DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3877 Assigned to Jason
On 8/23/20 12:09 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > The below CFJ is 3877. I assign it to Jason. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3877 > > === CFJ 3877 === > > One ribbon was awarded in this message. > > == Draft judgment in CFJs 3877 and 3878: Background information: It is important to note that this is a court case because Ben and Claire are plural (which I don't believe has been explicitly stated in evidence), meaning it has not yet been judicially established whether they are legally one person or two persons (in the eyes of Agora). ATMunn's purported actions appear to be such that the number of ribbons awarded was exactly equivalent to the number of persons (in the Agoran legal sense of the word) that Ben and Claire compose. Rule 869 defines person as "any entity that is or ever was an organism generally capable of freely originating and communicating independent thoughts and ideas" (and no other entities). I think it is reasonable to say that each of Ben, Claire, and BC System is a separate entity from the others. However, it is less clear which of these is an "organism". "Organism" is not specifically defined in the ruleset, so its interpretation must be guided by its common language meaning. Due to the importance of this issue and the necessary precision in determining this definition, I will cite more dictionaries than might normally be considered necessary. Google's dictionary defines the word as: "an individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form" (somewhat rude to fungi), "the material structure of an individual life form", or "a whole with interdependent parts, likened to a living being". Wikipedia (the most reliable source) opens with "In biology, an organism ... is any individual entity that embodies the properties of life." Merriam-Webster online defines the word as: "a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are determined by their function in the whole" or "an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of parts or organs more or less separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being". Dictionary.com defines the word as "a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes", "a form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran" (woo, fungi rights!), "any organized body or system conceived of as analogous to a living being", or "any complex thing or system having properties and functions determined not only by the properties and relations of its individual parts, but by the character of the whole that they compose and by the relations of the parts to the whole". Some common elements in these definitions appear to include: that the entity is alive and that the entity is composed of several interacting parts or organs. This indicates that the "organism" includes the organs and other parts of the body that keep it alive. However, the definition of "person" also strongly implies that some subset of organisms are able to communicate (otherwise, no organism is a person and thus not a player). This is important because an body without an intelligence cannot communicate. This suggests that the intelligence is in some ways to be considered part of the organism, particularly in determining whether it can communicate. This reading is consistent with the ordinary-language definition - the intelligence can be considered as just another part of the organism. This reading implies that the single body controlled by BC System, along with the intelligences of the system, is a single organism. Since it is capable of "freely originating and communicating independent thoughts and ideas", it is a person. However, it is not only necessary to determine which of Ben, Claire, and BC System is currently an organism, but also which ever was an organism. Viewing the intelligences as part of the organism gives a clear answer: the fact that one part of the organism changed number or composition does not mean it is a new organism or multiple organisms in the same way that getting a kidney transplant does not mean that you are legally a new organism or multiple organisms. If Ben or Claire existed without the other at some point, they were still ultimately a part of the same organism that currently exists, and that organism is what is a person in the eyes of Agora, not the intelligence. The organism controlled jointly by the intelligences of BC System is a single person and possesses a single Violet ribbon. CFJ 3877 judged TRUE. CFJ 3878 judged FALSE. Evidence: Rule 869/47 (Power=3) How to Join and Leave Agora Any entity that is or ever was an organism generally capable of freely originating and communicating independent thoughts and
Re: DIS: lists were briefly down
On Tue, 2020-08-25 at 20:22 -0400, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > On 8/25/2020 8:12 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > > The lists were down for about four hours total. > > aw man, i had a brilliant, genius, unstoppable scam that i did during > that time and only could have done during that time, guess nobody will > ever know what it is now... > > (/s obviously) Unless you hand-delivered your scam email for some reason (I have been known to do this for Agoran scams in the past...), it would still end up appearing at the lists eventually. Email was designed in a time of unreliable and slow connections; each of the email relays along the route will try for quite some time to get the message through if the recipient relay appears to be down or disconnected (as opposed to intentionally refusing the email). And (especially in this age of spam) almost every legitimate email starts off by being sent to the sender's relay, which then relays it to the recipient's. There have been multiple occasions on which I've sent an email, and had a bounce email from my email relay, two weeks later, explaining that it's spent all this time trying to deliver the email but the destination server was down all that time. -- ais523
Re: DIS: lists were briefly down
On 8/25/2020 8:12 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: The lists were down for about four hours total. The VPS hosting the lists was forcibly shut off due to non-payment (I missed the email with the invoice). I happened to be actively checking my emails at the time, so I noticed and paid within half an hour, but then the VPS failed to start back up because of an fsck error, and I didn’t notice that until now. Should be good now; hope that error wasn't anything serious... ;) - The Distributor aw man, i had a brilliant, genius, unstoppable scam that i did during that time and only could have done during that time, guess nobody will ever know what it is now... (/s obviously) -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary and Speaker of Agora :)
DIS: Re: BUS: The Supertask Experiment Redux
at 11:49 AM, Nathan S via agora-business
wrote:
> Below, contained within the "{}", or curly braces, is the contract
> entitled The Supertask Experiment Redux.
You haven’t exactly stated that you agree to this contract, though I
suppose claiming it exists and has you as a party could be considered a
form of agreeing to it…
> This contract creates one Dock asset.
When does it do so?
DIS: lists were briefly down
The lists were down for about four hours total. The VPS hosting the lists was forcibly shut off due to non-payment (I missed the email with the invoice). I happened to be actively checking my emails at the time, so I noticed and paid within half an hour, but then the VPS failed to start back up because of an fsck error, and I didn’t notice that until now. Should be good now; hope that error wasn't anything serious... ;) - The Distributor
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract: Let's snag D. Margaux
Well, Margaux is gone, so...
I remove all consent about this contract and I leave this contract.
On Tuesday, August 25, 2020, shelvacu via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I consent to this amended contract.
>
> On 8/19/20 10:35 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
> >
> >> On Aug 19, 2020, at 10:35 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Darn, good catch.
> >>
> >> I intend, with the consent of all parties, to amend the contract to the
> following.
> >>
> >> TLDR: Anyone can transfer the coins from the contract to me. I SHALL
> make sure that happens before the end of the auction. I SHAN'T use the
> coins unless the contract says so. If we don't win, y'all can claim the
> refund from my balance if necessary.
> >>
> >> {
> >> Any player may become a party to this contract. Any player other than
> Gaelan may cease to be a party to this contract.
> >>
> >> Any party may transfer coins to this contract. A person's contribution
> is the total number of coins they have transferred to this contract. A
> person's share is eir contribution, divided by the total number of coins
> transferred to this contract.
> >>
> >> Whenever this contract has more coins than the current highest bid on
> the August 2020 zombie auction, Gaelan SHALL within 24 hours, and any party
> may act on Gaelan's behalf to, place a bid of the number of coins held by
> this contract. For the avoidance of doubt, another player acting on
> Gaelan's behalf to perform this actions satisfies Gaelan's obligation to do
> so.
> >>
> >> Any party may transfer coins from this contract to Gaelan. Gaelan SHALL
> destroy, pay, or transfer those coins only as required or permitted by this
> contract. Gaelan SHALL ensure that all coins are transferred from this
> contract to emself before the end of the August 2020 zombie auction.
> >>
> >> When the August 2020 zombie auction ends, if Gaelan is an awardee of a
> lot, e SHALL within a timely fashion, and any party may act on eir behalf
> to, perform the following process:
> >> - pay a fee of that many coins to transfer the corresponding talisman
> to emself
> >> - act on behalf of the zombie corresponding to said talisman to
> transfer all of the zombie's coins to Gaelan
> >> - transfer to each party a number of coins equal to the number
> transferred from the zombie, multiplied by eir share, rounded down (instead
> of transferring assets to emself, Gaelan may do nothing)
> >>
> >> After the August 2020 zombie auction ends, if Gaelan is not the awardee
> of a lot, any party MAY once transfer coins totaling a number equal to eir
> contribution from Gaelan (acting on eir behalf to do so) and/or this
> contract to emself.
> >>
> >> Gaelan may destroy this contract by announcement if it holds no assets
> and e has fulfilled all of eir obligations under this contract.
> >> }
> >>
> >> Gaelan
> > Ttttpf
> >
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: on today's episode of ATMunn's bad ideas
> On Aug 25, 2020, at 12:00 AM, Nathan S via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
> On 8/24/2020 2:14 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
>> I perform the action denoted by curly brackets once for each filled
>> office, where X is that office and Y is the player who holds that office:
>>
>> {
>>
>> I intend, with 2 Agoran consent, to impeach Y from the office of X.
>>
>> }
>>
> This is a terrible idea. I support all such intents.
>
I object to all such endorsements.
Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: The Supertask Experiment
On 8/25/20 2:50 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > You could still amend it to make it work - instead of saying that the > contract does a thing, say that the contract enables a party to do said > thing (if that makes any sense). Also, if you are actually done with it > - as the Notary, the person who keeps track of contracts, I would > request that you destroy the contract. You'll have to amend it to allow > you to destroy it though. The contract can't stop em from destroying it if e's the only party because R1742 still provides a method. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: The Supertask Experiment
On 8/25/2020 2:42 PM, Nathan S via agora-business wrote:
On 8/25/2020 11:21 AM, Nathan S wrote:
{
Name: The Supertask Experiment
Parties: Nathan
Only Nathan may be a party to this contract. Nathan may not destroy
this contract. All actions in this contract happen under a "I say, I
do, therefore it happens" basis, meaning that all actions are taken
instantly, without implicitly advancing time. As the rules do not
prohibit it, in this contract, multiple actions may happen at the same
time. Time does not advance during this contract's effects unless
explicitly stated by this contract or the rules. This contract is
capable of owning assets.
For the purposes of this contract, an instant is defined to be a
specific moment in time, with infinite instants in any given division
or unit of time. An example of an instant would be precisely 1.87856
seconds after midnight on July 12, 1983. Any measurement of precise
time can be understood to be an instant. An instant can not cover more
than a single instance of precise time. For example, an instant can
not be the entirety of the second after midnight on July 12, 1983, but
precisely one second after midnight on July 12, 1983 can be understood
to be an instant.
Multiple actions can resolve in the same instant. If an action starts
and resolves in the same instant, that action takes no time. Actions
that resolve in the same instant can be dependent upon prior actions
in that instant. For example, in the same announcement, one can
transfer coins from a locker or similar contract to themselves, and
then perform an action with those coins, both of those actions
happening in the same instant despite the second action being
dependent on the first one. Actions dependent on another action can be
started and resolved at the same instant as the action it is dependent
on without passing time.
This contract can perform any number of, or every, action(s) on the
behalf of any party to this contract. This contract can consent to any
number of, or every, action(s) on the behalf of any party to this
contract.
This contract and any parties to this contract consent to every
transfer of Dock assets.
A Dock asset is an asset with default owner Nathan. The class of
entities which can own a Dock asset is restricted to Nathan and this
contract. If the ownership of a Dock asset were to be transferred to
the Lost and Found Department, ownership is instead transferred to
whoever most recently had the Dock Asset, not including the Lost and
Found Department. A Dock asset can be transferred to this contract or
any party to this contract. Consent of parties to this contract or the
consent of this contract itself is not needed to transfer a Dock asset
to this contract or to parties of this contract. This contract can
create a Dock asset at any instant.
This contract creates one Dock asset.
If, at any instant, Nathan owns any given Dock asset, this contract
will, on eir behalf, transfer that Dock asset to this contract.
If, at any instant, this contract owns any given Dock asset, this
contract will transfer that Dock asset to Nathan.
}
The Supertask Experiment fails. Contracts are not able to act on behalf
of players.
You could still amend it to make it work - instead of saying that the
contract does a thing, say that the contract enables a party to do said
thing (if that makes any sense). Also, if you are actually done with it
- as the Notary, the person who keeps track of contracts, I would
request that you destroy the contract. You'll have to amend it to allow
you to destroy it though.
--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary and Speaker of Agora :)
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Timely reminders
On 8/25/2020 6:08 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2168 by replacing the text "Upon such an occurrence" with
> the text "Within two days of such an occurrence"
>
> }
I think 2 days is too short don't want to penalize someone for not being
around on a weekend - 4 should leave plenty time to vote?
-G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Humiliating Public Reminder for Proposals 8488-8489
On 8/25/20 8:59 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > Hg oh yes please daddy, humiliate me, that's the stuff. > > I uh... I vote FOR for those Proposals! I haven't read them but I have full > faith that they are stellar ideas, yes indeed. Yes. It's too late... -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Humiliating Public Reminder for Proposals 8488-8489
On 8/25/20 8:46 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: > For each of Proposals 8488 and 8489, I hereby issue a humiliating public > reminder to each of the following slackers: > > omd, Aris, Gaelan, G., Cuddlebeam, nix, PSS, grok, Tyler, Zyborg, R. Lee, > Fred, Shelvacu, twg, D. Margaux, Baron von Vanderham, sukil, Telnaior. > Please feel humiliated. So, I was going to have a script send this during the extended voting period (at the very end) as a little bit of malicious compliance, but I forgot to update the recipient from the test account to a-o. Feel free to point a finger; I deserve it. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Proto-tournament: Nomaoic
I have a hard time believing that everyone would consistently over-shoot with their expectations of winning - why not under-shoot? Both you and Gaelan have brought up that people will be like that. I think it's naive to assume that everyone is going to be that optimistic, inaccurate in assessing their chances, or petty enough to fight for a wee little bit more of a percentage at the risk of being put aside because someone else who is a lot more agreeable would just take the simple even cut and replaces them. But yeah, if it's the same system of insta-winning, just determined in some other way (this is what your Skill system is referring to, yes?), it's the same problem but in a different flavor. Blognomic is a lot more cutthroat than Agora and this principle is very present (very similar to how it was in Diplonomic, I'd imagine, because its structure was very similar to BN), but there is a thin veil of idealism and hope that holds it back from being cold and obscene like the example here. Nomic, played totally straight, is not a very fun game. (imo) On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 7:16 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 8/24/2020 9:37 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: > > It's not as much of an issue that the payout is low, it's that if it's > > pulled off, you can't really win by any way other than this maneuver > > itself. (Aside from some obscure scam, but even then, it's going to be > very > > hard to pull off unless the initial rules already are flawed and > scammable) > > > > We could do a mental experiment. In a theoretical 6-player game with > > yourself included in it, you'll be in a random turn between 1st and 6th, > > and I'll control 4 players, and when it's my turn, I'll always propose > the > > insta-win proposal (a randomly selected player among the 4 win the game > and > > the game ends). > > > > What do you do? > > Propose a system of "skill" to determine the winner whereby some of your 4 > players believe they have a better than 1/4 chance of winning. You can > put it forward as a proto if the randomly-selected proposal is up first. > > (also: I agree this problem is very real it drove the Diplonomic endgame > to a certain extent). > > -G. > > >
