DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8561-8572
> On Jun 8, 2021, at 9:17 AM, ais523 via agora-business > wrote: > > I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to make this proposal democratic. I support. Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@assessor) pppppowerup
On 6/8/2021 9:39 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > On Tue, 2021-06-08 at 09:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> I had a feeling you'd bring this one up when I saw you register and saw >> that your computer delivery was faster than mine :) ! > My CFJ earlier was actually primarily intended as a test of my delivery > times to -bus. I decided to disguise it as something other than an > email timing test, because I think that if I'd made it obvious that I > were planning a timing scam, someone would have figured it out and > might have pulled off the counterscam. I've definitely done that in previous timing races. FWIW, this time I made the conscious decision to push it to where it would likely arrive late. This was not to gain the advantage of "no reaction time", but on the off chance that Aris et al. decided to distribute a final proposal that I wouldn't otherwise be able to respond to, I wanted my extra strength to have the greatest chance of being spent after that proposal's voting period started. > I think the best choice (which might require a rule change) would > probably be along the line of "an email is sent at the point in time at > which the person sending the email completed the process of telling > computers to send it, except if they introduced an artificial delay > into the process". Instead of forcing timing-scamsters into having to > find a tradeoff between ensuring the email arrives on time and ensuring > people can't react to it if it arrives too early, it makes sense to > just say "as long as you aren't trying to rig things, just make sure > you send it before the deadline and don't worry about when it arrives". I agree that this is the only "equal and fair" option I can think of. Though we might have to introduce tiebreakers - if we are permitted to go as close to the wire as we like, CRON jobs can make it exact, so we might expect a few more ties to happen. I can't remember any cases that ever had ties - would messages that were tied down to the second be placed in the right order in the archives based on milliseconds? Or based on one of the receipt timestamps (which would be something of a compromise - if you're expecting a tie you go back to timing your messages and if you're slow gamble on being 1 second early). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@assessor) pppppowerup
On Tue, 2021-06-08 at 09:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> I had a feeling you'd bring this one up when I saw you register and saw
> that your computer delivery was faster than mine :) !
My CFJ earlier was actually primarily intended as a test of my delivery
times to -bus. I decided to disguise it as something other than an
email timing test, because I think that if I'd made it obvious that I
were planning a timing scam, someone would have figured it out and
might have pulled off the counterscam.
> Someone actually noticed my slow delivery times last week in discord and
> mentioned it - obviously this is a self-interested statement, but I think
> current precedent, or game custom at least, is that the date-stamp of
> hitting the send button is the prima facie time of sending. But I'm not
> sure there's been a focused CFJ on that since you were a player.
>
> Not just for fairness, which is of course one big issue, but also because
> it's a big burden for officers to hunt for other buried timestamps.
>
> If there's evidence of purposeful delay, that might be punishable by No
> Faking ("the datestamp is a lie") and a one-off judgement that evidence
> suggests a different timestamp is closer to the actual true sending time.
> But also, it's in the socially unacceptable category along with
> sockpuppets? (No Faking idea isn't truly tested because no one's ever
> been accused of it - it's in the sockpuppet category because we can't
> really combat it because it's hard to detect, so let's make sure it's
> understood to be a big social taboo).
The Date: stamp on an email is forgeable, and I've actually forged it
in the past (but to something so obviously incorrect that it probably
wouldn't count as Faking). Actually, in the olden days when I used to
"hand-deliver" my emails, I had to write it out by hand every time, and
it's sometimes hard to know what to put there.
I think the best choice (which might require a rule change) would
probably be along the line of "an email is sent at the point in time at
which the person sending the email completed the process of telling
computers to send it, except if they introduced an artificial delay
into the process". Instead of forcing timing-scamsters into having to
find a tradeoff between ensuring the email arrives on time and ensuring
people can't react to it if it arrives too early, it makes sense to
just say "as long as you aren't trying to rig things, just make sure
you send it before the deadline and don't worry about when it arrives".
One additional complication is that we think of sending an email as
something that happens at a point of time, whereas in practice, the
start of the email is received before the end of the email is. There's
the theoretical possibility to artificially slow down the rate at which
the email is received, allowing the end of an email to be written
substantially later than the start of the email arrived. (I think many
servers will date-stamp with the point in time at which the email
started to arrive, meaning that an email can contain text that reacts
to things that happened considerably before it arrived.)
The other additional complication is what happens when there's a very
long delay, on the order of days (especially when it isn't the fault of
the email sender); this has been known to happen at Agora in the past.
You wouldn't want someone to be able to make and resolve an RWO intent
before anyone else saw that the intent existed. (CFJ 2058 covers this
case, but it's unclear from the judgement what the precedent actually
is; it appears that we're using some sort of equity test and the
message's arrival time may be different for different purposes.)
--
ais523
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8561-8572
I vote FOR on all. On Sun, Jun 6, 2021 at 7:15 PM Aris Merchant via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > PROMOTOR'S REPORT; BACKDATED IN PART TO 03:00 UTC June 6, 2021. > > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it, > and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote > collector > is the Assessor, the quorum is 3, 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 > --- > 8561& G., nix 2.0 Election Cycle > 8562* ATMunn, Aris3.0 Officializing Discord > 8563& Aris1.7 Determinacy is a Good Thing > 8564& Aris1.0 Sponsorship is not Co-authorship > 8565& Aris1.0 Popularity Contest > 8566* Jason 3.0 Anti-AI escalation > 8567* Jason 3.0 AI voting method clarification > 8568* Jason 3.0 Supporter/Objector clarification > 8569* Jason, Aris, Murphy 3.0 Fixing Festivals > 8570* Jason 3.1 Emergency Regulation Clarification > 8571& Jason 2.0 Gauntlet announcement patch > 8572& Jason, Trigon 2.0 Thou shalt not disobey Trigon > > Pool report: At 03:00 UTC on June 6, 2021, the proposal pool > contained (only) the above proposals. > > Legend: * : Democratic proposal. > & : Ordinary proposal. > ~ : Unsponsored proposal. > > The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where > the information shown below differs from the information shown above, > the information shown above shall control. > > // > ID: 8561 > Title: Election Cycle > Adoption index: 2.0 > Author: G. > Co-author(s): nix > > > Create a power=2 rule, "The Election Cycle", with the following text: > > A holder of an elected office who did not become its holder by > winning an election, and has not won an election for that office > since, is an interim holder. An elected office that is either > vacant or has an interim holder is an interim office. > > An office is term-limited if the most recent election for that > office was resolved more than the length of that office's term > prior. The term for the office of Prime Minister is 90 days. The > term for all other elected offices is 180 days. > > A player CAN initiate an election for a specified elected office: > > a) with 2 support, if either the office is interim or term- > limited, and provided that the initiator becomes a candidate > in the same message. > > b) By announcement, if e is the ADoP (or, if the office is the > ADoP, if e is the Assessor) and the office is interim, or if > e is the holder of that office. > > Once per quarter, the ADoP CAN and SHALL publish a Notice of > Election specifying between 2-4 term-limited offices (if there > fewer than 2 term-limited offices, the ADoP MUST instead list > all of them). Such a notice initiates elections for the > specified offices. The ADoP SHOULD prioritize offices that > have gone longest since their last elections. > > The above notwithstanding, an election for an office CANNOT be > initiated if one is already in progress. > > > [Delete this section added to the previous rule - better gathers > election procedure rules in one place]. > > Amend Rule 1006 (Offices) by removing: > A holder of an elected office who did not become its holder by > winning an election, and has not won an election for that office > since, is an interim holder. An elected office that is either > vacant or has an interim holder is an interim office. > > > [For the below rule, remove text placed in the new rule above, > and add the Assessor as the vote collector for ADoP elections]. > > Amend Rule 2154 (Election Procedure) to read in full: > > When an election is initiated, it enters the nomination period, > which lasts for 4 days. After an election is initiated and until > nominations close, any player CAN become a candidate by > announcement. A candidate ceases to be a candidate if e ceases to > be a player during the election or if holding the office would > make em Overpowered. During the nomination period, a candidate CAN > cease to be a candidate by announcement if there is at least one > other candidate. > > An election whose nomination period is complete is contested if it > has two or more candidates, and uncontested otherwise. Nominations > close at the end of the poll's voting period or when the election > is ended, whichever comes first. > > After the nomination period ends, the ADoP (or, if the office is > the ADoP, the Assessor) CAN and, in a timely fashion, SHALL: >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@assessor) pppppowerup
On 6/8/2021 9:01 AM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Tue, 2021-06-08, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
>> I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength.
>> I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength.
>> I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength.
>> I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength.
>> I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength.
>
> From the email headers (irrelevant sections replaced by [...]):
>> Received: from mxout25.s.uw.edu [...] by vps.qoid.us [...]
>> Tue, 08 Jun 2021 15:48:02 +
>> Received: from mail-pl1-f200.google.com [...]
>> by mxout25.s.uw.edu [...] Tue, 8 Jun 2021 08:45:07 -0700
>
> Can anyone remember the precedent on whether a delay at this point in
> the chain of email relays delays the time at which the message is
> considered to have been sent? This affects whether or not G. had any
> Extra Votes on em to spend, because the delay pushed it past the
> economic reset.
>
> (FWIW, I think equitably, this expenditure ought to count as having
> been done in time, because the delay was likely unexpected, and outside
> G.'s control. I can't remember what the actual precedent says, though,
> and there are some issues with "would other players have had an
> opportunity to react to this?".)
>
I had a feeling you'd bring this one up when I saw you register and saw
that your computer delivery was faster than mine :) ! (If people haven't
seen this, scroll to the bottom of the by-month list of Agora-Business
archives to the June 1993 records, or check it out here:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/1993-June/014163.html
).
Someone actually noticed my slow delivery times last week in discord and
mentioned it - obviously this is a self-interested statement, but I think
current precedent, or game custom at least, is that the date-stamp of
hitting the send button is the prima facie time of sending. But I'm not
sure there's been a focused CFJ on that since you were a player.
Not just for fairness, which is of course one big issue, but also because
it's a big burden for officers to hunt for other buried timestamps.
If there's evidence of purposeful delay, that might be punishable by No
Faking ("the datestamp is a lie") and a one-off judgement that evidence
suggests a different timestamp is closer to the actual true sending time.
But also, it's in the socially unacceptable category along with
sockpuppets? (No Faking idea isn't truly tested because no one's ever
been accused of it - it's in the sockpuppet category because we can't
really combat it because it's hard to detect, so let's make sure it's
understood to be a big social taboo).
-G.
DIS: Re: BUS: (@assessor) pppppowerup
On Tue, 2021-06-08, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength. > I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength. > I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength. > I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength. > I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength. >From the email headers (irrelevant sections replaced by [...]): > Received: from mxout25.s.uw.edu [...] by vps.qoid.us [...] > Tue, 08 Jun 2021 15:48:02 + > Received: from mail-pl1-f200.google.com [...] > by mxout25.s.uw.edu [...] Tue, 8 Jun 2021 08:45:07 -0700 Can anyone remember the precedent on whether a delay at this point in the chain of email relays delays the time at which the message is considered to have been sent? This affects whether or not G. had any Extra Votes on em to spend, because the delay pushed it past the economic reset. (FWIW, I think equitably, this expenditure ought to count as having been done in time, because the delay was likely unexpected, and outside G.'s control. I can't remember what the actual precedent says, though, and there are some issues with "would other players have had an opportunity to react to this?".) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] click whirrrr THUNK damn
On 6/8/2021 8:56 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/8/21 11:53 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> Oh crap well that's completely broken. I was madly trying to sculpt >> Murphy's text and missed those differences. > > > It seems to just break the repeal case? It seems like something that can > be fixed after enactment. > oh nice it means the 007 option has a patch-proposals grace time before working (but I'll submit a patch after a few days, may be more comments).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] click whirrrr THUNK damn
On 6/8/21 11:53 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Oh crap well that's completely broken. I was madly trying to sculpt > Murphy's text and missed those differences. It seems to just break the repeal case? It seems like something that can be fixed after enactment. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] click whirrrr THUNK damn
Oh crap well that's completely broken. I was madly trying to sculpt Murphy's text and missed those differences. On 6/8/2021 8:51 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > On 6/8/21 11:25 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >> I submit the following proposal: >> >> >> >> Title: The Device >> AI: 1 >> Coauthor: Murphy >> >> [inspired by Rules 2192-2193, "The Monster", by Murphy] >> >> >> Enact a Rule "The Device" with the following text: >> >> When the device is on: >> * click - hummm >> >> When the device is off: >> * whirr - THUNK >> > > Some further notes: > > >> Enact a Rule "The Mad Engineer" with the following text: >> >> The Mad Engineer is an office; its holder is responsible for >> building and maintaining the Device. The device is a >> singleton switch with values off (default) and on. The Mad >> Engineer CAN flip the device to either on or off with Agoran >> Consent; any other player CAN do so with 2 Agoran Consent. >> >> The Mad Engineer CAN act on behalf of >> the device to take any action that the device may take, and >> SHALL act on behalf of the device to ensure that the device >> fulfills all of its duties. >> >> The Mad Engineer's weekly duties include the performance of the >> following tasks, in order: >> >> a) Randomly select exactly one rule. If the selected rule is >> either this rule or the rule "The Device", then >> 007 has been spotted near the self-destruct button; skip >> directly to proposal submission. > > > "skip directly to proposal submission" doesn't make sense, since no > proposals are being submitted. > > >> d) Announce intent to, with Agoran Consent, cause this rule >> to amend the rule "The Device" by inserting the modified >> text as the last list item in either the "device on" or >> "device off" lists in that rule (or, if 007 has been >> spotted, to repeal both that rule and this one). >> This intent announcement counts as the Mad Engineers's weekly >> report. > > > The Mad Engineer can announce intent to repeal the two rules, but the > paragraph below doesn't provide any procedures by which the rules could > be repealed. > > >> >> If the announcement of intent above is made with the procedure >> described above, the Mad Engineer CAN, with Agoran Consent, cause >> this rule to amend the rule "The Device" as indicated, and SHALL >> do so if the intent receives sufficient support. > >
DIS: Re: BUS: (@assessor) pppppowerup
On Tue, 2021-06-08 at 08:45 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength. > I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength. > I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength. > I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength. > I pay a fee of 1 Extra Vote to Buy Strength. Given all the strength-buying that's going on at the moment (and given that I can't vote on the current distributions): if anyone's interested in buying Voting Cards, I'd be interested in selling mine, assuming we can negotiate a mutually agreeable price. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8573
On 6/8/2021 8:37 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/8/21 11:30 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: >> The Mad Engineer CAN act on behalf of >> the device to take any action that the device may take, and >> SHALL act on behalf of the device to ensure that the device >> fulfills all of its duties. > > > Does this work? > > Rule 2466: > >> When a rule allows one person (the agent) to act on behalf of >> another (the principal) to perform an action, that agent CAN >> perform the action if it is POSSIBLE for the principal to do so, >> taking into account any prerequisites for the action. > > > Unless you're planning to make the device a person, Rule 2466 doesn't > provide a method. > Oh oops the peril of drafting on the fly - well if it passes there's time to patch before the device has anything it can do.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8573
On 6/8/21 11:30 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > The Mad Engineer CAN act on behalf of > the device to take any action that the device may take, and > SHALL act on behalf of the device to ensure that the device > fulfills all of its duties. Does this work? Rule 2466: > When a rule allows one person (the agent) to act on behalf of > another (the principal) to perform an action, that agent CAN > perform the action if it is POSSIBLE for the principal to do so, > taking into account any prerequisites for the action. Unless you're planning to make the device a person, Rule 2466 doesn't provide a method. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
