DIS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Registrar] Weekly Report
On Mon, 9 Aug 2021, Ned Strange via agora-official wrote: Fora The publicity switch values (Rule 478) are self-ratifying. PublicityLocation or description Typical use ---- --- Public agora-official at agoranomic.orgofficial reports Public agora-business at agoranomic.orgother business Discussion agora-discussion at agoranomic.org discussion Discussion https://discord.gg/JCC6YGc discussion Foreign* irc://irc.libera.chat:6667/##nomic discussion Public agora at listserver.tue.nl backup Public agoranomic at groups.io ** backup The IRC channel does not require subscription; set your IRC client to server irc.freenode.net, port 6667, channel ##nomic, and whatever nickname you like. This server name is out of date. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3922 Assigned to Murphy (attn Treasuror)
You can't reply to d. Wet by discussion because e won't see it, e intentionally chooses not to subscribe to the discussion list. On Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 8:56 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 8/9/2021 3:13 PM, D. Wet via agora-business wrote: > > I will wait for the final judgement of CFJ 3922 or August 16th, which > > ever comes first, before taking the next action. > > As an alternative if you want, you can sent a public message now, that > says something like "I withdraw any proposal I submitted, if I submitted > one". This way, whether you did or not, you end up in the same place (no > proposal). > > Then you can resubmit a proposal with the edits that were suggested that > make it work (I think I saw some edit suggestions on how to improve it?) > > The CFJ will eventually find out whether the original one was or wasn't a > proposal in the first place, but by then it won't matter because you > withdrew it before it was distributed for voting. > > -G. > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3922 Assigned to Murphy (attn Treasuror)
On 8/9/2021 3:13 PM, D. Wet via agora-business wrote: > I will wait for the final judgement of CFJ 3922 or August 16th, which > ever comes first, before taking the next action. As an alternative if you want, you can sent a public message now, that says something like "I withdraw any proposal I submitted, if I submitted one". This way, whether you did or not, you end up in the same place (no proposal). Then you can resubmit a proposal with the edits that were suggested that make it work (I think I saw some edit suggestions on how to improve it?) The CFJ will eventually find out whether the original one was or wasn't a proposal in the first place, but by then it won't matter because you withdrew it before it was distributed for voting. -G.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: BAK: Trying to get on board
2 aug. 2021 22:12:44 Jason Cobb via agora-business : On 8/2/21 3:02 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: It's okay to take part in conversations via BUS as long as you're careful. I was recommending against selling Cuddlebeam your focus grants and victory cards. Okay, clarification time: * I strongly recommend against selling your future focus grants to anyone. It's likely to hinder your participation in the game. * I am biased against Cuddlebeam winning, so I would prefer you to not sell victory assets to em, but that may be the best strategy for you. Thank you for the clarification. I will not sell. -- D. Wet www.nomica.nl
DIS: i'm still alive
hi I'm still active
DIS: Re: BUS: [SNOCS] @Treasuror @ATMunn @omd Victory Exchange
On 08/08/2021 20:32, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
I consent to and join the SNOCS contract (Simple, No-Opportunity-Cost
sets). (I think I was already a member.)
I Pool Cards, by doing all of the following:
{
I nominate the following four cards:
- Two of my Victory Cards.
- One of ATMunn's Victory Cards.
- One of omd's Victory Cards.
I act on behalf of ATMunn and then omd to transfer 1 Victory Card from
each of them to myself.
I pay a set of four Victory Cards to gain 10 Victory Points.
I transfer two Victory Points to ATMunn and two Victory Points to omd.
I transfer four Victory Points to myself (meaning: I do nothing).
Using AgoraBot's !rng, I have determined that the two remaining Victory
Points shall moth go to me.
I transfer two VPs to myself (meaning: I do nothing).
}
Regrettably, this failed. Per CFJ 3924's judgement, the original victory
card grant was INEFFECTIVE, thus at the time this action was attempted
you did not have two victory cards to nominate. I sincerely apologize
for the errors.
--
Trigon
¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST
I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
DIS: Signed Agoran Ruleset
I think this would be super awesome to have. A signed copy of the Agoran Ruleset! Snail mail is relatively cheap too, so is paper. I had in mind to print out several copies of the Ruleset, sign them all, then put them all into a single package and send it to the next person to sign them all. And they send it to the next, and so on, and the last person sends all of the fully-signed Rulesets to everyone else individually. This comes with a few challenges, though. These are the first that have come to mind to me: - In what format do we print the Ruleset? It's pretty huge, and would fit on about 60 pages if printed in regular size 12 and on A4s. We could cheat though and I just send copies of the cover page for us all to sign, and you guys then print the rest at home. Or we could go poster-size with tiny text, have the whole thing on one single sheet of paper/cardboard. - What if one person in the chain doesn't follow through and doesn't send the package to the next person?
DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3923 Assigned to G.
> CFJ: The quoted message is a distribution message as outlined in > Regulation AM0. I [proto-] deliver this judgement in CFJ 3923: The interpretations in this judgement are made in keeping with this part of Rule 2545/5: > To further aid trade and commerce, > auction methods should be interpreted in the name of fairness with > deference to the method's clear intent, if intent can be > reasonably inferred. Importantly, fairness etc. is a *requirement* for any auction to happen: > e CAN do so by any wholly public method that would be > generally recognizable, as specified by the auctioneer at the > start of the auction, and under common definitions and terms used > in auctions, as a fair, equitable, and timely means of determining > the auction winners from among the current players, and enabling > the appropriate exchange of goods. That is, if the method is found to be unfair, inequitable, or untimely, or doesn't enable the appropriate exchange of goods, the whole auction fails (because the auctioneer CANNOT conduct an auction in such a manner), even if that unfair method is written into a regulation. It is clear, from the presented evidence, that the *intent* of the regulations used for the initiation and bidding is that the bidding has determined that: - Falsifian won the first lot (a victory card) for 1717cn. - Trigon won the second lot (a justice card) for 50cn. - "Funded" regs ensure that the winners CAN pay for these lots. Any auction resolution that, after bidding has concluded, allows the fees to differ from these bids, prevents these exchanges from being made, or allows a payment or lot award to happen twice, would not be enabling the "appropriate" exchange of goods. So if the regulations end up supporting such incorrect actions (multiple exchanges for the same lot, no exchanges, exchanges for the incorrect amount), than the interpretation is that no auction happened at all, because the auctioneer COULD NOT have started it. Further, in the name of "fairness", it's fairly clear to me that, following our general Agoran practices for fee-based actions, and also general practices of debt and consent, that a failed attempt at exchange (e.g. the auctioneer exchanging the wrong amount or lot) is generally intended to fail entirely and atomically, like a fee does - even if, in this case, the auctioneer could make one of the incorrect transfers on eir own behalf, as authorized by general asset transfer rules. And further, to aid trade and commerce, that such a failure would be correctable (i.e. it wouldn't result in the auction being unresolvable). One thing that's *unclear* is for multiple lot auctions: if one lot exchange message is in error, is it "fairer" to have all the lot awards fail (definitely cleaner overall), or fairer to not hold up the bidders who got the correct lot for the correct price? Not sure about regulation intent and/or fairness there, there's arguments to make on both sides for what's "fairest". So that requires a stricter reading of the regulation text and exact mechanism. Taking it in parts: On 8/8/2021 6:44 PM, Telna via agora-official wrote: >> Relevant part of AM0: >> >> DISTRIBUTION: The auctioneer for an auction CAN and SHALL, within >> seven days of the ending of that auction's retrieval period, >> create a public message (henceforth the "distribution message") >> that contains a full history of bids on the auction and >> withdrawals from the auction. It must also clearly indicate each >> awardee and the lot e recieves. This, on its own, gives the full description of what makes a "distribution message" (I'm interpreting the lowercase 'must' in the last sentence as a requirement needed to make it a distribution message, not a SHALL). The regulation makes the "CAN and SHALL" associated with the actual exchange a second part of the message - but importantly, it's a separate requirement from the requirement to publish a distribution message, and separate from the definition of "distribution message": >>In this message, the auctioneer >> CAN and SHALL destroy the amount to be paid from the inventory >> each awardee and transfer to that player (or create in eir >> possession if the item is new) the set of assets associated with >> the lot e won. Failing to publish a distribution message >> constitutes the Class 3 Crime of Auction Abandonment. So the first thing to notice is that "in this message, the auctioneer CAN and SHALL" doesn't have a "by announcement". Now, saying "in a [public] message, the auctioneer CAN...", when read in light of the special auction interpretation rules for intent, it's very reasonable to infer that e can do so by saying so within the message. However, also importantly, it's missing some of the by-announcement strictures for how it has to be said, so some flexibility in
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3924 Assigned to Cuddlebeam [@Cuddlebeam]
On 8/9/2021 7:36 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 8/9/21 9:17 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: >> Alright, re-Judging: >> >> I Judge FALSE. >> >> Backed by the arguments provided, I have become convinced that it is >> possible to try to simultaneously flip a Switch. However, doing so would >> attempt to make it an indeterminate value, and by R2126, such attempts >> would instead cause the switch to take on its last determinate and possible >> value if any, or its default otherwise. >> >> Since it would instead take on its last determinate value, there ain't no >> flippin' flipping, because attempting to flip an instance of a switch to a >> value it already has does not flip the switch (R2126). > > > E didn't try to simultaneously flip switches, e tried to simultaneously > plan to flip switches, so I don't think that clause applies. > I think it applies in terms of what happens at the beginning of the month? It's the beginning-of-the-month trigger that's doing the "trying to simultaneously flip", not my planning action. This judgement means that two simultaneous plans were laid and that both count as being the most recent, so you get an "momentarily indeterminate -> back to previous value" thing happening at the beginning of the month. Which is slightly different than the interpretation "there was no single latest plan, so no temporary indeterminacy happens".
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3924 Assigned to Cuddlebeam [@Cuddlebeam]
On 8/9/21 9:17 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: > Alright, re-Judging: > > I Judge FALSE. > > Backed by the arguments provided, I have become convinced that it is > possible to try to simultaneously flip a Switch. However, doing so would > attempt to make it an indeterminate value, and by R2126, such attempts > would instead cause the switch to take on its last determinate and possible > value if any, or its default otherwise. > > Since it would instead take on its last determinate value, there ain't no > flippin' flipping, because attempting to flip an instance of a switch to a > value it already has does not flip the switch (R2126). E didn't try to simultaneously flip switches, e tried to simultaneously plan to flip switches, so I don't think that clause applies. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3924 Assigned to Cuddlebeam [@Cuddlebeam]
On Mon, 2021-08-09 at 05:38 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 8/9/2021 5:37 AM, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > > With support from cuddlybanana and G., I group-file a Motion to > > Reconsider CFJ 3924. > > cuddlybanana's was nttpf. So it was. In that case my attempt to group-file failed; I'll try again when I officially get the required support. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3924 Assigned to Cuddlebeam [@Cuddlebeam]
On 8/9/2021 5:37 AM, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > On Mon, 2021-08-09 at 12:45 +0100, ais523 via agora-business wrote: >> On Mon, 2021-08-09 at 13:31 +0200, Cuddle Beam via agora-business >> wrote: >>> I Judge FALSE. >> >> I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a Motion to Reconsider this; >> the statements that this makes about the judgement of CFJ 2086 are >> not correct. > > With support from cuddlybanana and G., I group-file a Motion to > Reconsider CFJ 3924. > cuddlybanana's was nttpf.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3924 Assigned to Cuddlebeam
I support this motion. On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 7:46 AM ais523 via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2021-08-09 at 13:31 +0200, Cuddle Beam via agora-business > wrote: > > Your attempt to simultaneously Flip, failed; because: CFJ 2086 (called > 15 > > Jul 2008): Message-based actions are always taken in some order, never > > precisely simultaneously, possibly unless otherwise stated. > > > > I Judge FALSE. > > I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a Motion to Reconsider this; > the statements that this makes about the judgement of CFJ 2086 are not > correct. > > CFJ 2086 found that game custom was that, if there are no other cues > about timing within the message, multiple actions taken in the same > message happen in the order in which they are written; and that the > rules are silent on the issue, so game custom is used as a rule 217 > tiebreak. (It didn't mention the other rule 217 tests, but I think > those also point towards an "actions happen in sequence unless > otherwise stated" viewpoint; in addition to being game custom, this is > clearly in the best interests of the game, and is also supported by > common sense.) > > In this case, though, there are other cues about timing in the message > (it explicitly states it's trying to do two things simultaneously), so > the precedent of CFJ 2086 doesn't apply (both because it explicitly > stated it doesn't apply in this case, and because the reasoning that it > used doesn't hold up in the situation where the message outright says > otherwise). > > -- > ais523 > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Lol
just gmail On Mon, Aug 9, 2021 at 5:44 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I don’t understand what you’re testing, but I do object. > > Gaelan > > > On Aug 8, 2021, at 10:50 PM, Sarah S. via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > I intend to have each active player win by apathy without objection > > > > (sorry, I'm just testing if the settings I tweaked mean I can also reply > as > > this email) > > > > > > -- > > R. Lee > > -- -- R. Lee
