Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [DoV?] Apathy resolution
On Sun, 6 Mar 2022, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 3/6/2022 5:31 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On 3/6/22 20:28, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: [snip] There's nothing in the text to suggest that an ephemeral or editable message can't be a message. And iirc ais523 previously said that an IRC channel was previously accepted as a public forum. I also don't buy the argument that the medium itself determines conspicuousness. Nobody has suggested that sending an apathy intent to BAK invalidates it on conspicuousness grounds, even though the entire point of doing that is that some players might not be paying attention to it. For me it isn't about conspicuousness but about the definition of "sent to all players". "send to" is not explicitly rules-defined and I think its very reasonable to use sensible metadata clues specific to forum/media type in the definition - e.g. the To: header in an email (BAK included), the @mention ping in discord, in real in-person life a witness to the fact that the recipient was in earshot and reasonably capable of paying attention, etc. Is this an appropriate moment to mention that one time in the 90s when I phoned in my vote to (then Assessor-or-equivalent) Steve's answering machine? Good times. -G. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] TIME Act
On Wed, 2 Mar 2022, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: On 3/2/22 15:45, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: If the minimal modification would include past or present rule changes, they are instead excluded unless the ratified document explicitly and unambiguously recites either the changes of the resulting properties of or the rule(s). Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: [proto] TIME Act
On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On 3/1/22 00:41, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote: I would strongly suggest that this only restrict rule changes in the minimal modification, and not any later changes following logically from it. Otherwise the discrepancies between the intuitive interpretation of retroactively fixing an old error and the platonic result could be mind-wrecking. Greetings, Ørjan. I don't understand. If rule changes would follow from the minimal modification, they must be part of the minimal modification, right? For example, if the ratification changes whether a proposal is successfully enacted, changing the present and past rules must necessarily be part of the minimal modification in order to be as accurate as possible, right? I am thinking here of cases where something _long_ in the past is ratified, to fix an old serious error that has unwittingly been missed for years, and which as an indirect result has caused certain _other_ rule changes not to happen in the way everyone had been assuming - and everything's so complicated that no one's quite sure they've caught all of them. And now I've put it into words it sounds like something that probably doesn't happen much given that proposals self-ratify. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're not understanding. Yeah, in the specific case of proposals being enacted, that's probably fine. But there are other ways to cause rule changes, and those matter, too. I understand the problem. I don't understand your proposed solution. Are you suggesting that non-explicit rule changes should just be excluded from the minimal modification, but that the ratification should otherwise proceed normally? Exactly. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: [proto] TIME Act
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On 2/28/22 22:11, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote: I am not sure that the above definition corresponds _either_ to what a retroactive change intuitively is or to what ratification platonically does. It might correspond to a pragmatic view, which is close to saying that Agora's gamestate _is_ its records. We granted Falsifian a law degree for a thesis arguing otherwise [0]. [0]: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-June/040456.html Argh. I'm getting too old to understand Agora... I would strongly suggest that this only restrict rule changes in the minimal modification, and not any later changes following logically from it. Otherwise the discrepancies between the intuitive interpretation of retroactively fixing an old error and the platonic result could be mind-wrecking. Greetings, Ørjan. I don't understand. If rule changes would follow from the minimal modification, they must be part of the minimal modification, right? For example, if the ratification changes whether a proposal is successfully enacted, changing the present and past rules must necessarily be part of the minimal modification in order to be as accurate as possible, right? I am thinking here of cases where something _long_ in the past is ratified, to fix an old serious error that has unwittingly been missed for years, and which as an indirect result has caused certain _other_ rule changes not to happen in the way everyone had been assuming - and everything's so complicated that no one's quite sure they've caught all of them. And now I've put it into words it sounds like something that probably doesn't happen much given that proposals self-ratify. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're not understanding. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason My mind is going, I can feel it. Ørjan.
Re: DIS: [proto] TIME Act
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
I present the following draft to clean up the ratification rule.
The only intended semantic change is securing all retroactive
modification, everything else is just mean to make the existing text
much more clear.
Title: Temporal Incursion Modification and Exclusion Act
Author: Jason
Coauthors: Aspen
Adoption index: 3.0
Amend Rule 1551 (Ratification) to read, in whole:
{
A retroactive change is one that changes the game's record of
past events. Retroactive changes are secured with power
threshold 3.
Ratification is purposefully defined so as _not_ to do any retroactive
changes in the intuitive sense, but only simulate their effects by
changing the gamestate in the present.
I see it as the continuation of a long tradition of keeping Agora in a
style where platonic and pragmatic interpretations of the rules lead to
the same result.
I am not sure that the above definition corresponds _either_ to what a
retroactive change intuitively is or to what ratification platonically
does. It might correspond to a pragmatic view, which is close to saying
that Agora's gamestate _is_ its records.
When a document or statement (hereafter "document") is to be ratified,
the following definitions apply:
* The publication time is the instant at which the document to be
ratified was published.
* The truth time is the instant at which the document specifies
that it was true, or the publication time if such an instant
is not specified.
* The application time is the instant at which the document to be
ratified is ratified.
Ratification CANNOT occur if the truth time would be after the application
time, or if the publication time would be after the application time.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, when a document is ratified,
the gamestate is modified to what it would be if, at the truth time,
the gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified
document as true and accurate as possible.
Ratification CANNOT occur if it would add inconsistencies between
the gamestate and the rules.
Ratification CANNOT occur if it would cause past or present rule changes,
unless the ratified document explicitly and unambiguously recites either
the changes or the resulting properties of the rule(s).
I would strongly suggest that this only restrict rule changes in the
minimal modification, and not any later changes following logically from
it. Otherwise the discrepancies between the intuitive interpretation of
retroactively fixing an old error and the platonic result could be
mind-wrecking.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
Ratification CANNOT occur if the required modification to the gamestate
is not possible or if multiple substantially distinct possible
modifications would be equally appropriate.
An internally inconsistent document generally CANNOT be ratified;
however, if such a document can be divided into a summary section
and a main section, where the only purpose of the summary section
is to summarize information in the main section, and the main
section is internally consistent, ratification of the document
proceeds as if it contained only the main section.
Text purportedly about previous instances of ratification (e.g. a
report's date of last ratification) is excluded from ratification.
The rules may define additional information that is considered to
be part of the document for the purposes of ratification; such
definitions are secured with power threshold 3.
Ratification is secured with power threshold 3.
}
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
For reference:
{{{
Each of the following Ministries has a Grant, listed below.
Ministry of Compliance: 1 Justice Card
Ministry of Legislation: 1 Legislative Card
Ministry of Participation: 1 Voting Card
Ministry of Legacy: 1 Winsome
A player CAN once a month grant eir Ministry Focus' Grant to a
specified player by announcement.
The Ministor CAN, once a month and by announcement, and SHALL, in
a timely manner from the beginning of the month, grant 1 Win Card
to a random player whose Ministry Focus is Legacy .
}}}
Any suggestions?
"Ministor" in the last paragraph would have the feature of clearly doing
something, although not something very new.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Scoring Integer Points
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Sarah S. via agora-discussion wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:45 PM Aspen via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 1:41 AM Sarah S. via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 6:47 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
I submit the below proposal, and then pay a pendant to pend it:
Title: Scoring Integer Points
Author: secretsnail
Coauthors:
AI : 1.0
{
Amend Rule 2657 (Scoring) by replacing "add to that player's score the
associated amount of points" with "add to that player's score the floor
of
the associated amount of points".
(This would let players score points for proposals with non-integer
AIs.)
}
--
secretsnail
im telling on myself here but idk what 'the floor' means in this
context. i
assume it's mathematical?
"The floor of X" means "X rounded down to the nearest integer". Ceiling is
the same, but rounded up. They pop up in math and computer programming.
-Aspen
i'd prefer it written out like that because i wouldn't really understand
its meaning if i read it in the ruleset. but it has been pended already so
no big deal, it's just me being a word person instead of a numbers person.
obviously its a very necessary bugfix anyway.
I knew the meaning from both math and programming, but I still think it
would look and flow better to express it as "rounded down".
--
R. Lee
Greetings,
Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Auction Ratification
On Mon, 24 Jan 2022, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
I create the following proposal, then pay a fee of one pendant to cause
it to become pending.
Title: Auction Self-Ratification
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason
Coauthors:
Set the power of Rule 2545 to 3.
Amend Rule 2545 by appending the following paragraphs:
{
An public document purporting to state the final results of an action in
A auction
Greetings,
Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: [DoV] Dawn of a New Day
On Sun, 2 Jan 2022, Aspen via agora-business wrote: Last year, there were a few days that held great personal significance for me. As of the 13th of September, I had been a player for five years. Just over a month later, on the 21st of October, I had been your Promotor for five years as well. Now, as I watch the winter holiday end and a new year begin in Agora for the fifth time, I feel something coming over me. I have accomplished a lot in Agora. I like it here. My fellow players are pretty cool. The moment these happy thoughts cross my mind, I feel the inexorable power of my spirit lifting me upward. I award myself a white ribbon. I Raise a Banner. Huzzah! Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent
On Sun, 2 Jan 2022, ais523 via agora-official wrote:
The Device is on.
I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is off:" list:
{{{
The Rulekeepor SHOULD also include any other information which e
feels may be helpful in the use of the Device in the FLR.
}}}
[I was all set to go with Ørjan's selection – it was very popular and
seemed likely to lead to some interesting CFJs – when I realised it was
illegal; e replaced the word "category" with "Device", but "category"
doesn't appear anywhere in the text to be replaced, which is one of the
requirements of the rule (only "categories" appears, and replacing that
with "Device" leads to some really bad wording). As such, it'd a) cause
me to fail to fulfil my office duties and b) not actually amend the
rule. So I'm going with my, rather more boring, suggestion instead.
We should probably fix rule 2655 to require the replacement of one noun
selected from the selected *rule*, rather than the selected *text*.]
I am not entirely convinced you couldn't have used "Devices" for
"categories" even if "category" does not occur. Maybe rule 2655 should
use "lemma" in the way they do on Wiktionary.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On Tue, 28 Dec 2021, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: On Tue, 2021-12-28 at 11:21 +0100, nethack4.org dicebot via agora- business wrote: The dice roll was: 27 This is R1681, The Logical Rulesets. Any suggestions? Rules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between devices, and devices are added, changed, or empty devices removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] December Collection Notice
On Fri, 3 Dec 2021, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: All choices are made using AgoraBot in a public channel on the unofficial Discord. I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the best of my knowledge, the choices listed below had the probabilities listed below. That's all very well with the No Faking, but the related digest that was just posted clearly indicates that AgoraBot is not trustworthy. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
El 29/11/2021 a las 07:19, ais523 via agora-discussion escribió: Each Agoran decision has a set of valid options (the choices that the voters are being asked to select from) and valid votes (the ways in which the voters can express their opinion or lack thereof. For AI-majority decisions, the valid options are FOR and AGAINST; for other decisions, the valid options are defined by other rules. Any suggestions? Someone might want to clean that missing right parenthesis. Although, now that I'm reading it, rule 2221 seems not to mention "punctuation" anywhere, and I'm not sure that it's implied by anything else. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
On Mon, 2021-11-22 at 04:23 +0100, nethack4.org dicebot via agora-
business wrote:
The dice roll was: 90
This is R2518, Determinacy.
For reference:
{{{
If a value CANNOT be reasonably determined (without circularity or
paradox) from information reasonably available, or if it
alternates indefinitely between values, then the value is
considered to be indeterminate, otherwise it is determinate.
}}}
There's only one sentence here, so which word should get replaced? I'm
tempted to do "value" → "device", but maybe there are better
suggestions?
As interesting as they look, I suspect all the other options
("circularity", "paradox", "information") are in pretty direct conflict
with R2518 itself.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] November Stone Auction Distribution Attempt 2
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
On 11/16/2021 6:38 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:
I perform the following actions if and only if they all succeed:
{
I destroy 150 of Jason's coins.
I cause the Hot Potato Stone to be transferred to Jason.
I wield the Hot Potato Stone, transferring it to ais523.
}
Informal CFJ Addendum: I think that the above trick might (arguably) work
if reading R2645 in isolation, but only works if the winner of the auction
is the auctioneer. Therefore, if this was relied upon to say "look, a
transfer is possible, so the auction happened" the problem is that it
isn't a "fair and equitable" method for conducting the auction as required
by R2545, since the winner can only collect if e is the auctioneer. So it
would still mean the auction was never initiated, though maybe for
slightly different reasons.
Actually, looking at R2545, it also authorizes the _winners_ to perform
the transfers.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] November Stone Auction Distribution
On Mon, 15 Nov 2021, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
On Mon, 2021-11-15 at 15:38 -0500, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
On 11/15/21 15:36, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:
I perform the following actions if and only if they all succeed:
{
I destroy 150 of Jason's coins.
I cause the Hot Potato Stone to be transferred to Jason.
}
I wield the Hot Potato stone, transferring it to ais523 (since I
prevented eir wealth stone from being protected).
CFJ: Jason has wielded the Hot Potato stone.
Evidence:
Excerpt from rule 2545 (power 2):
{{{
The rule that authorizes the auction further authorizes the
auctioneer or auction winners to transfer said items as necessary
to conduct the auction in a manner consistent with the auction
method.
}}}
Excerpt from rule 2642 (power 2):
{{{
The Stonemason CAN initiate an auction for any set of stones
belonging to Agora for which an auction is not ongoing, with each
individual stone being an auction lot. The Stonemason is the
auctioneer, and the currency is coins.
}}}
Excerpt from rule 2645 (power 2):
{{{
- Hot Potato Stone (Weekly, 100%): When this stone is wielded,
the wielder gains 8 boatloads of coins if the wielder, in the
same message as the wielding, transfers this stone to a player
who has not owned this stone since Agora last owned it. This
stone cannot otherwise be transferred, other rules
notwithstanding.
}}}
Arguments: The transfer of the Hot Potato stone to Jason during the
auction resolution was impossible. There's a contradiction between
rules about whether the transfer is possible; rules 2545 and 2642
attempt to make it possible, but rule 2645 attempts to make it
impossible. Rule 2645 contains an "other rules notwithstanding", so by
rule 1030, it wins the contradiction and prevents the transfer taking
place.
This is probably a bug (and I only just noticed it, or I'd have
mentioned it earlier).
I think this bug has a loophole which allows Jason an even better way out,
if e can see it :)
Greetings,
Ørjan.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora, Nov 2021
On Sat, 13 Nov 2021, nix via agora-official wrote: === THE SCROLL OF AGORA === [snip] --- NEWS --- Name for tris' titles updated. Assuming I'm interpreting correctly, you missed one. [snip] Badge of the Great Agoran Revival [May 2017] (awarded to Agoran persons from May 2017) tmanthe2nd, G., CuddleBeam, Ienpw III, nix, Alexis, o, Ørjan, Aris, Murphy, Quazie, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Sprocklem, Veggiekeks, Roujo, ais523, Gaelan, 天火狐, grok [snip] Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On Tue, 9 Nov 2021, Sarah S. via agora-discussion wrote: "Device is secured with Power Threshold 3." Conflicts with Rule 1688, which only allows Thresholds lower than the Power of the securing Rule. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] Billboard Rock Chart - 3 Nov 2021
On Wed, 3 Nov 2021, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: THE BILLBOARD ROCK CHART (STONEMASON'S WEEKLY REPORT) Summary of stone functions: This summary seems to miss the new stones. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report
On Fri, 22 Oct 2021, Shy Owl via agora-discussion 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 *This is the current IRC forum. We may replace it with another, but in the long run one IRC channel or another will be made a discussion forum. **The forum is specifically just that email list. From the message that made it public: "Note that although groups.io provides many features besides email, the forum I am referring to is specifically the email list: if something doesn't get to Gio's subscribers by email, it wasn't sent via Gio. Subscribe or unsubscribe from main lists:http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo Subscribe or unsubscribe from tue.nl backup list:http://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora 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 is missing the server name correction from the previous Registrar's report. Also, it's still (correctly) foreign after the move. I seem to recall people waiting for it to be properly registrered at liberachat (possibly with a different name), and having asked liberachat's chanserv, it seems that hasn't happened yet? Sorry I must have missed the server name correction. What is the correct name? irc.libera.chat. It is listed correctly in the publicity list, but as irc.freenode.net in the connection how-to. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Follow-up to P8621 "Proposal spreading"
On Thu, 21 Oct 2021, ais523 via agora-business wrote: On Thu, 2021-10-21 at 17:54 +, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: The new last sentence of R1607 seems to require the Promotor to distribute proposals even if they've been withdrawn: E SHALL then distribute those undistributed proposals the next Agoran week. Is the sentence needed at all? Is there any situation where the Promotor wouldn't already be required to distribute those five? If there were a huge glut of proposals two weeks in a row, the Promotor could, after the sentence is removed, choose to postpone the same proposals twice. The sentence in question requires the Promotor to choose a different five the second time. It already requires em to choose the five most recently added. Quibbly greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report
On Fri, 15 Oct 2021, Shy Owl via agora-official wrote: Below is the registrar's weekly report. 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 *This is the current IRC forum. We may replace it with another, but in the long run one IRC channel or another will be made a discussion forum. **The forum is specifically just that email list. From the message that made it public: "Note that although groups.io provides many features besides email, the forum I am referring to is specifically the email list: if something doesn't get to Gio's subscribers by email, it wasn't sent via Gio. Subscribe or unsubscribe from main lists:http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo Subscribe or unsubscribe from tue.nl backup list:http://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora 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 is missing the server name correction from the previous Registrar's report. Also, it's still (correctly) foreign after the move. I seem to recall people waiting for it to be properly registrered at liberachat (possibly with a different name), and having asked liberachat's chanserv, it seems that hasn't happened yet? Watchers Thanks for bringing back this section. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: White Glitter (thanks nix)
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: I'm really confused... Questions (for Ørjan, I guess?) inline. I'm quoting Ørjan out of order since my questions make a bit more sense in that order. The last and only time I came to qualify for a White Ribbon when I became a player: White (W): A player qualifies for a White Ribbon if e has never previously owned a White Ribbon (including under previous rulesets). ... I have not been awarded a White Ribbon or White Glitter since that time. Isn't the time period in question? Your original quote left out the previous sentence of 2602: A player qualifies for a type of Glitter when e qualifies for the same type of Ribbon while already owning such a Ribbon. Clearly the next sentence is _intended_ to apply only when that happens, but does not actually say so. Are you saying that sentence I left out is relevant to this case? I can't think of any interpretation where it is, if we're going to stay faithful to "the text of the rules takes precedence". I agree about the intention, but that doesn't matter here, does it? Indeed. I'm just saying it would be a good idea to fix the rule to say what was intended. I suppose this case (at least for non-White Ribbons) hinges on which of those interpretations is the correct one for this sentence. It looks grammatically ambiguous to me, with its negation having ambiguous scope as negations do. If a player has not (been awarded that type of Ribbon or e corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or came to qualify for that type of Ribbon) vs. If a player has (not been awarded that type of Ribbon or e corresponding type of Glitter) since e last earned or came to qualify for that type of Ribbon I don't really dispute Murphy's interpretation but think judgements should point out (or dispute) that there is an ambiguity before they resolve it. I don't understand how this is relevant to the case either. If my claim about the time period is true, then under both interpretations I successfully awarded myself White Glitter. Do you agree with that? Yes. I wasn't commenting on that part. Are you saying my claim about the time period is false? I think I'm missing something... I guess I made it unclear that I _wasn't_ disputing your new argument. -- Falsifian Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote: On Mon, 11 Oct 2021, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: Taking suggestions, as usual; it'll probably take many eyes to find the best sentence or group of sentences from here to add to the Device. (One thing worth noting: Ribbon Ownership is secured, so a Power-1 Device definition won't be able to change it, or change what it applies to; and the rule itself doesn't explicitly allow lower-powered rules to redefine "qualifies" so they probably can't. That rather limits what possibilities might actually do something, e.g. "The Device qualifies for a Platinum Ribbon" is a legal text replacement but probably doesn't do anything.) There is one possible exception, since the Device Rule is an Instrument: When this occurs, this Device awards that person a Black Ribbon. And I think the current rule looks just right for it to work. Alas, Jason pointed out in chat that "awards" is not "earns". :( Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: Taking suggestions, as usual; it'll probably take many eyes to find the best sentence or group of sentences from here to add to the Device. (One thing worth noting: Ribbon Ownership is secured, so a Power-1 Device definition won't be able to change it, or change what it applies to; and the rule itself doesn't explicitly allow lower-powered rules to redefine "qualifies" so they probably can't. That rather limits what possibilities might actually do something, e.g. "The Device qualifies for a Platinum Ribbon" is a legal text replacement but probably doesn't do anything.) There is one possible exception, since the Device Rule is an Instrument: When this occurs, this Device awards that person a Black Ribbon. And I think the current rule looks just right for it to work. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: White Glitter (thanks nix)
On Sun, 10 Oct 2021, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 03:42:14PM -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: Falsifian wrote: I award myself White Glitter. Note: I do not own a White Ribbon, but R2602 might not actually require me to own the ribbon: If a player has not been awarded that type of Ribbon or e corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or came to qualify for that type of Ribbon, and has not been so awarded five or more times within the past 24 hours, any player CAN award em that type of Glitter by announcement. I currently interpret "there is no such time period" as separate from "there is such a time period and X didn't happen during it", in which case this award was ineffective. (See cuddlybanana's CFJ.) I suppose this case (at least for non-White Ribbons) hinges on which of those interpretations is the correct one for this sentence. It looks grammatically ambiguous to me, with its negation having ambiguous scope as negations do. If a player has not (been awarded that type of Ribbon or e corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or came to qualify for that type of Ribbon) vs. If a player has (not been awarded that type of Ribbon or e corresponding type of Glitter) since e last earned or came to qualify for that type of Ribbon I don't really dispute Murphy's interpretation but think judgements should point out (or dispute) that there is an ambiguity before they resolve it. The last and only time I came to qualify for a White Ribbon when I became a player: White (W): A player qualifies for a White Ribbon if e has never previously owned a White Ribbon (including under previous rulesets). ... I have not been awarded a White Ribbon or White Glitter since that time. Isn't the time period in question? Your original quote left out the previous sentence of 2602: A player qualifies for a type of Glitter when e qualifies for the same type of Ribbon while already owning such a Ribbon. Clearly the next sentence is _intended_ to apply only when that happens, but does not actually say so. Clarifying fix: Change If a player has not been awarded that type of Ribbon or e to (including another typo correction) If such a player has not been awarded that type of Ribbon or the Falsifian Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: [proto] Laudability
On Thu, 7 Oct 2021, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
Here's a proto to not erase player's festivity when they win by ribbons:
Amend Rule 2438 by appending the following to the paragraph beginning "For each type
of Ribbon":
{
Laudability is a person switch with non-negative integer possible values,
defaulting to 0, tracked by the Tailor as part of eir monthly report.
When a person owns more types of ribbons than eir Laudability, eir
Laudability is set to the number of types of ribbons e owns.
"secured"
Greetings,
Ørjan.
DIS: Re: OFF: I claim the stuff from the contract
On Thu, 7 Oct 2021, BenjaminFrancis Rodriguez via agora-official wrote: I join this contract. I transfer 2 boatloads of coins from the contract to myself. I transfer 1 victory point from the contract to myself. transfer 1 Pendant from the contract to myself. I think the Pendant transfer failed, as you're only allowed one product per month. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: Unsuspicious Apathy Intent
On Tue, 5 Oct 2021, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: I object Hm. If I am right about how the scam works, and Jason understands it the same way, then the actions of you two suggest to me that you are colluding. Greetings, Ørjan. On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 3:44 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: On 10/4/21 20:11, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: I intend, without objection, to declare Apathy. Whoops. I intend, without objection, to declare Apathy, specifying myself. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Unsuspicious Apathy Intent
On Tue, 5 Oct 2021, Sarah S. via agora-discussion wrote: On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 11:58 AM Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: On Mon, 4 Oct 2021, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: I intend, without objection, to declare Apathy. Ouch. I pity the judge that gets to sort this out. Greetings, Ørjan. what's different about this intent compared to the usual? It's happening at a time when three different proposals modifying the definition of objectors and/or objections are being voted on simultaneously, any of which might have a relevant bug, individually or in combination. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: Unsuspicious Apathy Intent
On Mon, 4 Oct 2021, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: I intend, without objection, to declare Apathy. Ouch. I pity the judge that gets to sort this out. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8607-8629
On Sun, 3 Oct 2021, Aspen via agora-official wrote: // ID: 8625 Title: giving the gift of an amendment Adoption index: 1.0 Author: Trigon Co-author(s): [ COMMENT: Introduces a new term of art so that we don't have to worry about messing up the wording for giving a birthday gift again. ] Amend Rule 2585 "Birthday Gifts" by replacing: During a player's Agoran Birthday and the 7 days following, each other player CAN once grant em X boatloads of coins by announcement, where X is 3 if it is actually the day of the player's birthday, and 2 otherwise. with: During a player's Agoran Birthday and the 7 days following, each other player CAN once give that player a birthday gift, granting em 3 boatloads of coins if it is actually the day of the player's birthday, or 2 otherwise. This seems to have dropped an essential "by announcement". Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [cfj] on continuity of planning
On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote: On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Sarah S. via agora-business wrote: On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 9:14 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: CFJ: If R. Lee registers in October and doesn't publish a plan to flip eir focus, eir focus would be flipped to Legislation on Nov 1. Arguments: R. Lee planned to flip eir focus on 18-Sept[1], while eir focus was Compliance[2]. E later deregistered[3], so e currently doesn't have a focus. I assume that if e re-registers, eir focus would be default (unfocused), though that could be in question[4]. Rule 2638/0 reads in part: An active player CAN Plan to Flip eir own Ministry Focus, specifying any valid value for eir Ministry Focus, by announcement. At the beginning of a month, every active player's Ministry Focus is set to the value e mostly recently specified by Planning to Flip. The way that reads, it looks like an interim deregistration would not interrupt this plan? But not sure. A counterargument is that e plans to flip eir focus, but eir focus is then gone (and reset to default when e comes back), so if e has no focus, eir "plan" is set to the "default" of "no plan". [1] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2021-September/047564.html [2] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2021-September/015270.html [3] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2021-September/047577.html [4] Rule 2162/14 reads in part: if an action or set of actions would cause the value of an instance of that type of switch to become indeterminate, that instance instead takes on its last determinate and possible value, if any, otherwise it takes on its default value. If an instance of a player switch is in a non-default value and the player deregisters (losing the switch instance) and re-registers (gaining a switch instance), it depends on whether that is considered the "same" instance as the old one - which would put it back to its previous pre-deregistration value - or a new instance, which would be created at default. I think custom/precedent is "new" but not sure about that. Fun. I register and claim a welcome package (I can do this within 30 days of my deregistration because of the way I deregistered, although only once). -- R. Lee Clever. I think you've proved that the CFJ can only be judged DISMISS, because you still have the ability to make it flip on Nov 1 or not, dependent on what you do until then, but in both cases without Planning. D'oh, I forgot to include that you also have time for another deregistration and registration in October, to fulfil all the CFJ assumptions. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: [cfj] on continuity of planning
On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Sarah S. via agora-business wrote: On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 9:14 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: CFJ: If R. Lee registers in October and doesn't publish a plan to flip eir focus, eir focus would be flipped to Legislation on Nov 1. Arguments: R. Lee planned to flip eir focus on 18-Sept[1], while eir focus was Compliance[2]. E later deregistered[3], so e currently doesn't have a focus. I assume that if e re-registers, eir focus would be default (unfocused), though that could be in question[4]. Rule 2638/0 reads in part: An active player CAN Plan to Flip eir own Ministry Focus, specifying any valid value for eir Ministry Focus, by announcement. At the beginning of a month, every active player's Ministry Focus is set to the value e mostly recently specified by Planning to Flip. The way that reads, it looks like an interim deregistration would not interrupt this plan? But not sure. A counterargument is that e plans to flip eir focus, but eir focus is then gone (and reset to default when e comes back), so if e has no focus, eir "plan" is set to the "default" of "no plan". [1] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2021-September/047564.html [2] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2021-September/015270.html [3] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2021-September/047577.html [4] Rule 2162/14 reads in part: if an action or set of actions would cause the value of an instance of that type of switch to become indeterminate, that instance instead takes on its last determinate and possible value, if any, otherwise it takes on its default value. If an instance of a player switch is in a non-default value and the player deregisters (losing the switch instance) and re-registers (gaining a switch instance), it depends on whether that is considered the "same" instance as the old one - which would put it back to its previous pre-deregistration value - or a new instance, which would be created at default. I think custom/precedent is "new" but not sure about that. Fun. I register and claim a welcome package (I can do this within 30 days of my deregistration because of the way I deregistered, although only once). -- R. Lee Clever. I think you've proved that the CFJ can only be judged DISMISS, because you still have the ability to make it flip on Nov 1 or not, dependent on what you do until then, but in both cases without Planning. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] The Notes (contracts)
On Thu, 23 Sep 2021, Sarah S. via agora-discussion wrote: I intend to shred without 2 objections each contract which I am a member of It seems to me y'all should object to this on principle, as it has obvious scam potential. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Tournament Conclusion Fixes
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
I submit the following proposal, and pay a fee of one pendant to cause
it to become pending.
Title: Tournament Conclusion Fixes
[snip]
{
Each time that one or more winners of a tournament are determined before
it concludes, that person or those persons win the game. A tournament
concludes 3 months after its initiation, or when its regulations state
that it concludes.
}
Based on the comment I suspect you forgot to change a number here.
Also, this seems to me to be ambiguous about whether the 3 months are a
default or an unprolongable limit.
All ongoing tournaments hereby conclude with no (further) winner, except
for the tournament initiated on or about 2 July 2021 (if it is still
ongoing).
[First, extends the deadline for automatic tournament conclusion (6
months should be enough for anybody). Then, ensures that any previous
ongoing tournaments that found a winner are concluded (which the rule
did not explicitly state).]
}
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Greetings,
Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Narrowing Margins, Forgiveness
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021, nix via agora-business wrote: I submit and pay one pendant to pend the following proposal: [snip] Amend R2621, VP Wins, to read in full: The Victory Threshold is 20-5x, where x is the number of months since the last time someone Took Over The Economy. If it would be less, the Victory Threshold is instead 1. If a player has at least the Victory Threshold more Victory Points than any other player, e CAN Take Over the Economy by announcement, provided no person has won the game by doing so in the past 30 days. When a player takes over the economy, e wins the game. Four days after such a win occurs, all Cards and all Products are destroyed. Then, each active player gains 1 card of each type and eir grant (if any). This needs to be resolved before Trigon's recent proto, if both pass. (Which would have been unnecessary if it was written as replacing only the paragraph it affects.) Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Proto: Fix asset self-ratification
On Tue, 7 Sep 2021, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: Proto-Proposal: Fix asset self-ratification (AI = 3, co-authors = ais523, Telna) Amend Rule 2166 (Assets) by replacing this text: This portion of that entity's report is self-ratifying. with this text: A list purported to be this portion of that entity's report is self-ratifying. "purported" instead of the similar Rule 2162's "purporting" would seem to suggest that the actual purporting could be done anywhere and at a different time, even in a message by a different person. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Resolution of August 2021 VA 2
On Wed, 1 Sep 2021, Trigon via agora-business wrote: All I was going to say is that I grant myself a victory point pursuant to my focus. Well then, why don't you? Whistles innocently, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8596-8601
On Mon, 30 Aug 2021, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: [snip] // ID: 8599 Title: The Device (mark 2) Adoption index: 1.0 Author: G. Co-authors: 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 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. b) Select one or more contiguous sentences from the selected rule. c) Select exactly one noun from the selected text, and replace each instance of that noun with "Device" (including grammatical variations, e.g. replacing "'s" with "Device's"). 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. 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. [snip] The parts about self-destruction seem broken to me. They switch ambiguously between whether it shall happen by proposal or with intent, neither clearly requiring either nor enabling the latter. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] win fix
On Mon, 16 Aug 2021, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: -- Amend Rule 2644 (The Gauntlet) to read in full: A player CAN, by announcement, Notice the Gauntlet, specifying a single player that owns 5 or more stones, provided that no person has won the game by doing so in the past 30 days. I believe the last part doesn't work properly if specifying and specified player are different. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: Stone Ideas (proto-ish)
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021, Sarah S. via agora-business wrote: Robin Hood Stone (weekly, 100%): Transfer this stone to a player with less coins than you, then the original wielder gains 8 boatloads of coins. SPECIAL RULE: This stone never escapes as long as at least three players have owned it in the last Agoran month. The "less coins" restriction is way too easy to bypass. Also, three players could easily conspire to keep control of it. Greetings, Ørjan.
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.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar
On Sun, 1 Aug 2021, Edward Murphy via agora-official wrote: The Ribbon Bar (Tailor's Monthly Report) as of Monday 2021-07-26 --- EX-PLAYERS ROGECBMUVIPLWKAT --- Ørjan M V A Just realized something about the title of this section. There's no reason why everyone who has ribbons needs to have been a player. I understand Agora has had persistent watchers who never registered, and I'm not sure whether any of them could still have ribbons. Although I _am_ an ex-player, I was a watcher at the time I earned all of my ribbons. I don't recall Ribbons having been introduced yet the last time I actually _was_ an active player. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer captures Now We Nomic
On Sun, 25 Jul 2021, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: For the purposes of Now We Nomic AND Agora, and for the purposes of creating a new Rule and Agoran Contract respectively, I create the following NWN Rule / Agoran Contract: ---+--- All other Now We Nomic rules besides this one are repealed upon this rule becoming a Now We Nomic rule. This rule is known as the Sole Rule. Now We Nomic is an Agoran Contract by the same name, but is also a nomic. Cuddlebeam is the sole player of this nomic, and they can amend Now We Nomic via an Agoran announcement. For the purposes of interpreting Now We Nomic as a nomic, Cuddlebeam is the sole player who can deliver such interpretation via any means they deem convenient. which of course in NWN just means “All of the Rules mean, and only mean: Cuddlebeam is the sole player of the game, and they can create any Rule they want by publicly posting the new Rule to Agora nomic's public Fora.” Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer creates a Big Opportunity
On Sun, 25 Jul 2021, Rebecca Lee via agora-discussion wrote: On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 11:06 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: I CFJ the following: "Be X the first Judge assigned to this CFJ, the entirety of the Ruleset means the following: This is the Ruleset for the game of Agora nomic, and X is the sole player of this game. X can change the Ruleset in any manner they desire by publishing a sufficiently clear message detailing such changes to an Agoran mailing list." The reason this doesn't work is because CFJs have no legal force whatsoever under the ruleset - CFJs are just persuasive interpretations that are de facto but not de jure binding. I had retained the vague impression that Lindrum World, which Cuddle Beam is evoking here, is one/the main inspiration for _why_ we do it that way. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora
On Thu, 17 Jun 2021, Rebecca Lee via agora-discussion wrote: [snip a _whole_ lot] === END OF REPORT === -- nix Webmastor, Ministor, Herald Important COE: Jason was awarded a doctorate of nomic science -- From R. Lee In fact, you awarded it to em. -- From R. Lee Hi all, I may be slowly working my way up to reading Agora mail again... or not. Yesterday I saw you apologize for not bottom posting, and then I deleted that post before I realized that I wanted to complain :P I think the true spirit of us old-timers' admonition to bottom post is not just about bottom posting, but about wanting the old style of email where people actually edit away unnecessary cruft from messages they reply to, keeping just enough context to make their own part look like intertwined responses to particular points, and saving the readers from having to page through all the rest. And that apology of yours made me realize: when you absolutely won't remove unnecessary parts from a long replied-to message, then bottom posting is actually slightly _more_ annoying than top posting, although in a "the greater sin has already been committed anyway" sense. Greetings, Ørjan, who now wonders how much of this is only because he's still using a terminal mail reader.
Re: DIS: [draft] procedural ratification
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: By including "purposeful", it covers scams; e.g. with Jason Cobb's 18,000 coins - the scammer would have at least the 4 day objection period to enjoy eir earnings or convert it to a win[*] or whatever. [*]since winning and patent titles aren't self-ratifying, they would get to keep those as rewards for scams. Winning and patent titles can still be lost as a side effect of ratifying a document published before they happen, when that removes a prerequisite for their award. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: [Draft] Contract Patency v2
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: 1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated, and not subsequently publicly withdrawn eir statement, that e agrees to the action; That last comma looks out of place. Looks right to me, based on my intuitive comma placement rules. I don't think it's strictly wrong, but it would be easier to read if you moved the wedged subpart to the end. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BAK: [RWO] List Patch
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020, James Cook wrote: I object to both intents. Sorry to prolong this, but I'm not convinced this gets around Ørjan's objection. Here are two modifications to the gamestate that could be made at 00:15:01 on Dec 14 that would make the first document true: a) Insert two events into the historical record: a-o and a-b become discussion fora. Flip both publicity switches to Discussion. b) Insert four events into the historical record: a-o and a-b became discussion fora, then immediately after, became Public fora again. Both of these involve four changes (either two additions to history plus two changes to Publicity switches, or four additions to history). The first one is what we intend, but I'm not confident that it is the unique minimal modification. *Sigh* I seriously think considering history to be a part of game state may have been a mistake, but apparently there's now precedence for it... Is there anything wrong with passing a proposals that says "Change the gamestate to what it would be if a-b and a-o's publicity had been switched to Discussion at time X and then switched back to Public at time Y, so that none of the intervening messages on either list were sent via a public forum"? Generally, the main problem that I recall (but might not be the only one) is the following provision in Rule 105 (Rule Changes, Power 3): A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise take effect. This means that if any Rule changes need to be made to correct the game state, then no mere proposal can emulate ratification in a succinct way unless it is enabled by an even higher-Power/Precedence rule such as Rule 1551 (Ratification, Power 3.1). Alternatively, I wouldn't be averse to just fixing the uncertainties one by one. I don't think there are that many. A few Master switches, some income earned, the state of the PM election, and whether a proposal was distributed. Anything else? Maybe you're right. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset - December
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET You forgot to strip trailing spaces, so these again have that format=flowed problem. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8277-8279
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, AIS523--- via agora-discussion wrote: Ørjan's issue is that e believes a single ratification can't make retroactive changes at two different points in past time. I suppose that's a simple way of putting it, except I'd use "simulate" instead of "make". Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8277-8279
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, AIS523--- via agora-discussion wrote: On Sun, 2019-12-29 at 03:32 +0100, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote: The simplest way I can see to fix this is to pair each dubious email with its own ratifying document, specifying the date stamp of the message as the time it was true. What about ratifying a-b and a-o as not having been public fora? (To BAK, obviously.) That seems to make all the potential knock-on effects clear in an easily understandable way. Huh, that should work, as long as all relevant messages go to BAK. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8277-8279
Rule 1551 states: the gamestate is modified to what it would be if, at the time the ratified document was published, the gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified document as true and accurate as possible; however, if the document explicitly specifies a different past time as being the time the document was true, the specified time is used to determine the minimal modifications. Back when we introduced the "different past time" possibility, my reasoning was essentially that the "minimally modified" specification for ratification is only sensibly calculable if the intuitive time for "retroactively" changing the game state is the same as or very close to the time for which the ratification is calculated - in particular, there should be no in-between follow-on effects, since it might be _more minimal_ for the ratification to ignore these rather than include them. I claim that both the below ratification attempts, as well as the one Murphy has proposed later, fail horribly in this respect, as there are a plethora of possible follow-on effects between the time of the large number of possibly failed emails and the time of the ratified document. As a result, the true "minimal modification" may differ greatly from the intuitive result we're trying to achieve. The simplest way I can see to fix this is to pair each dubious email with its own ratifying document, specifying the date stamp of the message as the time it was true. Greetings, Ørjan. On Sat, 28 Dec 2019, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the quorum is 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 --- 8277& G. 1.0 Minor Giveaway 8278 Murphy 3.0 Resolve the troubles 8279 Aris, Murphy 3.0 Equitable Detroubling The proposal pool is currently empty. Legend: & : Proposal may or may not already have been distributed. The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. // ID: 8277 Title: Minor Giveaway Adoption index: 1.0 Author: G. Co-authors: I transfer 5 coins to each active player, in the order that they are listed in the most recent Registrar's Weekly Report. // ID: 8278 Title: Resolve the troubles Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Murphy Co-authors: [The normal standard set by CFJ 1905 is "a message has not been sent via a forum until most persons who have arranged to receive messages via the forum receive it". This is a sensible place to draw the line, but verifying that for a whole set of messages is arguably more trouble than it's worth. AFAIK no scams were attempted, apart from a Win by Apathy that was already objected to; and even once we verify that a message was received by enough people, we still have to keep track of which of those messages have or haven't already been verified. H. Distributor omd advises that the problems started on Dec 14, so this includes all messages from the a-o and a-b archives from Dec 13 onward.] Ratify the following ~~~-delimited document: ~~~ Each of the following messages was effectively sent to the Public Forum on or about the Date: stamp shown in the archives. Claims within these messages (in particular, claims to perform actions) may still be ineffective for other reasons. Relevant messages from https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2019-December/date.html BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 James Cook OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset Jason Cobb BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 James Cook OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8277 Aris Merchant OFF: [Registrar] Agoran Directory James Cook OFF: [Registrar] Forbes 500 James Cook OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: October 2019 James Cook OFF: Round 2, fight! Edward Murphy OFF: Fwd: [dicelog] Selection of Comptrollor Edward Murphy OFF: [ADoP] Metareport Edward Murphy OFF: [Distributor] list status omd OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3783 Assigned to omd Kerim Aydin OFF: [Registrar] Agoran Directory James Cook OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 James Cook OFF: [Distributor] list status omd Fwd: OFF: [Distributor] list status omd OFF: [ADoP] Metareport Edward Murphy Relevant messages from https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-December/date.html BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 James Cook BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror]
DIS: Re: OFF: [Distributor] list status
As I mentioned in my previous message, there's no reverse DNS on vps.qoid.us, which I could imagine some servers caring about. Greetings, Ørjan. On Fri, 27 Dec 2019, omd via agora-official wrote: On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 11:00 PM omd wrote: I think at this point there's nothing I can do but wait, and hope Gmail starts trusting the new server more. Hopefully that doesn't take long, or I'll have to do something silly like turn on from-address rewriting. Well, that didn't work so well. A lot of hosts have continued to reject or at least throttle mail from the new server: Dec 27 19:49:15 ec2 postfix/smtp[9751]: C6D7260DAC: host mx3.mail.icloud.com[17.142.163.12] refused to talk to me: 550 5.7.0 Blocked - see https://support.proofpoint.com/dnsbl-lookup.cgi?ip=52.73.134.173 Dec 27 19:49:19 ec2 postfix/smtp[9753]: 324C160DF5: host in1-smtp.messagingengine.com[66.111.4.70] refused to talk to me: 451 4.7.1 : Client host rejected: Host 52.73.134.173/ec2-52-73-134-173.compute-1.amazonaws.com has exceeded the per-day email limit of 40, try again later - helo= - RLR001 Dec 27 19:49:30 ec2 postfix/smtp[9749]: 55A7C60E4F: to=, relay=alt1.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[64.233.186.27]:25, delay=420346, delays=420331/0.01/9.9/5.6, dsn=4.7.28, status=deferred (host alt1.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[64.233.186.27] said: 421-4.7.28 [52.73.134.173 15] Our system has detected an unusual rate of 421-4.7.28 unsolicited mail originating from your IP address. To protect our 421-4.7.28 users from spam, mail sent from your IP address has been temporarily 421-4.7.28 rate limited. Please visit 421-4.7.28 https://support.google.com/mail/?p=UnsolicitedRateLimitError to 421 4.7.28 review our Bulk Email Senders Guidelines. x15si32376191pgk.593 - gsmtp (in reply to end of DATA command)) New plan: - Go back to sending mail from the original server, which at least didn't get throttled so much. - *Temporarily* turn on from-address rewriting for all users, so relayed list messages have headers like From: So-and-so via agora-business Note that several months ago, I enabled an option that performs the same rewriting only when the original From domain has a strict DMARC policy, instructing recipients to reject all mail from those domains unless properly signed – which relayed list messages won't be, because the list rewrites the subject line. In practice, this only affected messages from Murphy. But now it's temporarily on for everyone. - Configure DKIM signing and SPF so that recipients know that the owner of agoranomic.org authorizes the outgoing messages. This should avoid the errors that Gmail was returning for the original server. When I tested by sending a message from an agoranomic.org address to my Gmail account, it was accepted but sent to spam... *hopefully* the list is treated no worse. - Now that the mail server configuration has been fixed to prevent backscatter, the original server's IP (71.19.146.223) should get off the Backscatterer.org list in a few weeks, and Gmail's IP semi-block (which is probably separate from Backscatterer.org, though who knows) will hopefully expire in a similar time period. - At that point, hopefully I'll be able turn from-address rewriting back off and have things go back to normal. Sorry, I still haven't explained things properly, but I'm a bit stressed out at the moment. :/
Re: DIS: test
On Sun, 22 Dec 2019, omd wrote: Will Gmail deliver a list message if it's sent from a different IP? Maybe this is a good time to remind you (you never responded to my original message) that back in June/July (I think) I had trouble receiving list email because the list IP got on a global spam blacklist that my own mail account's mail server subscribes to, which AFAIU normally happens because such an IP sends mail to a spam trap address. I eventually solved this personally by asking one of my sysadmins. He added an explicit exception for the IP. This might indicate that occasionally that IP _is_ being used for genuine spam (maybe it's a shared address (there's no reverse DNS), or maybe there's an actual vulnerability), and if gmail is also picking up on this it's no wonder if it starts dropping stuff. Paranoid greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [deputy-Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset
On Wed, 11 Dec 2019, Jason Cobb wrote: Sorry, one more test. In this one, I've removed the spaces on otherwise blank lines: As you noted, that was it. The reason this matters is the following header line in the messages: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed The format=flowed implies that lines ending with a space are supposed to be continuation lines, merging with those that follow, and with the email client otherwise free to break long lines as it wishes. This is intended to allow email messages to be readable in clients that don't know about this standard, but to be reflowable according to window size in those that do. Which means those email clients that showed the strange indents were actually behaving correctly. IIRC Gmail notoriously doesn't support this standard, leading to the ironic situation where the messages look "fine" in its client. Greetings, Ørjan. THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/ Date of last official ruleset of this type: Date of this ruleset: Date of last SLR ratification: 8 May 2019 Number of rules currently enacted: 126 Most recent change to this ruleset: Highest ID'd rule in this ruleset: 2603 Highest ID'd Proposal Passed: 8276 Highest ID'd Rule Enacted: 2603 The Game of Agora This section includes a few rules concerning the Nature of the Game of Agora. Rule 101/17 (Power=4) The Game of Agora Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting in accordance with the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or results of these actions via Fora in order to play the game. The game may be won, but the game never ends. Please treat Agora Right Good Forever. Rule 1698/5 (Power=4) Agora Is A Nomic Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a four-week period. If, but for this rule, the net effect of a proposal would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to exist, it cannot take effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. If any other single change or inseperable group of changes to the gamestate would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
DIS: Re: OFF: [deputy-Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019, Jason Cobb wrote: [This is accurate to the best of my knowledge. It is very likely that I have missed or messed up something. You can see the changes from Trigon's last SLR at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/ruleset/tree/dec5.] I deputise for Rulekeepor to publish the following weekly report: There are a lot of paragraphs using indentation instead of the customary blank lines. Which is probably completely legal, but still... Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Agoran MOO?
It was 1992 (As You Know, Agora is from 1993), and the meaning of the words may have shifted, but I don't think people would have called Nomic World a MOO at the time. I never got a look at its actual source code, but as I recall the interface resembled more LPMud (the MUD style I was already familiar with) than MOOs (I don't think I'd ever been on an actual MOO at the time, not that I've spent much time since either - my MUD days had mostly ended around the time of Nomic World.) Greetings, Ørjan. On Sat, 16 Nov 2019, David Nicol wrote: Nomic World started as a MOO in 1994 or thenabouts. Agora began, on its first mailing list, after the fellow who was maintaining it graduated from college and didn't want to take that hobby with into The So-Called Real World. It had discussion rooms and a voting room where players could register their weigh-ins on whatever was currently proposed for voting. Fantasy Rules Committee began as a committee in Nomic World, before Agora existed. Lurking old guy signing off :) On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 9:03 AM Sgeo wrote: Was looking through my email archives for LambdaMOO stuff, and saw something about an Agoran MOO that used to exist. Is the database for that available anywhere? I would love to explore it and see what people made, even if it's otherwise dead. -- Coming to you live, from behind Sneelock's store, in the big vacant lot.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8266-8274
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019, Jason Cobb wrote:
//
ID: 8266
Title: Glitter
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: nch
Co-authors:
Enact a Power-1 rule titled "Glitter" with the following text {
If a player has earned a ribbon in the past 7 days but already owned it e
CAN
once (until e earns another ribbon), by announcement, earn N+1 coins where
N is the number of current players that do not own the same ribbon.
}
I think the "once (until e earns another ribbon)" means that this right
expires when another ribbon is earned, which could be hard to track and
might not be what was intended, especially if the last ribbon is _not_ one
already owned.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: This one's a scam
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019, Jason Cobb wrote: On 11/7/19 5:18 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: [snip] Rule 478/36 Fora [Excerpt] Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it. [snip] This clarifies what the method "by announcement" means. It in no way implies anything new about who CAN use the method. Greetings, Ørjan. Rule 2125/10 (Power=3) Regulated Actions [Excerpt] A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules for performing the given action. Rule 478 specifies a method for performing actions that the Rules say can be taken "by announcement". Therefore Rule 2125 states that I CAN perform that action. Also, the Rules don't need to explicitly use "CAN" to enable someone to do something. I'm honestly not sure what exactly counts, but I would imagine explicitly stating conditions under which the action would be performed would be good enough. [snip] OK, that's a better argument, now I'm no longer sure. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: This one's a scam
On Wed, 6 Nov 2019, Jason Cobb wrote:
I transfer 500 of D. Margaux's Coins to Jason Cobb.
[Anti-No Faking (although the CFJ should make it obvious): the above action
might not work.]
I CFJ, barring D. Margaux: "In this message, Jason Cobb transferred a Coin."
Evidence:
{
Rule 478/36
Fora [Excerpt]
Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by
announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and
clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it.
[snip]
This clarifies what the method "by announcement" means. It in no way
implies anything new about who CAN use the method.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Interested proposals
How did I end up co-author of that? Greetings, Ørjan. On Sun, 3 Nov 2019, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: Proposal: Interested proposals (co-author = Oerjan) Create a rule titled "Interested Proposals" with this text: Interest is an untracked proposal switch with values "disinterested" (default) and "interested". The author of a proposal in the Proposal Pool CAN flip its Interest to Interested by paying a fee of 5 coins, or by announcement if e most recently registered less than 3 months ago. Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing this text: * Being the author of an adopted proposal: with this text: * Being the author of an adopted interested proposal:
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3778 Assigned to omd
On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, Jason Cobb wrote: Possible relevant: CFJ 3452 [0]. [0]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3452 The quoting of Rule 1728/33 in that case doesn't seem contain the blank lines that the arguments talk about... Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Proto: review period
On Thu, 31 Oct 2019, Gaelan Steele wrote:
{
Amend rule 2350 “Proposals” as follows:
* replace “A player CAN create a proposal by announcement“ with “A player CAN
create a proposal With 23 Hours Notice.”
* after the list, add a new paragraph: “Additionally, a player CAN, but SHALL
NOT, create a proposal by announcement, specifying the same information
required above.
}
I note that this essentially requires protoing on a public forum.
Explanation: reduce promotor work by reducing the number of proposals
created and soon retracted in favor of a minorly-fixed version. It’s 23
hours so people don’t have to count minutes, just do it at about the
same time on the next day. The CAN but SHALL NOT mechanism is there to
avoid ossification if dependent actions break.
That replaces ossification with a situation where players have to break a
SHALL NOT to fix the game. Some might consider that unacceptable.
What about instead saying something like that all personal rewards for the
author of a proposal are cancelled if the second method is used?
Greetings,
Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is ah-ah-ah-ah-staying aaaaalive
On Wed, 23 Oct 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 10/23/2019 7:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 10/23/2019 4:52 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > BTW I think the safety in the last paragraph of Rule 1885 is buggy: if you > had done this _between_ the auction end and the winner paying, e would > still > have been obligated to pay. See last paragraph of R1885. Sorry, hit send too soon. I meant: READING last paragraph of R1885, "ongoing" is not necessarily well-defined (but this probably should be clarified). Since the _end_ of an auction is very well-defined by rule 2551, it seems weird to interpret it as "ongoing" after that point. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is ah-ah-ah-ah-staying aaaaalive
On Tue, 22 Oct 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_izvAbhExY I switch my master switch to myself As I expected. :P BTW I think the safety in the last paragraph of Rule 1885 is buggy: if you had done this _between_ the auction end and the winner paying, e would still have been obligated to pay. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Popularity* Contest
On Fri, 18 Oct 2019, Jason Cobb wrote: On 10/18/19 5:05 PM, Nch wrote: When a player registers for the first time since this proposal was passed, they enter the Popularity* Contest automatically. Possible ambiguity: is this registration for the first time ever (that happens to be after the proposal was passed), or is it the first registration after the proposal passed (whether or not the person was ever registered before the proposal passed). Ironically, if the phrasing had used "after", then I'd agree it was ambiguous, but since it uses "since", I think it can only mean the latter. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: Forbidden Rule update (Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Interesting Chambers v2)
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: * players SHALL NOT clearly identify this rule - doing so is the Class 1 Crime of Uttering the Forbidden Name. Any player CAN, without objection, exorcise this rule (cause it to repeal itself). Do you envision a way for a player to complete the intent and exorcising without breaking the SHALL? Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: [Proto] Time protection
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a four-week period. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, dates and times in Agora refer to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). [*] I'd like to belatedly point out that the Happy Birthday rule does *not* use UTC, on purpose. Greetings, Ørjan, who just caught up to his Agora mail after several months of being backlogged, and then remembered the messages he'd marked to respond to once he'd finished...
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201
Your proposal numbers have some off-by-100 errors. Greetings, Ørjan. On Wed, 3 Jul 2019, James Cook wrote: Votes inline. IDAuthor(s) AITitle --- 8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian 1.7 Perfecting pledges (v1.2) I vote AGAINST Proposal 8296. (per Jason Cobb) 8197 G. none no power is all powerful If I can vote on Proposal 8297, I vote AGAINST it. 8198 Jason Cobb 1.0 Be gone, foul demon! I vote FOR Proposal 8198. 8199 Jason Cobb 3.0 Fixing instant runoff I vote AGAINST Proposal 8199. 8200 Aris, G. 3.0 Sane AI Defaulting On Proposal 8200, I vote conditionally: AGAINST if a Notice of Veto has been published specifying any provision within Proposal 8200, otherwise FOR. 8201 Aris 3.0 Just Make Them Write It Out On Proposal 8201, I vote conditionally: AGAINST if a Notice of Veto has been published specifying any provision within Proposal 8201, otherwise FOR.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201
On Mon, 1 Jul 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
Amend item 3 of the only list of Rule 2528 ("Voting Methods") to read:
3. For an instant runoff decision, non-empty ordered lists for which
each element is a valid option.
The current "entities" text was introduced on purpose in 2017 by Alexis's
proposal 7922 (Clarity Act). To quote its comment:
[This splits off the portion of 955 that isn't actually related to
resolution. The definition of instant runoff is changed to evaluate
validity of options at the end of the voting period, and avoid
retroactively invalidating votes if an option drops out.]
Greetings,
Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019, James Cook wrote: I believe the answers are yes, and so at the end of this message I will judge CFJ 3726 TRUE. Before I say why, I'd like explain why there could be doubt about this. 6. An interpretation causing CFJ 3726 to be FALSE = Assuming I've not got things backwards somewhere else, I think you swapped FALSE and TRUE at these points. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: How are Rule ID Numbers assigned?
No method? There might be a Rule 2125 problem here. Greetings, Ørjan. On Sat, 1 Jun 2019, Aris Merchant wrote: Good question. Rule 2141 says that the Rulekeepor can assign a number, and doesn’t say in what way e must do so, so e could theoretically assign any number. You’re right that this gives em some power over conflict resolution. However, as a matter of convention, e only assigns the next number in line. The rule is left unspecified so that there isn’t a problem if e assigns the wrong number by mistake and also because defining which number e has to use would require the rule to write out the algorithm to be used. The benefit gained by assigning the wrong number is small enough that the Rulekeepor can be trusted not to annoy everyone by breaking the convention. Make sense? -Aris On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 5:57 PM Jason Cobb wrote: Hello everyone, I'm new, and I've just started reading the rules, so please forgive me if this is has an obvious answer. Can the Rulekeepor assign any ID numbers to rules that e wishes? I ask because I noticed that the ID numbers of rules affect conflict resolution, and there doesn't seem to be a way of assigning ID numbers specified in the rules, thus giving the Rulekeepor some (small) amount of say in the application of the rules. Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
I vaguely seem to recall that there is precedent that payments for something fail entirely if it's impossible for them to achieve that something. Greetings, Ørjan. On Thu, 30 May 2019, James Cook wrote: On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 03:34, Rance Bedwell wrote: I make a COE for this Treasuror's report. I posted two public messages announcing that I paid 2 coins to Agora. If I had been wise I would have made the second one conditional upon the first not succeeding. I was not wise, so I think I should only have 56 coins. CFJ: Rance paid 2 Coins to Agora twice on 2019-05-20. Arguments to follow. I respond to Rance's above CoE by citing the CFJ Arguments: I believe this is FALSE. Rance's second email said "I apologize if this message comes through as a duplicate.", which makes it clear that the first part of that email is a retransmission of the same message, not a new, independent message. I think CFJs 1451 [0] and 1452 [1] are relevant here: in each of those cases, a player sent a single message across multiple emails. The only difference here is that the emails are redundent (repeating the same content) rather than splitting the content across multiple messages. Nothing in Rule 478 says that every email constitutes a message. The fora are a way to send public messages, but I believe we should use common sense (R217) in determining what messages the players sent. [0] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1451 [1] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1452
DIS: Re: BUS: Election
As on the previous occasion, I got the original message. Greetings, Ørjan. On Sat, 11 May 2019, D. Margaux wrote: Below is Murphy’s message from the website, which somehow hasn’t come through. I declare candidacy for Assessor. Can you have an election for imposed offices? I thought Comptrollor was imposed, but not 100% sure. BUS: Elections Edward Murphy Wed, 08 May 2019 19:44:51 -0700 For each of these interim offices, as ADoP, I initiate an election for that office (current holder if any in parentheses): Arbitor (Aris) Assessor (D. Margaux) Astronomor (twg) Clork (twg) Comptroller Herald Prime Minister Referee Registrar (Falsifian) Treasuror (Falsifian)
DIS: Re: BUS: Email Weirdness Etc
I received it, so it at least got out of the server. Greetings, Ørjan. On Sun, 28 Apr 2019, Aris Merchant wrote: I haven't gotten this email yet [1]. It shows up in the archive, but not in my inbox. Is anyone else having this problem? Also, I don't believe the decision on who should be Prime Minister was ever opened, and I CoE the finding of no quorum on that basis. [1] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-April/040244.html -Aris
DIS: Re: OFF: Re: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora
On Mon, 22 Apr 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: I intend to ratify the below Herald's list of Patent Titles and holders as being correct as of its publication date of 31-Mar-2019, Without Objection. [This would not ratify the informal categories of championship]. Are you sure? Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725
It was not published, twg is simply referring jokingly to emself, as e is the Assessor. Greetings, Ørjan. On Sat, 9 Mar 2019, James Cook wrote: twg's message says the H. Assessor publish the below tally, but I didn't receive any emails containing it, and I can't find it in the public archives. When was that email sent, and to which list? I don't think it has any bearing on the CFJs. I'm just trying to figure out if I'm missing emails. ++-+ |AI | 3.1 | |Quorum | 5 | ++-+ |Corona Z 7b.| F | |D. MargauxPM| | |G. | FFF | |Falsifian | FFF | |L. Z 1b.|+FFF | |twg 4b.| FF | ++-+ |FOR | 16 | |AGAINST | 0 | |Ballots | 6 | |Resolved|ADOP.| ++-+ Key: #b. Possesses # blots [-floor(#/3) voting strength] PM Prime Minister [+1 voting strength] Z Zombie + Extricated conditional On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 02:30, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Attached as individual text files. Please have a look and let me know what you think... -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I respond to the CoE by citing the CFJ. (I swear I remember there being a proto floating around at some point to change it so that just the existence of a relevant open CFJ would block self-ratification, instead of having to go through this rigmarole. Wonder what happened to that.) Maybe let a CoE include a connected CFJ, in which case a response might not be mandatory. Without such an explicit connection, such a clause could make a report accidentally not self-ratify because of a CFJ that wasn't even intended (or stated) to be relevant to it, which seems to me like a bad idea. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to clean rules
This needs to be done after the intent fixing proposal passes, anyway, since rule changes are explicitly _not_ fixed and this won't be in the ruleset that is being ratified. Greetings, Ørjan. On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, James Cook wrote: On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 00:59, James Cook wrote: I intend to clean Rule 2422 by changing "theresult" to "the result", without objection. I intend to clean Rule 2532 by changing "Call fo Judgement" to "Call for Judgement", without objection. Oops, I let that expire. I intend to clean Rule 2422 by changing "theresult" to "the result", without objection. I intend to clean Rule 2532 by changing "Call fo Judgement" to "Call for Judgement", without objection.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Contest wrap-up
On Mon, 4 Mar 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: Having achieved Agoran Consent', I do so. Consent' is the type of Consent that fails now, but willan on-succeed forewhen Proposal 8164 retrotakes pre-effect. I am not entirely sure this way of disclaiming doesn't cause it to wioll haven broke, since you are not entirely clearly doing something that would have succeeded if intent wasn't broken. Better to outright lie in the action part itself, me thinks. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8165-8173
This is broken. As I pointed out in a previous comment on this proposal, rule 2591 no longer contains this text. Greetings, Ørjan. On Sun, 3 Mar 2019, Aris Merchant wrote: // ID: 8169 Title: Spaceship Armour Defaults Adoption index: 1.0 Author: twg Co-authors: D Margaux, Telnaior Amend Rule 2591, "Spaceships", by replacing the following: * Armour (an integer switch limited to values from 0 to 10 inclusive). with: * Armour (an integer switch limited to values from 0 to 10 inclusive, defaulting to 10). Flip to 10 the Armour of each Spaceship that, at the time of the submission of this proposal, was: * in Sector 04 and owned by Baron von Vaderham, or; * in Sector 05 and owned by twg [previously Lost & Found], or; * in Sector 08 and owned by Falsifian, or; * in Sector 09 and owned by Telnaior, or; * in Sector 16 and owned by Telnaior [previously Lost & Found].
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Missing obvious kind of extreme case:
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
contains the word “Walruses”.
Power 1: Walruses are a currency tracked by the Zoologist. [...]
}
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Some thought experiments:
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
contains the text “Players can’t Declare Quanging.”
Power 1: Players can’t Declare Quanging.
}
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
describes a circumstance in which players can not do so, and that circumstance
applies.
Power 1: Players can’t Declare Quanging unless hold at least 5 coins.
}
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
contains text prohibiting doing so.
Power 1: Players can’t Declare Quanging unless hold at least 5 coins.
}
{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
prohibits doing so.
Power 1: Players can’t Declare Quanging unless hold at least 5 coins.
}
Gaelan
On Feb 24, 2019, at 10:40 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On 2/24/2019 10:11 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
The ultimate point is that the CFJ doesn’t consider the differencesbetween >
the situation where ONE rule claims priority/deference to the other and
the other is silent, versus when BOTH rules give INCONSISTENT
priority/deference answers, versus when both rules give CONSISTENT
priority/deference (in which case no conflict because the rules agree, and
therefore no R1030).
I wholly agree, and that's by design. The first clause of R1030 makes it
clear that rules simply cannot defer or prefer to higher/lower powers - it's
very purposeful security. This is why it's important to treat clauses like
"except as prohibited" as signaling conflicts to be resolved via R1030,
rather than as "lack of conflict". Otherwise, we're permitting rules to
delegate things to lower-powered rules contrary to R1030.
There's an entirely-independent protection worth considering, in R2140 -
even if a higher-powered rule defers to a lower powered-one, if the lower-
powered one then makes use of that deference to "set or modify a substantive
aspect" of the higher-powered rule, which is further defined as "any"
aspect, it may be blocked.
DIS: Re: BUS: let's proceed to the second line-item
It seems to me that this would cause a heap of complications in writing proposals, which would need to include safeguards against disastrous partial applications. For example, a proposal that splits an important rule into two parts, by amending the original and creating a new one, could easily be vetoed to cancel the creation part. Alternatively, voters could make votes conditional on whether there is a veto or not. On the other hand, I can imagine occasional useful vetoes to cancel bugs and the like. In sum, this proposal can't cause real trouble if proposal writers or voters are really careful, but that may be a tall assumption. Greetings, Ørjan. On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: I submit the following proposal, line-item veto 2, AI-1: Enact a Rule, "Line-item Veto", with the following text: The Comptrollor is an imposed office. When the office is vacant, the ADoP CAN, by announcement, set the Comptroller to a player chosen at random from the set of current Officers, excepting any player who was most recently the Comptrollor. The ADoP SHALL do so in a timely fashion after the office becomes vacant. When the Comptrollor office has been held for the same player for 30 days, it becomes vacant. A Notice of Veto is a body of text, published by the Comptrollor, clearly, directly, and without obfuscation labelled within the publishing message as being a Notice of Veto. When a Comptrollor publishes a Notice of Veto, the office of Comptrollor becomes vacant. If the text of a Notice of Veto clearly indicates certain provisions within specified Proposals as being vetoed, and the voting period for a decision to adopt the proposal is ongoing when the Notice is published, then the provision is vetoed. For the purposes of this Rule, each individual change specified within a proposal's text is a "provision". Vetoed provisions in a proposal CANNOT be applied when that proposal takes effect.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: Please look at the Caller's "two assumptions" arguments in CFJ 1104, I was on the fence when this conversation started, but reading those arguments is what convinced me: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1104 Those arguments explicitly consider your logic and reject it, finding instead that the rules-languages of R1030 defines deference clauses /conditionals like these as indicating "conflicts" for the purposes of R1030. I see nothing about conditionals in that judgement. My opinion at this point is that although the rules seem to do so, it doesn't really make much sense to treat deference as something special - any rule naturally has the ability to limit its _own_ interpretation, so why legislate it further at all? It's completely different from precedence, which attempts to limit a _different_ rule. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:57 AM Gaelan Steele wrote: The proposed rule is a prohibition on a certain type of change. Because 106 says “except as prohibited by other rules”, it defers to this rule. Deference clauses only work between rules of the same power. Power is the first test applied (R1030). I think the "Except as prohibited by other rules" is a condition, and _possibly_ also a deference (it depends on exactly what deference means). But because it's a condition rather than just something like "This Rule defers to blah blah blah", it also naturally prevents a conflict from arising, and therefore the fact that it's a deference shouldn't matter. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: (Proposal) Spaceship armour fix
That particular item of the Rule was just amended to change that text, although it still needs a default. Greetings, Ørjan. On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Amend Rule 2591, "Spaceships", by replacing the following: * Armour (an integer switch limited to values from 0 to 10 inclusive). with: * Armour (an integer switch limited to values from 0 to 10 inclusive, defaulting to 10).
DIS: Re: BUS: Victory by Apathy
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote:
5. Rule 2465 says: "Upon doing so, the specified players win the game."
When we talk about "Doing X" for any X, we almost always take X to refer
to the Action ("Declaring apathy") and not the method (without
objection). R2125 supports this in that it separates Action from
Method. Therefore, "Upon doing so" refers to the action but not the
method.
Although the CFJ seems to be judged false for other reasons, I'd like to
mention that I don't agree with this point - "so" naturally refers to the
entire scenario of the previous sentence, including the without objection
part.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Relics
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote: Going to use Gluttony instead of Cincinnatus because it's just easier to remember and type off the top of my head and it's more on the theme of cardinal sins and having amassed all that power feels obese. There's also the issue that once you have that kind of omnipotence, if Relics even "matter" anymore. You could just self-assign to yourself all of the Relics you want anyways. Or wins, for that matter. It's weird. But so are scams! So I'll add it anyways for the Fun of it, what is Agora without Fun anyways. The Cincinnatus suggestion was because he was famous not just for getting absolute dictator power (several republican Romans did that, as it was an emergency war custom), but for _giving it up early_ the moment the war was won. I see your current proto does not really mention that aspect, so perhaps Gluttony is a better name for it. Greetings, Ørjan. PROTO: ---*--- - Wrath Relic: When a person performs a regulated action upon another person without their Consent, while they are able to perform a different regulated action that requires that person's Consent to perform the same effect, you earn a Wrath Relic. - Pride: I don't know how Instruments work lmao, I should read it up in order to write this (yes I know Read the Ruleset Week was a while ago, I didn't read the whole ruleset...) - Gluttony: When a single person, without aid of the action of other persons, can change the content of a Power-3 rule, they earn a Gluttony Relic. ---*--- Also, ty G. for the alternative rulemasonry for the first parts of this. I'll go with that. I'll call them Ribbons (not "Ordinary", just plain Ribbons) and Relics and both are Decorations.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: This probably isn't a problem, unless past cleanings were broken (in which case it still isn't really a problem but we might want to retry the cleanings in order to make sure all our typos are gone). Dependent actions otherwise tend not to change the ruleset much, and proposal results self-ratify. Perhaps it would be a good idea to make cleanings self-ratifying for the future. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: This was the change that added it: Amended(19) by P7815 'Agencies' (Alexis, aranea), 28 Oct 2016 the clause that added it was straightforward: Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by adding: (4) if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. after bullet (3). The changes since then are unrelated. For the suggested retroactive "as if the rule had been all the time what we're currently amending it to", any changes in between could be problematic, even those unrelated to (4). Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: Well, I'd like to make it clear that some scams might not be. For example, I'd love it if it said "Dictator scams" SHOULD only be used to earn this Relic, the scammers should expect every other profit from a dictator scam to be taken back. I like that, because in particular if a Dictator uses a Dictator Scam to remove the Dictator prohibition, we can have a nice long philosophical argument about whether that's cool or not. Cincinnatus Relic, check. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: I think it's helpful to have such rules in the ruleset, because history has shown that when we've been missing them, players with less-than- dictatorship scams have caused widespread damage to unrelated parts of the gamestate trying to finagle their scam into a win. (Remember the "skunk" rule? That was part of the cleanup from one of those events.) Win by Lightning Rod? Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: 5. FORCE GAELAN AND ATMUNN TO SUPPORT GROUP-FILED RECONSIDERATION // only works if intents are not broken I intend with 2 support to move to reconsider the above-called CFJ. I cause ATMunn and Gaelan to support that intent. I move to reconsider that CFJ. It may be a bit moot with all the other problems, but I distinctly recall discussing that support cannot be done on behalf because of the "consent" synonym (although was there ever a CFJ?) Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment
My reading justifies the Agoran invasion better. Greetings, Ørjan. On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote: I rather hoped the “mutatis mutandis” was implied. -Aris On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote: BlogNomic almost actually passed something like that once. We sent someone over to caution them that such an unfortunate plan would result in an Agoran invasion (okay, ais actually did it sua sponte, but my version sounds better). Wait, BlogNomic legislated that Agora would be destroyed? I don't think that works. Greetings, Ørjan. -Aris On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:56 PM Madeline wrote: Obviously, I'm just talking in hypotheticals. On 2019-02-16 09:55, Aris Merchant wrote: No one is doing anything that has any meaningful chance of destroying Agora. If there’s a bug in your mechanism, the stakes go from it being broken to the game dying permanently. -Aris On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:52 PM Madeline wrote: "If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other rules notwithstanding, Agora is destroyed." (Would any other rule need to actually change for such a clause to work if an outside Power 3 rule is adjusting its power?) On 2019-02-16 09:47, D. Margaux wrote: Love it. You could have a separate power 3 rule that (1) changes the power of the Ritual rule and (2) causes itself to be repealed when the Ritual rule is repealed. And I’d love to see the power of the Ritual rule increase, too, if the Rule is left unappeased... and maybe increase at a higher rate than it can be decreased? On Feb 15, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Actually I've been pondering something even fancier, like every time it's appeased it decreases in Power and the Power is linked to the Consent required. Or something. (of course you can't increase power in the same way). On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:08 PM D. Margaux wrote: Any chance we can have it repeal with Agoran Consent or something more than notice? Or is that excessive? :-) On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Actually, one more time. Empty sacrifices are meaningless. I withdraw my proposal, The Ritual. I submit the following proposal, Ritual Sacrifice, AI-1: Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following text: Any player CAN perform The Ritual by paying a fee of 7 Coins, thus appeasing this Rule for a single instant. This Rule MUST be appeased at least once in every Agoran week. If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to repeal itself) with Notice. On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:12 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: I withdraw the proposal I recently submitted, quoted below. I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1: Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following text: Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement, thus appeasing this Rule for a single instant. This Rule MUST be appeased at least once in every Agoran week. If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to repeal itself) with Notice. On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:44 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1: Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following text: Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement. In order to appease this Rule, at least one player MUST perform The Ritual in every Agoran week. If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to repeal itself) with Notice.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote: BlogNomic almost actually passed something like that once. We sent someone over to caution them that such an unfortunate plan would result in an Agoran invasion (okay, ais actually did it sua sponte, but my version sounds better). Wait, BlogNomic legislated that Agora would be destroyed? I don't think that works. Greetings, Ørjan. -Aris On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:56 PM Madeline wrote: Obviously, I'm just talking in hypotheticals. On 2019-02-16 09:55, Aris Merchant wrote: No one is doing anything that has any meaningful chance of destroying Agora. If there’s a bug in your mechanism, the stakes go from it being broken to the game dying permanently. -Aris On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:52 PM Madeline wrote: "If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other rules notwithstanding, Agora is destroyed." (Would any other rule need to actually change for such a clause to work if an outside Power 3 rule is adjusting its power?) On 2019-02-16 09:47, D. Margaux wrote: Love it. You could have a separate power 3 rule that (1) changes the power of the Ritual rule and (2) causes itself to be repealed when the Ritual rule is repealed. And I’d love to see the power of the Ritual rule increase, too, if the Rule is left unappeased... and maybe increase at a higher rate than it can be decreased? On Feb 15, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Actually I've been pondering something even fancier, like every time it's appeased it decreases in Power and the Power is linked to the Consent required. Or something. (of course you can't increase power in the same way). On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:08 PM D. Margaux wrote: Any chance we can have it repeal with Agoran Consent or something more than notice? Or is that excessive? :-) On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Actually, one more time. Empty sacrifices are meaningless. I withdraw my proposal, The Ritual. I submit the following proposal, Ritual Sacrifice, AI-1: Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following text: Any player CAN perform The Ritual by paying a fee of 7 Coins, thus appeasing this Rule for a single instant. This Rule MUST be appeased at least once in every Agoran week. If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to repeal itself) with Notice. On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:12 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: I withdraw the proposal I recently submitted, quoted below. I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1: Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following text: Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement, thus appeasing this Rule for a single instant. This Rule MUST be appeased at least once in every Agoran week. If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to repeal itself) with Notice. On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:44 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1: Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following text: Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement. In order to appease this Rule, at least one player MUST perform The Ritual in every Agoran week. If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to repeal itself) with Notice.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
No, it's one where you promise not to act unless both are fulfilled. Greetings, Ørjan, who keeps seeing more and more evidence that humans are naturally bad at this kind of distinction. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Madeline wrote: How so? Does it need to have both enough support and a lack of objectors? Do we even have anything right now that works that way? Do we *want* to have anything right now that works that way? If it's one where you choose which one to declare your intent with, I don't see how it causes a problem. On 2019-02-15 12:11, Ørjan Johansen wrote: Quoting myself from my response to D. Margaux: "That breaks if intents are allowed to be both with objection and with support." Greetings, Ørjan. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Madeline wrote: Suggested wording: Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if one or more of the following are true: 1. the action is to be performed Without N Objections and it has fewer than N objectors; 2. the action is to be performed With N support and it has N or more supporters 3. the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent and either the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the action has at least one supporter and no objectors. 4. the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. On 2019-02-15 11:54, James Cook wrote: I added the negation because I was worried about interpretations of whether "if X then Y" is true. With classical logic, we may interpret that as "not X or Y", which would work great, but it could also be interpreted as the list entry only being present if X is there, so we'd end up with "if all of the following are true: ", and I'm not sure everyone would interpret that as true. Just seemed easier to phrase in the negative way. Will think more about it later, but suggestions welcome. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 00:39, Ørjan Johansen wrote: I don't like the essential double negation in this - if people were confused about what the previous version means, then that's just going to make it worse. And I'm not convinced #3 means what you want if there are supporters and no objectors - undefined values mess up logic. Instead I'd suggest staying with forward reasoning by keeping the current items, except for #4 and the "; and", and adding "if all of the following are true" that you suggested in an earlier message. Greetings, Ørjan. On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote: Sorry for all the versions. I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.2) and submit a proposal as follows, and comment that I removed the word "and" between #2 and #3 and turned the items into sentences. Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.3 Adoption Index: 2 Text: Replace the following part of of Rule 2124: Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if: 1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it has fewer than N objectors; 2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has N or more supporters; and 3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the action has at least one supporter and no objectors. 4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. with this: Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action unless at least one of the following is true: 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has at least N objectors. 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has fewer than N supporters. 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the action has no supporters or at least one objector.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Quoting myself from my response to D. Margaux: "That breaks if intents are allowed to be both with objection and with support." Greetings, Ørjan. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Madeline wrote: Suggested wording: Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if one or more of the following are true: 1. the action is to be performed Without N Objections and it has fewer than N objectors; 2. the action is to be performed With N support and it has N or more supporters 3. the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent and either the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the action has at least one supporter and no objectors. 4. the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. On 2019-02-15 11:54, James Cook wrote: I added the negation because I was worried about interpretations of whether "if X then Y" is true. With classical logic, we may interpret that as "not X or Y", which would work great, but it could also be interpreted as the list entry only being present if X is there, so we'd end up with "if all of the following are true: ", and I'm not sure everyone would interpret that as true. Just seemed easier to phrase in the negative way. Will think more about it later, but suggestions welcome. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 00:39, Ørjan Johansen wrote: I don't like the essential double negation in this - if people were confused about what the previous version means, then that's just going to make it worse. And I'm not convinced #3 means what you want if there are supporters and no objectors - undefined values mess up logic. Instead I'd suggest staying with forward reasoning by keeping the current items, except for #4 and the "; and", and adding "if all of the following are true" that you suggested in an earlier message. Greetings, Ørjan. On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote: Sorry for all the versions. I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.2) and submit a proposal as follows, and comment that I removed the word "and" between #2 and #3 and turned the items into sentences. Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.3 Adoption Index: 2 Text: Replace the following part of of Rule 2124: Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if: 1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it has fewer than N objectors; 2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has N or more supporters; and 3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the action has at least one supporter and no objectors. 4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. with this: Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action unless at least one of the following is true: 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has at least N objectors. 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has fewer than N supporters. 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the action has no supporters or at least one objector.
DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
I don't like the essential double negation in this - if people were confused about what the previous version means, then that's just going to make it worse. And I'm not convinced #3 means what you want if there are supporters and no objectors - undefined values mess up logic. Instead I'd suggest staying with forward reasoning by keeping the current items, except for #4 and the "; and", and adding "if all of the following are true" that you suggested in an earlier message. Greetings, Ørjan. On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote: Sorry for all the versions. I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.2) and submit a proposal as follows, and comment that I removed the word "and" between #2 and #3 and turned the items into sentences. Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.3 Adoption Index: 2 Text: Replace the following part of of Rule 2124: Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if: 1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it has fewer than N objectors; 2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has N or more supporters; and 3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the action has at least one supporter and no objectors. 4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. with this: Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action unless at least one of the following is true: 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has at least N objectors. 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has fewer than N supporters. 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the action has no supporters or at least one objector.
