Re: DIS: Agora XX: 12th report
It looks like I was too early with my last attempts to vote, so I again attempt to vote: 363 FOR 364 FOR H. Speaker Fool, I also would like to point out that I believe I gained 40 points from each of 358, 359, 360. (These presumably weren't on the lists that Goethe sent you because I wasn't a player at the time.) Proof will be provided on request.
DIS: Proto: Teams
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Agora's in a bit of a lull at the moment. I've been wondering why this is, and conclude that there are two real reasons: a lack of a reason to do anything very much (there's little persistent state that can be built up week-to-week), and a lack of gameplay elements (I consider things like messing about with rules loopholes gameplay in Agora, but we're rather low on rules to abuse atm; I've been reduced to throwing around interesting-looking CFJs, even without anything but amusement and interest hanging on their answers). The problem with complicated contest-like gameplay is that normally not everyone is interested in it; that's generally best left to other nomics IMO. (Contests worked mostly because you could avoid them if you wanted to; if you try to force everyone to participate, it often happens that many people don't and the contest collapses as a result. Email is also a rather unsuitable medium for many of the things that might make good contests.) Some sort of gameplay is a good idea, though, both because it creates gameplay elements (more to CFJ about, maybe more opportunities for ingenious scams, more to do generally) and because it creates persistent state (more reason to participate, which is a good thing so long as it's enjoyable rather than tedious). So here's my plan: our current method of measuring positive contributions is in ergs. We can keep the current uses of those (they haven't been used much yet, after all), but also, whenever a player gains ergs, they also gain their team equal number of points. (Points are an obvious name for a tracked scoring statistic; and rather helpfully, they're currently undefined.) Why score as a team rather than individuals? Because scoring as individuals is reasonably commonplace in Agora's history, whereas teams haven't been done for years. Teams also offer more of an interesting political dynamic than individual play, and mean that new players don't end up massively disadvantaged upon joining, but rather reap the accumulated score of the team they were in. The idea is that initially there should be two teams; players are allocated to teams at random, and likewise new players are put on a random team. Once a team's accumulated 300 points (provisional value; how fast can ergs be scored, I wonder?), the team is replaced with two new teams, and its members assigned to those teams at random. Therefore, the reward for doing well is to end up in a smaller team, and if a player ends up on a team by emself, that player wins (and the entire team dynamic is reset back to two random teams again). A player can be moved from one team to another without two objections from the team they're leaving and without two objections from the team they're entering; this lets teams expel underperforming members (as there'd only be one objection, if that), players move themselves to a different team (assuming not too many objections from elsewhere), and even let teams kidnap desirable players if they could prevent the other team from mustering the objections needed. Two objections is chosen as it has an interesting relationship with the team size. I'd be willing to do the officering to track something like this, so there shouldn't be a need to worry about officer workload. Any comments? Any obvious flaws? Shall I write this up as a proper proposal? Would people be interested in this / fear this? - -- ais523 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFMIKWZVcRge/k80NMRAqwIAJ91XpOsDBq59pkDif97eH/GMYNisgCgiivQ xWRLURYQdL8GZgc1ZkJgJI8= =XO5V -END PGP SIGNATURE-
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: More contract scams
comext wrote:
I deregister each of the following contracts:
{ This is a public contract and a pledge called Caste8a. This
contract's citizenship is registered and its caste is Alpha. C-walker
CAN act on behalf of this contract to vote in Agoran Decisions. }
And now we get back to the flip a switch which is platonically set to a
certain value problem. It came up in the aftermath of 5707, but the
eventual judgement for the case didn't resolve the problem we had here.
--
ais523
winmail.dat
RE: Re: DIS: Fix protoes
coppro wrote: week, distribute a any proposal that is in the Pool but was Fix the typo at the same time? (It's in the current rule, but as you're changing that section anyway...) -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: Ambiguity Reduction
coppro wrote: I act on behalf of myndzi to go on hold. How? -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: Win by Paradox
Yally wrote: This post is a win announcement. CFJ 2543, as ruled by H. Judge BobTHJ, is a tortoise and has been so continuously for the previous two weeks, but not the previous four weeks. As I was the initiator of this case, I satisfy the Winning Condition of Paradox. No you don't; it isn't about the possibility or legality of a rules-defined action. -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: BUS: Proposal: Fixed contest point limits
Murphy wrote: Win announcement: I have a score x+yi such that x * y = 2500. (I believe it is 94 * 28 = 2632.) You can't do this yet; AAA point awarding is pragmatic, not platonic. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: zeckalpha is to be registered.
Michael wrote: Kyle Marek-Spartz wrote: I assumed... Hazing of sorts. Makes sense to weed out those unwilling to put up with criticism and informs initiates about some of the subtleties of the Agoran way. Clever. I'm kinda glad I never had to bother with it :-) I just love the way that the more we try to loosen up registration to not alienate new players, the more interesting ways turn up for it to go wrong. (zeckalpha: you may want to look at the use/mention distinction, at R478, and possibly also at R754. I suspect you are a player, but it's something I'd like a judge to look at.) -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: [IADoP] Periodic Election (CotC)
Yally wrote: I intend, with support, to initiate an election for Clerk of the Courts. I support; even though the current political situation is such that Murphy will likely win no matter what the plausible circumstances (and I will likely vote for em), periodic elections feel right. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Janitor's Report
ehird wrote: What- how? I believe you are well aware of the feature in question. (Hint if you can't remember: look at what offices coppro holds.) IMO, it's not a problem that a highly illegal win-by-announcement exists in the ruleset, as the backlash would likely be enough to cause the perpetrator to be deregistered (by proposal, if necessary). -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: zeckalpha is to be registered.
G. wrote: On Mon, 1 Jun 2009, Michael Norrish wrote: PS: would people be interested in a Zendo contest/sub-game? (See http://www.koryheath.com/games/zendo/design-history, for example.) That sounds a contest we played a little while ago. The contestmaster came up with a secret rule for assigning values (or at least an ordering) for arbitrary sentences. Two contestants would fight by challenging each other to a duel consisting of one sentence each; the gamemaster would announce who won (whose sentence was greater), object being of course to figure out the rule to become the master duelist. It could have been interesting, but it collapsed when Iammars became inactive, and I don't think there have been any attempts to resurrect it since. (It never really got started; IIRC, this was about the time of the original Bank of Agora, because I think pens featured heavily in at least one of the common guesses.) -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Banking for non-Farmers
Wooble wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: I thought the asset rule restricted ownership to persons? Nope. It doesn't even restrict recordkeepors to persons. I don't think any other rule uses entity more often. This is even useful on occasion; for instance, Enigma is not a person, but it owned a Medal for quite a while. -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [AAA] Agriculture Report
Murphy wrote: BobTHJ wrote: This is a public pledge, named Mill Sales. BobTHJ may amend or terminate this pledge by announcement. Upon a player transferring me two crops of eir choice, e may act on my behalf to transfer any one mill in my possession to emself. I transfer two 7 crops to BobTHJ. I act on behalf of BobTHJ to transfer eir 5 Ranch to myself. You just lost your crops, I think. A Ranch isn't a Mill. -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: Re: OFF: [Notary] Weekly and Monthly Contract Reports
root wrote: I tried to edit my own page on the Notary wiki a few weeks ago and was unable to. You have to ask Murphy for edit permissions to be able to edit the wiki. (The whole setup seems rather suboptimal to me, as I have to try to reflect everything that happens contract-wise on the wiki, and would have to check anyway, as Notary, to ensure everything is up-to-date. Therefore, the wiki adds no real convenience to me, as people normally don't update it themselves; and even when they want to, they can't due to the restrictive editing policy.) -- ais523 Notary winmail.dat
DIS: RE: Re: BUS: [AAA] SoA Report
Tiger wrote: I wish to purchase a Digit Ranch. (Can I do that with those y-points I got from Enigma?) If a contest says points without saying which, it means x-points. If you like, though, I'll give you three of my x-points for two of your y-points, I'm a bit short on y-points at the moment. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto-proposal: Fixing a period from the 14th to the 17th century
coppro wrote:
Looking at the archives, the only effect of this clause would be to
cause Zefram to win, rather than awaiting his return and posting es own
win announcement. (Is {es} the correct word there? Or would {is} or
eir. Most Agoran-Spivak pronouns are based on conjugations of they;
e is an exception.
{eis} be better?). The other would cause you (Murphy) to be unable to
win until you acquired another Ribbon. Now, I think you actually just
did by winning (since I previously thought you could only be awarded a
patent title once, though I do believe that is no longer correct).
You can get multiple copies of some patent titles, such as Champion.
(Many patent titles have rules limiting gaining them more than once,
though.)
Also, note I'm only 2 ribbons off winning, and have plans for obtaining
those 2 ribbons. (I believe Wooble is pretty close to a Win by
Renaissance too, although I'm not sure exactly how close.)
--
ais523
winmail.dat
DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2412 assigned to ehird
OscarMeyr wrote: It seems to me (based on a dusty recollection of formal logic) that CANNOT - SHALL NOT, given that SHALL - CAN. No, because SHALL NOT and SHALL are not mutually exclusive. For instance, it is not true that Hillary Rodham Clinton SHALL NOT register; but it is also not true that e SHALL register. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: Re: DIS: Draft: Simplify single candidate elections
Goethe wrote: I submit the following proposal, No choice, no vote AI-3: [snip] 4) If there are no valid options for the Decision, instead of initiating the Decision, the IADoP SHALL, in place of initiating the decision, announce this fact, ending the election. If there is exactly one valid option for the Decision, the IADoP SHALL, in place of initiating the Decision, announce the valid option (the candidate), thus installing that candidate into the office and ending the election. I'm not a big fan of SHALL-implies-CAN, and I'm not sure it would work in this place. Can you make the CAN explicit, please? -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Lest I forget
ehird wrote (with top-posting corrected): On 2009-03-11, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: Incidentally, can anyone else here figure out how to comment on Einos? I've tried several times now, but failed. Enable JS. I did, it still didn't work. -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: Re: BUS: The quorum is way too low
comex wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: Without objection, I make Billy Pilgrim inactive. Without objection, I make j inactive. Without objection, I make cmealerjr inactive. The AFO goes on hold. I spend C Eb G to reduce OscarMeyr's caste to Savage. I spend C Eb G to reduce Dvorak Herring's caste to Savage. I spend C Eb G to reduce woggle's caste to Savage. I spend C Eb G to reduce Tiger's caste to Epsilon. I spend C# E G# to reduce Tiger's caste to Savage. I spend C# E G# to reduce Siege's caste to Savage. I spend D F A to reduce Goethe's caste to Epsilon. I spend E G B to reduce comex's caste to Epsilon. I spend B D F# to reduce Taral's caste to Savage. I spend B D F# to reduce Yally's caste to Savage. I spend A B C# D E to increase my own caste to Alpha. CoE: ais523's key at the end of the month was D, so e gained a F note for completing monthly duties. Other than that, assuming the most recent Conductor's report is correct, e had only three E notes and could not have gained any notes in the intervening time. Therefore, the last note spend fails. Denied, Wooble gave me an E note via the spend-2-to-give-1 mechanism (after a Note Exchange request). -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6070 - 6072
Goethe wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
CoE: Proposal 6072 has an AI of 3.
It occurs to me that this is an unexplored point of failure:
The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1
from 1.0 to 9.9. It may be set by the proposer at the time of
submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0.
Otherwise defaults (e.g is this value unless set at the time of
submission, and the time a proposal is changed in text is not the time
of submission) *may* be sufficient to stop R2238 from changing it.
[Yes, I'm aware of the counterargument that defaults *might* mean
another rule of lower power *might* be able to change it, but an
equal reading is defaults in this context might mean that if it is
not set at the time of submission, this is what it is, YMMV].
Vetos are generally considered to work, and also mess with AI. Also, the
language here, it may be set... seems to me to very strongly imply
that AI is a modifiable value, much more so than the interesting
ambiguity regarding modifiability of text. (I thought of the same
counterargument as you instantly, but just like you I'm not sure if it
applies.) Compare the pretty much identical language in rule 2225:
{{{
Each judicial case has an interest index, which CAN be set by
its initiator at the time of initiation, and CAN be changed
by any player without 2 objections, or by the Clerk of the
Courts or Justiciar without 3 objections.
}}}
Does Rule 2225 imply that the II of a judicial case is unmodifiable?
Pretty clearly, it doesn't. I'd say that the similar language in rule
106 likewise doesn't imply that the AI of a proposal is unmodifiable,
or that it's anything but a sort of proposal switch. (I think it's a
rather interesting point as to whether it would be possible for a rule
to remove the AI from an Agoran Decision entirely, by the way; I
suspect that rules 955, 106, and 2196 imply that adoption-index-ness
of an Agoran Decision is an essential unmodifiable part of it, but am
not sure (especially with respect to whether this could be overridden
by a lower-powered rule). However, the mutability of the AI is
relatively clear-cut to me, and I'm almost positive that if the text
of a proposal can be changed by a power-1 rule, its AI can be too.)
--
ais523
winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6070 - 6072
Goethe wrote: On Tue, 17 Feb 2009, Kerim Aydin wrote: [Yes, I'm aware of the counterargument that defaults *might* mean another rule of lower power *might* be able to change it, but an equal reading is defaults in this context might mean that if it is not set at the time of submission, this is what it is, YMMV]. Speaking of which, do we have a precedent that essential parameters of a decision, once initiated, can change during the voting process? (given the first paragraph of r107). I'm aware that this would break democritization as well if it were not true. I remember discussion but can't remember if there was a case about it. -G. They definitely can per R101: otherwise, rule 2154 would prevent players deregistering during an election period, which would be ridiculous. (Proposals have an at the start of the voting period rider on voter eligibility; elections don't, meaning that deregistering causes a player to cease to be an eligible voter on a currently active election.) There are a /lot/ of rules which assume that is definitions do not necessarily imply immutability, I think. I may go looking for more examples sometime. I also feel that assumptions made by the rules are quite a good reflection of game custom, even if they do not necessarily determine it. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6070 - 6072
I wrote:
There are a /lot/ of rules which assume that is definitions do not
necessarily imply immutability, I think. I may go looking for more
examples sometime. I also feel that assumptions made by the rules are
quite a good reflection of game custom, even if they do not necessarily
determine it.
Actually, I even found an explicit mention, rather than just an
implication.
Rule 2154:
{{{
1) The valid options (hereafter the candidates) are the active
players who, during the election,
[snip]
The set of candidates can change after the decision is
initiated.
}}}
Rule 106:
{{{
(c) A clear indication of the options available.
}}}
(Note that (c) is not an essential parameter by the strictest
definition, as the rules define anything that is required to initiate
an Agoran Decision but not in rule 106 as an essential parameter,
presumably for bookkeeping purposes.)
As a separate argument, this paragraph from rule 106:
{{{
An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to
initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent
to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks
any of the following information, and the lack is correctly
identified within one week after the notice is published:
}}}
strongly implies to me that essential parameters (plus the other
parameters required by rule 106) are required to /initiate/ the
decision, not for its continuing existence or immutability. In the
case of elections, and in the case of vetos, some of the parameters
have been historically been known to change from time to time, and
nobody has raised an eyebrow up to now.
As arguments as to proposal 6072 specifically, I'd say that the
example in the following paragraph:
{{{
(a) The matter to be decided (for example, the adoption of
proposal 4781).
}}}
implies that a change in the proposal (if indeed one is possible)
does not change anything in the Agoran Decision about it. My
conclusions are that proposal 6072 has indeed been adopted (or will
be when the Assessor gets round to it), with AI 3. (Incidentally, I
used to think that the AI of a proposal != the AI of a decision, but
comex convinced me otherwise, pointing out that the seventh
paragraph of rule 106 effectively defines the two to be the same
thing.) So I suppose now we can just argue about whether the
proposal deregistered the AFO, or whether it gave comex a power-3
dictatorship...
--
ais523
winmail.dat
DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
Taral wrote: On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 5:41 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 12:50 AM, Taral tar...@gmail.com wrote: Fri, 13 Feb 03:12:15 Wooble deregisters CoE: WHAT? Denied. I interpret cease to play as deregister. R101 permits you to cease to play, and deregistration is the standard mechanism. Wooble and Warrigal are not normally considered to be the same person. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
comex wrote: On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: So the Bill is a changeable Proposal to change the Law. And an Amendment is an unchangeable Proposal to change the Bill. This comes down on the anti- side. Neither a Bill nor an Amendment can be changed once the process of voting on it begins. The issue is whether a proposal is fundamentally mutable (like a contract) or immutable (like a message). In the former, there's nothing in the Agoran ruleset to prevent it from being changed once voting begins, regardless of whatever happens in the U.S. Congress. The process of voting is well laid out and defined in the rules and we don't need to use external precedent for it; the definition of a proposal, however, isn't. Another interesting point here is BlogNomic; it allows proposals to be edited even after voting is open, but not after any votes have been cast on them. Also, IIRC in the UK new laws have to be voted on multiple times before being enacted, and can be amended between some of the voting phases. -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: Proposal: Clean up the deregistration mess v1.1
Murphy wrote: Amend paragraph 5 of rule 869 to read: A player CAN deregister by announcement. A person CANNOT register within thirty days after deregistering by any means that e initiated with the clear intent of being deregistered. I deregister by mistake. I wonder how that one would be ruled? -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: reminder
There are some judicial requirements which are currently overdue; in fact, a few are getting to the point where in a few days the CotC will be late to recuse the judges responsible. This is just a reminder to judges to check http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/pending.php; it would be rather sad if we had to arrest yet more people... -- ais523
DIS: RE: Re: agora-official digest, Vol 1 #2455 - 9 msgs
cdm014 wrote: In the matter of CFJ 2378, I judge the question to be undetermined. nttpf. (In other word, you sent to a-d not a-b by mistake, so your post has no effect.) Also, Rule 2238 did exist at the time of the CFJ, but has since been repealed (it was involved in a scam, which meant it moved a lot faster than other rules; in particular, it had a tendency to self-amend a lot.) I agree that the CotC, or someone, should have probably given more context; however, in this case, if you don't know the history it's probably best to recuse and let someone else sort it out (or it will probably go to appeal, because settling what happened is relatively important so we know the gamestate). -- ais523
DIS: RE: Re: agora-official digest, Vol 1 #2454 - 2 msgs
cdm014 wrote: I cast the following votes as many times as I am allowed Send them to agora-business, not agora-discussion, or they won't be counted. (It's easy to reply to the wrong list, everyone here's probably done it several times; the default's agora-discussion, so you have to change it by hand to send to agora-business.) -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: BUS: A scam
Pavitra wrote: In fact, I think I can get a Win by Paradox out of this. I CFJ on the statement: Warrigal CAN deregister. I believe that eir citizenship cannot be determined, and so (since players unambiguously CAN deregister, while non-players clearly CANNOT) it is not possible to determine whether or not Warrigal CAN deregister. A self-contradiction is not a paradox. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: That trick only works once
Warrigal wrote: On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: Generally speaking, I don't try to fix a loophole unless I've had a chance to exploit it, unless it's really urgent or game-breaking. Proto: Remove sudoers line 27. That isn't a loophole, though (at least if you're talking about what I think you're talking about). Loopholes are only fun if they occur in the natural course of things. To put it another way: if Agora legitimately voted me a dictatorship, I wouldn't abuse it. If I scam myself a dictatorship, I might abuse it slightly (but not too much, that wouldn't be any fun either); for instance, I used the most recent one to give myself a win and attempt to refund the Notes it cost me, which would be an abuse for a gifted dictatorship, but not for a scam dictatorship. -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: [BF Joust] Ideas on a new BF Joust challenge
I've been thinking about what I'd like a round of BF Joust to look like, and I have the following suggestions: - Leave the instructions much the same; moves towards the enemy, moves away, etc. The only change to the instructions I'd make would be to add . as a no-op that takes one cycle (as opposed to comments, which take no cycles). - As before, players should start on their own flags, which are at the ends of the tape, and running off the tape should cause you to lose. - However: the tape is much shorter, with a length randomized from 10 to 50. (The shorter distance makes defensive strategies more plausible; I can think of at least one which works only on short tapes not long tapes. Also, this means there's a chance that the two jouster's defences will run into each other, on particularly short tapes, and makes the strategy less attractive.) - The most major change I'd suggest is that a jouster only loses to lack of flag when its flag has been 0 for two consecutive cycles. This means both that jousters can 'defend' their flag by noticing it's at 0 and incrementing/decrementing it, if they're in the right place, and that jousters must be very careful not to run off the end of the tape immediately after winning. Thoughts? I think I'd prefer this to the non-BFy moves a distance equal to the current cell. -- ais523
DIS: Missing pledge?
Murphy wrote:
{{{
I pledge to transfer a prop from myself to the eventual judge of these
CFJs for giving em eight cases at once.
}}}
Did this ever happen? (A reminder seems to make more sense than an
equity case for something like this...)
--
ais523
DIS: RE: BUS: bank merger
OscarMeyr wroet: If Wooble's motion of 22 Jan 2009 is approved, then immediately after the change in exchange rates but before any other actions involving the RBoA happen, I withdraw as much of the RBoA's assets as I can. I don't think such timed actions work in Agora. B used to have them, and they caused all sorts of problems there, but that precise a timing wouldn't have worked in B even when the rule existed, and it has since been repealed there. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6060-6062
comex wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: So it is. I spend A C# E to increase my caste to Beta. Fails. To increase your own caste, you must spend five notes. Note that this is why the Note Exchange exists; so you can cause other people to spend the 3 notes necessary, rather than spending 5 yourself. -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2345 assigned to Taral
Taral wrote:
Unfortunately, the equity court is not empowered to change
contestmaster. Nor can it directly award points to the parties.
{{{
Within 2 weeks of this equation coming into force, the parties to the
Fantasy Rules Contest SHALL collectively ensure that a new
contestmaster is selected and SHALL ensure that the contract is
amended to permit the awarding points that could have been awarded
under paragraph 6 in previous weeks but were not.
}}}
The contract in question says:
{{{
5) The contestmaster CAN amend this contract without member objection.
}}}
In other words, this change can't plausibly be made unless either root
reactivates, or we flip the contestmaster using the mechanism in the rules;
the second method seems a lot more likely, especially as a new contestmaster
has to be selected. I'm contestmastering Enigma, so I can't contestmaster
the FRC too; anyone want to contestmaster the FRC (and get a contestmaster's
salary, hint hint)? Arguably, it's better for someone who /isn't/ involved
in the FRC currently to volunteer, as they wouldn't run into the problem of
a contestmaster's inability to award emself points.
--
ais523
winmail.dat
DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6060-6062
ehird wrote: On 25 Jan 2009, at 14:58, Alexander Smith wrote: I support. (Who would have guessed that a simple milking rule would be so controversial?) Could you stop responding to things that are already resolved? Could you please take email reading lag into account? It certainly used to be good manners on the Internet to allow for the possibility of lag in online communications. Although email is a lot faster nowadays, crossed messages still happen; and in my case, although the messages weren't crossed, replying to earlier messages before reading later ones is still a habit that should be allowed by other users. If you're impatient, move to a fast medium like a message board or IRC, rather than a slow medium like email or Usenet. (It's also worth noteing that emails to me occasionally get held up several days due to maintenance of the bham.ac.uk networks, although this isn't happening right now, and things I send tend to get rather out of order and apparently irrelevant when that happens.) -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: [BF Joust] Intent to end currrent tournament
Goethe wrote: As no submissions were received this week, and only one last week, I announce my intent [no objections or support needed, just a week's notice] to clear the BF Joust Hill and replace the Current Tournament part of the Contest with: There is no Current Tournament. Coming Soon! I hereby solicit suggestions for rules for the next round. I'd like to see something similar, but with a much narrower grid; say, maybe 3 to 22 spaces between competing players. Quite a few extra strategies open up with a grid like that, and some of the old strategies stop working. -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: argument against
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 09:27 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: 2. Since these clauses are only triggered when the rules make a future event (including a time limit) contingent on a past event This is the crux of the matter, I think. The question is about what happens if something is a time limit but not a future event. In other words, does A (including B) include something that's a B but not an A? To me, the problem is that the wording there implies that all time limits are future events, but that blatantly isn't true. I agree that an interpretation which leaves the rules consistent is probably better, though, so if 1's satisfactory it may be the correct one, but I'm not sure if it is. Also, another event, not a past event, but I think that's irrelevant here. -- ais523 [[Note, for some reason my email has suddenly stopped working; I'm sending this via a different, inferior, mailer, to see if it works from here.]]
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
Murphy wrote: As CotC, I support. ais523? I am shocked that you would support the judgement of a CFJ without any reasoning. Nevertheless, I support. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
comex wrote: Reminds me of the card game where, on your turn, you have to place down one or more cards of a certain number, and say what you're putting down (two fives)-- except you can lie and put down different cards than what you say. If someone else calls you out on lying, you're punished if he's right, but he's punished if he's wrong. The fun of the game therefore mainly comes from breaking the rules without being called on it. (yeah, I forget the name) Either Cheat or I Doubt It, depending on who you play with. When I play it (and there are multiple rulesets available for playing it, some of which are broken, by the way), I feel free to put down the wrong cards; however, that's because even though putting down the wrong cards is challenged by a call of Cheat!, it doesn't violate the rules of the game. Another interesting data point: I was playing Cheat with a single deck of cards with some friends. Someone called two fives, and put down two cards. So I called three fives, and put down the other two fives, in a squared-up way so other players could not easily count the number of cards I'd played. The other player had been 'honest' with their play, so immediately challenged me, knowing that I could not have put three fives on top of the deck (because e'd just played two of them and there were only 4 in the deck). When the top three cards of the deck were inspected, they all turned out to be fives, obviously. At this point, I admitted what had happened; and the other players there considered it to be unacceptable to lie about the number of cards played, even though it was acceptable to lie about their values. (Then we took the move back and continued as if the illegal move hadn't been played, which is a common solution to the rules being broken in most games.) -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2273a assigned to Warrigal, BobTHJ, ais523
Goethe wrote: In Monopoly, Risk, or any other game, no matter how well the rules are written, if the game is ruined because you are playing with a sniveling little rules-breaking shit, the game is ruined because you are playing with a sniveling little rules-breaking shit. Rule 101[/0] is included precisely so that it can be amended; if players amend or repeal it, they deserve what they get. -- Suber Arguably: the rules no longer say you have to obey the rules, so you don't. We replaced that with punishments instaed. Looking at this another way, anything inside the nomic is arguably fair game to modify: CFJs, rules-obeying, etc.. I'm not sure if I agree with this argument, but it seems clear that many players do. If, for instance, you feel that everything about the CFJ system, including the judgements as well as the arguments, is sacred, fine; but either remove it from the ruleset, or make it very clear in the rules that this is the case, or people will continue to try to scam it. Likewise, there is no by-default meta-agreement that people have to obey the rules, it seems (I'm basing this on apparent game custom not personal opinion); at the moment, if a player breaks the rules they're punished if they can't scam eir way out of the resulting criminal cases. There has been a lot of rulebreaking recently, mostly late reports; it's gone unpunished because nobody has gone to the effort of punishing it. What's really causing the rift here is a disagreement in opinion as to the extent to which people have to follow the rules. Goethe and I both seem to think the rules should be literally followed; however, Goethe also wants the spirit of certain rules (such as CFJs) to be followed, whereas I don't necessarily, which leads to a big difference in play style. Most players seem happy to allow rules breaches, though, and just try to punish them via the courts; and if the courts are scammed, the courts are scammed, it's the same as any other sort of scam. I think the real reason that players Leaving in a Huff is so common in Agora is that different people have different ideas about what the nature of the metarules (if any) are like; when people find out that other people have different ideas, that's leave-in-a-huff time. It's so common because there are so many possible interpretations: (ehird) There are no metarules, more or less; although it's best not to scare off other people because the game is better as a result (ais523) The rules are the rules, follow them, and see how well you can do working around them (Goethe, I think, correct me if I'm wrong) Certain parts of the game, such as the CFJ system, are important and have to stay above petty scamming, or the game will become unplayable Three pretty much incompatible viewpoints, I think. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Proto: Subgame/Contest: The Evolution of Cooperation
comex wrote: On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:31 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 26 Nov 2008, at 16:30, Roger Hicks wrote: I can in my preferred language of choice. VB.Net, right? Does everywhere include non-Windows systems? mono I know a large number of people who refuse to run Mono for philosophical reasons (although I'm not one of them). More to the point, there's no version of it available for Mac OS X, as far as I know. -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: Infractions, Contract reforms
Goethe wrote: Can you point me to latest drafts of infraction reforms and also your contract reforms (hierarchy of types of enforceable contracts IIRC)? Happy to take a round as a coauthor for next drafts but I wasn't following earlier discussions fully... The contract reforms are at http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2008-November/022001.html I think probably it needs to be simplified before being enacted, though; I was trying to be 100% compatible with existing practice, but maybe that isn't necessary. The infraction stuff is at http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2008-September/019405.html and I think it's more or less finished, like any proto, it could probably do with improvement, though. (Maybe simplify by removing all non-Rest punishments?) -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 5985-5990
Murphy wrote: Again, bring back Infractions. (Yes, ais523's proto, but that brings up another issue that was observed several years back: one way to delay progress in a given area is to float a proto and then fail to submit it as a proposal.) Sorry, I've been busy recently. Someone else feel free to submit it, or I'll do it myself once I have time to go over it and correct for any glaring mistakes. -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: Re: BUS: PRS
Elysion wrote: Since I wasn't in on the discussion, could someone provide the context, please? Why do we think the PRS is not a contest? (I just looked at a Notary's report, which says it is a contest.) It was decontestified by mistake when a Notary's Report listing it as not a contest was ratified, and contestified by deliberate 'mistake' when a Scorekeepor's Report listing it as a contest was ratified, allegedly. The CFJ is about whether the second of these ratifications worked, given that the Scorekeepor is not the recordkeepor of contestmaster. -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: Intent to Deputize
Sgeo wrote: I intend to deputize for Herald to announce the awarding of Three Months Long Service to ais523 and BobTHJ, and Six Months Long Service to Wooble, and that ais523 has received the Patent Title Champion twice. Twice more, you mean. I had it twice already. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Protoproto: Fixing contracts
Pavitra wrote:
ais523 wrote:
calculated. A contract's Spirit can be Legal, Equitable, or both
(but must be at least one of Legal or Equitable); other rules
A contract's Spirit can be Legal, Equitable, or Dual.
I thought of that. May as well.
The only appropriate sentence in a question on sentencing with
respect to a non-Legal contract is DISCHARGE. Equity cases can only
be initiated with respect to Equitable contracts, or with respect
to Hidden contracts; the only appropriate judgement for an Equity
case with respect to a non-Equitable Secret contract is the null
judgement.
This logic should be elsewhere, like rules 2169 (...in the operation
of a particular Equitable or Dual contract) and 1742 (Parties to a
Legal or Dual contract SHALL act in accordance...).
Actually for the latter you probably have the right idea organizing it
by Enforceability, so something like Parties to a Loose,
non-Equitable contract SHALL act as specified by that contract.
Aha! Yes, that's the best way to do it, probably
Agreement (Power 2)
{{{
At any given time, for each document, each person is either not
agreeing to that document (the default), privately agreeing to that
document, or publically agreeing to that document; this is a
persistent status that can change only as described by rules with
power at least 1.5.
This should be a switch. Agreement is a switch possessed by each
ordered pair of the form (person, document), with the possible values
Demurring (default), Conspiring, and Professing.
* There was a period lasting at least 4 days during which the
person was aware of or could easily have found out that an
attempt or intent to make that amendment was being made,
and could have ceased to agree to the document in question
during that time, with such ceasing to agree requiring no
effort beyond sending a message with no side-effects other
than the ceasing to agree itself.
This would horribly break contracts that define assets whose ownership
is restricted to parties.
Ugh, probably a bug. It's an interesting question, though; if a contract
specifies horrible penalties for leaving if it's amended, is that a good
thing? Maybe we should relax this a bit at the risk of allowing more
Protection-racket-like mousetraps.
Pledge is a possible value for Enforceability. A Pledge contract
can also be known as merely a pledge, unless this is unclear from
context.
I'm not sure this could be abused in the case of pledges, but in
general -- do these rules enable one person to unilaterally disband a
contract by agreeing to a document with identical text, but doing so
in a way that changes its Enforceability or Spirit? If not, can you
explain exactly how they don't?
They don't, because the method by which a player agrees depends on its
current Enforceability. There isn't a mechanism to agree to someone
else's contract unless it specifically allows it, and even Unbinding
documents can restrict who can agree to them. So that handles
Enforceability. Spirit's deduced from the Enforceability and the
document's text (just like pledgeness used to be), so that isn't a
problem either.
Entities can act on behalf of parties to a contract as
specifically, clearly and unambiguously specified in a Public
contract, pledge, or Loose contract whose text is publically
available;
Entities can act on behalf of parties to a Public, Pledge, or Loose
contract whose text is publically available as that contract clearly
and unambiguously specifies.
Looks good.
Pavitra, who totally wants coauthor credit on this
Of course, this probably needs a lot of feedback to work and everyone
who helps will get credit for the final proposal.
--
ais523
winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
Goethe wrote: Absurd. Where's the 'until' you claim in R101(iv)? It's absolute. Ah, I interpreted it as While a player has not had a reasonable chance to review a change to a contract, e is not bound to it. Your interpretation hadn't occured to me, but it's an interesting one... -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: [s-b] Prep for Werewolves session #2
Murphy wrote: I agree to be bound by the Werewolves contract in B Nomic. Wooble, ais523, ehird, comex, and 0x44, you should do likewise. I agree to and become bound to The Werewolves of Nomic Crossing. -- ais523
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2246 judged FALSE by ais523
comex wrote: R101 (iv) does not consider such amendments to be ineffective if you did not have a reasonable opportunity to review them; it merely allows you to consider yourself not bound by them until you do have such a reasonable opportunity. Hmm... can't I consider myself not bound by a contract even if I have reviewed them? Not that that does anything... -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: Re: BUS: PBA, milling
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 18:43, The PerlNomic Partnership [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Using a Addition Mill, the PNP mills 4 + 9 = 2. The PNP deposits one 2 crop into the PBA to gain ^30. Unless I have something wrong this last milling failed because the PNP only has one + mill. As a result the subsequent deposit of a 2 crop also fails. FYI ehird, this changes your PBA report. It has two + mills, I'm pretty sure; at least it did last I checked, did one get demolished by water rights or something? I'll see if I can dig out the last published AAA report to check. -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: Re: BUS: PBA, milling
ais523 wrote: It has two + mills, I'm pretty sure; at least it did last I checked, did one get demolished by water rights or something? I'll see if I can dig out the last published AAA report to check. It seems that you missed land #0 (a + mill) off a report sometime in October; it had it at the start of October but not at the end of October, with no obvious way to have lost it in the meantime (unless it was destroyed by a late water rights enforcement at the start of October, I didn't check for that). This has since self-ratified; but if the + mill in question was destroyed accidentally by ratification, we should probably equity to get it back. -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: Re: BUS: PBA, milling
ais523 wrote: ais523 wrote: It has two + mills, I'm pretty sure; at least it did last I checked, did one get demolished by water rights or something? I'll see if I can dig out the last published AAA report to check. It seems that you missed land #0 (a + mill) off a report sometime in October; it had it at the start of October but not at the end of October, with no obvious way to have lost it in the meantime (unless it was destroyed by a late water rights enforcement at the start of October, I didn't check for that). This has since self-ratified; but if the + mill in question was destroyed accidentally by ratification, we should probably equity to get it back. Ah, it was land #131 that went missing due to October's water rights. I'll have to go tell the PNP it doesn't have as many lands as it thinks... (Or some kind PerlNomicite could give it a + mill, I suppose.) -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: [Fwd: RE: Proposal: Expanded foreign relations]
Sgeo wrote: On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 6 Nov 2008, Benjamin Schultz wrote: On Nov 6, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Ian Kelly wrote: I suggest flipping the Aerican Empire's recognition to Hostile. I agree. Refuse us recognition? This means WAR! To War! To War! To war we're going to go! Might I point out that if they were to invade us with a sufficiently large invasion force, Agora would lose, badly, in weeks? It would stall for 60 days until the invaders became senators, I think, and we could exile them via judicial activism in the meantime, by repeatedly calling emergency sessions. Still, not ideal... Proto: Senatorial proposals, on which only Senators can vote. It should both require hefty Sentate support and the expenditure of a lot of assets to make a proposal one of those, but it trumps even democratisation. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Proto in CFJ 2247 [controversial?]
Goethe wrote:
On Sat, 8 Nov 2008, comex wrote:
ps. Equity originally took the place of crimes and infractions,
Agora however is somewhat lazy, as most equity cases have been judged {}. :/
Yah, turns out no one wants to bother with coming up with suitable
and interesting community services for rules infractions or suitable
equity adjustments in contracts, easier to just call something a
Class-3 infraction and be done with it. Worthy experiment but I
fully admit it was misguided. -G.
I think the reason most equity cases are judged {} is that normally the
contract has some way of dealing with it itself, or else there wasn't
actually an inequity. Most criminal cases used to be judged non-GUILTY,
if I remember correctly; it's much the same thing here.
--
ais523
winmail.dat
DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Balance of Power
Murphy wrote: ais523 wrote: Rule 1367 (Degrees) from 1.5 to 1; This will fall afoul of Rule 649 (Awarding ... a Patent Title by Proposal is a secured change), since there's no other mechanism for awarding degrees. I see no reason why a degree defined at power 1 can't be awarded with an AI 1.5 proposal. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Proto in CFJ 2247 [controversial?]
Murphy wrote: Proto-contract: (I don't want to recordkeep this; anyone who does should feel free to fill in the blanks and agree to it. Also, wasn't someone working on a proposal tying a similar concept to Notes?) I still am, but I got distracted. I'll submit it as a real proposal in the next few days if it's an emergency. FWIW, I think equity can work in some cases; look at the AAA and BobTHJ giving me the wrong number of crops, for instance. Maybe contracts should specify whether they want to be enforced via equity or crim... -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: An atrocious proposal
comex wrote:
I submit a proposal titled EVEN MORE MODEST, AI=482903748923748923747962374:
{{{
CAPITALIZE EVERY LETTER IN THE RULESET.
}}}
That's an illegal AI (it can be no more than 9.9); I'm therefore treating it to
default to 1 as your attempt to set it at the time of submission was invalid.
--
ais523
winmail.dat
DIS: About the proposed change of Coinkeepor
About the proposed installation of BobTHJ as Coinkeepor: * Is it really necessary any more, now there's an AAA report online? I was a big supporter at the time because most of the PBA/AAA problems were caused by ehird not knowing crop holdings, but the online AAA report seems to have fixed that. * Do people here think that a change in who is technically Coinkeepor would affect which of the online PBA reports they used? There are two at the moment, both of which are out-of-date atm, so probably there's scope for improvement from both sides. Personally, I'm likely to continue using the more usable report whatever; as I don't see any reason why both reports wouldn't stay correct nowadays, that's likely to be the one with more useful features. * Given that the PBA's rates can be calculated platonically by anyone, does its recordkeepor really matter all that much? ehird has told me privately that e would very much like to stay as PBA recordkeepor; it also seems a useful way to get em to actually do some useful work. (I'm all for it as long as it relieves load on BobTHJ, not creates it; and I don't see why it wouldn't nowadays.) ehird's almost convinced me to oppose the PBA motion to install em as Coinkeepor, but I'd like to hear the other side of the argument, given current circumstances. (If a fully automated system is set up, it won't really matter who is recordkeepor at all, I assume.) -- ais523
DIS: RE: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Here and Gone Again: a Registrar's Report
Pavitra wrote: On Wednesday 22 October 2008 05:00:14 pm Alex Smith wrote: - time of this report - ... Sat 6 Dec 23:21:25 The Monster becomes a senator. ... Mon 5 Jan 22:19:33 oklopol can name a mentor. Thu 8 Jan 00:53:07 0x44 can name a mentor. IMHO this should include the entry: Tue 6 Jan 23:21:25 The Monster can name a mentor. The Monster is second class, I believe. -- ais523 Registrar winmail.dat
DIS: RE: protection racket CFJ
Wooble wrote: I hereby initiate an equity case regarding the Protection Racket contract, the parties to which are Wooble, ehird, and BobTHJ. ehird and BobTHJ are, and have been for quite some time, in material breach of Section 11 of the contract by remaining Supine and thus ineligible to judge CFJs. Heh, as a Favourholder I wanted to do that myself, but couldn't due to not being a Don. Maybe we should change the rules so equity cases can be made against arbitrary contracts, or at least arbitrary public contracts? -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Breaking the rules
Goethe wrote: I submit the following proposal, Partner Responsibility, AI-2: Good idea, and I already have something similar protoed in my Rests proposal, but I suggest we pass this one while I work out the details of mine (which could take a while). -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Bayes
root wrote: Actually, not to the public forum. next time... would require an additional t. Heh, I always interpreted it as now to the public forum... -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: Re: BUS: How to win by bribery
Taral wrote: On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Proposal 5707 has been adopted, awarding a win to ais523. You owe me 8 VP. :P Yep, I'll transfer it to you later today or tomorrow once it's generally established that the adoption worked. Unfortunately, I'm having quite a problem reading my messages; my email crashed yesterday and all the messages since have arrived in random order. Also, I did send the deputisation for the monster for the Assessor to the lists; but I had to do it from a different account and it seemed not to get through. I have proof of having sent the message, and I'll post it to a-b along with all the headers when I get access to that account again. -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Geoffrey Spear Sent: Wed 01/10/2008 13:30 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707 On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Charles Reiss [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend, with 2 support, to make the decision on whether to adopt proposal 5707 democratic. I support. With Murphy and woggle's support, I make the decision on whether to adopt Proposal 5707 Democratic. --Wooble Fails, the decision in question didn't exist when woggle attempted to democratise it, so eir action failed due to not clearly specifying what it was talking about. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: How to win by bribery
That isn't a miswording, I sent the message but I had to send it from a different address, and it seems not to have arrived. H. Distributor Taral, can you check a-o to see if something got stuck there? Note that it's worth 8VP to you, quite possibly, as arguably if my deputisation doesn't arrive some time the proposal didn't technically pass. -- ais523 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of comex Sent: Wed 01/10/2008 03:30 To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: How to win by bribery On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Proposal 5707 has been adopted Not until the Assessor determines the option selected by Agora. Uh... how silly, to miss a monthly win because you misworded a message. winmail.dat
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
Wooble wrote: How much clearer could it be than specifying the exact ID number of the proposal it intended to democritize? The intent is to democratise a decision, not a proposal. The decision in question didn't exist, so there is no way woggle can have referred to it. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
Well, I didn't say which one. Also, I don't read SELL (5VP) like that at all.
The obvious, and only equitable meaning, is that BobTHJ filed a sell ticket for
5VP, and then voted 5 times as required by the ticket; SELL (5VP) is a vote to
endorse a player who pays 5VP, and multiplying that by 5 is 5 votes to endorse
a player who pays 5VP.
This was obviously BobTHJ's intention, as e was clearly trying to persuade me
to bribe em and a bribe of 25VP for 5 votes would clearly be way above the
amount I was willing to pay. (Contrast my 8VP for 8 votes bribe with Taral.)
The intention of the voter is what matters in determining a vote. If there were
in fact 5 tickets, I didn't fill any of them, because I specified that I was
filling the ticket not a ticket.
--
ais523
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ian Kelly
Sent: Wed 01/10/2008 17:38
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal
5707
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:20 AM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I act on behalf of the Monster to deputise for the Assessor to send the
following message:
{{{
This message hereby resolves the Agoran Decision on whether to adopt proposal
5707.
The decision chosen by Agora was ADOPTED.
The votes were as follows:
ais523 FORx2
BobTHJ FORx5
comex FORx1
Dvorak Herring AGAINSTx1
Goethe FORx2
Ivan Hope CXXVI FORx1
OscarMeyr AGAINSTx3
Pavitra AGAINSTx1
root AGAINSTx3
Sir Toby AGAINSTx1
Taral FORx8
tusho FORx1
woggle AGAINSTx2
Wooble AGAINSTx5
Totals: FOR 20, AGAINST 16
VI=1.25, AI=1, so ADOPTED.
}}}
CoE: Despite your earlier claim, BobTHJ only voted once on P5707. The
final count was therefore 16 FOR, 16 AGAINST, resulting in an outcome
of REJECTED.
BobTHJ's exact vote was SELL(5VP) x5. This is five sell tickets,
each corresponding to a single vote, not one sell ticket corresponding
to five votes. However, ais523 only filled one of these tickets: I
fill BobTHJ's open sell ticket on proposal 5707, causing em to endorse
me on that vote and therefore vote SELLx5.
-root
winmail.dat
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
root wrote: The actual wording of the contract does not agree with you. A vote of SELL(X - Y) on an Agoran decision is equivalent to posting a Sell Ticket with a cost of X and voting to endorse the filler of that ticket 5 votes of SELL(X - Y), then, is plainly equivalent to posting 5 Sell Tickets. No, it isn't. In most programming languages, f(x) * 5 calculates f(x) and then multiplies the result each time. Therefore, the only sensible interpretation of the programming-like abbreviation SELL (5VP) x 5 is to file a sell ticket for 5VP, and vote 5 times to endorse the filler of that ticket. You're trying to multiply the function itself, rather than its result. -- ais523
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
root: FOO x 3 is our standard shorthand for casting three votes of FOO, not for casting a single vote of FOO x 3. Yes, but that doesn't help tell our two situations apart, as it doesn't explain whether FOO is expanded before or after the multiplication. As a result, your vote probably fails altogether due to the ambiguity, as does BobTHJ's. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
root: To put it in algebraic terms, FOO expands to a vote. The multiplication multiplies the number of votes. I don't see what's ambiguous about that. The fact that FOO might not be a constant. It's ambiguous whether you're multiplying the result of the expansion of one mention of FOO, or if you're generating 5 separate copies of FOO, which isn't even a vote. Let me expand BobTHJ's sell ticket literally, fixing the grammar: [I] post[ing] a Sell Ticket with a cost of 5VP and vot[e/ing] to endorse the filler of that ticket x5 Notice where the x5 ends up after the expansion. That looks awfully to me like voting x5, based on one Sell Ticket. The ambiguity is in whether the SELL(5VP) or the x5 is expanded first. You seem to think the x5 is expanded first, but I still can't see any evidence for this view. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
root wrote: It's not a macro. The agreement clearly refers to SELL(5VP) as being a conditional vote. In that case, it has to be able to /retroactively/ create a sell ticket at the time the voting period ends. Does the act of casting the vote create a sell ticket? Voting and creating sell tickets are two different things. SELL(5VP) does two things: it creates a sell ticket, and it casts a vote. Your argument, that SELL (5VP) is a conditional vote, would create the sell ticket at the time the proposal is resolved, which is clearly absurd. Clearly, SELL(5VP) is an abbreviation for doing something more than just voting, it's an action that creates a sell ticket and endorses the filler of that ticket. In other words, it is a macro. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
root: No, my argument is that it's a conditional vote that, per the contract, creates a sell ticket when cast. Well my argument is that as many people put a different interpretation on it, you can't claim that you are /unambiguously/ correct; BobTHJ and I both went with a different, entirely reasonable, interpretation of the abbreviation. Either your interpretation is wrong, or it is ambiguous which interpretation is correct; in both cases, the proposal passes. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
root: False dilemma. It's also possible that your interpretation is wrong, in which case the proposal fails. At least two people came up with that interpretation in good faith. It certainly isn't unambiguously wrong. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
Goethe: In this case of disagreement between parties (root vs. ais523) then you have to go to strict impartial logical interpretation etc. I thought you were a fan of equity? Besides, this is a case where a dispute in the meaning of a contract affects something that should be determined entirely by the rules. As a completely different argument, it's arguable that a vote of SELL can work simply because the resulting tickets don't specify an action and thus aren't actually sell tickets, by the definition of sell tickets. This would lead to a vote to endorse the filler of a non-existent ticket, or voting the default in the case that the ticket is not filled. As the ticket does not exist, it cannot be filled, yet it cannot be in an unfilled state either, so neither vote ever happens. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Promotor] Distribution of proposal 5707
CoE: The publisher of the above CoE is not the Assessor. (The assessor didn't publish the original document, so e can't usefully deny CoEs on it anyways.) I don't think that's a genuine CoE (it's not obvious what it's referring to), but the document was published by the Monster deputising for the Assessor. The Assessor SHALL deny or admit CoEs against eir reports, so the Monster can deputise to deny or admit a CoE. -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Another reason those SELL votes might not have counted
Wooble wrote: On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Alexander Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The text of the contract that defined the options was not published during the voting period, and rule 2172 does not make an allowance for text published /before/ the voting period. BobTHJ published the text of the contract to the PF on 29 Sept. Ah, missed that one, sorry. The votes were made before then IIRC (sorry, my email inbox is all scrambled due to problems my ISP had, comparing times is therefore hard for me atm), so we're in the interesting situation of votes being meaningless at the time they're made but gaining meaning later. This means I have no idea when, or if, the Sell Tickets in question were created... -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: BUS: Another reason those SELL votes might not have counted
Murphy wrote: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:21:26 -0700 Voting period of Proposal 5707 begins Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:13:41 -0600 Vote Market text published Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:21:26 -0700 Voting period of Proposal 5707 ends Yep, I got the timing wrong, and I've already admitted my mistake. (That's during or close to the period of time during which emails to [EMAIL PROTECTED] got held up for random lengths of time and arrived in random order.) It's still arguable, though, that you can make a conditional vote and only define what it means later; that's what I'm trying to establish with my TETRAHEDRON experiment. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: RE: BUS: Another reason those SELL votes might not have counted
Murphy wrote: I don't see why not. It seems functionally equivalent to saying I intend to vote on this later, and then later voting normally (including with a defined-at-the-same-time condition). Just wait until you see the definition of TETRAHEDRON, then you might change your mind. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: Re: DIS: RE: RE: Distribution of proposals 5732-5733
tusho wrote: I act on behalf of ais523 to cause ais523 to retract any previous votes on proposal 5733 and vote FORx2 it. How? -- ais523 winmail.dat
Re: DIS: Random Number Generation
On Fri, 2008-09-12 at 10:22 -0700, Jeff Weston (Sir Toby) wrote: One of the issues I've encountered with the Agora: The Role Playing Game contest I am working on is random number generation. Obviously RPGs require a large number of random numbers to determine the outcome to a variety of situations. While I could make the contestmaster responsible for generating all random numbers, that would prevent the contestmaster from participating in the contest, and would introduce delays in resolving actions. My thought for addressing this issue would be to use an on-line random number generator that can send emails with random numbers to a public forum so that contestants can generate their own random numbers. Would this be an acceptable solution? Does anyone know of any on-line random number generators that could be used for this purpose? I remember using http://www.pbm.com/dice/ at one point, but my emails to [EMAIL PROTECTED] are getting bounced currently. I use [EMAIL PROTECTED] for randomisation in my role as Mad Scientist (and recently also as Deputy Speaker). Dice server wrote: For instructions on using the dice server, send a message with subject help to [EMAIL PROTECTED], or see http://www.nomic.net/~dice/. Anyway, welcome; I'm just recording your entrance right now, as it happens. -- ais523 Registrar, Notary, Mad Scientist, Champion x 2 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] Caste Report
Goethe wrote: I submit the following proposal, Pragmatic Caste, AI-2: This almost allows a trivial dictatorship scam, by flipping everyone else's caste to Savage and then making dictatorship proposals (outracing the inevitable criminal CFJs). It would fail if the Grand Poobah was not the IADoP (because they could be replaced before the scam went off); however, the main reason it fails at the moment is that the proposals in question could be democratised. It's not really a situation I want to be in in the first place, though, having to constantly watch the rules to see if this rule would lead to a dictatorship scam under a hypothetical future rules change. -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: Registrar Report online
I've put the registrar-report-in-progress online at http://agora.eso-std.org/registrar-report. (tusho hasn't made an HTML version of this yet, but knowing em it's only a matter of time.) For protection against email harvesting it uses = rather than @ in email addresses. I would put the Mad Scientist report online too, but there doesn't seem to be one. -- Mad Scientist, Notary and Registrar ais523 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
DIS: Re: BUS: Promotor election
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 14:16 -0700, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: I consent to my nomination as Promotor. Incidentally, I'm writing and testing a web interface for Promotor at the moment, designed to run on the PerlNomic server as the PerlNomic Partnership, but which could run elsewhere as well. Hopefully it'll be finished by the end of the voting on the Promotor election. -- ais523 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2090 assigned to ais523
Taral wrote: I support. With two support (root, Zefram) I appeal the judgement of CFJ 2090. Just out of interest, have I ever made a judgement that /hasn't/ been appealed? -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
BobTHJ wrote: Federal Subsidy: 8 I request subsidisation. -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5640-5648
Goethe wrote: R683 strongly implies that a vote is valid if it is among the first N where N= the voting limit when the vote is submitted. This points to a dangerous break in the rule allowing democratization during the voting period, in that Ordinary votes cast before the democratization would remain valid even after the democratization. I spotted this scam ages ago, and filed CFJs 1959 and 1960 to determine whether it would work. The verdict is that it wouldn't, so I didn't try it. (I certainly would have tried it otherwise.) -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
BobTHJ wrote: CROPS VOUCHERS FARMER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X WRV (snip) ais523 14 2 1 5 I mill 8+9=6. I deposit one WRV in the RBoA. (I think this gains me 175 Chits.) I withdraw three 5 crops from the RBoA. (I think this costs me 85 Chits each, for a total of 255 spent, net loss of 80 Chits, leaving me with 41 Chits.) I withdraw a 4 crop from the RBoA. (I think this costs me 39 Chits, leaving me with 2 Chits.) I harvest 5654 using numbered crops (i.e. not using X crops), which is the ID number of a democratic proposal in its voting period, to gain 4 points. -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: Re: Re: BUS: I thought Agora's Birthday was today...
Zefram wrote: So your personal circumstances have abridged your R101 right. How naughty of them. Of course, that's not a binding agreement or interpretation of Agoran law, so R101 does not forbid it from abridging your rights. No, Rule 2199's abridged my R101 right, by not allowing me sufficient time in which to participate in the fora. -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: Re: Re: BUS: I thought Agora's Birthday was today...
On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 10:14 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote: I CFJ on the following statement: ais523 was a person on Agora's birthday. Argument against: By eir own admission, e was not capable of communicating in English via email during Agora's birthday. --Wooble Heh, I hope that comes up FALSE too, it would cause a massive gamestate recalculation based on unknown data due to all the assets that are restricted to people (there must be some), and the precedent that non-persons cannot be parties to contracts. There are a huge number of occasions in the past where I couldn't communicate in English via email too, and unfortunately I haven't kept track of them, so this would lead us to a hugely unknown gamestate. (Do none of you lot ever sleep either? Maybe all of us have been non-persons at some point. Oh, and if this does lead to a massive gamestate recalculation, I suggest fixing it by proposal, if still possible. (This also just reiterates to me that we need some form of my emergency exit proposal; would someone care to proto or propose a fixed version? Was it just the II people didn't like?) -- ais523
DIS: RE: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 5556-5563
Murphy wrote: Not that it affects the results, but I recorded ais523 as voting 4P, 4P, P (rather than 4A, 4A, A) on 5559 through 5561. May have been a typo on my part. Would someone mind checking? According to my sent items, I voted 4A, 4A, A. -- ais532 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: I register
I know the real Sgeo through other forums, so I'll try to contact em later today to verify that it is em, rather than ehird pretending (which I doubt at this point, but just to be sure...) Sgeo has been a watcher for a while IIRC. -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: Contract: The Agoran Civil Service Union
Wooble wrote: I agree to be bound by the following, which becomes a contract when another officer agrees to it. Interesting idea. However, it's not obvious what it's meant to accomplish to me; also, you should probably make salaries depend on whether reports were done on time. The contract seems to encourage members to give offices to each other; I'm not entirely sure if this is a good thing for its members. -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: BUS: registration
Murphy wrote: ehird, I inform you of this case (2048) and invite you to rebut the argument against your guilt. Aren't you supposed to invite em to rebut the argument in favour of eir guilt? -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Saving ehird
Sgeo wrote: Maybe the proposal should explicitly override R869.. There's no conflict, ehird isn't registering emself, the proposal's registering em. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2046 assigned to Goethe
Goethe wrote: Was Manroster a public contract? I've lost track of that. If so, the official membership list doesn't change until the change is published (R2178). No, it was internal state of a public contract, but not state that appeared in the text of that contract. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: RE: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2046 assigned to Goethe
ehird wrote: The Manroster is just a list in the ehrid/mna contract. Not even that, the contract states the existence of such a list and its initial value, but not its current state. So its a list in the internal gamestate of the mna contract. -- ais523 winmail.dat
RE: DIS: Re: BUS: comex, I hereby offer you a temporary fix.
Goethe wrote: By the way, does OBLIGATED in all caps have any meaning other than the standard definition of the word (not in all-caps)? I can't find it. (This isn't a prelude to trying to weasel out of anything, I'm just curious if I'm missing something somewhere). I thought it was in MMI, but I checked and it wasn't. It should be there as a synonym for SHALL under a different part of speech, I think. -- ais523 winmail.dat
DIS: RE: Ticket
BobTHJ wrote: Buy Ticket Cost: A number of VP equal to 1/3 (rounded down) of the filler's current Voting Limit on Ordinary proposals. Action: Vote in the manner specified by me on a future proposal of my choice. This ticket may be filled multiple times (a maximum of once per each player) and does not expire until revoked. An offer that looks good, but there's a scam behind it, I think. Presumably you're going to try to corner a majority of votes and use them to push through a scam proposal? -- ais523 winmail.dat
