway
On 7/3/20 4:20 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 7/3/20 5:14 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion > wrote: >> On 7/3/20 5:14 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >>> On 7/3/20 4:02 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: On 6/30/20 10:26 AM, Becca Lee via agora-business wrote: > I COE the most recent proposal assessment: you missed a vote by G. in > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043813.html Pursuant to the judgment in CFJ 3860, I deny this CoE, thus causing it to cease to be a doubt and restarting the clock for self-ratification of the assessment at 7 days. -- Jason Cobb >>> That's not how that works. It has to be "continuously undoubted". There >>> was a time period where it was doubted, and therefore it wasn't continuous. >>> >> I think that's what Jason meant by "restarting". >> > Yes. I denied the CoE, thus causing it to cease to be a doubt (R2201). > There were no other doubts, so the statement is currently undoubted. If > there are no more doubts for one week, it will self-ratify. > > -- > Jason Cobb > Oh I just misread this and thought you meant the clock was continuing from the original publication and was very perplexed by it. My mistake. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: @Notary @Treasuror, I do the scam anyway
On 7/3/20 5:14 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On 7/3/20 5:14 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: >> On 7/3/20 4:02 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >>> On 6/30/20 10:26 AM, Becca Lee via agora-business wrote: I COE the most recent proposal assessment: you missed a vote by G. in https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043813.html >>> Pursuant to the judgment in CFJ 3860, I deny this CoE, thus causing it >>> to cease to be a doubt and restarting the clock for self-ratification of >>> the assessment at 7 days. >>> >>> -- >>> Jason Cobb >>> >> That's not how that works. It has to be "continuously undoubted". There >> was a time period where it was doubted, and therefore it wasn't continuous. >> > I think that's what Jason meant by "restarting". > Yes. I denied the CoE, thus causing it to cease to be a doubt (R2201). There were no other doubts, so the statement is currently undoubted. If there are no more doubts for one week, it will self-ratify. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: [Treasuror] Reward Re: BUS: CFJ 3860 judged FALSE
On 7/3/20 5:15 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > Signalling question: I've been interpreting [Treasusor] subject lines as > things that are strictly *from* the treasuror (as opposed to [attn. > Treasuror]). Is that the best way to distinguish - in particular are > officers searching for [Officer] but not [attn. Officer]? > > -G. > I think you're right; I apologize for doing it wrong. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: Re: [Treasuror] Reward Re: BUS: CFJ 3860 judged FALSE
On 7/3/20 4:15 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > Signalling question: I've been interpreting [Treasusor] subject lines as > things that are strictly *from* the treasuror (as opposed to [attn. > Treasuror]). Is that the best way to distinguish - in particular are > officers searching for [Officer] but not [attn. Officer]? > > -G. > Honestly, I like the @ notation R. lee used instead of ATTN because it's more clearly different and slightly shorter. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
DIS: Re: [Treasuror] Reward Re: BUS: CFJ 3860 judged FALSE
Signalling question: I've been interpreting [Treasusor] subject lines as things that are strictly *from* the treasuror (as opposed to [attn. Treasuror]). Is that the best way to distinguish - in particular are officers searching for [Officer] but not [attn. Officer]? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: @Notary @Treasuror, I do the scam anyway
On 7/3/20 5:14 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 7/3/20 4:02 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> On 6/30/20 10:26 AM, Becca Lee via agora-business wrote: >>> I COE the most recent proposal assessment: you missed a vote by G. in >>> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043813.html >> >> Pursuant to the judgment in CFJ 3860, I deny this CoE, thus causing it >> to cease to be a doubt and restarting the clock for self-ratification of >> the assessment at 7 days. >> >> -- >> Jason Cobb >> > That's not how that works. It has to be "continuously undoubted". There > was a time period where it was doubted, and therefore it wasn't continuous. > I think that's what Jason meant by "restarting". -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
DIS: Re: BUS: @Notary @Treasuror, I do the scam anyway
On 7/3/20 4:02 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > On 6/30/20 10:26 AM, Becca Lee via agora-business wrote: >> I COE the most recent proposal assessment: you missed a vote by G. in >> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043813.html > > Pursuant to the judgment in CFJ 3860, I deny this CoE, thus causing it > to cease to be a doubt and restarting the clock for self-ratification of > the assessment at 7 days. > > -- > Jason Cobb > That's not how that works. It has to be "continuously undoubted". There was a time period where it was doubted, and therefore it wasn't continuous. -- nch Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3860 judged FALSE
On 7/3/2020 1:45 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: > Even if it turns out > my arguments are terrible and it gets reconsidered, I'm glad I put the > effort into it. At a first read, this looks comprehensive and well-done. Thanks for putting in the substantial effort when you could have just stuck with your original. I've got an honor debt to you for when I can next give honor. Minor formatting thing: Do you mind if I mark the multi-line quoted sections of your arguments with >'s when I put it in the archive? Also on this bit: > The judge's definition of "buried" seems a bit odd to me. In poking around the discussion at the time I now think e meant "buried" in the strict sense of "part of a quoted section" (buried) versus "in a break in the quoted section" (not buried). Not important at all but a little less mysterious in that context! -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: @Notary @Treasuror, I do the scam anyway
On 7/3/20 5:02 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > On 6/30/20 10:26 AM, Becca Lee via agora-business wrote: >> I COE the most recent proposal assessment: you missed a vote by G. in >> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043813.html > > > Pursuant to the judgment in CFJ 3860, I deny this CoE, thus causing it > to cease to be a doubt and restarting the clock for self-ratification of > the assessment at 7 days. > As a result of this, I also believe the scam failed, but the creation of the blots didn't. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: Fwd: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: is this too morbid?
Maybe we should go with our suggested text. *your -- Falsifian
Re: Fwd: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: is this too morbid?
On 2020-07-03 7:56 p.m., Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/3/2020 12:24 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: Maybe worth also mentioning: back in February I tried to patch over this problem with Proposal 8328, The Eternal Sprit [sic... didn't notice the typo until now] Proposal text was 'Amend Rule 869 by replacing the text "is a person" with "is forever a person".' Final F/A was 21/12 for AI 3.0. Looks like my vote against wasn't strongly against and I was just vaguely nervous about the word "forever": I wrote: 8328* Falsifian3.0 The Eternal Sprit AGAINST. I dislike this sort of asserting-of-permanence for reasons I can't quite put my finger on. How about a version that says "a player can't cease being a person while they are a player"? Then we could respectfully deregister someone if the worst happens and not worry too much about 'forever'. -G. That would solve most recordkeeping problems, but it would still mean Tailor and Referee reports could be incorrect without our knowledge. We could try defining personhood by saying any entity meeting the conditions becomes a person if e wasn't already, and not adding any conditions under which an entity stops being a person, thus avoiding the word "forever", but that would be kind of weird. Maybe we should go with our suggested text. -- Falsifian
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Draft Judgement of CFJ 3860
On 7/3/2020 1:22 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > I have looked at all the CFJs involved and your gratuitous arguments and > am ready to deliver my judgement. Am I good to do so? no reason why not from here
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Draft Judgement of CFJ 3860
I have looked at all the CFJs involved and your gratuitous arguments and am ready to deliver my judgement. Am I good to do so? On 7/2/2020 3:32 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: On 7/2/2020 11:41 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: So where this sort of thing got judged or entered custom to count for our version of "clear" is still a mystery. So at this point, I'm honestly happy if the judge just mentions "this sort of thing worked before, but the precedents are confused and let's look at it fresh" or "this one was *extremely* buried" with maybe a quickie comparison between the actual past hidden messages (not worrying much more what the past judgements thought). I will make sure to look at the CFJs first, but it's likely that this is what I will do. Thanks! Not requesting more than that. I'll add a gratuitous coda/final argument for the record: This chapter in Agoran history ended soon after the Bank Heist, which brought about a dependent action fix by Proposal 8107 (Buried Intent Prevention Act v2, adopted 27-Oct-18). That proposal changed this text: “1. A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and method(s) (including the value of N and/or T for each method), at most fourteen days earlier.“ to: “1. A person (the initiator) conspicuously and without obfuscation announced intent to perform the action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and method(s) (including the value of N and/or T for each method), at most fourteen days earlier.“ This separation made "without obfuscation" part of the whole announcement message (meaning 'no hiding' the intent overall), but separated "unambiguously and clearly specify" to refer only to the intent contents (asking once you find the intent in the message, is it clear?) That distinction currently persists in game custom, and in the dependent action rules text (game custom seems to apply the standard to all action specifications not just intents), and is the basis for my vote counting. -G. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: Fwd: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: is this too morbid?
On 7/3/2020 12:24 PM, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: > Maybe worth also mentioning: back in February I tried to patch over > this problem with Proposal 8328, The Eternal Sprit [sic... didn't > notice the typo until now] > > Proposal text was 'Amend Rule 869 by replacing the text "is a person" > with "is forever a person".' Final F/A was 21/12 for AI 3.0. Looks like my vote against wasn't strongly against and I was just vaguely nervous about the word "forever": I wrote: > > 8328* Falsifian3.0 The Eternal Sprit > AGAINST. I dislike this sort of asserting-of-permanence for reasons I > can't quite put my finger on. How about a version that says "a player can't cease being a person while they are a player"? Then we could respectfully deregister someone if the worst happens and not worry too much about 'forever'. -G.
Re: [Attn. Referee] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal 8458 (Third time's the charm)
On 7/1/2020 8:24 PM, omd via agora-business wrote: > “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a > locked > filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying > ‘Beware of the Leopard.” [Just entering the case now]. Funnily enough, in discord (before the case was called) I used this quote as a reason the ballot *did* work. Because the quote illustrates that it's possible to fill the letter of the law legal/formal process about a notice being clearly written on a piece of paper (I have no doubt that the Planning Department followed the letter of the law), while still in practice locking it away. -G.
Fwd: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: is this too morbid?
On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 19:42, James Cook wrote: On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:00 PM ATMunn via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: I feel like I vaguely recall this being discussed at some point previously, but I thought I would go for it anyways. I initiate a Call for Judgement on the following statement: "If a player dies unbeknownst to all persons involved in Agora, e is still a person." Rule 869 states that Any organism that is generally capable of freely originating and communicating independent thoughts and ideas is a person. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons. If someone dies, e is no longer capable of freely originating and communicating independent thoughts and ideas; therefore, e is not a person. FALSE. ...but if nobody knows that e died, then e has to still be a person. We can't assume without proof that anyone is dead and declare em not a person. So PARADOXICAL? Maybe? -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :) On Mon, 22 Jun 2020 at 02:05, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3411 Past discussions: It came up in the discussion thread "The Very Worst Thing That Could Possibly Happen (Attn. Distributor)" in Jan-Feb. Maye start at https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-January/056441.html From that thread, this Oct 2018 thread "What if a player dies?" was linked, with the comment that discussion petered out with no conclusion: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg45140.html - Falsifian Maybe worth also mentioning: back in February I tried to patch over this problem with Proposal 8328, The Eternal Sprit [sic... didn't notice the typo until now] Proposal text was 'Amend Rule 869 by replacing the text "is a person" with "is forever a person".' Final F/A was 21/12 for AI 3.0. -- Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: New email address
Finally, no more confusion between James Cook and Jason Cobb. :P On 7/3/2020 2:32 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: I'm going to start using this email address (ag...@falsifian.org). I don't mind if people still contact me at jc...@cs.berkeley.edu, but consider ag...@falsifian.org the default. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3854 Judged DISMISS by Murphy
On 7/3/2020 10:50 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 7/3/2020 10:41 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: >> What's the Annabel Crisis? > > - A person registered under the name Annabel, did not much for a month or > so, then deregistered. > > - ~6 months later, a long-time player (Maud) confessed that e had been > Annabel. > > - It was decided that Annabel's "I deregister" message applied to Maud, so > Maud hadn't really been a player for those 6 months. > > - Unfortunately, e'd been (thought to be) promotor during that time, and > this was before self-ratification, and there wasn't anything like "a > document purporting to initiate a decision...[could ratify]". It just > amounted to, if e hadn't been promotor, none of those proposals were ever > distributed or adopted. > > - After a lot of discussion about whether the game was unfixable, it was > fixed by proposal ratifying everything e'd done, and became the case study > for self-ratification and the "document purporting to be" language. The > fix steps included everyone announcing that they "resigned promotor" so > there was certainty over who might be promotor (because only the promotor > could distribute the fix). btw, the relevance to this current case is in R1551 (Ratification): > Such a modification cannot > add inconsistencies between the gamestate and the rules and: > An internally inconsistent document generally cannot be ratified; If the Registrar's Report lists a non-person as a player, that's an "inconsistency". The document would not self-ratify. Similarly, reports that would make that entity an officer, or have em hold currencies that only persons could hold, ribbons, etc. might not have self-ratified. If we found out that a person had become a non-person, but we had kept em in the reports for a while, then none of those reports would have self-ratified for that whole while (even if we thought they had), and we could be in that sort of inconsistent state again. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3854 Judged DISMISS by Murphy
On 7/3/2020 10:41 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: > What's the Annabel Crisis? - A person registered under the name Annabel, did not much for a month or so, then deregistered. - ~6 months later, a long-time player (Maud) confessed that e had been Annabel. - It was decided that Annabel's "I deregister" message applied to Maud, so Maud hadn't really been a player for those 6 months. - Unfortunately, e'd been (thought to be) promotor during that time, and this was before self-ratification, and there wasn't anything like "a document purporting to initiate a decision...[could ratify]". It just amounted to, if e hadn't been promotor, none of those proposals were ever distributed or adopted. - After a lot of discussion about whether the game was unfixable, it was fixed by proposal ratifying everything e'd done, and became the case study for self-ratification and the "document purporting to be" language. The fix steps included everyone announcing that they "resigned promotor" so there was certainty over who might be promotor (because only the promotor could distribute the fix). -G.
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3854 Judged DISMISS by Murphy
What's the Annabel Crisis? On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 7:20 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3854 > (This document is informational only and contains no game actions). > > === CFJ 3854 === > > If a player dies unbeknownst to all persons involved in Agora, e > is still a person. > > == > > Caller:ATMunn > > Judge: Murphy > Judgement: DISMISS > > == > > History: > > Called by ATMunn: 22 Jun 2020 01:59:55 > Assigned to Murphy: 22 Jun 2020 14:47:24 > Judged DISMISS by Murphy: 28 Jun 2020 18:32:18 > > == > > Caller's Arguments: > > Rule 869 states that >Any organism that is generally capable of freely originating and >communicating independent thoughts and ideas is a person. Rules to >the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons. > > If someone dies, e is no longer capable of freely originating and > communicating independent thoughts and ideas; therefore, e is not a > person. FALSE. > > ...but if nobody knows that e died, then e has to still be a person. We > can't assume without proof that anyone is dead and declare em not a > person. So PARADOXICAL? Maybe? > > -- > > Gratuitous Arguments by R. Lee: > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3411 > > -- > > Judge Murphy's Arguments: > > Per the precedent of my previous judgement of CFJ 3411, I still do not > consider myself qualified to judge whether a dead once-a-person still > exists in some sense that would qualify as "person" here. > > It seems reasonable to assume that their no-longer-functional body > doesn't qualify, and neither does the portion of anyone else's mind that > continues to roughly emulate what their mind was like (fails the > "independent" part). > > But if their mind remains directly functional in some other sense, then > arguably that should still qualify as an "organism", and by definition > it would still be capable of freely originating independent thoughts and > ideas, and presumably also communicating them. (To whom? Can we > communicate with members of an uncontacted tribe, for instance? Surely > not within reasonable effort.) > > If someone dies but we don't know about it, then we simply remain in > Platonic error until/unless we implement an independent fix, similar to > the Annabel Crisis. It would be a good idea to implement such a fix here > (hopefully) well ahead of it actually becoming relevant. > > DISMISS. > > == > >
Re: DIS: Draft Judgement of CFJ 3860
On 7/3/2020 11:26 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/3/2020 8:14 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: Maybe I'm misreading it, but I dug up the judgements for both of these CFJs and it seems to me that neither attempt actually worked. On 7/2/2020 1:55 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: 3667 found that non-quotes buried in quotes worked. 3676 found that putting it actually *in* the quotes was a step too far. The 3667 attempt that worked: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-September/039218.html Ooops - incomplete record. There were two judgements in 3667. The Evidence had been included entirely in quotes (with double-quoted sections), so in the first attempt I thought the whole message had been quoted and judged FALSE. Someone pointed out the original message didn't have the double-quotes, and after a Motion I judged TRUE. First judgement: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039379.html Reconsideration: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039380.html Final judgement: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039409.html Full final arguments (by G.): The announcement of intent is buried in quotes, but not in quotes. We generally allow that sort of thing (actions with quotes on either side) so it's not really less clear than other intents that have been found to be successful lately. TRUE. Ohh, gotcha. That makes more sense. Thank you for your help! -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: Draft Judgement of CFJ 3860
On 7/3/2020 8:14 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > Maybe I'm misreading it, but I dug up the judgements for both of these > CFJs and it seems to me that neither attempt actually worked. > > On 7/2/2020 1:55 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> 3667 found that non-quotes buried in quotes worked. 3676 found that >> putting it actually *in* the quotes was a step too far. >> >> The 3667 attempt that worked: >> >> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-September/039218.html Ooops - incomplete record. There were two judgements in 3667. The Evidence had been included entirely in quotes (with double-quoted sections), so in the first attempt I thought the whole message had been quoted and judged FALSE. Someone pointed out the original message didn't have the double-quotes, and after a Motion I judged TRUE. First judgement: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039379.html Reconsideration: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039380.html Final judgement: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039409.html Full final arguments (by G.): > The announcement of intent is buried in quotes, but not in quotes. > We generally allow that sort of thing (actions with quotes on either > side) so it's not really less clear than other intents that have been > found to be successful lately. TRUE.
Re: DIS: Draft Judgement of CFJ 3860
Maybe I'm misreading it, but I dug up the judgements for both of these CFJs and it seems to me that neither attempt actually worked. On 7/2/2020 1:55 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: 3667 found that non-quotes buried in quotes worked. 3676 found that putting it actually *in* the quotes was a step too far. The 3667 attempt that worked: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-September/039218.html The 3676 that failed: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-October/039261.html -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
