Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Infraction Reaction

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 8, 2024, at 3:22 PM, juan via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> 4st nomic via agora-discussion [2024-04-05 19:16]:
>> What does take complete control of Agora mean?
>> 
>> Is any statement that is simply "not true" sufficient?
>> 
>> Overall I find this to be unsavory.
> 
> Yeah, rules be rules, but jokes shouldn't be punishable. Could we
> improve things?
> 
> --
> juan

My view in noting the infraction was one of riffing on the joke - “heh, I bet 
that was technically against the rules” - rather than hoping to see Yachay be 
punished in any significant way. And I think the choice of one blot was 
consistent with this - unless Yachay was planning on winning the game in the 
next two weeks, this blot will be trivially expunged without ever having had a 
gameplay impact. 

I probably should have been clearer about this intent in my original message, 
sorry!

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: Actions (@ Dream Keeper, Collector)

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Apr 7, 2024, at 1:21 PM, Jaff via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> I envision my dream of wealth.

This fails: dreams were repealed this morning.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Notary, Arbitor) A Broken Promise

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Apr 7, 2024, at 1:19 PM, ais523 via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> I call for judgement on the statement "Yachay CAN cash Promise Q,
> either by directly cashing it, or by transferring it from the Library
> to emself and then cashing it."
> 
> I call for judgement on the statement "I CAN cash the promise
> 'Awakening’."

Nice one!

Gratuitous arguments:

My main question is how this interacts with R2576/3, which states:

{
An asset "in abeyance" is one whose owner is nonexistent, indeterminate,
or invalid. If an asset would otherwise be in abeyance, then it is owned
by the Lost and Found Department (if possible) or destroyed (otherwise),
subject to modification by its backing document (provided that the
modification either destroys it or prevents it from being in abeyance).
}

Rule 2518/1 explicitly states that paradoxical information is
indeterminate. Thus, if Promise Q was still exists (and the paradox
generally works as you describe), the gamestate is clear: it’s owned
by the L, and your first CFJ is unambiguously FALSE.

But - here’s the tricky bit - R2576/3 does not address the case where
an asset’s *existence* is paradoxical. If you paradoxically semi-owned
the promise when you attempted to cash it, then both Promise Q and
Awakening paradoxically semi-exist, and your second CFJ is PARADOXICAL.

So the question is: when, precisely, did Promise Q’s ownership become
paradoxical? If happened after your third action (the second transfer),
then by the time you attempted to cash the promise, it was owned by the
L and the cashing attempt was a straightforward failure. But if the
paradox only takes shape after the entirety of your message, then you
could have still semi-cashed the promise while it was in an
indeterminate state, causing the two promises to semi-exist.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You deserve it!

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Apr 4, 2024, at 7:25 PM, juan via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> I want to ensure whoever will take my place during that period can use
> my tools effectively. Who would like to volunteer?

Incidentally, if you’d like to share your code and/or data, we’ve got
the @AgoraNomic organization on GitHub. nix should be happy to add you,
if you’re not already a member.

(Looks like there's already a “Registrar” repo, from nix’s tenure - I
believe our general approach is to rename that repo to “Registrar-old”
or similar.)

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: yes, yes, I got the memo

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Mar 25, 2024, at 8:53 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> I suggest "un-noted" to prevent all instances of noting 1 infraction
> multiple times.

That doesn’t fix the original issue, as an infraction can be
investigated without being noted. And I don’t really think duplicate
notes are an issue, as investigating it discharges all the obligations
at once.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: yes, yes, I got the memo

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Mar 25, 2024, at 8:06 PM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 25/03/2024 19:13, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
>> Amend rule 2478 (“Justice”) by replacing: {
>>  A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
>>  committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
>>  incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
>>  it has one).
>> } with {
>>  A player CAN, by announcement, "note" an unforgiven infraction
>>  committed by any other player in the last 14 days, specifying the
>>  incident and the rule it violates (or name of the Infraction if
>>  it has one); but a player CANNOT note an infraction that has
>>  already been investigated.
>> }
> 
> Could this not more succinctly just be "...an unforgiven, uninvestigated
> infraction"? The rule is already quite long and hard to parse.
> 
> -Kate

Possibly - I started there, but wasn’t confident “uninvestigated”
was usable without a definition, and defining it would just make
things worse.

Could certainly be convinced otherwise; I don’t like this wording
either.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: one from the archives

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Mar 24, 2024, at 12:21 PM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 24/03/2024 09:16, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:> *
> Optionally, any other documents the Archivist deems worthy
>>  of archival.
> 
> hmm... the "Optionally" removes any obligation, but does mean that if
> there are any documents the Archivist deems worthy of archival (even
> non-Agoran documents!) but doesn't include, the option has not been
> taken and any documents the Archivist does include are not part of the
> report even if they may happen to be part of the same message
> 
> which I don't think affects anything because the report doesn't
> self-ratify but feels untidy
> 
> -Kate

Ah, yeah, good catch - starting to see the appeal of your suggested
wording (“chooses and deems…”)!

Probably worth patching afterwards, but not worth withdrawing the
proposal over?

Gaealn

DIS: Proto: One from the archives

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

I proto-create the following proposal:

{{{
Title: One from the archives
Author: Gaelan
AI: 1

Re-enact rule 417, with the following text: {
  The Archivist is an office; its holder is responsible for ensuring
  the continued availability of documents of historical interest.

  The archivist’s monthly report contains:
* instructions for accessing the most complete available
  collections of:
  * Texts of each historic rule revision.
  * Texts of each proposal.
  * Judicial cases.
  * Public messages.
  * Messages to discussion fora.
  * Theses for which a player was awarded a degree.
* A description of the completeness of each of the above
  collections.

  The Archivist SHOULD also include in eir monthly report
  instructions for accessing any other collections of historical 
  interest.

  [I’d like to have some way for the Archivist to reward players
  for filling in missing records, but I’m not sure about the best
  way to do that in the current economy.]
}

Re-title rule 417 to “The Archivist”.

Make Gaelan the Archivist.

[History for the Rulekeepor’s benefit, copied from Zefram’s rule
archive:
??? by Proposal 417
Amended(1) by Proposal 1302, 4 November 1994
Amended(2) by Proposal 1700, 1 September 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1735, 15 October 1995
Amended(4) by Proposal 1741, 15 October 1995
Amended(5) by Proposal 2029, 28 November 1995
Infected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, 23 January 1996
Amended(7) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996
Amended(8) by Proposal 2696, 10 October 1996
Null-Amended(9) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996
Repealed as Power=1 Rule 417 by Proposal 3787 (Steve), 8 September 1998
]

[This is intentionally written loosely to allow the Archivist to
defer to existing archives - for example that maintained by the
CotC - where appropriate.]
}}}

DIS: Re: Rulekeeping is hard, turns out

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Mar 11, 2024, at 1:56 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
> I submit a claim of error on the most recent full logical ruleset,
> specifying the following errors, most of which are not the current
> H. Rulekeepor’s fault and several of which are mine:

Another one (explicitly to DIS, no need to create more obligations):
R7912 amended R1607, appending "except for those exempted from
automatic distribution by other rules”; this change is reflected in
the text of the rules but does not appear in the rule history.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 4056 assigned to @Gaelan [Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) Recusal - CFJ 4056]

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

Thanks for the notes!

> On Mar 18, 2024, at 12:37 AM, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> (could have failed due to, e.g., issues with CFJ 4069)

Interestingly this one isn’t actually an issue in Agoran’t - it was explicitly
initialized with a rule numbered 105 with specified text, and “no former rules”.

Gaelan

DIS: Photo: officially official

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

I proto-submit the following proposal: {
  Title: Officially Official (and Backuply Backup)
  Authors: Gaelan
  AI: 1

  Create a power-1 rule titled “Forum Purposes”, with the following
  text: {
Purpose is a public forum switch, with values Business (default),
Official, and Backup.

Players SHOULD send public messages to a Business forum unless
otherwise specified.

Players SHOULD send public messages to an Official forum where they
relate to the duties of an office.

Players SHOULD send public messages to a Backup forum when
technical issues prevent the usage of other fora.

The Registrar CAN flip the purpose of a public forum without
objection.
  }

  Flip the purpose of agora-business at agoranomic.org to Business.
  Flip the purpose of agora-official at agoranomic.org to Official.
  Flip the purpose of agoranomic at groups.io to Backup.

  [It seems like a good idea to have these standards written down
  somewhere instead of keeping them as unwritten tradition only.

  A separate switch, instead of more values for Publicity,
  primarily to avoid introducing complexity to a key system.]
}

Gaelan

DIS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 4056 assigned to @Gaelan [Re: BUS: (@Arbitor) Recusal - CFJ 4056]

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Mar 16, 2024, at 5:38 PM, nix via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> I assign CFJ 4056 to Gaelan.

Some preliminary thoughts; arguments on any of these points (or any points I
missed) are welcome.

The argument for TRUE is, broadly, that message 327 created a power-4.9 rule
(“SILENCE”) which makes public messages “NULL AND VOID”; this would likely make
it impossible to take any actions.

For this to have worked, the following things must be true:
- The creation of SILENCE worked.
  - Snail’s dictatorship rule “Public Speaking” existed.
- Proposal 22n’t was adopted. (message 223; appears undisputed)
  - Snail’s dictatorship rule “Public Speaking” had at least power 3.
- Proposal 23n’t was adopted. (messages 324)
  - The proposal was correctly distributed, despite “23n’t” allegedly not 
being
a valid ID number (see messages 312, 315, 361)
  - Janet had at least 9 blots.
- Janet was granted 100 blots for a crime of HIGH TREASON. (message 285)
  - Janet was guilty of HIGH TREASON.
- E objected to an intent tabled by snail. (messages 275 and 276)
  - At least one rule "Oh how the” was created via snail’s dictatorship.
(message 256)
- Snail’s dictatorship worked. (See points above)
  - “I investigate so-and-so and grant them x blots” is a valid synonym
for “I investigate so-and-so, specifying x as the number of blots”.
  - Investigating an infraction does not require any specification of
when the infraction occurred.
  - Kate’s festivity scam didn’t work.
  - Creating a power-4.9 rule works, despite Rule 2141’s statement that “Every
current rule has power between 0.1 and 4.0 inclusive.” (I see no attempt
to amend this.)
  - Rule 105’s four-day requirement did not apply.
- Proposal 23n’t, which removed this provision, was adopted. (see above)
  - Rule 1698’s ossification protections did not apply.
- Snail repealed rule 1698 by prognostication. (message 325)
  - Snail’s dictatorship worked and had at least power 3. (see above)
  - Rule 105’s four-day requirement did not apply. (see above)
- With SILENCE in effect, Agoran’t was indeed ossified.
  - Saying public messages "are NULL AND VOID, and have no effect on the game”
has the intended effect.
  - There is no way to change the rules (or pass proposals) without sending
public messages.

Proposals 24n’t and 1001 would have done the same thing as 23n’t; proposals
25n’t and 1000 would have set Public Speaking to P2. But I see no attempt to
resolve any of these.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ah what the hell (Registrar, Dream Keeper)

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Mar 17, 2024, at 12:45 PM, Sarah S. via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 11:42 PM Sarah S. via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 
>> I register, claim a welcome package, and dream of Wealth
>> 
> 
> Sorry, this is R. Lee
> 
> --
> R. Lee


Welcome back!

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Birthday Announcement

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> 
> Congrats on your 2th! Someone should propose the 2th fairy to grant you
> some $$$!
> 
> -- 
> 4ˢᵗ
> 
> Uncertified Bad Idea Generator

hey, $$$ is *my* new Agoran thing

(Context for those who weren’t around: one of my first proposals was
a Very Bad Proposal attempting to introduce a currency. In my defense,
I was 13.)

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Request for Feedback: What's the Method Anyway?

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Mar 12, 2024, at 10:48 PM, nix via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> This is related to CFJ 4072, but you don't need to be familiar with all
> of the arguments there.
> 
> I just want everyone's reading on one (crucial) element. R105 requires
> an "unambiguous and clear specification of the method to be used for
> changing the rule". For rule changes in proposals, what would you say is
> "the method", according to the rules? What would be a 1 sentence
> "unambiguous and clear specification" of that method?
> 
> -- 
> nix

I raised this on Discord, but on list for posterity: I’m starting
to think it’s “by proposal”.

“By proposal”, as a method of doing something, is a term that Agorans
use fairly frequently. By way of a few examples: the Herald reports
wins by proposal, the Tailor’s quick reference says black ribbons
can be gained by proposal. Even more convincingly, 2575/3 reads, in
part: {
  The holder [of Distributor] CANNOT be changed except without
  objection or by proposal.
}

Which implies fairly strongly that “by proposal” is the same sort
of thing as “without objection”, namely a method.

And I think there’s a reasonable argument that, by labelling a
potential rule change as a “proposal”, the distribution message
has specified the rule change alongside the mechanism of “by
proposal”.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: [Arbitor] Assignment of CFJ 4072 to nix [Re: BUS: [CFJ] Another R105 CFJ]

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Mar 12, 2024, at 3:04 PM, nix via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> I haven't started drafting, but not sure I quite agree with this. A rule
> change is defined as "any effect that falls into the above classes", so
> the "full text" would be the full text of the change. Your reading seems
> like it'd make more sense if 105 said "the full text of the changed
> rules" or something to the effect.

Ah yes, good point.

It’s a little weird because an “effect” is an an abstract thing that
doesn’t really have text, per se - there are lots of ways to describe
the same amendment. But I think you’re right that this isn’t a game-
breaking problem, even if the wording could be improved.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: CFJ 4062 draft-judged TRUE

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Mar 12, 2024, at 2:39 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Mar 9, 2024, at 6:37 PM, nix via agora-business 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> On 1/28/24 00:59, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>>> I CFJ: "Proposal 9051, as part of its effect, applied a rule change."
>>> 
>> 
>> I number this CFJ 4062. I assign CFJ 4062 to Gaelan.
> 
> This is a draft judgement, as I haven’t done this in a while and would
> like assurance I’m not utterly off-base.

*taps earpiece* I have been informed that I was utterly off-base.
Specifically, I was looking at the post-patch version of 105.

Anyway, I think the thrust of my ruling is still true: even
without the patch, the proposal text wasn’t ambiguous, as there
was only one possible interpretation.

Gaelan

DIS: CFJ 4062 draft-judged TRUE

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Mar 9, 2024, at 6:37 PM, nix via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 1/28/24 00:59, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> I CFJ: "Proposal 9051, as part of its effect, applied a rule change."
>> 
> 
> I number this CFJ 4062. I assign CFJ 4062 to Gaelan.

This is a draft judgement, as I haven’t done this in a while and would
like assurance I’m not utterly off-base.

I find TRUE.

First, I note that a separate ongoing CFJ (4072) considers the
possibility that this proposal, among many others, may have been
prevented from causing rule changes due to deficiencies in its
distribution. I’ll leave that possibility to Judge nix (to whom I offer
my deepest condolences), and disregard it in this judgement.

With that out of the way:

Most actions in Agora are done by sending a message meeting criteria,
for example the famous requirement to “set[] forth intent ... clearly
and unambiguously” to perform an action by announcement. If this were
an action by announcement, my task would be to find the criteria, and
determine if the message in question met them.

But proposals do not take actions by announcement. Instead, rule 106/46
reads: {
  When a proposal takes effect, the proposal applies the changes that
  it specifies in its text, except as prohibited by other rules. 
}

So if a proposal says something happens, the presumption is that *it
happens.* The only reason it wouldn’t is if a rule explicitly prevents
it from doing so. So, what could prevent this?

The only thing I see that comes close - other than the four-day rule,
which is being debated elsewhere - is this paragraph of 105/24: {
  Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
  change to be void and without effect. [...] Furthermore, if the
  change being specified would be clear to any reasonable player, the
  specification is not ambiguous, even if it is incorrect or unclear
  on its face.
}

I don’t think the change is ambiguous in the ordinary sense of the
term: I don’t think there’s any plausible interpretation other than
appending the text at the end of the bulleted list. But 105 goes on,
clarifying that a specification is not ambiguous so long as it would
be clear to “any reasonable player”, even if incorrect or unclear on
its face. So I think it’s quite clear that the above provision does
not prevent this change from taking place.

As nothing prevents the change from taking place, it does.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: [Arbitor] Assignment of CFJ 4072 to nix [Re: BUS: [CFJ] Another R105 CFJ]

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Mar 12, 2024, at 2:31 AM, nix via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 3/11/24 19:16, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> I CFJ: "There exists an entity that is a Rule with ID number 2687."
> 
> I number this CFJ 4072. Unfortunately, I assign CFJ 4072 to nix.
> 
> -- 
> nix
> 

A related and unfortunate question:

105 requires us to publish the “full text” of a rule change. What
is that?

Clearly what was intended is “a full description of the change to
be made”, that feels like a somewhat counterintuitive interpretation.
It seems like the literal meaning here would be that the full amended
text of the rule be published 4 days before.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Mar 5, 2024, at 3:51 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2024-03-05 at 15:45 +0000, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>> On Mar 5, 2024, at 4:37 AM, Aris via agora-business
>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Erm... that CFJ doesn't do what you want it to. CFJs are supposed to be
>>> statements, not questions, and interpreting something out of context is
>>> different from interpreting it in context.
>> 
>> Without commenting on the rest of the situation (I haven’t looked into
>> it), we have precedent that CFJs phrased as questions are fair game; see
>> CFJ 3505.
> 
> Well, the precedent of CFJ 3505 also states that CFJ 3505 was never
> validly judged, although the CFJ record seems to ignore that. (FWIW, I
> disagree and think that that part of the judgement was given validly,
> but is wrong.)
> 
> -- 
> ais523

Oh, interesting: I suppose to be a “past judgement” for four-factors
purposes, something does actually have to be a validly assigned judgment to
a CFJ.

Although if you’re being *truly* pedantic, the term “judgement” refers only
to one of the six valid judgements; there’s arguably no four-factors duty
to consider the surrounding waffle, which has interesting implications for
the classic “trivially FALSE, but to answer your real question:” judgements.

Huh.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: ѕёѦѤ ѦѯќѤѦі (ѯѴњѩћѰ ђѨѯ ѕёѪѐ ѥѰ)

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Mar 4, 2024, at 6:55 PM, nix via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 3/4/24 12:19, Goren Barak via agora-business wrote:
>> ѣѧѤѴ ѩќѹѩ,
>> Ѳ ћѧђѤѺ ѝѦђёѹѰ њѲ ѨѐѩєѰ ѓ ·њѧѯ ѯ ·ќѹѧѯ
>> ё ѳњѡѧђё, ѮѲё "Ѳ ѳњѡѧђё ё ѝѦђёѹѰ њѲ ѨѐѩєѰ"
>> 
>> ќѫћњѲ ѩќѹѩ
> 
> A few notes on this, besides the fact it probably doesn't work for
> effort reasons:
> 
> I assume you meant to make an intent here, you first need to publish
> something to the effect of "I intend to declare apathy..." and then do
> the "I declare apathy" after the intent has been around and un-objected
> long enough.
> 
> Even if the intent was written correctly, the second sentence doesn't do
> anything. You cannot add a non-rule-defined restriction on objections,
> so objections like Janet's (where e objected without even being sure
> there's an intent) still work.
> 
> -- 
> nix
> 

Beyond standard by-announcement rules, there’s also the explicit requirement
in 1728/46 that tabling an intent specifies certain information “without
obfuscation”; it’s hard to imagine the choice of alphabet here was not done
with the intention to obfuscate.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Mar 5, 2024, at 4:37 AM, Aris via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> Erm... that CFJ doesn't do what you want it to. CFJs are supposed to be
> statements, not questions, and interpreting something out of context is
> different from interpreting it in context.

Without commenting on the rest of the situation (I haven’t looked into
it), we have precedent that CFJs phrased as questions are fair game; see
CFJ 3505.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9046-9048

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

I vote as follows:

> ID  Author(s)   AITitle
> ---
> 9046~   4st, ais523, Gaelan 1.0   Crystal fix 1
FOR

> 9047*   4st, Janet, ais523  3.0   Shameless copy of Adoption AI
> Security with the right AI
FOR

> 9048*   nix, 4st, snail 3.0   It's been 4+ years, Agora. 4+ YEARS.
ENDORSE Janet

Gaelan

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 9032-9034

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Dec 3, 2023, at 10:48 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-official 
>  wrote:
> 
> Each quarter, each crystal whose identity is not equal to the ID of any
> rule in the current ruleset has its size increased by 3.

Gah, just got around to reading this - when precisely does the increase
happen? I feel like this needs to say “At the beginning of each quarter…”

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9035-9039

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

…wait, that went to BUS in the first place; I swear I forgot to change the To 
line. Weird.

Gaelan

> On Nov 27, 2023, at 10:41 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
> TTttPF (we’re back, baby)
> 
>> On Nov 26, 2023, at 10:52 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-business 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> I vote as follows:
>> 
>> On Sun, Nov 26, 2023 at 4:50 PM secretsnail9 via agora-official <
>> agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> If you vote on a proposal, please edit this spreadsheet with your votes:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1F39OHtBlZlQ8XVccqKCFtP-DPuHz4wPnujxbxkCN3LI/edit?usp=sharing
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ID  Author(s)   AITitle
>>> ---
>>> 9035~   snail, 4st  2.0   Unbreaking Motions
>>> 
>> FOR
>> 
>> 
>>> 9036*   Janet, ais523   3.0   AI security revisted
>>> 
>> Endorse Janet
>> 
>> 
>>> 9037~   Murphy  2.0   Uncrossed arms
>>> 
>> FOR
>> 
>> 
>>> 9038~   Murphy  1.0   Ratify the Ruleset Week
>>> 
>> FOR
>> 
>> 
>>> 9039~   juan1.0   Well, worth a shot
>>> 
>> AGAINST (just win the normal way)
>> 
>> --
>> snail
> 

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9035-9039

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

I vote as follows:

> 9035~   snail, 4st  2.0   Unbreaking Motions
FOR
> 9036*   Janet, ais523   3.0   AI security revisted
FOR
> 9037~   Murphy  2.0   Uncrossed arms
PRESENT (I don’t understand stones)
> 9038~   Murphy  1.0   Ratify the Ruleset Week
PRESENT - not sure how I feel about this. I worry an explicit SHALL to
propose ruleset ratification at a given time runs the risk of rushing us
into ratification without proper due diligence first? It seems like, at
minimum, there should be something along the (very rough) lines of “or
defer ratification by announcement, in which case e SHALL make such a
proposal in the two months following the Ides of March."

Also, is “last time the ruleset was ratified” a term we can just use
without definition?
> 9039~   juan1.0   Well, worth a shot
AGAINST, though I note to snail that proposal is an entirely normal way
of winning.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: (drafts) LIME RIBBON LIME RIBBON

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Nov 21, 2023, at 8:31 PM, 4st nomic via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> {
> Title: Public Emergency
> Adoption Index: 3.1
> Author:
> Co-author: 4st
> 
> Amend Rule 2614 ("Eclipse Light") by replacing
> {
> An emergency message is one whose subject line contains the text
>  "[Emergency]".
> } with {
> An emergency message is a public message whose subject line contains the
> text
>  "[Emergency]".
> }
> }

Ooh, this one is a very good catch, and worthy of careful consideration given
the shenanigans our present PM is up to.

That being said, I don’t think it’s scammable: everything that currently 
requires
an emergency message also requires Agoran consent, which itself eventually means
“by announcement”, which means public message. (Or describes the tabling of an
intent, which again is by announcement.)

Worth fixing anyway, just to avoid future mistakes.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: [proto] Unforceability

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Nov 20, 2023, at 11:44 PM, 4st nomic via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 3:43 PM nix via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 11/20/23 12:04, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> A Rule that purports to designate an action as "unforceable" thereby
>>> designates that a player NEED NOT comply with any provision of any Rule
>>> that requires or forbids em from performing or refraining from
>>> performing that action, unless the provision merely requires em to abide
>>> by an agreement to which e has consented.
>> 
>> Aren't the rules themselves "an agreement to which e has consented"?
>> 
>> --
>> nix
>> 
>> 
> Oh was it that obvious? I was keeping that one to myself! :)
> -- 
> 4ˢᵗ
> 
> Uncertified Bad Idea Generator

It’s not immediately obvious IMO, but it’s come up a few times in the past.

Relevant CFJs
https://agoranomic.org/cases/?3706, where G. found that Agora was a
contract
https://agoranomic.org/cases/?3813, where I overturned G’s ruling,
finding that it wasn’t.

In any case though, my ruling rests on “contracts” as a specific game
entity, not agreements in general.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Nov 21, 2023, at 9:14 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Nov 20, 2023, at 2:54 PM, Goren Barak via agora-business 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> I will now ratify ratify the following document, using Rule 2202
>> (Ratification Without Objection):
>> 
>> Effective a immediately, Goren now has 500 radiance.
>> Their voting strength is now 15.
>> Their Base Rockiness has also gone up to 100.
>> 
>> Rule 2202 tells me to make my intentions clear, so my intentions are to
>> win.
>> 
>> Neither Rule 2202 nor Rule 1728 specify a period in which you can
>> object, so that period is over. You can no longer object to this
>> document. Thank you for your time.
> 
> To elaborate a bit on what Janet said, the relevant bit is in rule
> 2124/32:
>An intent is mature if it was tabled at least 4 days ago and
>nobody withdrew objections from it in the past 24 hours.
> 
>A rule purporting to allow a person to perform a tabled action
>allows em to do so by announcement, if, considering only intents
>for that action/method combination:
>[...]
>* Without N Objections: e is a sponsor of a mature ripe intent with
>less than N objectors.
> 
> This intent was not tabled in advance, so it is not mature; therefore,
> Rule 2202 doesn’t allow you to ratify, as the only mechanism it provides
> is the one defined in 2124.
> 
> Gaelan
> 

Sorry, just saw that you already noticed this in another message!

Absolutely no shame in a failed scam, it happens to the best of us.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Nov 20, 2023, at 2:54 PM, Goren Barak via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> I will now ratify ratify the following document, using Rule 2202
> (Ratification Without Objection):
> 
> Effective a immediately, Goren now has 500 radiance.
> Their voting strength is now 15.
> Their Base Rockiness has also gone up to 100.
> 
> Rule 2202 tells me to make my intentions clear, so my intentions are to
> win.
> 
> Neither Rule 2202 nor Rule 1728 specify a period in which you can
> object, so that period is over. You can no longer object to this
> document. Thank you for your time.

To elaborate a bit on what Janet said, the relevant bit is in rule
2124/32:
An intent is mature if it was tabled at least 4 days ago and
nobody withdrew objections from it in the past 24 hours.

A rule purporting to allow a person to perform a tabled action
allows em to do so by announcement, if, considering only intents
for that action/method combination:
[...]
* Without N Objections: e is a sponsor of a mature ripe intent with
less than N objectors.

This intent was not tabled in advance, so it is not mature; therefore,
Rule 2202 doesn’t allow you to ratify, as the only mechanism it provides
is the one defined in 2124.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Monthly report: Arrivals and Departures

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Aug 1, 2023, at 11:57 AM, juan via agora-official 
>  wrote:
> 
> For any corrections,
> For any suggestions or complaints of form,
> Please contact the Registrar.

Happened to notice a few duplicates:
- Alexis and scshunt are the same person (see 
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3463)
- G. and Goethe are the same person (same email, among other things)
- R. Lee is listed in two places.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on appointing a Distributor

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Aug 25, 2023, at 10:34 AM, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> I CFJ: "It is generally POSSIBLE to alter the holder of the office of
> Distributor without objection."
> 
> This arose in Agoran't, whose ruleset is still similar enough to Agora's
> that the same question is of interest in Agora. Note that this judgement
> will not set precedent (preceden't?) in Agoran't, though. (I leave it to
> someone else to raise the same CFJ there if they think it's worth
> questioning.)
> 
> 
> Rule 2575/3 (Power=3)
> The Distributor
> 
>  The Distributor is an imposed office whose holder is generally
>  responsible for the management of the primary Agoran fora. The
>  holder CANNOT be changed except without objection or by proposal.
>  Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Distributor CANNOT
>  deregister or be deregistered.
> 
> 
> 
> Rule 2573 seems to anticipate that players might want to appoint a
> Distributor in one of two different ways: without objection, or by
> proposal. But, at least on a casual reading, it doesn't seem to actually
> define those methods - just prevent anything else. Proposals can already
> take effect as defined in other rules, of course, but there isn't (to my
> knowledge) any other rule purporting to allow the change of an
> officeholder without objection.
> 
> So I guess the question is: Is this casual reading correct? Or does a
> statement "X CANNOT be done except by Y" necessarily imply that "X CAN
> be done by Y”?

Grat.: It is, of course, possible to change the distributor through RWO;
although I suspect that’s not the intent, you could read the “except
without objection” as a reference to that.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration, and soliloquy

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> No bother :) Even if this isn't one of them, I'm sure culture has
> changed in some ways since I was last here - I fully expect there to be
> a bit of adjustment needed from me.

Spivak is still very much the default. I (speaking for myself) am happy to use 
other pronouns if you (or anyone) would prefer that, though.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Agoran't Draft

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jun 20, 2023, at 7:40 PM, nix via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> =
> I. Amendments
> =
> 
> Any participant CAN amend these regulations in a specified way with
> Agoran Consent. For this action, only support and objections from
> participants count.
> 
> ===
> II. Joining
> ===
> 
> Any person CAN become a participant by announcement anytime before the
> alarm has been sounded.
> 
> Any participant CAN cease to be a participant by announcement.
> 
> ==
> III. Roles
> ==
> 
> The following are the Roles and their corresponding win conditions:
> 
> Protector - Agoran't is not ossified at any point in time between the
> beginning of Agoran't and the end of this contest.
> 
> Destroyer - At any point in time before the contest ends, Agoran't was
> ossified.
> 
> Metawinner - Have the most wins within Agoran't at the moment
> immediately before the contest ends.
> 
> Adder - Agoran't has 5+ more rules than it did initially, immediately
> before the contest ends.
> 
> Subtracter - Agoran't has 5+ less rules than it did initially,
> immediately before the contest ends.
> 
> Employee - Have published the most successfully ratified reports,
> immediately before the contest ends.
> 
> Spoiler - If the only other participants that would win are Protectors
> or Destroyers, the Spoiler also wins.
> 
> The Available Roles are the first N roles on the following list, where N
> is the number of participants at Role Assignment. If there are more
> participants than roles, cycle through the list of roles until N is met.
> 
> List: Protector, Destroyer, Adder, Subtracter, Destroyer, Metawinner,
> Destroyer, Employee, Spoiler.
> 
> ===
> IV. Rules and Gamestate
> ===
> 
> When the alarm is sounded, the following occur:
> 
> Agoran't begins with the ruleset that is attached in the file
> agorantrules.txt.
> 
> In the context of Agoran't, the publicity of
> "https://agoranomic.groups.io/g/agorant; is set to "public".
> 
> All participants of this contest become players of Agoran't.
> 
> The results of all CFJs that have been judged in Agora are considered
> "past judgments" in Agoran't.
> 
> 
> V. Beginning
> 
> 
> If it has been 7 days since the beginning of this contest and e has not
> already done so, the Gamemaster and two other chosen players CAN and
> SHALL distribute roles to each participant such that only available
> roles are given out, each participant receives a role, and nobody knows
> who received which role. When the Gamemaster is confident this has
> occurred, e CAN once and SHALL, in a timely manner, "sound the alarm" by
> announcement.
> 
> ==
> VI. Ending and Winning
> ==
> 
> When Agoran't is judged (within Agora) to be ossified, or when 3 months
> have passed since the initiation of this tournament, this tournament
> ends. All participants SHOULD reveal eir roles, and all participants
> whose role's win condition have been fulfilled win the tournament.
> 

Looks fun! Some quick notes:
- I believe a past problem with Agora-shaped subgames is whether or not they 
can end - it might be worth explicitly stating in R1698 that Agoran’t ends when 
the tournament it’s part of ends, rules to the contrary withstanding.
- Sections III and VI reference ossification - does this mean ossification in 
the sense of Agora’s R1698 (which, strictly speaking, only defines whether or 
not Agora is ossified, not any other game), or Agoran’t’s, or some sort of 
person-on-the-Agoran-omnibus* definition?
- It’s worth explicitly specifying whether Agora’s current switch values carry 
over to Agoran’t or if Agoran’t starts with all switches at default values. 
Same with other non-rule gamestate, eg entities and other miscellaneous bits 
I’m definitely forgetting?
- If switch values do carry over, make sure you explicitly specify that Agora’s 
public fora aren’t public in Agoran’t, unless you intend for messages to 
OFF/BUS to be public in both.
- We might want to do something about R104 (First Speaker).

* see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_on_the_Clapham_omnibus

Gaelan

Re: DIS: An Agoran Rebuttal

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

Thanks. Anti-Cleisthenes deserved an on-list response, and you worded it much 
better than I could have. 

Gaelan

> On Sep 12, 2022, at 1:10 AM, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> Regarding the recent troubles, and in particular Anti-Cleisthenes's
> Cantus Cygneus:
> 
> In one sense, nothing new has happened. Rules whose effects clearly
> include "Players can be deregistered via proposal" have been on the
> books for a long time. The reasons could be anything from "repeal
> corporate personhood", to "clean up after an ambiguous deregistration
> attempt", to "clean up after something that was intended to trigger
> deregistration but a mechanism turned out to be broken", to "execute a
> scam that involves the scammer and eir confederates briefly being the
> only players".
> 
> In another sense, as far as I remember (having played Agora for most of
> its existence), the recent situation is indeed unprecedented. While a
> few other players have caused widespread upset, that was due to their
> disruptive actions affecting gamestate (e.g. Maud causing the Annabel
> Crisis, or Fool repeatedly doing something ambiguously effective and
> then intentionally going against the Agoran tradition of minimizing
> knock-on ambiguities); Madrid is the first instance of causing such
> upset via the discussion fora, with eir discussion pertaining more to
> the people playing the game than to the game itself.
> 
> That said, A-C's claim that we jumped from zero to expulsion is
> disingenuous. There were some intermediate steps, also via discussion
> fora (and/or private e-mails / Discord messages): e was kicked off the
> Discord server (though allowed to rejoin); e was informed of the
> recurring and upsetting nature of eir actions in the eyes of several
> others, and presumably was similarly informed at various points in the
> past. Eir complete failure to express concern or attempt compromise,
> sticking to "I'm not actually X because Y", is on eir own head. (In
> contrast, Maud was clearly apologetic. Also, that particular form of
> disruption is basically a solved problem now, anyway.)
> 
> The claim that the Banned switch is only intended for Madrid is also
> disingenuous. It's only intended for Madrid /right now/ because Madrid
> is the only person /right now/ who (a) is considered to warrant it due
> to eir behavior, and (b) would likely continue otherwise. Hopefully that
> remains the case, but if a new player joined the game and behaved
> similarly, then it would likely be applied to them at some point. Or if
> Fool returned and resumed eir previous style of gameplay, then it would
> probably at least be sincerely discussed as a hypothetical.
> 
> I spent several years running a different type of game (I've mostly
> retired to an advisory role) that had a ban policy from day one (written
> by my predecessors, but it seemed sensible to me). It was intentionally
> broad (and has been used several times). Here are the high points,
> paraphrased, as they may offer useful guidance for an Agoran framework
> going forward (combined with a summary of some specific things agreed to
> be detrimental, such as R. Lee's recent proto).
> 
>  * The person's behavior must be doing the game more harm than good,
>and they must be very unlikely to behave differently in the future.
> 
>  * Almost always a judgment call. An objective system like "three
>strikes" lets a bad-faith person get away with it twice, while
>penalizing a good-faith person who makes mistakes.
> 
>  * Lesser in-game penalties are ineffective, as are shaming/belittling
>the person.
> 
>  * Actively hostile people should be told to stop. If they don't, then
>they may be temporarily banned to achieve a stop and demonstrate
>that this will happen. [The game uses real-time communication, plus
>mail/forum systems; standard length of a temporary ban there is
>three days.]
> 

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8851-8856

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Sep 2, 2022, at 5:37 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-official 
>  wrote:
> 
> ID  Author(s)   AITitle
> ---
> 8851*   4st 3.0   Voter Protection
AGAINST, as previously discussed
> 8852~   4st, Jason  2.0   Fix infractions
ENDORSE the Arbitor
> 8853*   Jason   3.0   Unfortunately
FOR
> 8854*   Jason   3.0   Attainder
FOR. Madrid, I’m sorry to do this. You’re one of our longest-standing
players, and generally a good one - you’ve done a lot to make Agora more
fun and interesting over the past half decade or so. But you’ve also gotten
on everyone’s nerves. A lot. And every time we’ve called you on it, you’ve
doubled down, making no (visible) effort to understand why we’re annoyed or
change your behavior. To reiterate, this isn’t about any specific incident -
this is about a long pattern of refusal to recognize community norms.

Speaking for myself only, I’d be willing to consider your return after a
year or so, with a genuine apology that demonstrates understanding of why
this happened.
> 8855~   Jason   1.0   Extermination v1.1
CONDITIONAL: FOR unless three or more players take an action permitted
by these rules, after the sending of this message.
> 8856~   4st 2.0   Backup Justice
CONDITIONAL: FOR if either 8853 or 8854 failed, else AGAINST

Gaelan

DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Blot Holdings

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Aug 22, 2022, at 6:24 PM, Forest Sweeney via agora-official 
>  wrote:
> 
> BLOT HOLDINGS(self-ratifies)
> ==
> Blots  Person
> -  -
> 2  Gaelen

CoE: I have zero blots, as my alleged violation was never investigated.

Also, my name’s spelled wrong throughout the report.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: Free-for-all

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Aug 21, 2022, at 7:54 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> 100 times, I pay a fee of 0 coins to grant myself a Gaelan stamp.
> I pay a fee of 0 coins to buy a beast permit.
> 100 times, I pay a fee of 0 coins to buy bird food.
> 
> Gaelan

(Context, for those not looking at the Discord: there was a typo in the 
just-passed proposal:

Set the Buoyancy Target and Total Buoyancy to one-tenth, rounded down.
their current respective values.
)

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8829-8836

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Aug 20, 2022, at 11:02 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Aug 20, 2022, at 10:36 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> IDTitle  Result  
>> -
>> 8829  Look upon our worksADOPTED 
> 

One further note: due to a mishap at the H. Assessor’s office, this was 
resolved before the blot
reform. Fortunately, however, because the old rule defined infractions as a 
"violation of a SHALL
or SHALL NOT in a rule”, which this is not, no blots were created.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8829-8836

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> reports (or, to a lesser degree, HTML reports) are fine, and a SHOULD

or, to a lesser degree, email reports*

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Spivak Standardization Act

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

Nitpicks:

> The Spivak pronouns (e/em/eir) are hereby recognized as the standard
> third-person singular personal pronouns in Agora. In official contexts,
> players SHOULD use them when referring to non-specific persons or, in
> the absence of a clear statement of another preference, when referring
> to a specific other person. The use of singular they when referring to
> persons is DISCOURAGED in official contexts, except upon specific
> request by that person.

Singling out the singular they here feels a little weird - maybe just “the use 
of other pronouns”?

> A player CAN, with 2 support, cause this rule to amend a specified other
> rule of power less than 4, specifying the new text of the rule, such
> that the new text rewords and rephrases the existing text in order to
> use Spivak pronouns in place of singular they, provided that such
> amendment would not result in the meaning or interpretation of that rule
> changing in any way.


I can’t imagine this is scammable, but I’d nevertheless prefer it to be consent 
or objections instead of support - the potential for a 3-person cabal to make 
unilateral rule changes is scary. 

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Horsened) [Motivation] The first gallop!

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> I suspect this fails – the rules state that you CAN do this, but don't
> state how, so there's no reason to expect that sending a message to a-b 
> that says you do so is sufficient. (It is possible to do this via
> proposal or via ratification-without-objection, which satisfies the CAN
> because a mechanism to do this does exist.)

Hmm, am I missing something? The rule says:

{{{

Each player CAN take one of the following actions (weekly race actions) if
they have not already taken one this week:

[...]

* gain 4 dollaries by announcement.

}}}

“by announcement” is the method.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: [DoV?] Apathy resolution

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Mar 5, 2022, at 6:31 PM, nix via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> CFJ: Jason's purported apathy intent was sent to all players.
> 
> CFJ: Jason's purported apathy intent contained a "clear designation of intent 
> to be public.”

Grat.:

Rule 1728/43 requires a declaration of intent to "conspicuously and without 
obfuscation [specify] the action [and] the method". In editing eir Discord 
message, Jason went out of their way to make that specification inconspicuous.

Jason argues (in Discord) that, considering only the text of eir (purported) 
public message, the intent was conspicuous. This is indeed true. However, I’m 
not sure R1728’s test should be interpreted as being constrained to only 
considering the text of the public message, instead of considering the overall 
context.

If the rule said something like “A person CAN table an intent by sending a 
public message that conspicuously and without obfuscation specifies the action 
and the method”, I would agree with Jason: in that (hypothetical) rule, the 
subject of “specifies” is the public message, so we would simply consider what 
the public message specifies and how it specifies it.

That’s not what the rule says, though. Here’s the actual relevant paragraph of 
R1728/43, in full:

> A person CAN act on eir own behalf, by announcement, to table an intent (syn. 
> "intend") to perform a tabled action, conspicuously and without obfuscation 
> specifying the action, the method (including non- default parameter values), 
> and optionally, conditions.

Here, the “specifying conspicuously” is something that the person does. 
Considering the overall context of Jason’s actions (and there’s nothing in the 
rules to imply we shouldn’t do that), I don’t think anyone would argue that it 
was "specifying conspicuously”.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] RTRW Recording

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

I’ll take these:

The tabled action rules (1728 and 2124)
2603, switch responsibility

Happy to do as many more as is necessary. 

Gaelan

> On Feb 8, 2022, at 8:16 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official 
>  wrote:
> 
> Well it looks like we're going with recording people reading the ruleset.
> 
> Reading will be done using the Short Logical Ruleset published on 8 Feb
> 2022, which has 146 rules.
> 
> The following persons have stated on Discord that they wish to participate:
> 
> * ATMunn
> 
> * nix
> 
> * Jason
> 
> * Gaelan
> 
> * Trigon
> 
> * cuddlybanana
> 
> 
> If you are not on the above list, please respond to this email if you
> wish to participate.
> 
> As for how to assign rules, I will accept up to 5 first-come-first-serve
> claims per person in replies to this email. Any remaining rules will be
> assigned as I see fit (probably randomly).
> 
> I will accept opt-ins and dibs for the next 24 hours before assigning
> the remaining rules.
> 
> -- 
> Jason Cobb
> 
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@treasuror, @promotor) [proposal] basic scoring

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jan 24, 2022, at 9:34 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> Further, if it's trying to take into account past-only but forcing the
> assessor to calculate "instantaneous" results (e.g. the assessor has to
> calculate whether something would pass at every given moment) seems like a
> textbook case of "unreasonable effort" also making it too ambiguous to
> succeed?

This is the interpretation I intended; you might be right about the
unreasonable effort.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@treasuror, @promotor) [proposal] basic scoring

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jan 23, 2022, at 10:02 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> Yup, and if more than one person have that idea and all change at about
> the same time, the proposal might fail - that's part of the fun of it...
> (at least, that strategy was by design in my mind, it's possible of course
> that it wouldn't end up being fun).

The “safe” strategy is to use a conditional:

I perform the following action if, if proposal  was resolved immediately
before or after this action, it would have the same outcome:
  I change my vote on proposal  to AGAINST.

(Note that this isn’t a conditional vote: it’s a normal change of vote, as a
normal conditional action.)

Of course, the endgame this converges on is every player sending that message
soon before the proposal resolves, but before too many others send similar
messages.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Outside assistance

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jan 23, 2022, at 8:52 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> Proposal: Outside assistance
> (AI = 4)
> 
> Amend Rule 1698 (Agora Is A Nomic) by replacing "players" with
> "persons".
> 
> [Explicitly avoids the interpretation suggested on CFJ 8591 that
> the "players making arbitrary changes" clause requires a current
> player, even if registration remains unblocked.]

This mostly seems like a good idea, but one potential concern: What
if we end up with a rule along the lines of “Rules to the contrary
nonwithstanding, people other than Hillary Rodham Clinton CANNOT
resolve Agoran Decisions.” Maybe any action by the former
secretary of state doesn’t meet the “reasonable” standard, but I’m
not sure that’s a risk I’m willing to take.

* * *

Actually, it occurs to me, there might be a current bug here.
Imagine this scenario, which I don’t think is too unrealistic:

- For some reason, one specific player’s action becomes necessary
  to make the game continue - maybe something is broken with offices
  and one player is stuck as the Assessor, or maybe someone scammed
  themselves a dictatorship with inadequate protections. (In
  practice, we’d probably also need ratification, RWO, or tabled
  actions to be broken.)
- That player stops playing Agora, and can’t be reached.

Action by that player being “unreasonable” wouldn't help: whatever
game state change got us into this mess happened before we knew
the player was inactive. The player stopping playing isn’t a
gamestate change, or if it is, the best AIAN could do is give us
a legal fiction that e's around, which doesn’t actually help us.
(And I think it’s safe to say that AIAN doesn’t retroactively
undo an action if information later comes to light that affects
“reasonableness”.)

Attempts to deregister the player would cause Agora to be ossified,
and therefore fail.

But none of that actually helps clean up the mess!

* * *

Anyway, I think the fix here is to replace “players” with something
along the lines of “arbitrary persons” - then, any gamestate change
that would cause the fate of the game to rest on one specific person
acting as required would fail.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Splat Market] Order Book

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

…oops, please disregard that completely empty reply. What I meant to say was:

Guess I should start tracking the order book again, shouldn’t I?

Gaelan

> On Jan 13, 2022, at 12:02 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jan 12, 2022, at 4:55 PM, Falsifian via agora-business 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 03:30:48PM -0700, Gaelan Steele via agora-official 
>> wrote:
>>> The following orders (as defined by the Splat Market contract) exist: 
>>> 
>>> Victory Cards:
>>> 1x buy @ 20 coins (nix) *
>>> 
>>> Decipoints (Obstructive Pooling):
>>> 25x buy @ 2 coins (nix)
>>> 25x buy @ 40 coins (Falsifian) *
>>> 
>>> Starred orders are active. (Technically, the most recent of the
>>> orders represented by the starred line is active.)
>>> 
>>> Some tips on using the Splat Market:
>>> - "buy" and "sell" are from the perspective of the order's owner,
>>> so if someone has a buy order for victory cards, that means e
>>> wants to buy victory cards, and vice versa
>>> - To create orders: "I create 5 buy orders for pendants at
>>> at 50 coins."
>>> - To use an order: "I execute 5 of Gaelan's buy orders for pendants
>>> at 50 coins." (If you're paranoid, you could add something like
>>> "if doing so would cause me to gain 5 pendants".)
>>> - You can only use active (starred) orders; that is, you can't use
>>> orders that are newer or worse deals (for you) until you've used
>>> up the older, better deals.
>>> 
>>> Gaelan
>> 
>> I create 3 sell orders for Pendants for a price of 200 Coins each.
>> I create 5 sell orders for Pendants for a price of 300 Coins each.
>> I create 5 sell orders for Pendants for a price of 800 Coins each.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Falsifian
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Splat Market] Order Book

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jan 12, 2022, at 4:55 PM, Falsifian via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 03:30:48PM -0700, Gaelan Steele via agora-official 
> wrote:
>> The following orders (as defined by the Splat Market contract) exist: 
>> 
>> Victory Cards:
>> 1x buy @ 20 coins (nix) *
>> 
>> Decipoints (Obstructive Pooling):
>> 25x buy @ 2 coins (nix)
>> 25x buy @ 40 coins (Falsifian) *
>> 
>> Starred orders are active. (Technically, the most recent of the
>> orders represented by the starred line is active.)
>> 
>> Some tips on using the Splat Market:
>> - "buy" and "sell" are from the perspective of the order's owner,
>>  so if someone has a buy order for victory cards, that means e
>>  wants to buy victory cards, and vice versa
>> - To create orders: "I create 5 buy orders for pendants at
>>  at 50 coins."
>> - To use an order: "I execute 5 of Gaelan's buy orders for pendants
>>  at 50 coins." (If you're paranoid, you could add something like
>>  "if doing so would cause me to gain 5 pendants".)
>> - You can only use active (starred) orders; that is, you can't use
>>  orders that are newer or worse deals (for you) until you've used
>>  up the older, better deals.
>> 
>> Gaelan
> 
> I create 3 sell orders for Pendants for a price of 200 Coins each.
> I create 5 sell orders for Pendants for a price of 300 Coins each.
> I create 5 sell orders for Pendants for a price of 800 Coins each.
> 
> -- 
> Falsifian

Re: DIS: Proto: PodNomic Correspondent

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Dec 17, 2021, at 6:54 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> The "may" should be a "CAN". Otherwise lgtm.

Bah! I’ve been away for too long.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Proto: PodNomic Correspondent

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Dec 17, 2021, at 1:30 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> PodNomic is a new podcast-based nomic in which me, Jason, and Rose, among 
> others I may have forgotten, are participating in.

Oh, and some links for anyone curious about PodNomic:

The ruleset is published on the BlogNomic wiki, at 
https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=PodNomic 
<https://wiki.blognomic.com/index.php?title=PodNomic>.
Game actions and discussion take place on Discord, at 
https://discord.gg/8E67GvXg7C <https://discord.gg/8E67GvXg7C>. 
And the twice-weekly podcast itself, where proposals and such are announced, is 
available on Spotify at https://open.spotify.com/show/5sOThmF3h781HfNbfKOtBV 
<https://open.spotify.com/show/5sOThmF3h781HfNbfKOtBV> or by pointing any 
podcast app at the RSS feed https://anchor.fm/s/793afdd0/podcast/rss 
<https://anchor.fm/s/793afdd0/podcast/rss>.

Gaelan

DIS: Proto: PodNomic Correspondent

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

PodNomic is a new podcast-based nomic in which me, Jason, and Rose, among 
others I may have forgotten, are participating in. There’s a proposed rule 
there that calls for other nomics to appoint correspondents, who submit reports 
of recent happenings to be aired on the podcast. The proposal, if successful, 
comes into effect Tuesday; given Agora timescales, we should probably get the 
ball rolling now.

Here’s the corresponding PodNomic proposal, by Josher, for reference: {
**Fit to Print**
Add a new mutable rule, called All The News, with the following text: At any 
time, any other online nomic may have up to one PodNomic correspondent, who 
does not need to be a player of PodNomic. This person should be named in the 
ruleset of the nomic they are representing. Whenever the identity of a nomic's 
PodNomic correspondent changes, any member of that nomic should notify the 
Host. At any time, a PodNomic correspondent may record an audio file of 
themselves reading a News Item for PodNomic and send it to the Host. A News 
Item is new if it has never been broadcast on an episode before.

Add the following to the rule Podcast Content, after the line that begins 'Each 
episode of the podcast should list all Acts': Each episode of the Podcast 
should include the most recent new News Item from each PodNomic correspondent.
}

Implementation notes:
- The proposal says that the corespondent “should” be named in the ruleset, but 
this is weird to do with our office system. I’ve clarified that this is just 
intended as a SHOULD, not a strict requirement. 
- The PodNomic Rule doesn’t include any obligation to make regular reports; 
should we make it a weekly no monthly duty?

- -

Create a power-1 rule, titled “Foreign Bureaux”, with the following text: {
PodNomic Correspondent is an office. 

For the purposes of PodNomic, Agora Nomic’s PodNomic Corespondent is the holder 
of the office PodNomic Correspondent.

If PodNomic is not an active nomic whose ruleset makes provision for other 
nomics to appoint correspondents, any player may cause this rule to repeal 
itself by announcement. 
}

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: humble agoran farmer makes more deals

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Oct 8, 2021, at 8:13 PM, Sarah S. via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> I think the contract still works without you being a party to it

Pretty sure it doesn’t:

[Rule 1742/23, in part]

A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions as
explicitly and unambiguously permitted by the contract's body:
  
* Act on behalf of another party to the contract.

Gaelan

DIS: [Proto] Independence Day

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]


[This is a draft based on our team’s Survivor entry. It’s a bit rough, not sure 
if some of the changes I made are worth the trouble, but better to get 
something out there and not keep sitting on it]

Title: Independence Day
Adoption Index: 3.0
Author: Gaelan
Co-authors: G., Telna, nix, CuddleBeam, cuddlybanana

{

  Amend Rule 1728 "Dependent Action Methods" to read as follows: { 

A person CAN, by announcement, create an intent (syn. "table an
intent", "intend") to perform a tabled action, conspicuously and
without obfuscation specifying the action, the tabled action method
(including non-default parameter values), and optionally,
conditions.

A person is a sponsor of an intent if e tabled it, or if e is
authorized to perform its action due to holding a rule-defined
position previously held by the person who tabled the intent.

The decisionmakers for an intent default to all players,
modifiable by the document enabling the action.  For a given
tabled intent, a decisionmaker CAN, by announcement:
* Become a supporter ("support" it), unless e tabled or previously
  supported it
* Become an objector ("object to" it), unless e previously
  objected to it;
* Cease to be a supporter or objector ("withdraw" support/objection)

An intent is mature if it was tabled at least 4 days ago and nobody
withdrew objections from it in the past 24 hours.

An intent is ripe if was tabled within the past 14 days, it is
not spent, the Speaker hasn't objected to it in the past 48 hours,
and its conditions, if any, are met.

A rule purporting to allow a person to perform an action (a "tabled
action") using one of the following methods ("tabled action
methods") allows em to do so by announcement, if, for that
action/method combination:

* Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer: e is a 
  sponsor of a mature ripe intent with less than N objectors.
* With N Support, where N is a positive integer: e is a
  supporter of a ripe intent with at least N supporters.
* With N Agoran Consent, where N is a positive integer multiple of
  0.1: e owns or supports a mature ripe intent with supporters
  greater than N times its objectors (e SHOULD list supporters and
  objectors).
* With T notice: e owns a ripe intent created at least T ago.

Upon eir doing so, the intent becomes spent.

The parameters N and T, if omitted, default to "1" and "4 days"
respectively (e.g. "without objection" means N=1). If a rule
defines N as less than 1 or greater than 8, it is instead treated as
1 or 8, respectively.

  }

  Retitle Rule 1728 to "Tabled Actions".

  Repeal rules 2595 ("Performing a Dependent Action") and 2124 ("Agoran
  Satisfaction").

}

DIS: Timing experiment

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

I am sending this email with the following procedure, using my normal mail 
client (Apple Mail):

1. Turning off my computer's wifi connection
2. Sending this message, allowing it to sit in the Outbox, at around 10:52 AM 
Pacific
3. A while later, turning on my wifi

I suspect this message's Date header will be around 10:52, despite me delaying 
its sending, and without me actually "forging" any headers. Not sure this would 
change anything if it's the case, but I'm curious.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: proto on datestamps

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jul 22, 2021, at 3:17 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> "credible" can relate to the sender as well: "wait e's done that
> really suspicious timing thing 3 times now."

Hmm, this has potential to retroactively fail actions if evidence comes to 
light that the time stamps are not credible. 

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: Slightly Inefficient Blot Removal Acquisition

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jul 4, 2021, at 8:32 PM, Telna via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 2021-07-05 10:57, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
>> I create the following promise in the Library's possession: {
>> Cashing conditions: The bearer has transferred to Gaelan, in the same 
>> message, two blot-be-gones.
>> Gaelan transfers the bearer one justice card.
>> }
>> Gaelan
> I perform the following actions if and only if they all succeed:
> {
> I take the quoted promise from the Library.
> I transfer two blot-be-gones to Gaelan.
> I cash the quoted promise, causing Gaelan to transfer one justice card to me.
> }

If doing so would be EFFECTIVE, I pay a fee of one blot-b-gone to expunge one 
blot.
If doing so would be EFFECTIVE, I pay a fee of one blot-b-gone to expunge one 
blot.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Propopsal] Glitter is too valuable

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jun 30, 2021, at 7:53 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> By precedent, that list item is not a paragraph, just a part of one.
> Also, first person in proposals is weird, but probably works.

I think this would work as intended—it may use the term unconventionally, but 
it’s very clear about what it means. 

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract & Promise Cleanup

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jun 25, 2021, at 1:39 PM, ATMunn via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 6/18/2021 11:50 AM, ATMunn wrote:
>> I intend, without 2 objections, to terminate the contract "Contract No. 1: 
>> GIFT".
> 
> Having received no objections, I do so.
>> I intend, without 2 objections, to terminate the contract "Contract No. 2: 
>> POEM".
> 
> Having received no objections, I do so.
> 
>> I intend, without 2 objections, to terminate the contract "Contract No. 5: 
>> DECK".
> 
> Having received no objections, I do so.
> 
>> I intend, without 2 objections, to terminate the contract "Contract No. 6: 
>> BOON".
> 
> Having received no objections, I do so.
> 
> -- 
> ATMunn
> friendly neighborhood notary :)

Did we ever learn what these did?

Gaelan

Re: DIS: [Proto] Ribbons are not switches

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jun 16, 2021, at 10:05 PM, Rebecca Lee via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> Ribbons being switches is very dumb. Read this sentence and weep: "For each
> type of Ribbon,  Ribbon Ownership is a secured negative boolean
> person switch, tracked by the Tailor in eir monthly report.". It makes
> ribbons seem very complicated but actually they're really simple.

I'd argue that ribbons are actually a lot more like switches than assets:
- You either have one or you don't
- You can't have multiple of a ribbon
- You can't transfer ribbons

They're obviously not a perfect fit for either, so you have to do a bit
of shoehorning either way, but I think switches are a simpler mapping
than assets are.

Gaelan

> Proto:
> 
> Title: Ribbons are assets
> AI: 3
> Text: In rule 2438 "Ribbons", replace
> 
> "For each type of Ribbon,  Ribbon Ownership is a secured
>  negative boolean person switch, tracked by the Tailor in eir
>  monthly report."
> 
> with
> 
> "Each type of ribbon is an indestructible fixed asset tracked by the
> Tailor in eir monthly report. Other rules notwithstanding, no entity
> other than a player can ever own a ribbon. If a non-player would own a
> ribbon, that ribbon is destroyed."
> 
> In the same rule, replace
> 
> "When a person wins this way, for each type of Ribbon, that person's
>  Ribbon Ownership is flipped to False."
> 
> with
> 
> "When a person wins this way, each of their ribbons is destroyed."
> 
> 
> [Note that an "indestructible asset" can still be destroyed by its
> backing document, just not in any other way]
> 
> -- 
> From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [@Referee] What is the Unit of Flotation?

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jun 15, 2021, at 8:47 PM, Trigon via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 16/06/2021 03:34, Telna via agora-business wrote:
>> I Point my Finger at Trigon for not tracking the Unit of Flotation in eir 
>> weekly report as directed by Rule 2635 "Floating Rate Fleet".
> 
> Is failure to track something actually a punishable crime? It seems like it 
> should be, but I don't see anywhere that defines a crime for it.
> 
> -- 
> Trigon
> 
> ¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST
> 
> I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
> I LOVE SPAGHETTI
> transfer Jason one coin
> nch was here
> I hereby
> don't... trust... the dragon...
> don't... trust... the dragon...
> Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

3635/2: { The Unit of Flotation is equal to 1/2500 times the Total Buoyancy, 
rounded up, and is tracked in the Treasuror's weekly report. }

2143/33: { If any task is defined by the rules as part of that person's weekly 
duties, then e SHALL perform it at least once each week. If any information is 
defined by the rules as part of that person's weekly report, then e SHALL 
maintain all such information, and the publication of all such information is 
part of eir weekly duties. }

I think "is tracked in the Treasuror's weekly report" qualifies as defining 
something as part of the report.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: [proto] The Firm

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jun 13, 2021, at 3:24 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> No risk for the bottom-most employee, then, though e may still sit out a
> strike if e prefers the post-failure Org Chart to the post-success one.

Nothing to lose but your chains, I suppose. 

Gaelan

Re: DIS: [proto] The Firm

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jun 11, 2021, at 10:11 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> Proto: The Firm

As I said on Discord, the idea looks fun.

> [A change in the way vote cards lead to votes]
> 
> Enact a Rule, "The Firm" (Power 2), with this text:
>  The Firm is a secured ordered list of players. HR is an office;
>  the firm as it was at the beginning of the week is part of HR's
>  weekly report.  A player's position on the list is their Employee
>  Number.

Do you need to specify 0 vs 1-based indexing?

>  If a player is not on the list, or their position on the list
>  is indeterminate, they are unemployed. Whenever a set of players
>  becomes unemployed, HR CAN by announcement, and SHALL in a
>  timely fashion, add them to the bottom of the firm in random
>  order. [*]
> 
>  The Nth position in the firm is held by the player in the Nth
>  ordinal position on the list.  To promote someone is to move em
>  up one position in the firm (towards the lowest ordinal position
>  on the list), to demote someone is the opposite.

Feels kinda redundant with the Employee Number definition above. Not
sure there's a better way to do it, just feels weird on a first read.

>  All active players are board members. A board member CAN, as a
>  board action, promote a specified player for a fee of N extra
>  votes, or demote a specified player for a fee of 2*N extra votes,
>  where N is one plus the number of board actions that member has
>  previously performed in the week.

Why not just "active players CAN"? 

> [* this mechanism probably needs wording work.  Intent is that if Alice
> becomes unemployed, than later Bob and Carol simultaneously, then finally
> Dan, that HR would add Alice first, then Bob in random order, then
> Dan.  On adoption, all players would become unemployed so the first
> addition would be completely random].
> 
> [TODO: rename Extra Votes and Vote Cards to Extra Shares and Share Cards -
> take into account possible Votives name switch]
> 
> 
> Enact a Rule, "Org Chart" (Power 2), with this text:
> 
>  The employee positions (Employee #s) in the firm are named as
>  follows and are in the indicated categories:
> 
>  Top Brass
>1.  President
>2.  CEO
> 
>  Middle Management
>3.  Executive Assistant
>4.  Marketing
>5.  R & D
>6.  Logistics
> 
>  All other positions are in the category "Staff" and are staff
>  members.  Employee #7 is also known as the owner's nephew.
> 
>  The Bonus for each position is set at the beginning of each week
>  as +6 for top brass, +3 for middle management, -1 for the owner's
>  nephew, and 0 for all other staff and the unemployed.  On an
>  ordinary referendum, the voting strength of a board member is
>  adjusted by their bonus at the time the referendum was initiated.
>  Notwithstanding the rest of this paragraph, the bonus for the holder
>  of HR is +2.
> 
> 
> Enact a Rule, "Performance Reviews" (Power 2):
> 
>  A valid Notice of Promotions is a public document that:
> * is clearly labelled as a notice of promotions;
> * is published by a person explicitly authorized by the rules
>   to do so; and

Probably want to secure this to avoid P1 escalation.

> * clearly specifies one player in the top brass, one player in
>   middle management, and one player in staff.
> 
>  Upon the publication of a valid notice of promotions:
> 1. the indicated top brass player is moved to the bottom of
>the firm;
> 2. then the indicated middle management player is moved to the
>position in the firm formerly held by that top brass player;
> 3. and finally, the indicated staff player is moved to the
>position in the firm formerly held by that middle management
>player.
> 
>  Once per month, the HR CAN and SHALL publish a notice of promotions.
> 
> 
> Enact a Rule, Strikes (Power 2):
> 
>  If no strikes have been initiated or resolved in the last 30 days,
>  a staff member (the instigator) CAN Trigger a Strike with Notice,
>  optionally specifying a single different staff member as eir
>  lieutenant.

Is it intentional that the lieutenant gets roped into this whether they
want to or not?

>  A player who announces intent to trigger a strike, or supports such
>  an intent, becomes a Striker ("goes on strike") for the purposes of
>  that strike intent.  When a strike intent is announced, any
>  specified lieutenant goes on strike a moment after the instigator.
>  When a player goes on strike, e is demoted.

Supporting with-notice intents? Weird, but I suppose it works.

>  After a strike is triggered, HR CAN once and SHALL in a timely
>  fashion resolve the strike by randomly determining and publishing
>  whether the strike succeeds.  The
>  strike 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: humble agoran farmer something something TIME MACHINES

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jun 9, 2021, at 3:25 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> {
> Scenario A: A player has taken over the economy since April 16 2021 and at
> least four days ago.In this scenario, I grant the bearer a victory card. If
> I do not have any victory cards, I instead create 3 blots in my possession
> and grant the bearer a promise with the text {I grant the bearer a victory
> card.}
> 
> Scenario B: Either it is at least April 16 2022 and no player has taken
> over the economy since April 16 2021, or there is no longer a rules-defined
> asset known as a "victory card".In this scenario, I change my vote on one
> AI-1 proposal (specified by the bearer) to FOR. I pledge not to change my
> vote on that proposal.
> }

The text Cuddlebeam posted appears to have been munged a bit (there are,
at minimum, some missing spaces). Here's what I had; it's 633 characters,
starting with { and ending with }, and has the correct hash.

{
Scenario A: A player has taken over the economy since April 16 2021 and at 
least four days ago.
In this scenario, I grant the bearer a victory card. If I do not have any 
victory cards, I instead create 3 blots in my possession and grant the bearer a 
promise with the text {I grant the bearer a victory card.}

Scenario B: Either it is at least April 16 2022 and no player has taken over 
the economy since April 16 2021, or there is no longer a rules-defined asset 
known as a "victory card".
In this scenario, I change my vote on one AI-1 proposal (specified by the 
bearer) to FOR. I pledge not to change my vote on that proposal.
}

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8561-8572

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jun 8, 2021, at 9:17 AM, ais523 via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to make this proposal democratic.

I support.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Pending is not Co-authorship

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jun 5, 2021, at 7:15 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> the Promotor

aren't you…

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Determinacy is a Good Thing

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jun 5, 2021, at 4:55 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> I submit the following proposal.
> 
> -Aris
> ---
> Title: Determinacy is a Good Thing
> Adoption index: 1.7
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors:
> 
> 
> [Note that Gaelan's win should have been processed by the time
> this is adopted, unless there's an appeal.]
> 
> Amend Rule 591, "Delivering Judgements", by removing the text:
> 
>  * PARADOXICAL, appropriate if the statement is logically
>undecidable as a result of a paradox or or other irresovable
>logical situation. PARADOXICAL is not appropriate if IRRELEVANT
>is appropriate, nor is it appropriate if the undecidability
>arises from the case itself or in reference to it.
> 
> and:
> 
>  DISMISS is not appropriate if PARADOXICAL is appropriate.
> 
> Repeal Rule 2553, "Win by Paradox".

I'd lean AGAINST on this one--finding/exploiting paradoxes is
fun and (when done well) fairly harmless. Of course, there's
always a risk that someone makes a mess of the gamestate going
for a paradox win, but (1) that's a risk with any scams, and
(2) cleaning up gamestate messes is, for me, part of the fun.

But, obviously, if other people feel strongly that they aren't
worth the trouble, I'm not too attached to it. I'll probably
vote AGAINST, but I'm fine with it passing.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: [CFJ] BUS: CFJ 3907 Judged PARADOXICAL

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jun 5, 2021, at 2:58 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> CFJ, barring Gaelan:  For the purposes of R2553, CFJ 3907 is about the
> effectiveness, possibility, or legality of a change in the gamestate.

The fact that I violated the rules has a direct impact on the
effectiveness, legality, etc of our various criminal-justice
mechanisms, so I'd argue TRUE. If necessary, I would just call
another CFJ along the lines of "it's possible to give me blots
for violating that pledge".

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Gauntlet announcement patch

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jun 4, 2021, at 2:58 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> I submit (but do not pend) the following proposal:
> 
> Title: Gauntlet announcement patch
> 
> Adoption index: 2.0
> 
> Author: Jason
> 
> Coauthors:
> 
> {
> 
> Amend Rule 2644 (The Gauntlet) to read, in whole:
> 
> {
> 
> A player CAN, by announcement, Notice the Gauntlet, specifying a single
> player that owns 5 or more stones. When e does, the specified player
> Wields the Gauntlet.

This could be simplified to:

A player CAN, by announcement, cause a single player that owns 5 or more
stones to Wields the Gauntlet.

But the current wording isn't too bad, and "Notice the Gauntlet" is
a mildly amusing term I'd be sad to lose.

> When a player Wields the Gauntlet, e wins the game, then all existing
> stones are transferred to Agora.
> 
> }
> 
> [This removes the possibility of accidentally causing someone to Wield
> the Gauntlet by changing the "correct announcement" to a specific
> action. For instance, I am concerned that a Stonemason's weekly report
> might be considered such an announcement.]
> 
> }
> 
> -- 
> Jason Cobb
> 
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Also, I think we normally give economic wins some amount of a notice
period; I guess it's more important with something like coins or VPs,
where others can prevent the win by gaining more of the asset, but
even with stones, I can see some situations where it'd be nice:

- Someone could break the win with the Soul Stone
- Someone who doesn't want to win (thinks the stones they have are
  worth more than a win, maybe) can give away a stone

But that could be a separate proposal.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Emergency Regulation Clarification

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jun 4, 2021, at 1:28 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> Title: Emergency Regulation Clarification

The proposal seems fine, ofc, but this reminds me: do we even want
emergency regulations? They just seem like a huge pile of very
flammable scam fuel (as G. et all so helpfully demonstrated)
without too much practical benefit.

If we do keep them, I think it'd be a good idea to restrict
their powers substantially.

Thoughts?

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Anti-AI escalation

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jun 4, 2021, at 9:17 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> Amend rule 1950 by appending the following to the first paragraph: " If
> a referendum has an adoption index less than the adoption index of its
> associated proposal, the referendum's adoption index is immediately set
> to that of the associated proposal".

Huh. My initial instinct was that this should be reducing the (adopted)
proposal's power, not raising the referendum's AI, but I'm not sure
either is really better. Anyone else have thoughts as to which we should
prefer?

Gaelan 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Crime & Punishment

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On May 23, 2021, at 5:47 PM, ATMunn via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 5/23/2021 7:59 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-official wrote:
>> PENDING FINGERS   (does not self-ratify)
>> 
>> No fingers are pending.
> 
> MoE (Mention of Error, not CoEing since it doesn't self-ratify): you
> missed my finger point from this message.
> 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2021-May/046448.html
>  
> 
> my apologies for not flagging Referee!
> 
> -- 
> ATMunn
> friendly neighborhood notary :)

Bah, thanks. I usually flag these messages on my end as I see them, but clearly 
I failed this time.

I've flagged it now, so it'll get handled before my next report.

We apologize that your criminal experience was not up to our high standards. We 
hope we can do better for your next crime.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: @Referee I did a crime!

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On May 2, 2021, at 9:15 AM, Falsifian via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> I Point my Finger at myself for failing to publish a weekly report as
> Editor of the Agoran Press contract for the week of April 19-25, 2021.
> 
> Relevent text:
> 
>> The Editor is the recordkeepor for Credits. The player Assigned to the
>> previous week is the recordkeepor for Credits, or Falsifian if nobody is
>> Assigned.
> 
> -- 
> Falsifian

Wait, I'm not sure this is EFFECTIVE; it needs to cite a "specific rule or
named crime", which I don't think it does. Unfortunately, I can't just
clean this up myself, as if I point my finger, it becomes the Arbitor's
problem.

What would everybody think about substantially reducing the standard
required for finger-pointing--something along the lines of this: {
A player CAN by announcement Point eir Finger at a player (the perp),
specifying alleged violation of the rules or commission of a crime by
that person.
}
Then just make sure the Referee is required to specify the exact
crime/violated rule when resolving the decision.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Registrar] Deregistrations of Inactive Players

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On May 1, 2021, at 3:43 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
>> I intend, without 3 objections, to deregister Nathan.
> 
> Without 3 objections, I do so.

This fails, as Nathan just became active. 

Gaelan 

Re: DIS: [Proto] Players, Past and Present

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Apr 10, 2021, at 10:40 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> It's a bit weird that to get a comprehensive list of all current and
> former players, one has to consult two different reports. I've fixed
> that by adding information on the registration dates of former players
> to my Registrar's monthlies informally. This would make that official.
> 
> -Aris
> ---
> Title: Players, Past and Present
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors: Jason
> 
> 
> Amend Rule 2139, "The Registrar", by replacing:
> 
>  The Registrar's monthly report includes:
> 
>  1. For each former player for which the information is reasonably
> available, the dates on which e registered and deregistered.
> 
> with
> 
>  The Registrar's monthly report includes:
> 
>  1. For each current or former player for which the information is
> reasonably available, each date on which e registered or
> deregistered.

I proto-vote FOR.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: (no subject)

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

I support. (Seriously, looks fine, showed up as a reply)

> On Apr 9, 2021, at 4:22 PM, Trigon via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 4/9/21 11:11 PM, reuben.sta...@gmail.com wrote:
>> sorry but i need to do more email testing
> 
> It *looks* like it worked on my end but I would like to know if this shows up 
> as a reply to a previous testing message. Object to this message if it looks 
> incorrect on your end. This will help me with future experiments.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -- 
> Trigon
> 
> ¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST
> 
> I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
> I LOVE SPAGHETTI
> transfer Jason one coin
> nch was here
> I hereby
> don't... trust... the dragon...
> don't... trust... the dragon...
> Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [RWO Intent] 25000 coins

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

Right, I misread.

(/me wonders if we need rules about obfuscated non-objections)

Gaelan

> On Apr 8, 2021, at 4:55 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 4/8/21 7:53 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
>> Er, my mail client says Jason objected on April 2, 10 PM PDT in a message to 
>> BUS.
> 
> 
> That wasn't an objection to the RWO intent, that was an objection to a
> random sentence that Aris wrote that started with "I intend".
> 
> 
> See [0].
> 
> [0]:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2021-April/046236.html
> 
> -- 
> Jason Cobb
> 
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: [RWO Intent] 25000 coins

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

Er, my mail client says Jason objected on April 2, 10 PM PDT in a message to 
BUS.

> On Apr 8, 2021, at 4:51 PM, Trigon via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 4/2/21 11:07 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote:
>> RWO might not work, but this is important enough to try.
>> I intend to ratify the following document, without objection:
>> "The Lost and Found Department owns 2282 coins"
>> As it stands right now, the Treasuror's report draft indicate that the 
>> number of coins is 24954, and that the unit of flotation based on this would 
>> be 9.9816. My goal is to make this a round number because it's so 
>> tantalizingly close. I see this as not a rules-mandated but a moral 
>> obligation to the Agoran community.
> 
> Having recieved no objection, I do so. Monthly report inbound.
> 
> -- 
> Trigon
> 
> ¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST
> 
> I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
> I LOVE SPAGHETTI
> transfer Jason one coin
> nch was here
> I hereby
> don't... trust... the dragon...
> don't... trust... the dragon...
> Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Re: [Arbitor] Voting on the Indictment of Cuddlebeam

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Apr 3, 2021, at 6:31 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Apr 3, 2021, at 6:29 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> I find G. guilty of violating Rule 2168/9 by Being Too Polite. I levy a fine 
>> of 1 blot. This fine is forgivable; the specified words are ["cuddle", 
>> "beam", "Cuddlebeam", "humiliate", "humble", "humbug", "humidity"].
> 
> Oops: If the quoted text didn't cause G. to gain a blot, I do the following:
> 
> I find G. guilty of violating Rule 2168/9 by Being Too Polite. I impose the 
> Cold Hand of Justice, levying a fine of 1 blot. This fine is forgivable; the 
> specified words are ["cuddle", "beam", "Cuddlebeam", "humiliate", "humble", 
> "humbug", "humidity"].
> 
> Gaelan


Bah! Turns out, this is actually the crime of Tardiness; 2143/33 makes any 
failure to perform
a duty by a deadline Tardiness. I think my Cold Hand still worked.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: [Proto] Archimedes' Principle

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Apr 3, 2021, at 3:20 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> Title: Archimedes' Principle
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s): Trigon, nix
> 
> 
> [Changes:
>  -The Treasuror sets a target for the Total Buoyancy every week;
>   the most recent target takes effect at the beginning of the month
>  -The Unit of Floatation is now rounded, so people can actually remember
>   it
>  -The Treasuror no longer has a monthly report, and is instead
>   just encouraged to make sure the Total Buoyancy and Unit of Floatation
>   are published
> ]

Read through it; seems sensible to me.

Gaelan

DIS: CFJ 3901 draft-judged PARADOXICAL

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

At question is a promise that purports to recursively create and cash a promise 
with identical text, causing G's vote on proposal 8543 to fluctuate 
indefinitely between two values.

# What does it mean to cash a promise?

2618/2: { A promise's bearer CAN, by announcement, cash the promise, provided 
that any conditions for cashing it specified by its text are unambiguously met. 
By doing so, e acts on the creator of the promise's behalf, causing the creator 
to act as if e published the promise's text, and destroys the promise. }

# Can a promise create a promise?

Promise creation is permitted by 2618/2: { A consenting player CAN, by 
announcement, grant a specified entity a promise, specifying its text and 
becoming its creator. }

G. is a player, and 2519/2 explicitly states that a player consents to an 
action if { the action is taken as part of a promise which e created }; no 
issues there. What about the "by announcement, specifying its text" bit? If G. 
just published the text of the promise, it'd certainly qualify, so "act[ing] as 
if e published the promise's text" should work fine.

No issues here.

# Can a promise cash a promise?

Sure, it's by announcement. We've already seen that works.

# Wait, can you cash your own promises at all?

This one's interesting. 2466/2 only gives the phrase "acting on behalf" any 
special meaning when it's on behalf of another person, so "acting on one's own 
behalf" doesn't really have any special meaning or significance. By a 
plain-English reading, acting on one's behalf to do something is just doing the 
thing. So I think this works just fine.

# What about that conditional in the promise?

Good question, heading. Agora's support for conditional actions is famously not 
specified by the rules, only precedent, rooting from 478/38's definition of 
performing an action "by announcement" as "unambiguously and clearly specifying 
the action and announcing that e performs it". It's widely held that, at some 
point, a conditional can become too difficult to resolve to meet the 
"unambiguously and clearly" standard. Do we run into that here?

We generally permit conditionals based on ambiguous game state, for converging 
the game state and such. This might fall into that category. But this doesn't 
really matter, as I shall show below.

Let's say there exists some point at which the state of G.'s vote is so 
ambiguous that it can no longer be used as a valid conditional. Where would 
that point be? Certainly not after the first flip—at that point, it's just been 
flipped once, so it's still perfectly clear. It remains clear after the second 
flip, or the third flip, or indeed any finite number of flips; the ambiguity 
arises only after an infinite (or arbitrarily large) number of flips back and 
forth. Even if the conditional stopped functioning at that point, the state of 
G's vote is already unknown. After all, if it was known, the conditional 
wouldn't be ambiguous!

So even if the conditional stops functioning at some point, it would only be 
after the damage was already done.

# So what's the verdict?

I find PARADOXICAL. Congratulations, G.!

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] We care after the first time

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Mar 19, 2021, at 12:17 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> {
> 
> Amend Rule 2465, "Victory by Apathy", by replacing the final "."
> character with the following: ", except for those who have won the game
> through this Rule in the past 14 days."
> 
> }

This is an important fix (and I would vote for it as is), but I wonder if we 
should really ban multiple resolution of intents in general.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Election

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

I become a candidate. (Jason also seems perfectly qualified; I’m assuming from 
this message e isn’t interested in keeping the role long term?)

Gaelan

> On Mar 7, 2021, at 7:42 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-official 
>  wrote:
> 
> As Referee, I initiate an election for Referee.
> 
> -- 
> Jason Cobb
> 
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
> 

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3901 Assigned to Gaelan

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Mar 7, 2021, at 11:16 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official 
>  wrote:
> 
> The below CFJ is 3901.  I assign it to Gaelan.
> 
> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3901 
> 
> 
> ===  CFJ 3901  ===
> 
>  The cashing of one or more promises created by G. has been
>  EFFECTIVE at changing the final vote tally and/or number of voters
>  on the referendum to adopt Proposal 8543, for the purposes of
>  R208, R879, and/or R2623.


I'll do a careful reading of the relevant rules myself, but I'd love to hear 
anyone's arguments as to why this isn't PARADOXICAL.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: OFF: [Ministor] Focus Report

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Mar 4, 2021, at 6:43 PM, nix via agora-official 
>  wrote:
> 
> Legislation (4): ATMunn, Gaelan, Jason, Trigon

I grant myself a legislative card by announcement.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: (@notary, @assessor) A vote, a promise, and a [cfj]

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

The minimal fix would be to prevent promises from cashing promises created 
after they began to be cashed—that would allow promises to create and cash 
promises, just not recursively.

Gaelan

> On Feb 28, 2021, at 4:30 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/28/2021 3:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> 
>> I grant myself a promise, "Neverending PRESENT", with the following text:
> 
> So if this works, or fails on a minor technicality, my guess is that the
> best fix is to prevent promises from making promises - does that break
> anything useful?
> 
> We can protect ballots from indeterminacy if we want, but as long as this
> promise loopiness exists there will probably be something that can be
> looped for a paradox win.
> 
> -G.
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: Judiciary Four Thousand (contest)

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Feb 26, 2021, at 8:38 PM, Falsifian via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> for i in [1-9][1-9]*; do sed -nE "s/.*[Cc]alled.*((19|20)[0-9][0-9]).*/$i 
> \\1/p" "$i" | sed 1q; done | sort -k2nr -k 1n | awk 'BEGIN { y=2021; printf(" 
>  CFJ |800  |1600 |2400 |3200 |4000"); } { yy=y; y=$2; 
> if (y " " : "|"); printf("*"); } xx=int($1/80); while (xx>x) { printf("*"); x=x+1; 
> } } END { printf("\n"); }'

I've written some nasty shell scripts in my life, but *dear god*

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: [@Treasuror] Possible Wealth Accumulation

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

Update: I did; this fails.

> On Feb 21, 2021, at 3:51 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> I wield the wealth stone, specifying myself.
> 
> [This may fail; I don't remember if I already did so this week. We're very 
> near the end of the week, so I'm sending this before I go make sure.]
> 
> Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] You CAN, CAN'T You?

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Feb 20, 2021, at 11:13 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> I submit the following proposal.
> 
> -Aris
> ---
> Title: You CAN, CAN'T You?
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors:
> 
> 
> [Currently, there are a bunch of CANs without a method that thus fail.]
> 
> 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, 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 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.
> 
> ["Public designation" is used instead of "announcement" so as to not
> invalidate the current method of simply publishing a report with the
> relevant information.]
> 
> Amend Rule 2141, "Role and Attributes of Rules", by replacing:
> 
>  Every rule shall have an ID number, distinct among current and
>  former rules, to be assigned once by the Rulekeepor.
> 
> with:
> 
>  Every rule shall have an ID number, distinct among current and
>  former rules, to be assigned once by the Rulekeepor by public
>  designation.
> 
> Amend Rule 2608, "The Notary", by replacing:
> 
>  If the Notary is required to report a title, but none has been
>  otherwise publicly provided, e CAN select one.
> 
> with:
> 
>  If the Notary is required to report an entity's title, but none has been
>  otherwise publicly provided, e CAN assign one by public designation.

Thanks. This is necessary, and looks good. 

The term public designation could probably use a definition—I’d be quite 
confused seeing it in the ruleset without one. 

Gaelan 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Draft judgement of CFJ 3899

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Feb 16, 2021, at 5:50 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2021 at 8:46 PM Falsifian via agora-business
>  wrote:
>> 
>> I file a motion to extend CFJ 3899.
>> 
>> Here is my draft. Could anyone point me to precedent about what it
>> means for information to be "reasonably available"? My draft includes
>> my own reasoning, but if it's been covered previously I should use that
>> or at least mention it. That's the only reason I'm circulating this as
>> a draft instead of my judgement.
> 
> I'm not aware of what the precedent says, but I'll toss in my own
> thoughts in case they're relevant. For contracts, I used the rather
> verbose phrase "either publicly or generally available" to describe
> two possibilities. Either the information is public (that is, in a
> public message) or it's just available to nearly everyone, like the
> time of day. It seems sensible to me to interpret "reasonably
> available" as covering more less the same cases, although the nuances
> may be different. Of course, if someone has actual precedent, that
> likely supersedes this.
> 
> -Aris

One thing I was concerned about is that G. would say something along the lines 
of "it was reasonably available, I would have given them to you if you just 
asked." The fact that Murphy did ask and G. didn't respond is a pretty good 
indication that that's not the case.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: [Promise] Guess That Agoran!

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

Some thoughts:

I think it's safe to assume this person wants this to be an interesting puzzle, 
not impossible, so I doubt e tried to actively insert red herrings, so I'm 
inclined to believe that anything that seems like a valid clue probably is.

The Date: header is in UTC-8.

The message looks to have been sent via Gmail's web client, so we don't have a 
source IP.

Looking at some recent promises, there seems to be a divide between players 
formatting them

{

Like this.

}

and players formatting them 

{
Like this.
}

That could narrow things down.

10 boatloads is currently 62 coins; everyone has more than that, so it doesn't 
narrow things down at all.

This person seems to use - as a bullet, not *.

Gaelan

> On Feb 4, 2021, at 9:49 AM, Bunny via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> Under penalty of No Faking, I hereby affirm that I am a player.
> 
> I grant the following promise to the Library:
> 
> {
> Name: Guess That Agoran
> Text:
> 
> Cashing conditions: The bearer has made a public message stating my
> identity, and I have publicly confirmed that statement to be correct.
> 
> I transfer 10 boatloads of coins to the bearer.
> }
> 
> I strongly discourage other players from doing either of the following:
> - have everybody make public "not me" statements based on No Faking
> - guessing every player
> 
> I encourage, instead, that players discuss and try to use deduction to
> figure out my identity.
> 
> The point of this is to be a fun, harmless social experiment. If I've
> set this up correctly, there should be nothing (at least, nothing
> relevant) indeterminate and no CFJs necessary.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Emergency] [Proposal Distribution] Dictator Dethronement

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Feb 7, 2021, at 7:23 AM, ATMunn via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 2/3/2021 10:16 AM, ATMunn wrote:
>> I intend, with 3 Agoran Consent, to repeal all existing Emergency
>> Regulations.
> 
> Having received support from Jason and no objections, I do so.
> 
> -- 
> ATMunn
> friendly neighborhood notary and Prime Minister in exile :(

I CFJ, barring G.: { No emergency regulations are in place. }

I submit this CFJ to the referee.

TL;DR The LAWS of G.RAVITY aren't "reasonably available information",
so the value of the PM Officeholder switch isn't determinate, so it reverts
to ATMunn

EVIDENCE

Rule 2614/6 (Power=3.1)
Eclipse Light

  [...]
  The Prime Minister CAN, in an emergency message and with 3 Agoran
  consent, enact, amend, or repeal Emergency Regulations, provided
  that the intent to do so was also contained in an emergency
  message. [...]

Rule 1006/44 (Power=2)
Offices

  An Office is a position described as an Office by the Rules.
  Officeholder is an office switch tracked by the ADoP, with
  possible values of any person or "vacant" (default). [...]

Rule 2518/0 (Power=3)
Determinacy

  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.

Rule 2162/13 (Power=3)
Switches
  
  [...] If a type of switch is not explicitly designated as
  possibly-indeterminate by the rule that defines it, and 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. [...]

Regulation ER4/0
The Second Regulation of G.ravity

 The LAWS OF G.RAVITY is a document that:
 1. is labelled LAWS OF G.RAVITY;
 2. has the following SHA-256 hash:
d47fb31e9c0c29fa1295371e0938335ae1f917306d59cd593a42f44d4ce39c5e
 and 3. has had its SHA-256 hash calculated by G. on or before
02-Feb-2021.

 G. CAN, by announcement, cause this regulation to perform any
 action that emergency regulations CAN perform as per Rule 2614,
 except for any action explicitly described as IMPOSSIBLE by the
 LAWS of G.RAVITY.

Caller's arguments:

Rule 2614/5 allows the Prime Minster to repeal emergency regulations with
3 Agoran Consent, provided that both the intent and the final action were
sent in an emergency message. ATMunn declared the intent to repeal G's
regulations four days ago in an emergency message. Jason supported, and
nobody objected. Today, in another emergency message, e did so. The only
question that remains is whether ATMunn was Prime Minister.

G. attempted to prevent this by using emergency regulation ER4 to remove
ATMunn from the office of Prime Minister. ER4 allows G. to cause the
regulation to perform any action it is permitted to preform, provided that
eir doing so is not prohibited by a document known as the LAWS of G.RAVITY.
This document has not been made public.

Officeholder is a switch, and therefore subject to Rule 2162's determinacy
protections. To determine the value of Officeholder after G's message
purporting to flip it with ER4, one would need to know whether it is
prohibited by the LAWS of G.RAVITY. Because that document is not public, the
value of this switch "CANNOT be reasonably determined... from information
reasonably available". Therefore, G.'s message would have caused
Officeholder to become indeterminate. 2162's protection kicks in, and 
the switch "takes on its last determinate and possible value", ATMunn.
Therefore, ATMunn is the Prime Minister, and the emergency regulations were
successfully repealed.

DIS: Re: BUS: a hobbit-style birthday

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Feb 3, 2021, at 4:30 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> It is my 20th Agoran birthday!!
> 
> Unfortunately, just for me, the discord wizards discovered a day or so
> back that the birthday rule is broken, can you spot the missing text?
> 
>>During a player's Agoran Birthday and the 7 days following, each
>>other player CAN, once, grant em X boatloads of coins...
> 
> That's right!  It's missing a 'by announcement'.  No coins for me.  I've
> got lots.  So this will be a hobbit-style birthday party for those who attend.
> 
> Cheers,
> G.
> 

Happy birthday!

G., you've been a fixture of Agora for the whole time I was here, and I imagine 
long before that. Your dedication and historical knowledge have contributed 
immeasurably to this wonderful little community of ours. Thank you.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] All Good Things Must Come to an End

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

I support each intent.

> On Feb 3, 2021, at 12:28 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> I submit the following proposal. For N from 2 to 5, I intend with N
> support to certify this proposal (that is, cause it to become
> pending).
> 
> Justification for certification: The current emergency regulations are
> arguably vulnerabilities, as they allow G. a considerable amount of
> unintended and unrestrained power. In any event, the circumstances are
> both unusual and exigent.
> 
> -Aris
> ---
> Title: All Good Things Must Come to an End
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors: Jason
> 
> 
> Enact a new power 3.15 rule entitled "Burn It With Fire", with the
> following text:
> 
>  All Emergency Regulations are hereby repealed, destroyed, and
>  incinerated.
> 
>  If it has been 1 second since this rule was adopted, this
>  rule repeals itself.

DIS: Re: BUS: Agorans for a Democratic Society [attn. Notary]

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

I consent and join this contract. 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 2, 2021, at 8:50 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> I agree to and become a member of the following contract.
> 
> {
> Agorans for a Democratic Society
> 
> Aris CAN, by announcement, nominate a specified player for membership
> of this contract, or withdraw such nomination. Any person who has been
> so nominated, and whose nomination has not been so withdrawn, can join
> this contract by announcement. Any member can destroy this contract by
> announcement if it is after the beginning of April, 2021.
> 
> The Purpose of this contract is to remove the powers G. has gained as
> a result of eir dictatorship.
> 
> Members of this contract SHALL NOT knowingly use private information
> they obtain as a result of any secret meetings related to the Purpose
> to help G., including through unnecessary public disclosure. However,
> they may disclose such information if Aris privately authorizes them
> to.
> 
> Aris SHALL NOT knowingly aid or abet G. in working against the
> Purpose. Other members SHOULD NOT do so.
> }
> 
> I nominate Gaelan, Jason, Trigon, and ATMunn.
> 
> -Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: Order Book Maintenance

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

I don't think you do, but hey, it converges the gamestate in case I screwed up 
any record keeping.

Gaelan

> On Feb 2, 2021, at 6:21 PM, ATMunn via agora-business 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 2/2/2021 7:35 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
>> I destroy all my orders on the Splat Market. (Economy reset and all that.)
>> Gaelan
> 
> I do the same, if I have any.
> 
> -- 
> ATMunn
> friendly neighborhood notary and Prime Minister of Agora :)

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3893 Assigned to Gaelan

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jan 22, 2021, at 12:53 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official 
>  wrote:
> 
> The below CFJ is 3893.  I assign it to Gaelan.
> 
> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3893
> 
> ===  CFJ 3893  ===
> 
>  There exists exactly one rule with the number 2633.
> 
> ==
> 
> Caller:Jason
> 
> Judge: Gaelan
> 
> ==
> 
> History:
> 
> Called by Jason:  18 Jan 2021 17:22:34
> Assigned to Gaelan:   [now]
> 
> ==
> 
> Caller's Arguments:
> 
> Assigning a rule number appears to be a regulated action, as its
> performance is "limited" by Rules 2141 and 2140 (since Rule numbers are
> explicitly made substantive aspects of Rules, and Rules are
> instruments). No Rule provides an explicit mechanism by which to set the
> number of a Rule. Therefore, under Rule 2125, there is no mechanism to
> assign rule numbers to rules (except by proposal most likely). Even if a
> mechanism such as by annoucement were to be inferred, the standard for
> by announcement has not been met, as the Rulekeepor has never announced
> that e is assigning, e has only published rulesets with the numbers
> labeled.
> 
> 
> Caller's Evidence:
> 
> Rule 2141/14 (Power=3.1)
> Role and Attributes of Rules
> 
>  A rule is an enduring statute. Every rule has a power between 0.1
>  and 4.0, inclusive. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, it is
>  IMPOSSIBLE to enact a rule with power outside this range, or to
>  change the power of an existing rule to a nonzero value outside
>  this range. The set of all currently-existing rules is called the
>  ruleset.
>Every rule shall have an ID number, distinct among current and
>  former rules, to be assigned once by the Rulekeepor.
>Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification. If a rule
>  ever does not have a title, then the Rulekeepor CAN and SHALL
>  assign a title to it by announcement in a timely fashion.
>For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,
>  the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all
>  substantive aspects of the rule. However, rules to the contrary
>  notwithstanding, the Rulekeepor CAN set rule aspects as described
>  elsewhere in this rule.
> 
> 
> Rule 2140/4 (Power=3)
> Power Controls Mutability
> 
>  Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no entity with power below
>  the power of this rule can
>1. cause an entity to have power greater than its own.
>2. adjust the power of a statute with power greater than its own.
>3. set or modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument
> with power greater than its own except as otherwise provided
> in this rule. A "substantive" aspect of a statute is any
> aspect that affects the statute's operation.
>An ephemeral instrument is bound by prohibitions and limitations
>  specified in rules of lower power, unless it explicitly overrides
>  those prohibition(s) as provided for in other rules.
> 
> 
> Rule 2125/12 (Power=3)
> Regulated Actions
> 
>  An action is regulated by a body of law if (1) its performance is
>  limited, allowed, enabled, or permitted by that body of law; (2)
>  that body of law describes the circumstances under which it would
>  succeed or fail; or (3) it would, as part of its effect, modify
>  information for which some person bound by that body of law is
>  required, by that body of law, to be a recordkeepor.
>If a body of law regulates an action, then to the extent that
>  doing so is within its scope, that body of law prevents the action
>  from being performed except as described within it, including by
>  limiting the methods to perform that action to those specified
>  within it. A body of law does not proscribe any action which it
>  does not regulate.
> 
> ==

Bah, I'm overdue on this.

I'll try to get to it in a few days, but in the meantime I'll put some thoughts 
and initial research down so I can get feedback:

This appears to last have been litigated in CFJ 2981: 
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2981 
.

It was judged TRUE (i.e. rule numbers work) on a loophole in the working. A 
follow-up proposal (P6992 by Murphy and omd, reproduced below) removed that 
loophole and attempted to make rule numbers work without it. The relevant parts 
of rule 2141 (now /14) haven't changed since.

So legislative intent is 

Re: DIS: [Proto] The Great Rollback

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jan 28, 2021, at 12:55 AM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jan 27, 2021, at 11:07 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> Unless I’m missing something, this repeals the definition of instruments 
>>> and adds a new one.
>> 
>> That's intentional, yes. Instruments would fill the hole that statutes do 
>> now.
> 
> Bah, I meant to say that it *fails* to add a new one.
> 
> Gaelan

Aha, it's in 1688/10, which the proposal applies S->I to:

"A statute [which would be replaced with instrument] is a document with 
positive Power."

Gaelan

Re: DIS: [Proto] The Great Rollback

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jan 27, 2021, at 11:07 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
>> Unless I’m missing something, this repeals the definition of instruments and 
>> adds a new one.
> 
> That's intentional, yes. Instruments would fill the hole that statutes do now.

Bah, I meant to say that it *fails* to add a new one.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: [Proto] The Great Rollback

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jan 27, 2021, at 12:02 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> The time has come for us to undo Statutory Instrumentation and return
> to the noble design of the past. Comments are, as always, welcome,
> even if I can't promise I'll agree with them. :)
> 
> -Aris
> 
> ---
> Title: The Great Rollback
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s):
> 
> 
> If this proposal has already taken effect, then it has no effect.
> 
> In this proposal, "S->I" is to amend a rule by replacing each instance of
> "a statute" with "an instrument", and each other instance of "statute" with
> "instrument". This is not a case-sensitive match, however, if the word
> first word being replaced has a leading capital, then so does the
> first replacement word.
> 
> 
> Enact a new power-3.5 rule entitled "Statutory Instrumentation
> Simultaneity", reading:
> 
>  Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the proposal which enacted this
>  rule CAN make multiple rule changes, which it could otherwise make
>  individually, simultaneously. When it attempts to do so, if any single
>  rule change it attempts is INEFFECTIVE, then so is the entire attempt.
> 
>  If the proposal which enacted this rule makes a change to the
>  definition of a rule then, except for rules which are simultaneously
>  and explicitly enacted or repealed with that change,
>  the rules after that change are exactly the entities that were rules
>  beforehand. This is a definition of the interpretation of the
>  amendment to the rules and not, in and of itself, a rule change.
> 
> 
> Apply the following rule changes simultaneously: {
> 
>  Repeal Rule 2611, "Instruments".
>  Repeal Rule 2612, "Bodies of Law".
>  Repeal Rule 2613, "Effects of Instruments".
> 
>  Apply S->I to Rule 1688, "Power".
>  Apply S->I to Rule 2438, "Ribbons".
> 
> 
> 
>  Amend Rule 105, "Rule Changes" by, all as part of the same
>  amendment:
>1. Replacing:
>Where permitted by other rules, a statute generally can, as
>part of its effect,
> 
>  with:
>When the rules provide that an instrument takes effect, it can
>generally:
> 
>  Amend Rule 2140, "Power Controls Mutability", by, all as part of the same
>  amendment:
>1. Deleting:
>An ephemeral instrument is bound by prohibitions and limitations
>specified in rules of lower power, unless it explicitly overrides
>those prohibition(s) as provided for in other rules.
>2. Replacing "set or modify any other substantive
>   aspect of an instrument with power greater than its own except as
>   otherwise provided in this rule." with "set or modify any other
>   substantive aspect of an instrument with power greater than its own."
>3. Applying S->I.
> 
> 
>  Amend Rule 2125, "Regulated Actions", by changing it to read in full:
> 
>An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
>permit its performance; (2) the Rules describe the circumstances under
>which the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would, as part
>of its effect, modify information for which some player is
>required to be a recordkeepor.
> 
>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. The Rules SHALL NOT be
>interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions.
> 
>  Amend Rule 2141, "Role and Attributes of Rules", by replacing:
> 
>A rule is an enduring statute. Every rule has a power between 0.1
>and 4.0, inclusive. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, it is
>IMPOSSIBLE to enact a rule with power outside this range, or to
>change the power of an existing rule to a nonzero value outside
>this range. The set of all currently-existing rules is called the
>ruleset.
> 
>  with:
> 
>A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the
>game generally, and is always taking effect. A rule's content
>takes the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope. The ruleset
>is the set of all currently-existing rules.
> 
>Every current rule has power between 0.1 and 4.0 inclusive.
> 
> 
>  Amend Rule 106, "Adopting Proposals", by changing it to read in full:
> 
>When a referendum on a proposal is resolved, if the outcome is ADOPTED,
>then the proposal in question is adopted, its power is set to the minimum
>of four and its adoption index, and it takes effect. Proposals CANNOT
>otherwise be adopted or take effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
> 
>When a proposal takes effect, the proposal applies the changes that it
>specifies, except as prohibited by other rules. Clearly marked comments
>are ignored. If the proposal cannot make some changes it specifies, that
>does not preclude the other changes from taking place.
> 
>Except insofar as the actions performed by a proposal happen one after
>another, rather than