Re: DIS: Re: [Herald] vote for the best Ruleset find

[Madeline]

To be honest, in a tie situation I would have expected you'd have given 
it to both of them. :P


On 2019-02-27 02:02, Kerim Aydin wrote:

On 2/26/2019 2:59 AM, Madeline wrote:
> This actually untied the 3rd/4th race because twg had one primary 
vote to

> CB's zero, but CB's just tied that again so oh well!

Well, I kinda assumed 3rd was determined by re-evaluating the list order
after 1st and 2nd place winners were removed - that's not really well-
defined in the procedure (and what matters is how many people put CB 
ahead

of twg).  But also Gaelan's vote pulled Telnaior's out of conditional
status, so (assuming I'm not worrying about the length of the voting 
period)

we got:

D. Margaux: {Gaelan, Telnaior, twg, CuddleBeam}
ais523: {Telnaior, Gaelan, CuddleBeam, twg}
twg:    {Gaelan, Telnaior, CuddleBeam, twg}
Falsifian:  {Gaelan, Telnaior, twg, CuddleBeam}
G.: {Telnaior, Gaelan, CuddleBeam, twg}
Telnaior:   {Telnaior, Gaelan, CuddleBeam, twg}
Aris:   {twg, CuddleBeam, Telnaior, Gaelan}
Gaelan: {Gaelan, CuddleBeam, Telainor, twg}
CuddleBeam: {CuddleBeam, Gaelan, Telainor, twg}

But this is by-the-by, as this was an advisory vote only.  Even before 
this

last round of late votes came in, I was thinking (in the event of a tie)
that I'd pick the person I didn't pick in my vote, thus tying my vote but
untying everyone's.

Final order whether I count late votes or not (no more votes please!):
  Gaelan, Telnaior, CuddleBeam, twg.

Re: DIS: Re: [Herald] vote for the best Ruleset find

[Madeline]

This actually untied the 3rd/4th race because twg had one primary vote 
to CB's zero, but CB's just tied that again so oh well!


On 2019-02-26 17:02, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Well done agora - if I count this, not only is 1st & 2nd place now a tie,
but the 3rd/4th race would also be a tie.  Way to make decisions, 
people :PP


On 2/25/2019 3:05 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

Uh, I forgot to vote.

[twg, CuddleBeam, Telnaior, Gaelan]

-Aris

On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 10:04 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:


These are the votes I have, did I miss anyone?  Looks like Gaelan
edges out Telnaior.
I'll make an "official" announcement later unless there's further 
discussion...?


D. Margaux:{Gaelan, Telnaior, twg, CuddleBeam}
ais523:    {Telnaior, Gaelan, CuddleBeam, twg}
twg:   {Gaelan, Telnaior, CuddleBeam, twg}
Falsifian: {Gaelan, Telnaior, twg, CuddleBeam}
G.:    {Telnaior, Gaelan, CuddleBeam, twg}

L (zombie, counting the zombies doesn't change the above results)
Halian (zombie, ditto)
Telnaior (conditional, didn't want eir vote to count if Gaelan didn't
vote).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

[Madeline]

Wouldn't it just be ossified because arbitrary rule changes cannot be 
made? The "and/or" does function as an or!


On 2019-02-21 19:37, Gaelan Steele wrote:

I create the AI-1 proposal “Minor bug fix” with the following text:

{
Create the power-1 rule “Don’t mind me” with the following text:
{The rules CANNOT change by any mechanism.}
}

Why that works (at power 1):

106/40: "Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal that takes effect CAN and 
does, as part of its effect, apply the changes that it specifies"
106/40: "Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change; this 
does not apply to generally preventing changes to specified areas of the gamestate”

The proposed rule is a prohibition on a certain type of change. Because 106 
says “except as prohibited by other rules”, it defers to this rule.
The second quoted clause fails to prevent this, because the rule "generally 
[prevents] changes to specified areas of the gamestate.”

1698/5 "Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable combination of 
actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or arbitrary 
proposals to be adopted within a four-week period.”

Note the “and/or.” Nothing here prevents arbitrary proposals from being 
adopted—it just prevents them from changing the rules upon doing so. Therefore, 
Agora isn’t ossified.

I retract the above proposal.

Gaelan


On Feb 21, 2019, at 12:21 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

Yes, the "gamestate" includes the rules, and I initially assumed the same thing 
as you. But ais523 pointed out a few days ago that rule 105/19 says

  A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its
  full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear
  specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at
  least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise
  take effect.

which overrides the passage in rule 106/40 that says

Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal that
  takes effect CAN and does, as part of its effect, apply the
  changes that it specifies.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 2:47 AM, James Cook  
wrote:


I'd prefer to just repeat the cleanings. Mass changes to the ruleset
are one of the riskiest things you can do in Agora (which is why there
are so many protections preventing them being done by accident).

My proposal says "The gamestate is changed...". I assumed that
includes the rules, making re-cleaning unnecessary. Is there precedent
for what "gamestate" means?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Another useful string for future reference

[Madeline]

347e6994e340b1887cb464eed0a980f5dd708170f25dd5eda31d318fdc
1aeb71e07bab1ed854b51a9303d574f3bf086044146fcdfb8f8f4e82951d37eec0aa5939e458c490617
614c2970d08d161190fe0a50
2012c8d6da48df899382751889975ece9c334fc1b3222
1f7042dc25ecce54d6a5aed39f4024a95fa8e4f68e42c8
b2b4564793ce6ca10fd8323df9ec9239c6dbbf79a1abe82e4
398489f18ba9c37d18a233fe3427d4c5e528f94
5699c069ff45c208c735dd373ebbd402346f6b5c2e4
6750f3e4af341b76db7fe7b60c57e759dd74

On 2019-02-19 10:55, D. Margaux wrote:

Just in case too:

29B9A02A56E8A3E15EC1E0E5ABE816C27686A7B1A6A7E6C7D6A1F7059E48A688C96855481739012E592A8D65EAC7AD95F6D30E0EFFC6B27A2745B2A63BBF72E6


On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:47 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

gwt-uMHZuFGagIXdvlHIu9GIl1Wa0BCajVXbg82b0BSesVmcpRnblBSZ2FGagwiclRWYlJHIyFWZkBCL19WW


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:52 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:



784743443F7C486AF33A5FEA440ECD9F92B02CA7B12E19EBFB5330863B050F7C
A1196E9457A2E1FFCE97EC027FC82CD4790CCB33C666734DE474C3A5B358400E

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

[Madeline]

What about making a safety clause that the caller of a CFJ cannot judge 
it (all else notwithstanding)?


On 2019-02-18 06:17, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 2:28 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

I purposefully didn’t use any of the powers of the Arbitor for this scam.

Yes you did: (1) the power to assign a judge to a CFJ in the same message it's 
initiated; and (2) the power to personally select who judges a CFJ. Both of 
these served to prevent anyone who might have given a fair judgement from 
having a chance to intervene. If my attempt to announce intent for a Moot was 
successful - there seems to be some question about this? - you would also have 
needed to use (3) the power to delay a Moot for up to a week (and/or its 
resolution for a further week).

I'm not really expecting you to be impeached; like I said in the original 
message, I was just throwing out relevant intents to start the 4-day (or 2-day) 
timers. The point being that someone else who's been paying more attention than 
me to this topic can do whatever they believe necessary to counterscam without 
having to delay too long. But saying that the win attempt didn't rely on your 
position as Arbitor is just plain false - hence the proposal I submitted, which 
neatly prevents this and all related scams. (Though it may need to be adjusted 
if temporary deputisation makes it into the ruleset.)

-twg

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

[Madeline]

What if we set up these things to self-ratify after, say, a quarter? 
That way we know we don't have to dig up years of history if something 
does go wrong, but we don't run the risk of getting into trouble with 
something important that just gets missed for a couple of weeks?


On 2019-02-18 10:28, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On 2/17/2019 2:11 PM, James Cook wrote:

Also, isn't most of the game state periodically ratified by official
reports? I don't have a firm grasp of what exactly this messes up, and
I haven't looked at the public messages much further back than than
the date I registered*.


The ruleset doesn't self-ratify, that has to be done manually (w/o
objection).  So if any past intents to clean rules or ratify the ruleset
didn't work, the ruleset is different than we think.  That's the main 
one.


The "fact that someone won" doesn't ratify (though some of the conditions
that determine the win would).  Nor do Patent Titles.  Since many of the
Patent Title awards were made with Consent, and Champion awards fail
automatically if someone didn't win, that could take some clean up.

Those are the ones I got - any others?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

[Madeline]

On 2019-02-18 09:00, D. Margaux wrote:

On Feb 17, 2019, at 4:54 PM, Madeline  wrote:

Yo, this doesn't get you a win regardless of what follows because the Win by Paradox rule 
only works for "a CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game action", 
which this is not.

Arg. Well played, Ruleset, well played.


The idea, of course, is that CFJs like "this CFJ is false" can just be 
judged PARADOXICAL and everyone can move on with their day with no problem.

DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

[Madeline]

Yo, this doesn't get you a win regardless of what follows because the 
Win by Paradox rule only works for "a CFJ about the legality or 
possibility of a game action", which this is not.


On 2019-02-18 00:08, D. Margaux wrote:

Intents may be completely broken, and if they are, then that will
eliminate the apathy win I've been angling to get for a while.  So, I
think it's only fair to try to run a new scam based on the broken
intents to get a win by paradox...

The CFJ called below will have the judgement PARADOXICAL if intents
(and therefore moots) are broken.  If intents aren't broken, then it
will have the judgement DISMISS.

  1. AMEND THE LIVING ZOMBIE CONTRACT TO MOUSETRAP GAELAN AND ATMUNN.

The parties to the Living Zombie contract are me, Gaelan and ATMunn.
I can mousetrap them without violating my pledge, because my pledge
has expired.

Pursuant to the Living Zombie contract and CFJ 3689, I amend the text
of the Living Zombie contract by deleting the text enclosed in
parentheses below:

//

The title of this contract is "Living Zombie."

This contract is EFFECTIVE only if D. Margaux and at least one other
player gave consent to it on 31 October 2018; otherwise it is
INEFFECTIVE.

Any party to this contract CAN use this contract to perform one or
more of the actions enclosed in brackets below:

{

(Any party to this contract CAN act on behalf of )D. Margaux( to take any
action on behalf of eir zombie permitted by the Rules,

Any party to this contract) CAN act on behalf of (D. Margaux to support
or object to a dependent action,

)Any party to this contract( CAN act on behalf of D. Margaux to withdraw
or change or cast a vote on an Agoran decision, which D. Margaux SHALL
NOT change).

}

Any party to this contract who attempts to publish a message that
exercises any power granted under this contract SHALL include in the
subject line of the message the word "SPOOKY," or else the attempt is
INEFFECTIVE.

On or after 7 November 2018, D. Margaux CAN terminate this contract by
announcement and CAN amend it by deleting any text enclosed within
brackets above, but not by the addition, substitution, or movement of
any text.

Any player CAN become a party to this contract by announcement.

//



As a result, the contract now reads:


//

The title of this contract is "Living Zombie."

This contract is EFFECTIVE only if D. Margaux and at least one other
player gave consent to it on 31 October 2018; otherwise it is
INEFFECTIVE.

Any party to this contract CAN use this contract to perform one or
more of the actions enclosed in brackets below:

{

D. Margaux CAN act on behalf of Any party to this contract.

}

Any party to this contract who attempts to publish a message that
exercises any power granted under this contract SHALL include in the
subject line of the message the word "SPOOKY," or else the attempt is
INEFFECTIVE.

On or after 7 November 2018, D. Margaux CAN terminate this contract by
announcement and CAN amend it by deleting any text enclosed within
brackets above, but not by the addition, substitution, or movement of
any text.

Any player CAN become a party to this contract by announcement.

//

  2. CALL A CFJ

I call the following CFJ:  "This CFJ is FALSE."

  3. USE CERTIORARI TO ASSIGN IT TO THE PRIME MINISTER

If I am Prime Minister, I issue the cabinet order of certiorari to
assign this CFJ to myself.

If ATMunn is Prime Minister, I use the Living Zombie contract to cause
em to issue the cabinet order of certiorari to assign this CFJ to
emself.

  4. JUDGE IT PARADOXICAL

Clearly the above-called CFJ is a paradox.

If I am the judge, I judge it PARADOXICAL, then self-file a motion for
reconsideration, then judge it PARADOXICAL again.

If ATMunn is the judge, I use the Living Zombie contract to cause em
to judge it PARADOXICAL, then cause em to self-file a motion for
reconsideration of that CFJ, then cause em to judge it PARADOXICAL
again.

  5. FORCE GAELAN AND ATMUNN TO SUPPORT GROUP-FILED RECONSIDERATION
// only works if intents are not broken

I intend with 2 support to move to reconsider the above-called CFJ.  I
cause ATMunn and Gaelan to support that intent.  I move to reconsider
that CFJ.

I note that the CFJ is not relevant to the game.  Therefore, if I am
the judge, I judge that CFJ DISMISS.  If ATMunn is the judge, I use
the Living Zombie contract to cause em to judge that CFJ DISMISS.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

[Madeline]

Obviously, I'm just talking in hypotheticals.

On 2019-02-16 09:55, Aris Merchant wrote:

No one is doing anything that has any meaningful chance of destroying
Agora. If there’s a bug in your mechanism, the stakes go from it being
broken to the game dying permanently.

-Aris

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:52 PM Madeline  wrote:


"If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other rules notwithstanding,
Agora is destroyed."
(Would any other rule need to actually change for such a clause to work
if an outside Power 3 rule is adjusting its power?)

On 2019-02-16 09:47, D. Margaux wrote:

Love it.

You could have a separate power 3 rule that (1) changes the power of the

Ritual rule and (2) causes itself to be repealed when the Ritual rule is
repealed.

And I’d love to see the power of the Ritual rule increase, too, if the

Rule is left unappeased... and maybe increase at a higher rate than it can
be decreased?

On Feb 15, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

Actually I've been pondering something even fancier, like every time
it's appeased it decreases in Power and the Power is linked to the
Consent required.  Or something.  (of course you can't increase power
in the same way).


On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:08 PM D. Margaux 

wrote:

Any chance we can have it repeal with Agoran Consent or something more

than notice? Or is that excessive? :-)

On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

Actually, one more time.  Empty sacrifices are meaningless.

I withdraw my proposal, The Ritual.

I submit the following proposal, Ritual Sacrifice, AI-1:




Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following
text:

   Any player CAN perform The Ritual by paying a fee of 7 Coins,
thus appeasing
   this Rule for a single instant.  This Rule MUST be appeased at

least once

   in every Agoran week.

   If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive
   Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to
   repeal itself) with Notice.







On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:12 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

I withdraw the proposal I recently submitted, quoted below.

I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1:




Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following
text:

   Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement, thus

appeasing

   this Rule for a single instant.  This Rule MUST be appeased at

least once

   in every Agoran week.

   If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive
   Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to
   repeal itself) with Notice.





On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:44 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:



I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1:




Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following
text:

   Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement.  In order

to

   appease this Rule, at least one player MUST perform The

Ritual in

   every Agoran week.

   If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive
   Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it

to

   repeal itself) with Notice.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

[Madeline]

"If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other rules notwithstanding, 
Agora is destroyed."
(Would any other rule need to actually change for such a clause to work 
if an outside Power 3 rule is adjusting its power?)


On 2019-02-16 09:47, D. Margaux wrote:

Love it.

You could have a separate power 3 rule that (1) changes the power of the Ritual 
rule and (2) causes itself to be repealed when the Ritual rule is repealed.

And I’d love to see the power of the Ritual rule increase, too, if the Rule is 
left unappeased... and maybe increase at a higher rate than it can be decreased?


On Feb 15, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

Actually I've been pondering something even fancier, like every time
it's appeased it decreases in Power and the Power is linked to the
Consent required.  Or something.  (of course you can't increase power
in the same way).


On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:08 PM D. Margaux  wrote:

Any chance we can have it repeal with Agoran Consent or something more than 
notice? Or is that excessive? :-)


On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

Actually, one more time.  Empty sacrifices are meaningless.

I withdraw my proposal, The Ritual.

I submit the following proposal, Ritual Sacrifice, AI-1:


Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following
text:

  Any player CAN perform The Ritual by paying a fee of 7 Coins,
thus appeasing
  this Rule for a single instant.  This Rule MUST be appeased at least once
  in every Agoran week.

  If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive
  Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to
  repeal itself) with Notice.





On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:12 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

I withdraw the proposal I recently submitted, quoted below.

I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1:


Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following
text:

  Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement, thus appeasing
  this Rule for a single instant.  This Rule MUST be appeased at least once
  in every Agoran week.

  If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive
  Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to
  repeal itself) with Notice.




On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:44 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:



I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1:


Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following
text:

  Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement.  In order to
  appease this Rule, at least one player MUST perform The Ritual in
  every Agoran week.

  If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive
  Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it to
  repeal itself) with Notice.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

[Madeline]

How so? Does it need to have both enough support and a lack of 
objectors? Do we even have anything right now that works that way? Do we 
*want* to have anything right now that works that way?
If it's one where you choose which one to declare your intent with, I 
don't see how it causes a problem.


On 2019-02-15 12:11, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

Quoting myself from my response to D. Margaux:
"That breaks if intents are allowed to be both with objection and with
support."

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Madeline wrote:


Suggested wording:

Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and 
only if one or more of the following are true:


    1. the action is to be performed Without N Objections and it
   has fewer than N objectors;

    2. the action is to be performed With N support and it has
   N or more supporters

    3. the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent and either
   the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the
   action has at least one supporter and no objectors.

    4. the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice.


On 2019-02-15 11:54, James Cook wrote:

I added the negation because I was worried about interpretations of
whether "if X then Y" is true. With classical logic, we may interpret
that as "not X or Y", which would work great, but it could also be
interpreted as the list entry only being present if X is there, so
we'd end up with "if all of the following are true: ", and
I'm not sure everyone would interpret that as true. Just seemed easier
to phrase in the negative way.

Will think more about it later, but suggestions welcome.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 00:39, Ørjan Johansen  
wrote:

I don't like the essential double negation in this - if people were
confused about what the previous version means, then that's just 
going to
make it worse.  And I'm not convinced #3 means what you want if 
there are

supporters and no objectors - undefined values mess up logic.

Instead I'd suggest staying with forward reasoning by keeping the 
current
items, except for #4 and the "; and", and adding "if all of the 
following

are true" that you suggested in an earlier message.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote:


Sorry for all the versions.

I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction,
Version 1.1.2) and submit a proposal as follows, and comment that I
removed the word "and" between #2 and #3 and turned the items into
sentences.

Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.3
Adoption Index: 2
Text:
Replace the following part of of Rule 2124:

  Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific 
action if

  and only if:

  1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, 
then it

 has fewer than N objectors;

  2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has
 N or more supporters; and

  3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then
 the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, 
or the

 action has at least one supporter and no objectors.

  4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T 
Notice.


with this:

  Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
  unless at least one of the following is true:

  1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and 
it has

 at least N objectors.

  2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has 
fewer

 than N supporters.

  3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and
 the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, 
and the

 action has no supporters or at least one objector.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

[Madeline]

Suggested wording:

Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if 
one or more of the following are true:

 1. the action is to be performed Without N Objections and it
has fewer than N objectors;

 2. the action is to be performed With N support and it has
N or more supporters

 3. the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent and either
the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the
action has at least one supporter and no objectors.

 4. the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice.


On 2019-02-15 11:54, James Cook wrote:

I added the negation because I was worried about interpretations of
whether "if X then Y" is true. With classical logic, we may interpret
that as "not X or Y", which would work great, but it could also be
interpreted as the list entry only being present if X is there, so
we'd end up with "if all of the following are true: ", and
I'm not sure everyone would interpret that as true. Just seemed easier
to phrase in the negative way.

Will think more about it later, but suggestions welcome.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 00:39, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

I don't like the essential double negation in this - if people were
confused about what the previous version means, then that's just going to
make it worse.  And I'm not convinced #3 means what you want if there are
supporters and no objectors - undefined values mess up logic.

Instead I'd suggest staying with forward reasoning by keeping the current
items, except for #4 and the "; and", and adding "if all of the following
are true" that you suggested in an earlier message.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote:


Sorry for all the versions.

I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction,
Version 1.1.2) and submit a proposal as follows, and comment that I
removed the word "and" between #2 and #3 and turned the items into
sentences.

Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.3
Adoption Index: 2
Text:
Replace the following part of of Rule 2124:

  Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if
  and only if:

  1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it
 has fewer than N objectors;

  2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has
 N or more supporters; and

  3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then
 the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the
 action has at least one supporter and no objectors.

  4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice.

with this:

  Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
  unless at least one of the following is true:

  1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has
 at least N objectors.

  2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has fewer
 than N supporters.

  3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and
 the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the
 action has no supporters or at least one objector.

DIS: Re: BUS: Red herrings and indigo ribbons

[Madeline]

This fails because no intent was posted in a public forum. :)

On 2019-02-10 00:30, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

I act on behalf of Telnaior to retract eir objection to my intent to Declare 
Apathy;

and I Declare Apathy, specifying the following set of players: {twg}.

Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft

[Madeline]

That draft is missing my proposal, quoted below:

On 2019-02-04 13:58, Telnaior wrote:

Title: No Contract Reporting Rewards
Author: Telnaior
Co-Author: G.
Adoption Index: 2
{
Add the following line to Rule 1006 ("Offices") after "If the holder 
of an office is ever not a player, it becomes vacant.":

"Offices can only exist as long as they are defined by a rule."

Amend the phrase "Publishing a duty-fulfilling report" in Rule 2496 
("Rewards") to the following:
"Publishing a report fulfilling the weekly or monthly duties of an 
office"
} 


On 2019-02-09 16:51, Aris Merchant wrote:

Here's my weekly draft. D Margaux, you can stop worrying about
deputizing for me now...

-Aris

---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 3, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
conditional votes).

IDAuthor(s)   AITitle
---
8152  G.  2.0   Justice Reenactment
8153  D Margaux   1.0   Favour Loophole Closure
8154  CuddleBeam  1.0   [Seductive yodeling noises]
8155  twg, Telnaior   1.0   Spaaace Loophole #493
8156  Trigon  3.0   version ∞
8157  Trigon  1.0   No one likes a (space) bully
8158  D Margaux,  G.  3.0   The Duumvirate v.1.2
8159  G.  3.0   Temporary Deputies
8160  D Margaux   1.0   Justice Favour Adjustments

The proposal pool is currently empty.

The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.

//
ID: 8152
Title: Justice Reenactment
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: G.
Co-authors:


Re-enact Rule 2246 (name at repeal: Submitting a CFJ to the Justiciar),
at Power-2, and the following text:

   When a person initiates a Call for Judgement, e CAN, optionally,
   submit it to the Referee by announcement. All persons are
   ENCOURAGED to submit a case to the Referee only when there is a
   good reason not to let it be processed by the Arbitor as usual.

   When a CFJ is submitted to the Referee, the Referee receives all
   obligations and powers for the specific case that the Arbitor
   would otherwise receive due to being Arbitor.  This takes
   precedence over Rules that would otherwise assign duties and
   powers regarding a judicial case to the Arbitor.


Retitle Rule 2246 to "Submitting a CFJ to the Referee".



[
History of R2246:
Created by Proposal 6181 (comex), 7 April 2009
Amended(1) by Proposal 6333 (coppro), 29 May 2009
Amended(2) by Proposal 6496 (coppro), 26 September 2009
Amended(3) by Proposal 6662 (Murphy; disi.), 10 March 2010
Amended(4) by Proposal 6752 (Murphy), 2 August 2010
Amended(5) by Proposal 6891 (coppro), 20 November 2010
Repealed by Proposal 6961 '52-pickup v2' (G.), 3 March 2011
]

//
ID: 8153
Title: Favour Loophole Closure
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: D Margaux
Co-authors:


Amend Rule 2542 to replace:

   “The following officers CAN by announcement award Favours in the listed
   Parties, but SHALL NOT do so except as required by rule.”

With:

   “The following officers CAN by announcement award Favours in the listed
   Parties only to the extent required by rule.”


//
ID: 8154
Title: [Seductive yodeling noises]
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: CuddleBeam
Co-authors:


Change "Any player whose Fame is either 10 or -10 CAN win the game With 2 Days
Notice." to "Any player whose Fame is either 10 or -10 CAN Become One With
The Cosmos With 2 Days Notice

When a player Becomes One With The Cosmos, if their Fame is either 10 or
-10, their Fame is set to 0 and they win the game."

//
ID: 8155
Title: Spaaace Loophole #493
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: twg
Co-authors: Telnaior


Amend Rule 2591, "Spaceships", by changing the text "Armour (an
integer switch limited to values from 0 to 10 inclusive)" to "Armour
(an integer switch limited to values less than or equal to 10)" and
by changing the text 'A Spaceship with an Armour of 0 is "Defeated"'
to 'A Spaceship with an Armour of 0 or less is "Defeated"'.

[There are other ways to patch this, but I feel this is more elegant.
  If anybody else prefers a different solution, feel free to propose
  it.]

//
ID: 8156
Title: version ∞
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Trigon
Co-authors:


Amend Rule 2350 (Power=3) 'Proposals' by adding an item to the bulleted
list:

   * A version, which SHOULD only be used when a proposal has been
retracted and another proposal has been created with a similar
purpose.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Spaceship Energy Convergence

[Madeline]

Wait wait wait that literally undoes everything I did with my spaceship 
since I STARTED with 0 Armour, plus the spaceship from my FAGE'd 
registration.


On 2019-02-08 01:55, Cuddle Beam wrote:

You can’t repair your ship. In both realities, it has 0 Armor.

A Spaceship with an Armour of 0 is "Defeated". A Spaceship is
   "Pilotable" if it is neither Defeated nor engaging in a Space
   Battle.

   Any player CAN, by announcement, spend a coin to increase the
   Armour of a Pilotable Spaceship e owns by 1. This is called
   "Repairing" the Spaceship.



On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 15:38, D. Margaux  wrote:


I spend 10 coins to repair my ship.

If my ship has less than 10 energy, I spend 32 coins to increase its
energy (I think to 20).

If my ship has 10 or more energy, I spend 12 coins to increase its energy
(I think to 20).



On Feb 6, 2019, at 11:47 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

Sorry for the delay.

I CFJ, barring D. Margaux, on the statement: "If and when -N (negative

N) coins are revoked from an entity, where N is a natural number, that
entity's coin balance increases by N."


If the CFJed statement is FALSE, then I resolve Space Battle 0006 as

follows:

CuddleBeam spent 20 Energy (private communication), so eir Spaceship's

Energy decreases from 20 to 0.

D. Margaux attempted to spend -10 Energy (private communication), so eir

Spaceship's Energy remains at 4.

Therefore:
D. Margaux's Spaceship's Armour decreases from 10 to 0 (it is Defeated).
CuddleBeam's Spaceship's Armour remains at 10.

CuddleBeam is the winner.


If the CFJed statement is TRUE, then I instead resolve Space Battle 0006

as follows:

CuddleBeam spent 20 Energy (private communication), so eir Spaceship's

Energy decreases from 20 to 0.

D. Margaux spent -10 Energy (private communication), so eir Spaceship's

Energy increases from 4 to 14.

Therefore:
D. Margaux's Spaceship's Armour decreases from 10 to 0 (it is Defeated).
CuddleBeam's Spaceship's Armour remains at 10.

CuddleBeam is the winner.


I intend to maintain two divergent copies of the Astronomor's report

until the above CFJ is judged.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 9:27 AM, Cuddle Beam <

cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have too, just waiting right now.


On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 23:38, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote:

I have communicated my choice to the Astronomor


On Feb 4, 2019, at 4:15 AM, Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com wrote:
I initiate a Space Battle between my (only) ship and D.Margaux’s

(only)

ship, and I specify the Astronomor as the resolver.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Quang Revived

[Madeline]

It's not, don't worry - it tries to take Agora's karma further away from 0.

On 2019-02-08 02:34, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Goddammit, If this is upheld to be a Notice of Honor, I'm done with
officering for a while - beyond my "reasonable effort" level (This isn't
directed at CuddleBeam, who is merely taking a line of CFJ logic to its
inevitable conclusion).

I do rather wish we'd been willing to draw a line in the sand about 
favoring
plain rules readings instead of over-abstractions, but I'm in the 
minority I

guess :(.

Aaand that's enough Agora for me today.

On 2/7/2019 6:42 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:

In light of this development, I define the following:

- "I swoopie A swoopie X and B, swoppie Y" as shorthand for "This is a
notice of honor. +1 Karma to A for X, and -1 Karma to B for Y", where 
A and

B are players, and X and Y are reasons.
- "I hngah X for Y" as shorthand for "I make the following Proposal
with title X, and content: Y", where X is a title and Y is proposal 
content.

- "yum", "han" and "yip" as shorthand for "I object."
- "yuck", "jow" and "hiff"  as shorthand for "I support."
- "kuukie" as shorthand for "I intend to"
- "dvba" as shorthand for "declare victory by apathy"
- "za" as shorthand for "vote FOR"
- "az" as shorthand for "vote AGAINST"

I swoopie Trigon swoopie for this new development and Agora swoopie I 
don't

know who really merits less Karma currently.

If there are any proposals I can currently za for, I za them.

kuukie dvba for myself.

On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:21 PM D. Margaux  wrote:


I withdraw this. After re-reading Trigon’s judgement, I think it’s not
necessary


On Feb 6, 2019, at 12:42 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

I submit and pend this proposal:

Title: Quang Revived
AI: 1
Coauthors: twg

Amend Rule 2496 to replace the first paragraph with the following:

{ A player CAN earn the set of assets associated with a reward 
condition

exactly once in a timely fashion each time e fulfills it by stating how
many assets e earns as a result of this action or, in the case where 
the
reward condition is satisfied for publishing a duty-fulfilling 
report, by
stating that e quangs the office whose holder is duty bound to 
publish said

report. }

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: With apologies to Trigon

[Madeline]

It's literally just 1 infamy, and I didn't do anything with my 200 asset 
steal while in the meantime everyone else is stomping around stealing 
degrees and making dictatorships :(


On 2019-02-07 03:26, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

The following is a Notice of Honour:
+1 Trigon (for eir neat storytelling)
-1 Telnaior (for continuing to exploit a known loophole that has a patch 
pending, which IMO is not very sporting)

What do people think of another one of those sneaky officer tricks: Declining 
to resolve Space Battle 0005 for as long as possible in order to protect the 
galaxy from Space Pirate Telnaior, in the hope the proposal Spaaace Loophole 
#493 passes quickly?

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 12:14 AM, Reuben Staley  
wrote:


The quoted hashed string is:

Trigon watched as his hit landed. Surprisingly, it didn't seem to do
much damage. He realized that he had lost. But how? Telnaior hailed his
ship once again. "I apologize for this, but you're the best target I
have. Picking on anyone else would be far too much effort." And with
that, Trigon hatched a plan to end this cycle that would clearly
continue if he didn't stop it.

On 2/4/19 2:08 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:


Telnaior has sent eir Energy value now, so fire away with the melons.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 4, 2019 1:40 AM, Reuben Staley reuben.sta...@gmail.com 
wrote:


PF
On 2/3/19 6:40 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:


Getting roped into doing a space battle I didn't even want to do in the
first place and then getting a rule violation for it. Figures.
I wish to spend an amount of energy equal to the number of times the
word "cantaloupe" appears in the following hashed string:
c60be28bd4658321826d9eae4cb14222
On 2/3/19 6:28 PM, Madeline wrote:


I haven't sent mine yet, that didn't count.
On 2019-02-04 12:29, Reuben Staley wrote:


I wish to spend 0 energy on this space battle
On 2/3/19 6:01 PM, Telnaior wrote:


You're really the only good target that I wouldn't have to go
halfway across the map to reach :(
I spend one coin to repair the Armour of my Spaceship by 1.
I initiate a Space Battle between my Spaceship and Trigon's
Spaceship, specifying twg as the resolver.

--
Trigon

--

Trigon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate

[Madeline]

At what point do we just power-4 "Persons CANNOT be Instruments"?

On 2019-02-06 14:41, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Actually that Security thing is a big hole, there's lots of stuff that's
secured, and R1688 applies the method here:
> except as allowed by an Instrument

If "allowed" is defined as something a person can do "naturally" (the 
way we
treat, say, "agree"), then when the instrument is a natural person, e 
could

just say "I allow, on an ongoing basis, changes to happen when I perform
them by announcement" and the method is supplied.

Also, R105 specifies that an instrument can make a rule change "as 
part of

effect", though it would get pretty philosophical to figure out how a
person's "effect" is triggered (at the very least, R105 limits it to a
publicly-written process of at least 4 days).

On 2/5/2019 6:05 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
It still matters what the rules say about the order of precedence, 
because
the order of precedence is decided by the rules. If the rule defining 
the
order of precedence was repealed, there wouldn't be an order of 
precedence,
and power would have no effect in that regard. As it happens, the 
power of
an instrument that isn’t a rule currently doesn’t have any effect 
outside

secured things and changing entities with higher power.

-Aris

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 5:59 PM D. Margaux  wrote:

But if the person is high enough powered (say, power=5), should it 
matter

what the rules say about order of precedence if the high-powered person
overrules them?

I suppose ultimately it comes down to what the Agoran community is 
willing

to accept, rather than what the Rules or any particular person says.


On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:


On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:

I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation 
wouldn’t be

a barrier anymore, though.


I don't see why.  I don't think there's any provision for anything 
other

than a rule to take precedence over a rule, regardless of power.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate

[Madeline]

Isn't power a construct of the rules in its own right, though? It 
doesn't hold any value beyond what the rules actually give it.


On 2019-02-06 12:59, D. Margaux wrote:

But if the person is high enough powered (say, power=5), should it matter what 
the rules say about order of precedence if the high-powered person overrules 
them?

I suppose ultimately it comes down to what the Agoran community is willing to 
accept, rather than what the Rules or any particular person says.


On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:


On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:

I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation wouldn’t be a 
barrier anymore, though.

I don't see why.  I don't think there's any provision for anything other than a 
rule to take precedence over a rule, regardless of power.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The 200 Asset Steal

[Madeline]

Whoa what, I need to start using a plain text editor apparently
Is there an easy way to edit the proposal, or do I have to resubmit it 
entirely?


On 2019-02-04 13:49, Gaelan Steele wrote:

While I’m happy to know that someone’s using the thing I made, you might want 
to make sure that link doesn’t get written into the rule. :)

Gaelan


On Feb 3, 2019, at 4:58 PM, Telnaior  wrote:

Add the following line to Rule 1006 ("Offices") after "If the holder of an office is ever not a 
player >, it 
becomes vacant.":
"Offices can only exist as long as they are defined by a rule."

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: With apologies to Trigon

[Madeline]

It's not a violation now, at least. Sorry for demotivating you, I'll 
definitely see if there's any better choice for the next one.


On 2019-02-04 12:40, Reuben Staley wrote:
Getting roped into doing a space battle I didn't even want to do in 
the first place and then getting a rule violation for it. Figures.


I wish to spend an amount of energy equal to the number of times the 
word "cantaloupe" appears in the following hashed string:


c60be28bd4658321826d9eae4cb14222

On 2/3/19 6:28 PM, Madeline wrote:

I haven't sent mine yet, that didn't count.

On 2019-02-04 12:29, Reuben Staley wrote:

I wish to spend 0 energy on this space battle

On 2/3/19 6:01 PM, Telnaior wrote:
You're really the only good target that I wouldn't have to go 
halfway across the map to reach :(


I spend one coin to repair the Armour of my Spaceship by 1.

I initiate a Space Battle between my Spaceship and Trigon's 
Spaceship, specifying twg as the resolver.

DIS: Re: BUS: With apologies to Trigon

[Madeline]

I haven't sent mine yet, that didn't count.

On 2019-02-04 12:29, Reuben Staley wrote:

I wish to spend 0 energy on this space battle

On 2/3/19 6:01 PM, Telnaior wrote:
You're really the only good target that I wouldn't have to go halfway 
across the map to reach :(


I spend one coin to repair the Armour of my Spaceship by 1.

I initiate a Space Battle between my Spaceship and Trigon's 
Spaceship, specifying twg as the resolver.

DIS: Re: BUS: need a currency for something

[Madeline]

Read the Ruleset Week isn't for another two hours, you know.

On 2019-02-04 09:08, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

I consent to be bound by the terms of the following document, with the intent 
for it to become a contract provided G. also so agrees:

{
This is a contract between twg and G. Other persons CANNOT become parties.

twg CAN modify this contract by announcement. (twg SHALL NOT modify this 
contract such that it imposes any obligation on G. or otherwise significantly 
harms eir standing in the game, or such that this paragraph is removed, altered 
or otherwise rendered ineffective.)

Beads are a currency defined by this contract. Ownership of beads is restricted 
to any entity. twg CAN, by announcement, create a bead in the possession of any 
entity.

Each bead has a colour, which is one of the following: red, green, blue, cyan, 
magenta, yellow or white. The colour of a bead is set when it is created and 
cannot thereafter be changed. An attempt to create a bead is INEFFECTIVE if the 
colour of the bead is not specified.
}

*whistles innocently*

-twg

DIS: Re: BUS: spaaaaaaaace shall be mine

[Madeline]

Oh, that's a good fix. Makes space warfare more expensive too, which it 
probably ought to be.



On 2019-02-03 11:38, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

I resolve Space Battle 0004 as follows:

Telnaior spent 2 Energy (private communication), so eir Energy decreases from 
20 to 18.
Trigon spent 10 Energy (public announcement), so eir Energy decreases from 20 
to 10.

Therefore:
Telnaior's Spaceship's Armour decreases from 1 to 0 (it is Defeated).
Trigon's Spaceship's Armour decreases from 10 to 8.

Trigon's Spaceship's Armour decreased by more than Telnaior's Spaceship's 
Armour did, and therefore Telnaior is the winner. Sorry Trigon.

I submit the following proposal:

//
Title: Spaaace Loophole #493
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: twg
Co-authors: Telnaior


Amend Rule 2591, "Spaceships", by changing the text "Armour (an
integer switch limited to values from 0 to 10 inclusive)" to "Armour
(an integer switch limited to values less than or equal to 10)" and
by changing the text 'A Spaceship with an Armour of 0 is "Defeated"'
to 'A Spaceship with an Armour of 0 or less is "Defeated"'.

[There are other ways to patch this, but I feel this is more elegant.
  If anybody else prefers a different solution, feel free to propose
  it.]

//

-violent space warmonger


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, February 2, 2019 11:04 PM, Reuben Staley  
wrote:


I'm going to post the whole thing anyway because I spent actual time on
it. The entirety of the next paragraph is the aforementioned string.

Once there was a very polygonal fellow named Trigon. Trigon owned a
spaceship, which he loved to ride around in. Even though Trigon had an
alliance with a violent space warmonger named twg, he remained very
peaceful otherwise. One day, Trigon was idling in his spaceship in
Sector 12, far away from most of the contention in the galaxy. Suddenly,
to the starboard side of the ship, Trigon heard the distinctive sound of
a warp drive slowing down. Trigon rushed to the window and saw an
unfamiliar ship obviously waiting to do battle with him. Trigon hailed
the ship and a voice proclaimed from the other side: "Trigon, I am
called Telnaior. I have come back to life. Space shall be mine!"
Trigon didn't feel like he deserved this, as he had just helped Telnaior
in space court. However, Trigon, ever a good sport, obligingly aimed at
Telnaior with all the power he had.

If this doesn't work, I wish to spend 10 energy.

On 2/2/19 3:58 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:


Oh, uh, I should probably have said this earlier (sorry), but Telnaior's 
already sent me eir value so you can just reveal yours. Or privately message it 
to me. As you wish.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, February 2, 2019 10:44 PM, Reuben Staley reuben.sta...@gmail.com 
wrote:


I wish to spend an amount of energy equal to the amount of times the
word "Trigon" appears in the following MD5-hashed string:
3ead941ba453030eaf88ac41692aa0f2
On 2/2/19 5:14 AM, Telnaior wrote:


I cause my Spaceship to pay 4 energy to move from Sector 16 to Sector
12. I then initiate a Space Battle between my Spaceship and Trigon's
Spaceship in Sector 12, specifying twg as the resolver.

--
Trigon

--

Trigon

DIS: Re: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Madeline]

You're honestly not the only one who does things like that, don't worry 
about it too much and don't force yourself to do things you aren't 
enjoying :)
It certainly helps in Agora to be able to commit longer-term, but 
shorter stays are very welcome too and it's definitely not like some 
games where you may as well not bother if you aren't gonna play every 
day for two months.


Have fun with things, and hope to see you around again when you're up to it.

On 2019-01-31 05:25, ATMunn wrote:
So remember like 2 weeks ago when I said I would catch up on Agora 
over the weekend or something? And then I didn't?


So yeah... I feel like I go through these "interest cycles," where I 
find out about a thing, get really interested in it for a while, then 
kinda start getting bored, and eventually just lose interest. This 
also usually happens because I start getting interested in something 
else. But usually, I often remember said thing a few months later, and 
get interested again.


I feel like Agora is on one of those interest cycles for me, and ever 
since the holidays I've been less interested (which is absolutely 
nothing against Agora, clearly there's a lot to be interested in right 
now, but this cycle has happened for even my favorite games of all 
time). So I could try to trudge through the sea of messages and make 
some sense of it, and try to start posting regularly again, but I 
don't really want to force it.


TL;DR I'm not dead, and I'm not deregistering, but I don't know when 
I'll start posting regularly again. Might be a week, might be a month, 
might be 6 months. I don't really know.


P.S. If I'm gone for long enough feel free to zombify me.

DIS: Re: BUS: Spaceship intents

[Madeline]

You can't make them battle each other, as 'opponent' is determined by 
player so you can't be your own opponent.
The transfer does go through though as the "You can transfer anything in 
lost and found" rule has a lower ID than the "You can't transfer fixed 
assets" rule.
Would let you have two space battles running at once, at least once you 
found two opponents. Might be expensive?


(Also I just realised the L Department is going to end up with a pile 
of energy from destroyed spaceships at this rate)


On 2019-01-30 04:00, D. Margaux wrote:

I intend without objection to transfer the spaceships in the lost & found 
department to players other than myself and my zombie.

(Honestly just think this would be funny to see what happens, not trying to 
gain personal advantage with this one.)


On Jan 29, 2019, at 11:58 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:


On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 4:42 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

I intend without objection to transfer the spaceships in the lost & found 
department to a player of my choosing other than myself.

I object to this first one. Nice try, zombie master. :P


I intend without objection to destroy the spaceships in the lost & found 
department.

But this seems sensible.

-twg

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Can we put the Orinoco River in space so I can sing Enya

[Madeline]

Yeah, that ought to go through and then we just need to figure out where 
my Spaceship actually started.


On 2019-01-30 03:54, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 4:51 PM, Telnaior  wrote:

   (I'm guessing the spaceship from zombie-me was
self-ratified out of existence by now regardless, which simplifies
things a little)

Sorry, no such luck - the previous Astronomor report did in fact include it.

But D. Margaux's intent to destroy it should work regardless. Assuming nobody 
objects to it.

-twg

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Can we put the Orinoco River in space so I can sing Enya

[Madeline]

Are you sure? The Spaceship I possessed as a zombie was deemed to have 
been destroyed the moment it entered the L office upon my 
deregistration two weeks ago.


On 2019-01-30 03:29, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

No, it's in Sector 16. The one in Sector 5 was created the _first_ time you 
registered today, and is now property of the Lost and Found Department.

I've also just realised that the rule doesn't specify 10 as the default for 
Armour (which it should). Annoyingly, everyone else's (except, newly, G.'s) has 
self-ratified to 10. Sorry.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 4:25 PM, Telnaior  wrote:


i spend one coin to repair my spaceship to 1 armour.

Is my Spaceship in Sector 05 right now?

Re: DIS: Cantus Cygneus

[Madeline]

Glad this isn't going completely to waste, generating outrage on demand 
is hard!
Hi though, I'll probably hop back in for real once the whole FAGE thing 
gets sorted out.
(I actually happened to go through the NetHack TAS turn-by-turn report 
yesterday which never ceases to be hilarious, so I guess we're even?)


On 2019-01-30 02:03, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:

On Wed, 2019-01-30 at 01:58 +1100, Telnaior wrote:

Honestly, this makes me mad. Doubly mad because if I were to deregister
by announcement, I'd have to wait around a full month before I could
come back. So let's do it this way - it gets the point across and lets
me skip the timer (at least as long as the current Registrar actually
bothers to do their job and not flagrantly violate the rules for once)

Please nobody ever close this loophole. It only gets used once every
few years and the results always seem to be hilarious.

Re: DIS: Cantus Cygneus

[Madeline]

:(

On 2019-01-30 02:00, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Actually, the Registrar did deregister you a couple of weeks ago. There just 
hasn't been a report since then.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 2:58 PM, Telnaior  wrote:


The following is my Cantus Cygneus, to be published by the Registrar in
a timely fashion:

Alright, so let's get one thing straight here. I haven't actually been
playing this game in MONTHS. Yeah, sure, the whole zombie system has
been keeping me alive for a little while, but did you notice my resale
value is 0 now? I'm so dramatically rotted away that you can't even use
me for anything! And despite that, I'm still on the Directory,
registered as a player.

Wait, what's that? The rules say the Registrar SHALL try to deregister
me every month I haven't been active? Huh, can you believe that this
hasn't been happening in direct violation of the rules, even when my
resale was already 0? Can you believe the former Registrar outright
resigned instead in order to shirk eir duty? Can you believe, even
though literally ANYONE here could deregister me with mere notice at
this point, no one actually has? Here I was hoping to come back with the
obligatory "am I a player" CFJ, only to find out that I'm still a
player! It's ridiculous, and it's not even funny.

Honestly, this makes me mad. Doubly mad because if I were to deregister
by announcement, I'd have to wait around a full month before I could
come back. So let's do it this way - it gets the point across and lets
me skip the timer (at least as long as the current Registrar actually
bothers to do their job and not flagrantly violate the rules for once)

Are we clear? Good. You're lucky I didn't throw in a couple of
paragraphs from the Automatic Complaint Letter Generator, this situation
feels so absurd that you all probably deserve it. >:(

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: yes

[Madeline]

Ugh why am I still a player now I can't do the obligatory "am I a player 
or not" CFJ


On 2019-01-30 01:32, Madeline wrote:

I vote: yes


On 2019-01-29 23:37, Cuddle Beam wrote:

I create the following proposal:

---*---
Title: yes
Content:

yes


---*---

DIS: Re: BUS: yes

[Madeline]

I vote: yes


On 2019-01-29 23:37, Cuddle Beam wrote:

I create the following proposal:

---*---
Title: yes
Content:

yes


---*---

DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report

[Madeline]

Wait how did you of all people end up as Referee
Geeze this game

On 2018-03-14 08:13, Cuddle Beam wrote:

Hello. I submit the following Referee report. Nothing has happened
since the last one. Cheers.


---* ---


Recent events:

4 Feb 2017 Cuddlebeam Pointed a Finger at themselves for existing. Found
SHENANIGANS. 8 Feb 2017 Cuddlebeam is issued a Red Card by Summary
Judgement for not Treating Agora Right. 9 Feb 2017 Cuddlebeam Pointed a
Finger at G for impersonating good faith for the purpose of a personal
agenda. Red Card issued. 12 Feb 2017 Telnaoir Pointed a Finger at
themselves for abuse of power. Blue Card issued. 1 March 2017 G. Pink Slips
themselves from Referee via Summary Judgement.

Previous Report

(Nothing of note has happened)


Time of Last Report

(Nothing of note has happened)

Green Cards: Player On Reason
--- P.S.S.[1] May 16, 2017
Tardiness P.S.S.[1] May 20, 2017 Ambiguity Murphy Jun 22, 2017 Faking
Gaelan Jun 23, 2017 Tardiness Gaelan Jun 23, 2017 Tardiness o Jul 11, 2017
Tardiness V.J Rada Jul 14, 2017 Making My Eyes Bleed o Jul 18, 2017
Tardiness o Jul 29, 2017 Tardiness Gaelan Jul 29, 2017 Late Judgement o Sep
4, 2017 Rule 2498 Quazie Sep 7, 2017 Rule 2201 天火狐 Sep 12, 2017 No reason o
Sep 12, 2017 Rule 2426 o Sep 12, 2017 Rule 2478 V.J Rada Sep 15, 2017 Rule
2496 nichdel Sep 20, 2017 Rule 2450 o Sep 20, 2017 Rule 2478 o Sep 22, 2017
Rule 2426 V.J Rada Sep 24, 2017 Rule 2143 CuddleBeam Sep 26, 2017 No reason
CuddleBeam Sep 26, 2017 No reason o Sep 26, 2017 Rule 2426 P.S.S.[1] Sep
27, 2017 Rule 2143 V.J Rada Oct 3, 2017 Rule 2471 o Oct 4, 2017 Rule 2479
Aris Oct 11, 2017 Rule 2143 o Oct 11, 2017 Rule 2456 o Oct 11, 2017 Rule
2456 o Oct 24, 2017 Tardiness V.J. Rada Oct 24, 2017 No Finger Response
V.J. Rada Oct 24, 2017 No Finger Response o Oct 31, 2017 R2156 Lateness 天火狐
Nov 21, 2017: Tardiness [1] Named, in full, Publius Scribonius
Scholasticus. Blue Cards Player On Reason Fine
--- ATMunn Nov 6, 2017
Quorum Not Stated {2sh} Alexis Nov 6, 2017 Quorum Not Stated {2sh} Fines in
{} indicate no Fine Levied. Fines in [] indicate Fine Levied, but not paid
Yellow Cards: Player Until Reason Apology Words
--- Quazie (Apr 26,
2017) Bankruptcy o (Apr 22, 2017) Tardiness o (Jul 15, 2017) Tardiness o
(Jul 15, 2017) Tardiness CuddleBeam Jul 16, 2017 Tardiness P.S.S.[1] Sep
15, 2017 Rule 2143 o (Aug 23, 2017) Rule 2491 Quazie (Sep 13, 2017) Rule
2450 V.J Rada (Sep 15, 2017) Being bad Gaelan Nov 24, 2017 Tardiness
Nichdel Dec 6, 2017 PCI[2] [3] [1] Named, in full, Publius Scribonius
Scholasticus. [2] Pledge Called In [3] nichdel's apology words are: "I,
will, not, break, any, pledges, or, be, untimely, sorry." Dates in ()
indicate completed apology. Red Cards: Player On Reason
-- Cuddlebeam Jul 21, 2017 Faking V.J. Rada
Nov 20, 2017 R2491 Cuddlebeam Feb 8, 2017 Not Treating Agora Right G. Feb
9, 2017 Impersonating good faith Pink Slips: Player On Office Reason
 Gaelan May 22, 2017 Rulekeepor
Forgery G. March 1, 2017 Referee Negligence Pledges: Quazie - I pledge to
give 1 Shiny to the first person who can, correctly, with e-mail citations,
explain what I did wrong on Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a
fugitive. For the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be
fully self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in order
to understand the explanation (So please, include all source info in the
explanation). V.J Rada - I pledge not to make any thread titles completely
unrelated to the email's content, nor use any agency or other mechanism to
attempt to gain control of any player at the exclusion of all other
players. Gaelan (14 Sep 2017) - I pledge to, for at least the next month,
vote AGAINST any proposal that amends rules by providing new text in full
unless the text of the rule is nearly entirely changed. nichdel - I pledge
to vote AGAINST on all proposals created or pended by Cuddle Beam. nichdel
- I pledge to Object to all intentions by Cuddle Beam that I can object to.
nichdel - I pledge to give a trust token and 5 shinies (as soon as
possible) to any other player who also performs the above three pledges,
except Cuddle Beam. nichdel - I pledge to not refer to 天火狐 as Josh or Josh
T. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus - I too pledge to not refer to 天火狐 as
Josh or Josh T. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus - I...pledge to fix the
margins, if the issue is explained to me. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus -
I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is still
possible. G. (referring to CFJ 3575)- I pledge that, if the below CFJ is
found TRUE and survives the Reconsideration/Moot time frame, I will
transfer 41 Shinies to Agora as unofficial payment for this (and no other
purpose). G. - I 

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald][Scroll of Agora]

[Madeline]

Yeah, trying to ratify out formerly awarded titles would be... not even 
remotely cool. Agora takes pride in its history.


On 2018-03-02 08:36, Corona wrote:

Right, I forgot.
I intend to award the title of Champion by Politics to Aris with 2 Support.
I intend to award the (new) title of Reformist Bug to Trigon with 2 Support.

When I meant "do away", I meant by getting a report without them
self-ratified, but it seems like at least you'd object, so nevermind. It is
my opinion that the Long Service awards should be rather indiscriminate
about who "deserves" them. I mean, if someone deserves special recognition,
that's what custom titles are for, no?

I have to ask, why would ADoP need to award titles directly? E can indeed
just ask the Herald to award them, and if the Herald makes unpopular
decisions about awarding titles etc., e won't be re-elected, or might even
get deposed.

~Corona

On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:51 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:




On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Corona wrote:

Should I award the Long Service Awards or do away with that section? They
seem to have fallen into disuse.

You can't "do away" with them in the sense that they're awarded Patent
Titles
and therefore tracked.  You could re-categorize them I suppose.

But every so often, like every couple years, someone (usually ADoP or
Herald)
says "hey we haven't used that in a while" and figures out who might
deserve
one and awards it.  It's been about that long so we're due (I know aranea
was
from the last time we did this only a couple years ago I think).

We could also bring back a mechanism that lets the ADoP award these
directly...

Re: DIS: Some minor reforms

[Madeline]

If you wanna do "X-paying Jobs", just reenact Complexity from the party 
we had.


On 2018-03-01 07:03, Reuben Staley wrote:

Not that I'm in this for the fictional currency, but honestly, 3 coins a
month for all this recordkeeping is not enough. I'm not writing up any
ruletext yet, but I will talk about 2 ideas I had for an office reform.

First idea:

1. Players have a Job Points switch which can only be 5.
2. Sort all the offices as such:
   A. Low Paying Jobs:
 - Herald
 - Prime Minister
 - Referee
 - Reportor
 - Registrar
 - Regkeepor
 - Speaker
 - Tailor
   B. Mid-Paying Jobs :
 - Promotor
 - Assessor
 - ADoP
 - Notary
   C. High-Paying Jobs:
 - Arbitor
 - Cartographor
 - Rulekeepor
 - Arbitor
3. On paydays, holders of:
  A. Low-Paying Jobs get 3 coins, 1 corn
   B. Mid-Paying Jobs get 10 coins, 1 corn, 2 stones, 2 lumber
   C. High-Paying Jobs get 15 coins, 1 corn, 5 stones, 5 lumber, 5 fabric
4. For every:
   A. Low paying job a player has, give em 1 JP.
   B. Mid paying job, 2 JP
   C. High paying job, 3 JP
5. Players have a Worker Merit switch. Every month, it's increased by how
many job points the player has.
6. When someone earns 50 worker merit, e wins.

Second idea:

"Official duties" are things that the ruleset requires an officer to do
(e.g. publish report, start an auction, transfer assets, etc.) that need to
be reported on. Every time a player successfully carries out an official
duty, e gets some small reward.

The first one is vastly more complex, but it would require a lot more
record keeping.

Discuss!

Re: DIS: proto-proto: zombie reform

[Madeline]

Okay, you said artificial person rather than artificial player. Guess 
that was just a slip of the fingers? And that's a good point about being 
able to do anytime, I definitely misinterpreted there. Perhaps changing 
it to one-per-month would be a better idea!


On 2018-02-23 12:03, Kerim Aydin wrote:

Where does it say one action per month?  The way I'm reading it, the second
paragraph of R2532 allows the owner to do anything anytime on behalf of the
zombie?  The scaring is once a month but that's a price of ownership not
a limit on non-scaring actions, I think.

That said, I just noticed that zombies are nearly worthless anyway but in
a different way, so maybe it doesn't matter :).  (not telling the reason
right this minute!)

I hear you on the "artificial is too artificial to be a person" part.
But I don't mean making them non-players, I mean making them permanent
(artificial) players.

On Fri, 23 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote:

I mean in the current rules they can only perform one action a month, so I
don't think they're that overpowered? Making them non-players seems like it'd
make them entirely useless. And "artificial person" seems like it's distorting
the definition of person that we've kind of agreed not to question too hard?

On 2018-02-23 05:37, Kerim Aydin wrote:

patching auctions, but think there should be a deeper change
because zombies are pretty powerful and unchecked right now.
Also, zombies from actual natural persons has a bit of baggage.

But the bidding's pretty cool, so Outline for discussion.  This
nerfs them a bit but hopefully not so much that they're not worth
a bunch.

1.  Zombies are artificial persons named in the rules, not
natural persons.  Total fixed at ~6.

2.  No one can own more than one zombie.

3.  zombies revert to Agora after (time), suggesting 60-90 days
from end of auction.

4.  zombies CANNOT register/deregister, object/support, or
enter contracts.  Everything else like persons.

5.  Registrar is encouraged to time auctions so as to conduct
single auctions for multiple zombies (multiple lots).

Re: DIS: proto-proto: zombie reform

[Madeline]

I mean in the current rules they can only perform one action a month, so 
I don't think they're that overpowered? Making them non-players seems 
like it'd make them entirely useless. And "artificial person" seems like 
it's distorting the definition of person that we've kind of agreed not 
to question too hard?


On 2018-02-23 05:37, Kerim Aydin wrote:


patching auctions, but think there should be a deeper change
because zombies are pretty powerful and unchecked right now.
Also, zombies from actual natural persons has a bit of baggage.

But the bidding's pretty cool, so Outline for discussion.  This
nerfs them a bit but hopefully not so much that they're not worth
a bunch.

   1.  Zombies are artificial persons named in the rules, not
   natural persons.  Total fixed at ~6.

   2.  No one can own more than one zombie.

   3.  zombies revert to Agora after (time), suggesting 60-90 days
   from end of auction.

   4.  zombies CANNOT register/deregister, object/support, or
   enter contracts.  Everything else like persons.

   5.  Registrar is encouraged to time auctions so as to conduct
   single auctions for multiple zombies (multiple lots).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Madeline]

Is there an intended purpose for gray ribbons? I'm not sure if there's 
some custom I should be made aware of there.


On 2018-02-14 14:54, Telnaior wrote:

I award a Gray Ribbon to Trigon.

On 2018-02-14 12:55, Reuben Staley wrote:

I transfer 5 shinies to Telnaior.

On Feb 13, 2018 17:14, "Madeline" <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:


You are a bad person.

On 2018-02-14 10:12, Cuddle Beam wrote:


I bid 15 shinies on that auction

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 12:00 AM, Telnaior <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

:(

I bid 14 shinies on nichdel's zombie auction.


On 2018-02-14 09:43, Kerim Aydin wrote:

With sufficient support, I do so.

To save Telnaior the bother, I act on behalf of em to pay the fine
by transferring 5 shinies from em to Agora.


On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote:

Pretty sure you didn't have enough support for that.


On 2018-02-14 09:25, Alexis Hunt wrote:

I support and do so.


On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 17:24, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

I'm not supporting on purpose :)


On 2018-02-14 09:18, Kerim Aydin wrote:

Not that there isn't a fascinating discussion about winning 
going on,

but
I REALLY WOULD appreciate either support for the below, or some
statement
from folks that they're not supporting on purpose (i.e. why it's
not a

good

punishment).
The current consensus-driven penalty system is very poor at 
working

when
there's general apathy/ambivalence towards it.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
I think a fair assessment is eir January+Feburary salary for 
the

office
- 6 shinies - but mitigated by eir confession.  So penalty
announced
is: 5 shinies.

I announce intent to Levy a Fine of 5 shinies on Telnaior 
with 2

Support.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Madeline]

You are a bad person.

On 2018-02-14 10:12, Cuddle Beam wrote:

I bid 15 shinies on that auction

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 12:00 AM, Telnaior <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:


:(
I bid 14 shinies on nichdel's zombie auction.


On 2018-02-14 09:43, Kerim Aydin wrote:


With sufficient support, I do so.

To save Telnaior the bother, I act on behalf of em to pay the fine
by transferring 5 shinies from em to Agora.


On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote:

Pretty sure you didn't have enough support for that.

On 2018-02-14 09:25, Alexis Hunt wrote:


I support and do so.


On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 17:24, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

I'm not supporting on purpose :)

On 2018-02-14 09:18, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Not that there isn't a fascinating discussion about winning going on,
but
I REALLY WOULD appreciate either support for the below, or some
statement
from folks that they're not supporting on purpose (i.e. why it's not a


good


punishment).

The current consensus-driven penalty system is very poor at working
when
there's general apathy/ambivalence towards it.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


I think a fair assessment is eir January+Feburary salary for the
office
- 6 shinies - but mitigated by eir confession.  So penalty announced
is: 5 shinies.


I announce intent to Levy a Fine of 5 shinies on Telnaior with 2


Support.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Madeline]

Pretty sure you didn't have enough support for that.

On 2018-02-14 09:25, Alexis Hunt wrote:

I support and do so.


On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 17:24, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:


I'm not supporting on purpose :)

On 2018-02-14 09:18, Kerim Aydin wrote:

Not that there isn't a fascinating discussion about winning going on, but
I REALLY WOULD appreciate either support for the below, or some statement
from folks that they're not supporting on purpose (i.e. why it's not a

good

punishment).

The current consensus-driven penalty system is very poor at working when
there's general apathy/ambivalence towards it.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:

I think a fair assessment is eir January+Feburary salary for the office
- 6 shinies - but mitigated by eir confession.  So penalty announced
is: 5 shinies.

I announce intent to Levy a Fine of 5 shinies on Telnaior with 2

Support.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Madeline]

I'm not supporting on purpose :)

On 2018-02-14 09:18, Kerim Aydin wrote:

Not that there isn't a fascinating discussion about winning going on, but
I REALLY WOULD appreciate either support for the below, or some statement
from folks that they're not supporting on purpose (i.e. why it's not a good
punishment).

The current consensus-driven penalty system is very poor at working when
there's general apathy/ambivalence towards it.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:

On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:

I think a fair assessment is eir January+Feburary salary for the office
- 6 shinies - but mitigated by eir confession.  So penalty announced
is: 5 shinies.

I announce intent to Levy a Fine of 5 shinies on Telnaior with 2 Support.

Re: DIS: Proto: competitive victories

[Madeline]

One thing I've thought could be a good idea in that regard is that each 
official method of winning can only be done by one person? Once 
someone's done it first the method's gone.
Ribbons seem like a sensible exception to that given how long-term they 
are and that you "can't" get them as your first win.


On 2018-02-14 08:33, Gaelan Steele wrote:

Append to 2449 “winning the game”:

When one or more players win the game:
* Any intents to Declare Apathy by players who did not win are cancelled.
* Two Medals of Honor in the possession of each player who did not win are 
destroyed.
* The Tailor CAN and SHALL once and within a timely fashion remove two ribbons 
at random from the Ribbon Ownership of each player who did not win, excluding 
the White ribbon.
* [i would revoke some Trust Tokens, but that would require real recordkeeping]
* [something relates to PAoAM if that gets a win condition]

—

Idea here is that winning would be a lot more meaningful if we had an incentive 
to stop it

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Madeline]



On 2018-02-14 08:17, Cuddle Beam wrote:

OK, I'm up for trying it. How much would you sell your vote for?

On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:12 PM, Alex Smith 
wrote:


On Tue, 2018-02-13 at 12:04 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:

In some ways a win is worth far more (bragging value and permanent
record) and
in some ways less (if I bribed each person a number of shinies to
vote for me
to win in a proposal, I bet "buying" a win would be - oh I dunno in
the 50-shiny
neighborhood or so at a guess).

People ought to buy wins more often. Have we had an outright purchased
win since proposal 5884? (Even that turned into a mess of scams and
counterscams with respect to interpretation of the conditional vote
rules. The win only went through because a significant proportion of
bribe requests were sufficiently ambiguous that they ended up counting
as PRESENT rather than AGAINST.)

--
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fact-Checker's Guild

[Madeline]

Muphry's Law strikes again~

On 2018-02-12 14:45, Gaelan Steele wrote:

In intend, without objection, to rename this guild to “The Fact-Checkers’ 
Guild”.

This is embarrassing.

Gaelan


On Feb 11, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

I throw a shiny at Agora and create the following contract:

{
THE FACT-CHECKER’S GUILD

This guild has Failed Its Duties if it is discovered that the game-state has 
changed due to the self-ratification of a document that, before its 
self-ratification, was incorrect. When this guild has Failed Its Duties, all 
parties to this contract are considered to have breached its terms.

Any player CAN become a party to this contract.

Any party to this contract CAN leave it, provided that they have publicly 
announced their intention to do so, between 7 and 14 days prior.

Any party to this contract CAN amend it with Agoran Consent (as defined in the 
ruleset, but only considering objectors and supporters who are parties to the 
contract). Upon such an amendment, any parties who objected to the amendment 
are expelled from the contract (unless they have publicly stated that they do 
not wish for this to occur).
}

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

[Madeline]

It... might be the case, but then I'm pretty certain it'd override the 
previous self-ratifications and just make it so that everyone's had 
these ribbons for a year.
Also, the rules are very strict on "nothing self-ratifies unless we 
explicitly say it does", and nowhere does it say the date of the report 
is something that is self-ratifying.


On 2018-02-12 13:07, Kerim Aydin wrote:

When you ratify a report that includes a specific "this is the
date this report is for", my understanding is that this modifies
the values for that date.  Just like my recent attempt to ratify
"On (date) there were no elections".

In this case, you would have ratified everyone's ribbon holdings
for a year ago.  However, we have reports from the fall that
ratified in late 2017, that state at a later date you didn't have the
ribbons.  So I think your attempt failed...perhaps?  That now the
legal historical record is that those were the ribbon holdings
from early 2017 until the next actual report ratified last year.

Remember, we apply very strict scrutiny to scams and tiny
errors are enough to stop it.


On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:

The date is still off, though---it happened one week after the previous
report.


On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 19:19, Cuddle Beam  wrote:


Oh shit, true. Well, OK.

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:17 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:


It was in eir previous report.

-Aris

On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 4:15 PM Cuddle Beam 

wrote:

  CoE:

2018-02-12  Telnaior+K (self-ratification)

You haven't earned it YET, self-ratification is after its undoubted

for a

week, as per R2201.

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:06 AM, Telnaior  wrote:


TAILOR'S RIBBON REPORT
--

Date of this report: 2017-02-12
Date of last report: 2017-01-31

Festivity: 0

Players' ribbon holdings:

ROGCBMUVIPLWKAT
Alexis ROGCBMUVIP WKA
Aris   RMUV P
Corona
Cuddle Beam   C M V   W
G. ROGCBMUVIPLW AT
GaelanC MUV A
MurphyCB UV A
nichdel OGCBMUV P W AT
o  ROG BMUV   W AT
omd   C  UVKA
pokes
Publius [1]   C MUV
Quazie  O C MUVKA
Telnaior   KA
Trigon
Josh T. [3]  UV A
V.J. Rada   MU   LW

Non-players' ribbon holdings:

ROGCBMUVIPLWKAT
ais523 ROGCBMUV PLWKAT
aranea ROGCBM V PLW A
ATMunn  A
babelian U
Bayushi MU
BedeM W
Chuck   M
grokO  BMUV
Ienpw IIIUV
K W
Ørjan   M V
Roujo V
Sprocklem   MUV   W A
stadjer   W
Tanner Swett  C M
Tekneek M
Tiger  BM
tmanthe2nd   UV
VeggiekeksC  UV
Yally   M
Zachary W [2]U

[1] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
[2] Zachary Watterson
[3] 天火狐

The rules for Ribbons are set out in rule 2438. A quick guide to how
most Ribbons work: various events cause you to "earn" a Ribbon; you
then "qualify for" that Ribbon for 7 days. While you qualify for a
Ribbon (and do not already own that Ribbon, and have not owned it
recently), any player can "award" you that Ribbon. A few Ribbons
work differently; see rule 2438 for details.

Approximate summary of how each type of Ribbon can be gained:
Red  Author an adopted proposal that amends a Power-3+ rule
Orange   Author a proposal that is unanimously adopted
GreenHold an elected office for 30 days with no late duties
Cyan Deputise for an office
Blue Judge a CFJ without violating time limits to do so
Magenta  Acknowldge Agora's Birthday
Ultraviolet  Become Champion (typically by winning the game)
Violet   Gain a Patent Title (except Champion, degrees)
Indigo   Gain a degree
Platinum Become the Speaker
Lime Coauthor three adopted proposals within 7 days
WhiteNever have had a White Ribbon, or be gifted one by

someone

who has never gifted a White Ribbon
blacKAwardable only by proposal or scam
GrAy Awarded monthly at the Tailor's discretion
Transparent  Qualify for 5 Ribbons in the same week (ones you already
have count)

History of Ribbon holdings:
2014-11-04  aranea  +W (new to Ribbons)
2014-11-04  aranea  +C (deputising for Tailor)
2014-11-06  Sprocklem   +W (new to Ribbons)
2014-11-09  omd +C (deputising for King Azaz)
2014-11-14  Alexis  +C (deputising for Herald)
2015-01-07  G.  +C (deputising for Referee)
2015-04-17  stadjer +W (new to Ribbons)
2015-05-01  aranea  +R (Proposal 7736)
2015-05-01  aranea   

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

[Madeline]

The way the rule is written, I don't think it is a relative duration...?

On 2018-02-12 12:40, Alexis Hunt wrote:

"These definitions do not apply to relative durations (e.g. "within
 days after ")."


On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 20:39, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:


I put in a CFJ earlier, I think right now self-ratification requires a
full Agoran week (which is why I waited this long).

On 2018-02-12 12:37, Alexis Hunt wrote:

The date is still off, though---it happened one week after the previous
report.


On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 19:19, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:


Oh shit, true. Well, OK.

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:17 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:


It was in eir previous report.

-Aris

On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 4:15 PM Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com>

wrote:

   CoE:

2018-02-12  Telnaior+K (self-ratification)

You haven't earned it YET, self-ratification is after its undoubted

for a

week, as per R2201.

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:06 AM, Telnaior <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:


TAILOR'S RIBBON REPORT
--

Date of this report: 2017-02-12
Date of last report: 2017-01-31

Festivity: 0

Players' ribbon holdings:

 ROGCBMUVIPLWKAT
Alexis ROGCBMUVIP WKA
Aris   RMUV P
Corona
Cuddle Beam   C M V   W
G. ROGCBMUVIPLW AT
GaelanC MUV A
MurphyCB UV A
nichdel OGCBMUV P W AT
o  ROG BMUV   W AT
omd   C  UVKA
pokes
Publius [1]   C MUV
Quazie  O C MUVKA
Telnaior   KA
Trigon
Josh T. [3]  UV A
V.J. Rada   MU   LW

Non-players' ribbon holdings:

 ROGCBMUVIPLWKAT
ais523 ROGCBMUV PLWKAT
aranea ROGCBM V PLW A
ATMunn  A
babelian U
Bayushi MU
BedeM W
Chuck   M
grokO  BMUV
Ienpw IIIUV
K W
Ørjan   M V
Roujo V
Sprocklem   MUV   W A
stadjer   W
Tanner Swett  C M
Tekneek M
Tiger  BM
tmanthe2nd   UV
VeggiekeksC  UV
Yally   M
Zachary W [2]U

[1] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
[2] Zachary Watterson
[3] 天火狐

The rules for Ribbons are set out in rule 2438. A quick guide to how
most Ribbons work: various events cause you to "earn" a Ribbon; you
then "qualify for" that Ribbon for 7 days. While you qualify for a
Ribbon (and do not already own that Ribbon, and have not owned it
recently), any player can "award" you that Ribbon. A few Ribbons
work differently; see rule 2438 for details.

Approximate summary of how each type of Ribbon can be gained:
Red  Author an adopted proposal that amends a Power-3+ rule
Orange   Author a proposal that is unanimously adopted
GreenHold an elected office for 30 days with no late duties
Cyan Deputise for an office
Blue Judge a CFJ without violating time limits to do so
Magenta  Acknowldge Agora's Birthday
Ultraviolet  Become Champion (typically by winning the game)
Violet   Gain a Patent Title (except Champion, degrees)
Indigo   Gain a degree
Platinum Become the Speaker
Lime Coauthor three adopted proposals within 7 days
WhiteNever have had a White Ribbon, or be gifted one by

someone

 who has never gifted a White Ribbon
blacKAwardable only by proposal or scam
GrAy Awarded monthly at the Tailor's discretion
Transparent  Qualify for 5 Ribbons in the same week (ones you already
 have count)

History of Ribbon holdings:
2014-11-04  aranea  +W (new to Ribbons)
2014-11-04  aranea  +C (deputising for Tailor)
2014-11-06  Sprocklem   +W (new to Ribbons)
2014-11-09  omd +C (deputising for King Azaz)
2014-11-14  Alexis  +C (deputising for Herald)
2015-01-07  G.  +C (deputising for Referee)
2015-04-17  stadjer +W (new to Ribbons)
2015-05-01  aranea  +R (Proposal 7736)
2015-05-01  aranea  +O (Proposal 7735)
2015-05-01  aranea  +L (Proposal 7735-37)
2015-05-01  G.  +R (Proposal 7734)
2015-05-01  G.  +O (Proposal 7738)
2015-05-01  G.  +L (Proposal 7734,38,39)
2015-05-01  G.  +P (appointed Speaker)
2015-05-12  ais523  +O (Proposal 7742)
2015-05-12  Alexis  +P (appointed Speaker)
2015-05-13  Alexis  +G (as Tailor)
2015-05-22  G.  +B (CFJ 3448)
2015-05-23  Alexis  +B (CFJ 3447)
2015-05-24  G.  +W (gifted by aranea)
2015-06-09  ais523  +G (as Prime Minister)
2015-06-29  Alexis 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

[Madeline]

I put in a CFJ earlier, I think right now self-ratification requires a 
full Agoran week (which is why I waited this long).


On 2018-02-12 12:37, Alexis Hunt wrote:

The date is still off, though---it happened one week after the previous
report.


On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 19:19, Cuddle Beam  wrote:


Oh shit, true. Well, OK.

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:17 AM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:


It was in eir previous report.

-Aris

On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 4:15 PM Cuddle Beam 

wrote:

  CoE:

2018-02-12  Telnaior+K (self-ratification)

You haven't earned it YET, self-ratification is after its undoubted

for a

week, as per R2201.

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:06 AM, Telnaior  wrote:


TAILOR'S RIBBON REPORT
--

Date of this report: 2017-02-12
Date of last report: 2017-01-31

Festivity: 0

Players' ribbon holdings:

ROGCBMUVIPLWKAT
Alexis ROGCBMUVIP WKA
Aris   RMUV P
Corona
Cuddle Beam   C M V   W
G. ROGCBMUVIPLW AT
GaelanC MUV A
MurphyCB UV A
nichdel OGCBMUV P W AT
o  ROG BMUV   W AT
omd   C  UVKA
pokes
Publius [1]   C MUV
Quazie  O C MUVKA
Telnaior   KA
Trigon
Josh T. [3]  UV A
V.J. Rada   MU   LW

Non-players' ribbon holdings:

ROGCBMUVIPLWKAT
ais523 ROGCBMUV PLWKAT
aranea ROGCBM V PLW A
ATMunn  A
babelian U
Bayushi MU
BedeM W
Chuck   M
grokO  BMUV
Ienpw IIIUV
K W
Ørjan   M V
Roujo V
Sprocklem   MUV   W A
stadjer   W
Tanner Swett  C M
Tekneek M
Tiger  BM
tmanthe2nd   UV
VeggiekeksC  UV
Yally   M
Zachary W [2]U

[1] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
[2] Zachary Watterson
[3] 天火狐

The rules for Ribbons are set out in rule 2438. A quick guide to how
most Ribbons work: various events cause you to "earn" a Ribbon; you
then "qualify for" that Ribbon for 7 days. While you qualify for a
Ribbon (and do not already own that Ribbon, and have not owned it
recently), any player can "award" you that Ribbon. A few Ribbons
work differently; see rule 2438 for details.

Approximate summary of how each type of Ribbon can be gained:
Red  Author an adopted proposal that amends a Power-3+ rule
Orange   Author a proposal that is unanimously adopted
GreenHold an elected office for 30 days with no late duties
Cyan Deputise for an office
Blue Judge a CFJ without violating time limits to do so
Magenta  Acknowldge Agora's Birthday
Ultraviolet  Become Champion (typically by winning the game)
Violet   Gain a Patent Title (except Champion, degrees)
Indigo   Gain a degree
Platinum Become the Speaker
Lime Coauthor three adopted proposals within 7 days
WhiteNever have had a White Ribbon, or be gifted one by

someone

who has never gifted a White Ribbon
blacKAwardable only by proposal or scam
GrAy Awarded monthly at the Tailor's discretion
Transparent  Qualify for 5 Ribbons in the same week (ones you already
have count)

History of Ribbon holdings:
2014-11-04  aranea  +W (new to Ribbons)
2014-11-04  aranea  +C (deputising for Tailor)
2014-11-06  Sprocklem   +W (new to Ribbons)
2014-11-09  omd +C (deputising for King Azaz)
2014-11-14  Alexis  +C (deputising for Herald)
2015-01-07  G.  +C (deputising for Referee)
2015-04-17  stadjer +W (new to Ribbons)
2015-05-01  aranea  +R (Proposal 7736)
2015-05-01  aranea  +O (Proposal 7735)
2015-05-01  aranea  +L (Proposal 7735-37)
2015-05-01  G.  +R (Proposal 7734)
2015-05-01  G.  +O (Proposal 7738)
2015-05-01  G.  +L (Proposal 7734,38,39)
2015-05-01  G.  +P (appointed Speaker)
2015-05-12  ais523  +O (Proposal 7742)
2015-05-12  Alexis  +P (appointed Speaker)
2015-05-13  Alexis  +G (as Tailor)
2015-05-22  G.  +B (CFJ 3448)
2015-05-23  Alexis  +B (CFJ 3447)
2015-05-24  G.  +W (gifted by aranea)
2015-06-09  ais523  +G (as Prime Minister)
2015-06-29  Alexis  +M
2015-06-29  aranea  +M
2015-06-29  ais523  +M
2015-06-29  the Warrigal+M
2015-06-29  Sprocklem   +M
2015-06-29  Tiger   +M
2015-06-29  G.  +M
2015-06-29  Bede+M
2015-06-30  Gaelan  +M
2015-06-30  aranea  +A
2015-06-30  Alexis  +O (Proposal 7753)
2015-07-10  G.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

[Madeline]

Pfft, and here I thought I'd survived the new year without accidentally 
dating something 2017.

And why do you make it sound like I'm not going to be Tailor anymore... :(

On 2018-02-12 12:32, Gaelan Steele wrote:

This report is dated 2017. Don’t believe that changes anything, but the future 
Tailor should probably fix it.

Gaelan


On Feb 11, 2018, at 4:06 PM, Telnaior  wrote:

TAILOR'S RIBBON REPORT
--

Date of this report: 2017-02-12
Date of last report: 2017-01-31

Festivity: 0

Players' ribbon holdings:

ROGCBMUVIPLWKAT
Alexis ROGCBMUVIP WKA
Aris   RMUV P
Corona
Cuddle Beam   C M V   W
G. ROGCBMUVIPLW AT
GaelanC MUV A
MurphyCB UV A
nichdel OGCBMUV P W AT
o  ROG BMUV   W AT
omd   C  UVKA
pokes
Publius [1]   C MUV
Quazie  O C MUVKA
Telnaior   KA
Trigon
Josh T. [3]  UV A
V.J. Rada   MU   LW

Non-players' ribbon holdings:

ROGCBMUVIPLWKAT
ais523 ROGCBMUV PLWKAT
aranea ROGCBM V PLW A
ATMunn  A
babelian U
Bayushi MU
BedeM W
Chuck   M
grokO  BMUV
Ienpw IIIUV
K W
Ørjan   M V
Roujo V
Sprocklem   MUV   W A
stadjer   W
Tanner Swett  C M
Tekneek M
Tiger  BM
tmanthe2nd   UV
VeggiekeksC  UV
Yally   M
Zachary W [2]U

[1] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
[2] Zachary Watterson
[3] 天火狐

The rules for Ribbons are set out in rule 2438. A quick guide to how
most Ribbons work: various events cause you to "earn" a Ribbon; you
then "qualify for" that Ribbon for 7 days. While you qualify for a
Ribbon (and do not already own that Ribbon, and have not owned it
recently), any player can "award" you that Ribbon. A few Ribbons
work differently; see rule 2438 for details.

Approximate summary of how each type of Ribbon can be gained:
Red  Author an adopted proposal that amends a Power-3+ rule
Orange   Author a proposal that is unanimously adopted
GreenHold an elected office for 30 days with no late duties
Cyan Deputise for an office
Blue Judge a CFJ without violating time limits to do so
Magenta  Acknowldge Agora's Birthday
Ultraviolet  Become Champion (typically by winning the game)
Violet   Gain a Patent Title (except Champion, degrees)
Indigo   Gain a degree
Platinum Become the Speaker
Lime Coauthor three adopted proposals within 7 days
WhiteNever have had a White Ribbon, or be gifted one by someone
who has never gifted a White Ribbon
blacKAwardable only by proposal or scam
GrAy Awarded monthly at the Tailor's discretion
Transparent  Qualify for 5 Ribbons in the same week (ones you already
have count)

History of Ribbon holdings:
2014-11-04  aranea  +W (new to Ribbons)
2014-11-04  aranea  +C (deputising for Tailor)
2014-11-06  Sprocklem   +W (new to Ribbons)
2014-11-09  omd +C (deputising for King Azaz)
2014-11-14  Alexis  +C (deputising for Herald)
2015-01-07  G.  +C (deputising for Referee)
2015-04-17  stadjer +W (new to Ribbons)
2015-05-01  aranea  +R (Proposal 7736)
2015-05-01  aranea  +O (Proposal 7735)
2015-05-01  aranea  +L (Proposal 7735-37)
2015-05-01  G.  +R (Proposal 7734)
2015-05-01  G.  +O (Proposal 7738)
2015-05-01  G.  +L (Proposal 7734,38,39)
2015-05-01  G.  +P (appointed Speaker)
2015-05-12  ais523  +O (Proposal 7742)
2015-05-12  Alexis  +P (appointed Speaker)
2015-05-13  Alexis  +G (as Tailor)
2015-05-22  G.  +B (CFJ 3448)
2015-05-23  Alexis  +B (CFJ 3447)
2015-05-24  G.  +W (gifted by aranea)
2015-06-09  ais523  +G (as Prime Minister)
2015-06-29  Alexis  +M
2015-06-29  aranea  +M
2015-06-29  ais523  +M
2015-06-29  the Warrigal+M
2015-06-29  Sprocklem   +M
2015-06-29  Tiger   +M
2015-06-29  G.  +M
2015-06-29  Bede+M
2015-06-30  Gaelan  +M
2015-06-30  aranea  +A
2015-06-30  Alexis  +O (Proposal 7753)
2015-07-10  G.  +G (as Arbitor)
2015-07-12  aranea  +V ("Unchampion")
2015-07-26  Alexis  +A
2015-07-28  aranea  +B (CFJ 3449)
2015-08-03  ais523  +V ("Silver Quill 2015/07")
2015-08-10  Tiger   +B (CFJ 3451)
2015-08-11  omd +K (by Proposal 7784)
2015-08-11  ais523  +K (by Proposal 7784)
2015-08-11  Alexis  +K (by Proposal 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Madeline]

It's worth noting someone (Murphy?) mentioned a couple of months ago 
that the real scam is that you don't have to deny the CoE publicly, 
which would allow it to work even if someone noticed.


On 2018-02-12 11:48, Kerim Aydin wrote:

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alex Smith wrote:

On Sun, 2018-02-11 at 16:41 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote:

This change, mind you, would make G win.

Well, it's one of the more ingenious ways to deal with a missing black
ribbon that I've seen.

Eh it's pretty darn obvious and dull if your tailor and in position to do it,  
only
reason I didn't try at the time is I had all the others and filling in that 
blank would
be pretty obvious.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Madeline]

If that were the case, I just wouldn't have come clean about it...


On 2018-02-12 11:42, Cuddle Beam wrote:

I think the challenge should be to get Black Ribbons without getting cards.

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:39 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:



How about we get rid of black ribbons altogether I loathe them
(And am certainly not willing to make a rules exception for them).

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alex Smith wrote:

On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 00:35 +, Alex Smith wrote:

On Sun, 2018-02-11 at 16:32 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:

As referee I'm conflicted.  On one hand this is blatant use
of office for personal gain, on the other hand I convinced myself
when I was Tailor that the nature/ expectation of Black ribbons
made
this particular scam expected/ok.

I look down on intentionally breaking rules as part of a scam, but on
the other hand, I'm more willing to forgive that when Black Ribbons
are
involved (without other parts of the gamestate being touched).
Perhaps
I'm OK with this if the Tailor is OK with living with the typical
punishment for intentionally falsifying the report (even though I
normally believe that you shouldn't break the rules even if you're
willing to live with the resulting punishment).

Incidentally, I also believe it's acceptable to attempt to scam your
way out of a punishment after an accidental rules breach, because
that's a different issue from the rules breach itself. But that's
probably unlikely to happen here.

Hmm, proto: actions whose only purpose is to gain a Black Ribbon are
never illegal (although they could be impossible); however, if they
would otherwise violate the rules, they are (despite being legal) a
cardable offence.

--
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Madeline]

It's hard to deny that...

On 2018-02-12 11:40, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Pink slip is most appropriate however.

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote:

I would request "not a pink slip please" on the grounds that I won't do it
again (not that I have a reason to at this point, and now that reports aren't
protected I think it's possible to contract to ensure I couldn't)
(plus now that I've got it I don't need to be looking for ways to get it, and
this was pretty benign by scam standards)


On 2018-02-12 11:32, Kerim Aydin wrote:

As referee I'm conflicted.  On one hand this is blatant use
of office for personal gain, on the other hand I convinced myself
when I was Tailor that the nature/ expectation of Black ribbons made this
particular scam expected/ok.

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Telnaior wrote:


This is a Notice of Honour.

I award a karma to Corona for letting us know of her inactivity.

I subtract a karma from myself for abusing the powers of my office as
Tailor.

I Point a Finger at myself for posting a report I knew to be false.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Madeline]

I already did that D:

On 2018-02-12 11:35, Gaelan Steele wrote:

I point my finger at Telnaior for violation of rule 2143/26, third to last 
paragraph. If we don’t want to punish for this, we should codify it in the 
rules.

Gaelan


On Feb 11, 2018, at 4:32 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:



As referee I'm conflicted.  On one hand this is blatant use
of office for personal gain, on the other hand I convinced myself
when I was Tailor that the nature/ expectation of Black ribbons made this
particular scam expected/ok.

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Telnaior wrote:


This is a Notice of Honour.

I award a karma to Corona for letting us know of her inactivity.

I subtract a karma from myself for abusing the powers of my office as Tailor.

I Point a Finger at myself for posting a report I knew to be false.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Madeline]

I would request "not a pink slip please" on the grounds that I won't do 
it again (not that I have a reason to at this point, and now that 
reports aren't protected I think it's possible to contract to ensure I 
couldn't)
(plus now that I've got it I don't need to be looking for ways to get 
it, and this was pretty benign by scam standards)



On 2018-02-12 11:32, Kerim Aydin wrote:


As referee I'm conflicted.  On one hand this is blatant use
of office for personal gain, on the other hand I convinced myself
when I was Tailor that the nature/ expectation of Black ribbons made this
particular scam expected/ok.

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Telnaior wrote:


This is a Notice of Honour.

I award a karma to Corona for letting us know of her inactivity.

I subtract a karma from myself for abusing the powers of my office as Tailor.

I Point a Finger at myself for posting a report I knew to be false.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

[Madeline]

Check the last report.

On 2018-02-12 11:15, Cuddle Beam wrote:

  CoE:

2018-02-12  Telnaior+K (self-ratification)

You haven't earned it YET, self-ratification is after its undoubted for a
week, as per R2201.

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:06 AM, Telnaior  wrote:


TAILOR'S RIBBON REPORT
--

Date of this report: 2017-02-12
Date of last report: 2017-01-31

Festivity: 0

Players' ribbon holdings:

ROGCBMUVIPLWKAT
Alexis ROGCBMUVIP WKA
Aris   RMUV P
Corona
Cuddle Beam   C M V   W
G. ROGCBMUVIPLW AT
GaelanC MUV A
MurphyCB UV A
nichdel OGCBMUV P W AT
o  ROG BMUV   W AT
omd   C  UVKA
pokes
Publius [1]   C MUV
Quazie  O C MUVKA
Telnaior   KA
Trigon
Josh T. [3]  UV A
V.J. Rada   MU   LW

Non-players' ribbon holdings:

ROGCBMUVIPLWKAT
ais523 ROGCBMUV PLWKAT
aranea ROGCBM V PLW A
ATMunn  A
babelian U
Bayushi MU
BedeM W
Chuck   M
grokO  BMUV
Ienpw IIIUV
K W
Ørjan   M V
Roujo V
Sprocklem   MUV   W A
stadjer   W
Tanner Swett  C M
Tekneek M
Tiger  BM
tmanthe2nd   UV
VeggiekeksC  UV
Yally   M
Zachary W [2]U

[1] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
[2] Zachary Watterson
[3] 天火狐

The rules for Ribbons are set out in rule 2438. A quick guide to how
most Ribbons work: various events cause you to "earn" a Ribbon; you
then "qualify for" that Ribbon for 7 days. While you qualify for a
Ribbon (and do not already own that Ribbon, and have not owned it
recently), any player can "award" you that Ribbon. A few Ribbons
work differently; see rule 2438 for details.

Approximate summary of how each type of Ribbon can be gained:
Red  Author an adopted proposal that amends a Power-3+ rule
Orange   Author a proposal that is unanimously adopted
GreenHold an elected office for 30 days with no late duties
Cyan Deputise for an office
Blue Judge a CFJ without violating time limits to do so
Magenta  Acknowldge Agora's Birthday
Ultraviolet  Become Champion (typically by winning the game)
Violet   Gain a Patent Title (except Champion, degrees)
Indigo   Gain a degree
Platinum Become the Speaker
Lime Coauthor three adopted proposals within 7 days
WhiteNever have had a White Ribbon, or be gifted one by someone
who has never gifted a White Ribbon
blacKAwardable only by proposal or scam
GrAy Awarded monthly at the Tailor's discretion
Transparent  Qualify for 5 Ribbons in the same week (ones you already
have count)

History of Ribbon holdings:
2014-11-04  aranea  +W (new to Ribbons)
2014-11-04  aranea  +C (deputising for Tailor)
2014-11-06  Sprocklem   +W (new to Ribbons)
2014-11-09  omd +C (deputising for King Azaz)
2014-11-14  Alexis  +C (deputising for Herald)
2015-01-07  G.  +C (deputising for Referee)
2015-04-17  stadjer +W (new to Ribbons)
2015-05-01  aranea  +R (Proposal 7736)
2015-05-01  aranea  +O (Proposal 7735)
2015-05-01  aranea  +L (Proposal 7735-37)
2015-05-01  G.  +R (Proposal 7734)
2015-05-01  G.  +O (Proposal 7738)
2015-05-01  G.  +L (Proposal 7734,38,39)
2015-05-01  G.  +P (appointed Speaker)
2015-05-12  ais523  +O (Proposal 7742)
2015-05-12  Alexis  +P (appointed Speaker)
2015-05-13  Alexis  +G (as Tailor)
2015-05-22  G.  +B (CFJ 3448)
2015-05-23  Alexis  +B (CFJ 3447)
2015-05-24  G.  +W (gifted by aranea)
2015-06-09  ais523  +G (as Prime Minister)
2015-06-29  Alexis  +M
2015-06-29  aranea  +M
2015-06-29  ais523  +M
2015-06-29  the Warrigal+M
2015-06-29  Sprocklem   +M
2015-06-29  Tiger   +M
2015-06-29  G.  +M
2015-06-29  Bede+M
2015-06-30  Gaelan  +M
2015-06-30  aranea  +A
2015-06-30  Alexis  +O (Proposal 7753)
2015-07-10  G.  +G (as Arbitor)
2015-07-12  aranea  +V ("Unchampion")
2015-07-26  Alexis  +A
2015-07-28  aranea  +B (CFJ 3449)
2015-08-03  ais523  +V ("Silver Quill 2015/07")
2015-08-10  Tiger   +B (CFJ 3451)
2015-08-11  omd +K (by Proposal 7784)
2015-08-11  ais523  +K (by Proposal 7784)
2015-08-11  Alexis  +K (by Proposal 7784)
2015-08-11  Alexis  +R (Proposal 7772)
2015-08-11  Alexis  +P
2015-08-17  omd 

DIS: Re: BUS: Oh gosh I think that the storm of mail we just had is my fault

[Madeline]

On 2018-02-09 13:28, ATMunn wrote:

I deregister.

(I, at least in part, wrote all the auction rules that are causing all 
this confusion...)


A storm of mail isn't a bad thing!

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auctions for Quazie, 天火狐, and nichdel

[Madeline]

Isn't the implication there that you should appeal it if you're not 
happy with it?



On 2018-02-09 11:38, Cuddle Beam wrote:

I'll retract my bids if G. cards themselves for pulling this:


 Trivial auction breaking spoils everyone's fun.  Really.  And "I might
 as well" directly break a rule is a terrible attitude to bring to the
 game, and doesn't Treat Agora Right.  This deserves a strong penalty.
You were testing, I was testing... Citing the rule specifically such that
a ruling on whether it was appropriate would be specific to cause, and
choosing a card to make it worth contesting.

I hope to believe in the future that cardings/fingerpointings from G. are
for legitimate game health reasons and not for taunting people to further
personal agendas (as interesting as the points sought may be).

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 1:34 AM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:


Still leaves my bid of i. I’m kind of curious about the ruling about that,
but I’m happy to (attempt to) retract one or both of my bids if that’s what
everyone would prefer.

Gaelan


On Feb 8, 2018, at 4:20 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:




On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote:
So what's the status on the remaining two auctions now?
I was hoping to make a serious bid on them. :(

Here's how fun's not *entirely* broken:

You can still place lower bids.

And CuddleBeam *might* be able to retract eir bid (I think e
can, because that doesn't outright conflict with the zombie
auction rule).

Players may wish to think about making support for Throwing
the Book at CuddleBeam somehow conditional on whether e withdraws
those bids...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auctions for Quazie, 天火狐, and nichdel

[Madeline]

You could look at comparing the real component only (which would give it 
a size of 0), or perhaps taking the modulus (which would give it a size 
of 1). I'd suggest withdrawing it lest you meet the same fate as 
Cuddlebeam, though.



On 2018-02-09 11:34, Gaelan Steele wrote:

Still leaves my bid of i. I’m kind of curious about the ruling about that, but 
I’m happy to (attempt to) retract one or both of my bids if that’s what 
everyone would prefer.

Gaelan


On Feb 8, 2018, at 4:20 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:




On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote:
So what's the status on the remaining two auctions now?
I was hoping to make a serious bid on them. :(

Here's how fun's not *entirely* broken:

You can still place lower bids.

And CuddleBeam *might* be able to retract eir bid (I think e
can, because that doesn't outright conflict with the zombie
auction rule).

Players may wish to think about making support for Throwing
the Book at CuddleBeam somehow conditional on whether e withdraws
those bids...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auctions for Quazie, 天火狐, and nichdel

[Madeline]

So what's the status on the remaining two auctions now?
I was hoping to make a serious bid on them. :(


On 2018-02-09 11:04, Cuddle Beam wrote:

Using the guise of "breaking fun" to test something? Well, alright.

I appreciate the lack of book-throwing.

On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 12:42 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:




You were testing, I was testing... Citing the rule specifically such that
a ruling on whether it was appropriate would be specific to cause, and
choosing a card to make it worth contesting.

The Zombie Auction version doesn't make it possible to withdraw bids,
so I don't know if that would work No clue.

On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:

I find that I broke R2550 a bit weird, because I was relying on your very
on argument of " You could bid anything and say "hey, a rule change might
make it possible, you never know."

If you want to Card me for "breaking fun", sure, but then state it as

such

and not R2550.

Because hey, a rule change might make it possible, you never know.

(Also, I was planning on retracting that and bidding for real to win the
auction but oh well.)

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:06 PM, Kerim Aydin 

wrote:


I point the finger at cuddlebeam for breaking Rule 2550 in the first
auction.
I point the finger at cuddlebeam for breaking Rule 2550 in the second
auction.
I point the finger at cuddlebeam for breaking Rule 2550 in the third
auction.

I deputize for the Referee to impose judgement on cuddlebeam for the

first

finger-pointing:

 Trivial auction breaking spoils everyone's fun.  Really.  And "I

might

 as well" directly break a rule is a terrible attitude to bring to

the

 game, and doesn't Treat Agora Right.  This deserves a strong

penalty.

 Red Card.

On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:

Might as well:

I bid an amount equal to the cardinality of the set of all Natural

numbers

(aleph-zero), on each auction

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Gaelan Steele 

wrote:

What does “winning” mean, anyway?

I bid i shinies (i.e. sqrt(-1)) on each auction.

Gaelan


On Feb 8, 2018, at 12:14 PM, Kerim Aydin 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Rejoice, the Limerickmeister, has FINALLY arrived to grace Agora

[Madeline]

On 2018-02-08 12:26, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

On Wed, 7 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote:


Ok so, hear me out, this is a limerick about butts
It's pretty good, I've got this down, butts.
give each Agoran a shiny, butts
And a coin, butts
This is a classy proposal - butts butts butts!


Going for the joke option, I take, since it fulfils none of the other 
definitions...


(I think option 1 is redundant with option 2, anyway. Limericks _do_ 
have rhyming scheme and strict meter.)


Greetings,
Ørjan, who laughed, anyhow.


I think it kind of works if you treat "Ok so, hear me out" as spoken 
rather than part of the first line?

Re: DIS: About Paradoxes

[Madeline]

It's not fun at all. :(


On 2018-02-07 11:17, Cuddle Beam wrote:

Ah, I see. I can see why it would be so popular, it seems so fun! (And
maybe I'll get fed up of it too eventually lol, like how eating chocolate
everyday eventually gets at you.)

This is a weird case of gerontocracy lol.

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 12:54 AM, Alex Smith 
wrote:


On Wed, 2018-02-07 at 00:44 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote:

I've never done or seen deliberate Paradox stuff in nomic so this is all
pretty exciting for me.

I'm surprised that ad hoc contracts/pledges haven't been used before to
summon Paradox wins! I'm pretty proud! (Or just not sufficiently informed
yet! lol)

It used to be such a popular thing to try that people got rather bored
of it.

Most of them didn't work; a few of them did. (In some cases we
subsequently decided that it "shouldn't" have worked, but the win had
already been awarded.)

--
ais523

Re: DIS: About Paradoxes (fwd)

[Madeline]

Oh, thanks, sorry, it's been a while. Don't think that's the first time 
I've done it today either >_>



On 2018-02-07 10:39, Kerim Aydin wrote:


(assuming this was meant for Discussion and not me personally...)

-- Forwarded message --
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 10:35:48 +1100
From: Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au>
To: Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
Subject: Re: DIS: About Paradoxes

If a value becomes indeterminate, that in itself clarifies the situation - and
nowhere does it say that PARADOXICAL is appropriate only because of something
going indeterminate, it's only if it's undecidable. I don't think one suggests
the other (otherwise they'd use the same language in the first place), and I'd
suggest that even if it wasn't irrelevant, DISMISS or even FALSE would be more
appropriate.


On 2018-02-07 10:11, Kerim Aydin wrote:

On Wed, 7 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote:

  From the Ruleset:

Rule 2518/0 (Power=3.0)
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.

That's Power 3, which overrides all the nonsense about winning by paradox
ANYWAY by cleanly resolving any paradoxes that do happen to occur.
Can we just repeal winning by paradox? It's literally ONLY there so people
can
scam it, it doesn't serve any real purpose.

This of it this way.  R2518 does some error-trapping by setting
undefined values to INDETERMINATE.  But you still have to actually
handle the error.  In many cases, we've done this - for example
indeterminate switches take on their default value.  But if you
find somewhere where it's not handled after being trapped - it's
good to offer an incentive to find it for a win instead of waiting
until it breaks something unexpectedly.

That said, (1) I usually find 95% of paradox attempts pretty tiring/
pointless, and (2) paradox wins don't mix well with contracts,
where anyone can give arbitrary text some regulatory force - that
combo knocks the 95% up to about 99%.  :P

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Win by paradox?

[Madeline]

Gratuitous Argument:
Obviously, the veracity of the statement "This sentence is false" is 
indeterminate, as Rule 2518 ("Determinacy") makes clear. As a result, 
whether or not you owe shinies to Agora is indeterminate, whether or not 
you owe shinies to Cuddlebeam is indeterminate, and if you tried to 
actually pay that indeterminate number of shinies, Rule 2162 
("Switches") comes in and resets the shiny counts to what they were 
before they became indeterminate. The case is IRRELEVANT.


On 2018-02-06 14:54, Nicholas Evans wrote:

TTttPF

On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 9:54 PM, Nicholas Evans  wrote:



On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 8:27 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:


Well it seems viable to me so I'll give it a shot I guess lol.
(Wielding paradoxes is a weird thing, I hope I'm doing it right). Here are
the proto-actions:
​​

I create a contract by paying 1 shiny to Agora, with the following text:
---
"This sentence is false."
If the statement above is true, I owe 1 shinies to Agora, but if its
false,
I owe no shinies to Agora.
If I owe a positive amount of shinies, I cannot make any transfer of
shinies until I fulfill paying the amount owed.  // <--- Mainly so that it
can't be shot down as "irrelevant", because shinies are a game mechanic.


​I'm not caught up on recent discussions but my reading of 2520 makes me
wonder if a contract can prohibit action. That said, I think this works:

​
I create a contract by paying 1 shiny to Agora, with the following text:
---
"This sentence is false."
If the statement above is true, I owe 1 shinies to Agora, but if its
false, I owe no shinies to Agora.
While I owe any Shinies to Agora, I also owe 1 shiny to CuddleBeam but I
do not owe any shinies to any person.
I shall, must, have to, and do so automatically, if possible, pay Agora
and CuddleBeam what I owe them within a week of owing.
---

​I raise a CFJ on the following: The above contract compels me to ​pay
CuddleBeam at least one shiny.




---

I raise a CFJ on the following: I owe Agora an amount of shinies due to
the
contract above.



On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 5:32 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:


Maybe this is a dumb question but, wouldn't it be possible to just
"program" yourself some kind of paradox into a contract, for example,

some

variant of the Paradox of the Court
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_the_Court where I have to pay
someone or not, then request in a CFJ to know if I have to pay them or

not?

Then, have that CFJ gain a verdict of "Paradox" (and not because of the
case itself, but because of the contract you've engineered to make the

CFJ

read from it that value of "Paradox", to avoid "PARADOXICAL is not
appropriate if (...) the undecidability arises from the case itself or

in

reference to it.")

Then claim a win via the Paradox rule.

Sounds viable?

Re: DIS: About Paradoxes

[Madeline]

On 2018-02-07 10:04, Alex Smith wrote:

On Wed, 2018-02-07 at 09:59 +1100, Madeline wrote:

  From the Ruleset:

Rule 2518/0 (Power=3.0)
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.

That's Power 3, which overrides all the nonsense about winning by
paradox ANYWAY by cleanly resolving any paradoxes that do happen to
occur.
Can we just repeal winning by paradox? It's literally ONLY there so
people can scam it, it doesn't serve any real purpose.

That rule doesn't actually /do/ anything to a paradox, though. It
simply notes the presence of one.

Its main purpose is to prevent "outside paradoxes" (e.g. in a contract,
a conditional vote, or an outside-Agora legal code) affecting the
gamestate (via being referenced in rules that trigger off a condition).

Other rules give clear instructions on what to do about indeterminate 
values, while the paragraph on when to find a case PARADOXICAL makes no 
mention of indeterminacy - suggesting that if it can be resolved through 
the methods given (which they can, I'm typing it up right now) then it's 
not PARADOXICAL.

DIS: About Paradoxes

[Madeline]

From the Ruleset:

Rule 2518/0 (Power=3.0)
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.

That's Power 3, which overrides all the nonsense about winning by paradox 
ANYWAY by cleanly resolving any paradoxes that do happen to occur.
Can we just repeal winning by paradox? It's literally ONLY there so people can 
scam it, it doesn't serve any real purpose.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Registrar] Weekly Report

[Madeline]

Is it? I didn't check for that...
Why is an inactive the holder of an important honourary office, then?

On 2018-02-07 09:16, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On Wed, 7 Feb 2018, Telnaior wrote:

Somehow this managed to come through in variable-width font on my client (but
now it's showing as fixed-width when I go to reply). Huh?
Also, I flip omd's Master switch to Agora.

I copy-pasted the structure from PSS's last report - it had some weird
formatting that "disappeared" when I pasted it into my client but I guess
something's still up with it.

When I flipped the other players' switches, I left omd's because the
Distributor is an (important) honorary office.  Not that this protects
em at all!

DIS: Holidays!

[Madeline]

Happy Read the Ruleset Week, everyone :)

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Reportor] Holiday Arts Supplement (cont.)

[Madeline]

Oh I LIKE how this is flowing together rather than just being a simple list.


On 2017-12-28 08:00, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On the third day of Nomic, the Forum sent to me

Three votes FOR
two proposal changes
to a ruleset of perfect clarity.

On Tue, 26 Dec 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:

On the second day of Nomic, the Forum sent to me

Two proposal changes
to a ruleset of perfect clarity.


On Mon, 25 Dec 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:

On the first day of Nomic, the Forum gave to me

- A ruleset of perfect clarity.

(To be continued)

DIS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] Holiday Arts Supplement

[Madeline]

Now THAT would be a sight to see.


On 2017-12-26 01:26, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On the first day of Nomic, the Forum gave to me

- A ruleset of perfect clarity.

(To be continued)

Re: DIS: Re: Transitioning Agora off a Mailing List?

[Madeline]

I wish I knew what these acronyms were. GNDT? MOO?


On 2017-12-24 09:30, Kerim Aydin wrote:


This conversation seems to happen every year or so.  With the 25th
Anniversary coming up, it's worth another round of improvement on
the Agoranomic webpage IMO - yet again many of the reports there
are out of date, and the front page is fairly text heavy and not all that
text is useful.  It would be nice to advertise a quarter century widely
and a nice look there would be helpful.

But there's plenty of other nomics out there in different formats.
Every nomic (even face to face) bends to it's particular medium, and
this nomic is well-adapted to those who want to use this medium.

That said, the spiritual home of this game is a MOO, and it might be
fun to have a MOO forum again sometime (though the last attempt
at that didn't get very far and for the same reasons a new one might
not).

On Sat, 23 Dec 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:

To add to this, if Agora were to be born today instead of a mailing list,
in what format would it be? A subreddit? A Discord server? I feel like
people nowadays wouldn't consider making a new nomic as a mailing list
because of how obscure it is, which adds to my feeling that Agora should
probably upgrade.

On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 3:16 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:


Seeing how activity and Office-holders are waning, I'd like to know how
people would feel about transitioning Agora off a Mailing List and onto a
different kind of substrate.

I personally find our mailing list-only system to be archaic and makes
Agora's human cost to be even "playable" quite high, versus having a GNDT
or something to handle tracking gamestate.

Re: DIS: Proto: Apathy isn't honourable

[Madeline]

Speaking of which, didn't I declare myself eligible this month? What 
happened to that?


On 2017-12-20 15:33, Edward Murphy wrote:

Proto-Proposal: Apathy isn't honourable

Amend Rule 2529 (Medals of Honour) by replacing this text:

  In the first 7 days of an Agoran month after the first 7 days, if
  there are any players who are eligible for a Medal of Honour,

with this text:

  In the first 7 days of an Agoran month after the first 7 days, if
  there are any players who correctly announced their eligibility
  that month as specified above,

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] (Dis)Honorable Agorans

[Madeline]

Yeah, that's totally fine.


On 2017-12-18 11:01, Corona wrote:

I buy 5 Economy (that's a legally acceptable shorthand for "The Party
holding...", right?) favors.
I claim 5sh. reward for my latest Herald report.

On 12/17/17, Corona  wrote:

As Herald I publish the following weekly report:

Court:

KarmaEntity
-
SAMURAI
-
+3   ATMun
+3   o
+3   Alexis
+3   Telnaior
+3   G.
+2   Trigon
+2   Aris
+1   天火狐
+1   Corona
-1   Quazie
-1   omd
-1   Bayushi
-2   ProofTechnique
-2   Murphy
-2   Ienpw III
-2   Gaelan
-4   CuddleBeam
-6   V.J. Rada <-- HONOURLESS WORM
-
GAMMAS
-
KarmaEntity


All other entities have 0 Karma.

---
Notices of Honour:

ATMunn (10 Dec 2017)
-1 ATMunn (doesn't feel that it's fair for em to be shogun)
+1 Corona (for a good first report)

[New Week]

[ Last report 10 Dec 2017]

Corona (28 Nov 2017)
-1 Corona (not giving karma to Alexis instead, intent to bribe)
+1 VJ Rada (has given Corona shinies, balancing eir karma)

o (27 Nov 2017)
-1 o (spending too long at the top of the list)
+1 CuddleBeam (having been duly chastened)

Alexis (27 Nov 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (generally poor sportsmanship)
+1 Telnaior (stepping up as Clork)

PSS (27 Nov 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (disrespecting others, the game and sportsmanship)
+1 Aris (encouraging civility)

G. (27 Nov 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (bad officing)
+1 ATMunn (being a good sport about ribbons)

ATMunn (28 Nov 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (bad ADoP, bad officer, bad Agoran)
+1 G. (good long-term player who know's what e's doing)

Telnaior (28 Nov 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (intentionally causing trouble several times)
+1 Corona (cool newbie)

[New Week]

PSS (20 Nov 2017)
-1 nichdel (for inactivity)
+1 ATMunn (for improving upon ADoP report)

[New Week]

ATMunn (16 Nov 2017)
-1 ATMunn (pushing boundaries of karma)
+1 G. (pushing boundaries of karma)

V.J. Rada 15 Nov 2017)
-1 Quazie (for inactivity)
+1 Alexis (innovative timely rulekeepor)

Telnaior (15 Nov 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (being a contrarian)
+1 Alexis (Telnaior's favourite large proposal)

[New Week]

G. (12 Nov 2017)
-1 天火狐 (for a low-effort newspaper report).
+1 omd (for quick response to Distributor directives).

ATMunn (6 Nov 2017)
-1 ATMunn (for forgetting to state quorum on Decision initiations).
+1 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus (for putting up with such mistakes).


[New Week]


G. (3 Nov 17)
-1 Murphy (for being a near-Zombie).
+1 Alexis (for putting the time into this thesis).

ATMunn (30 Oct 2017)
-1 omd (can't think of anyone else to lose karma and e is inactive).
+1 Trigon (for seeming to do really well so far at publishing rulesets).

Alexis (30 Oct 2017)
-1 Alexis (for introducing such a silly pedantic bug into the ruleset).
+1 ATMunn (for putting up with it).

Telnaior (30 Oct 2017)
-1 CuddleBeam (for attempting to game the karma system).
+1 Aris (for putting in a valiant effort as Promotor during busy period).

V.J. Rada (30 Oct 2017)
-1 Bayushi (for inactivity).
+1 Alexis (for having to judge my stupid cfjs).


[New Week]


Telnaior (29 Oct 2017)
-1 ProofTechnique (for not existing but having more karma than other
inactives).
+1 天火狐 (for creating a very cool contract).

o (27 Oct 17)
-1 CuddleBeam (for generally being contrarian)
+1 G. (for producing a magnificent judgement)

Alexis (25 Oct 17)
-1 CuddleBeam (for objecting to deregistration making karma-sinks)
+1 nichdel (for jumping right back in)

PSS (25 Oct 17)
-1 CuddleBeam (for confusing nichdel and being a contrarian)
+1 天火狐 (for being a fun player and pushing boundaries with language)

Nichdel (25 Oct 17)
-1 PSS (for being a contrarian)
+1 o (for being the best at what e does)

Trigon (25 Oct 17)
-1 Ienpw III (for being inactive)
+1 ATMunn (for being a fantastic active new player)

ATMunn (25 Oct 17)
-1 Ienpw III (for being inactive)
+1 o (for being honest, hardworking and generally awesome player)

Aris (25 Oct 17)
-1 ProofTechnique (for being inactive)
+1 Trigon (for being a new active player)

V.J. Rada (25 Oct 17)
-1 omd (for being inactive)
+1 Telnaior (cool that V.J. Rada brought em back and being clever)

G. (24 Oct 17)
-1 V.J. Rada (making a deputization mess)
+1 o (for being the one to clean up messes)


[New Week]


Telnaior (22 Oct 17)
-1 Gaelan (for slack Rulekeeping)
+1 Alexis (for being helpful)

Alexis (22 Oct 17)
-1 CuddleBeam (for blocking deregistrations of inactives)
+1 Telnaior (for coming back with vigour)

V.J. Rada (22 Oct 17)
-1 Murphy (being inactive)
+1 ATMunn (for being a good player, and proposals)

G. (22 Oct 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (random choice), +1 ATMunn (good first proposal).


~Corona

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3613 TRUE

[Madeline]

Politicians in the Row-Reduced Echelon are worth no balloons.


On 2017-12-18 13:48, Aris Merchant wrote:

H. Clork, I believe I am owed several weeks back-balloons.

-Aris

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 3:44 PM Corona  wrote:


On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:

I sh-CFJ "Aris has advised every politician in the row reduced echelon."

I judge CFJ 3613 as TRUE. The caller's arguments are sound, and I have
gone through the relevant rules and found nothing contradicting that
interpretation. It goes without saying that rule 2536 should be fixed.

~Corona

-
Caller's Arguments:


The rule "Taken Under Advisement" states that "A player CAN, by
announcement, spend Favours in a Party to gain Influence over that
Politican, depending on the Politician's Echelon". It does not state
clearly that the party must be the same as that of the politician. It
does say "that politician", but it is unclear what "that" means in
this context, and there is certainly no textual basis for assuming
that it means they must be of the same party. Further, the rule states
that the process depends on "depend[s] on the Politician's Echelon",
implying via expressio unius est exclusio alterius that it doesn't
depend on anything else. In short, there is no textual basis for
limiting the action to politicians of the same party as the favors. It
would be reasonable to say that the action fails because its
definition is ambiguous, but this is against the principle that the
statements of the rules must be given effect, insofar as it is
possible.


Caller's Evidence (Caller's actions preceding CFJ):

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:

I spend 24 NPR favors to gain 16 influence over Mad Cap'n Tom. I advise

em.

I spend 10 NPR favors to gain 10 influence over Politician
McPoliticianface. I advise em.

I spend 8 NPR favors to gain 12 influence over Mickey Joker. I advise
em. I spend 8 NPR favors to gain 12 influence over Nick P. Ronald. I
advise em.


Now for the questionable stuff.

For each upper echelon politician I have not yet advised, I spend 5
NPR favors to gain 5 influence over em, then advise em.

For each row echelon politician I have not yet advised, I spend 4 NPR
favors to gain 6 influence over em, then advise em.

For each row reduced politician, I spend 2 NPR favors to gain 4
influence over em, then advise em.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 7993

[Madeline]

Speaking of precedent, is someone able to point me to the relevant CFJs? 
Going to need it for the judgement I need to write up.



On 2017-12-15 13:35, Aris Merchant wrote:

I vote AGAINST. Conditionals are a significant convenience, and they make
gameplay more interesting. Removing them should be a last resort. I believe
our precedents should be enough to prevent abuse; if not, there is
certainly a less extreme legislative solution.

-Aris

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 4:52 PM Alexis Hunt  wrote:


I vote FOR.

On Sun, 10 Dec 2017 at 21:04 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:


I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 7.0, the voting method is AI-majority and the valid options
are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional
votes).

ID Author(s)  AITitlePender  Pend
fee


---

7993*  Alexis 1.0   Conditional Ban  Alexis  1 AP

The proposal pool is currently empty.

Legend: * : Proposal is pending.


A proposal may be pended for 1 AP, or for 1/20th the Floating Value
in shines (see the Treasuror's report).

The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below.

//
ID: 7993
Title: Conditional Ban
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Alexis
Co-authors:


Enact a new rule entitled 'Unconditionality' reading "Except where the
rules, implicitly or explicitly, provide a mechanism to do so, actions
CANNOT be performed conditionally."

//

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Clork] Weekly Report

[Madeline]

HOW DID I JUST GET YOUR RESPONSE TO THIS BEFORE I GOT MY OWN MESSAGE
E-mail is weird


On 2017-12-11 14:34, Aris Merchant wrote:

I don't want it to self-ratify away. But yes, that CFJ is taking awhile.

-Aris

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 7:32 PM Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:


Isn't that still pending CFJ?


On 2017-12-11 14:31, Aris Merchant wrote:

I CoE this and the previous Clork report for not showing my standing with
the Row-Reduced politicians.

-Aris

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 7:27 PM Telnaior <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:


I create a new Politician with the name Awuton Cyroce in the Costume
Conservatives.


PARTIES AND FAVOURS
---

PLA - Platonic Isolationists   (4 Politicians,

Participation)

NPR - New Punchbowl Reformers  (3 Politicians, Economy)
COS - Costume Conservatives(5 Politicians, Justice)
SUL - Substance Use Liberals   (4 Politicians, Efficiency)
MLP - Official Raving Monster Looney Party (4 Politicians, Legislation)

+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Player  | PLA | NPR | COS | SUL | MLP |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Alexis  |   2 |   3 |   7 |   9 |   4 |
| Aris|   0 | 183 |   6 |   3 |   5 |
| ATMunn  |   2 | 214 |   2 |   5 |   4 |
| Corona  |   2 | 215 |   0 |   1 |   2 |
| Cuddle Beam |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| G.  |   2 | 429 |   2 |   5 |   4 |
| Gaelan  |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| nichdel |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| o   |   0 | 214 |   7 |   7 |   4 |
| PSS[1]  |   2 | 216 |   5 |   5 |   5 |
| Quazie  |   0 | 214 |   1 |   1 |   0 |
| Telnaior|   0 | 215 |   2 |   2 |   4 |
| 天火狐 |   0 | 214 |   1 |   1 |   2 | (not even gonna try)
| Trigon  |   2 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+


RANKS AND POLITICIANS
-

CHAMBER OF POWER[Rank 5]
Host  - VACANT (???, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
Break Election Ties

UPPER ECHELON   [Rank 3]
Planner   - Joseph "Stealin'" McCarthy (PLA, 15 Stress, No Advisor)
Decide Party Policies
   10 Influence - VJ Rada
Enforcer  - Xi Kingpin (PLA, 15 Stress, No Advisor)
Remove Row Echelon Politicians
   8 Influence - VJ Rada
Organiser - Mad "Max" Robespierre (COS, 15 Stress, No Advisor)
Extra Voting Power
   No Influencers
Creep - Politician McPoliticianface (NPR, 15 Stress, Aris)
Increase Politician Stress
   10 Influence - Aris

ROW ECHELON [Rank 1]
Schmoozer - The Drunk Clinton (SUL, 05 Stress, No Advisor)
Change Politician Parties
   6 Influence - VJ Rada
Decorator - John Johnson (MLP, 05 Stress, ATMunn)
Extra Balloon
   3 Influence - ATMunn
   3 Influence - VJ Rada
Loner - Pinocchio (COS, 05 Stress, No Advisor)
PLA Favours
   No Influencers
Drunk - Aristotle (PLA, 05 Stress, No Advisor)
NPR Favours
   3 Influence - VJ Rada
Mystery   - Mickey Joker (NPR, 05 Stress, Aris)
COS Favours
   12 Influence - Aris
Wild One  - Malcolm Turncoat (COS, 05 Stress, No Advisor)
SUL Favours
   No Influencers
Hat Rack  - Nick P. Ronald (NPR, 05 Stress, Aris)
MLP Favours
   12 Influence - Aris

ROW-REDUCED ECHELON [Rank 0]
No Post   - Nikolai Shootemdedsky (SUL, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
   No Influencers
No Post   - Bob (SUL, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
   2 Influence - VJ Rada
No Post   - Natasha Nogoodnik (SUL, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
   No Influencers
No Post   - Weird Al (MLP, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
   No Influencers
No Post   - Rob Boss (COS, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
   No Influencers
No Post   - Cookie Monster (MLP, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
   No Influencers
No Post   - Screaming Lord Sutch (MLP, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
   No Influencers
No Post   - Boris Eatstumuch (PLA, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
   No Influencers
No Post   - Awuton Cyroce (COS, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
   No Influencers


RETIREMENT AND ELECTIONS

Announcing Retirement:
No One

Recently Retired:
Mad Cap'n Tom (Host)

Election for Host:
Retirement Announced 2017-12-04
Retired 2017-12-11
No Votes Recorded Yet

BALLOONS


+-+---+---+---+
| Player  | Last Week | This Week | Total |
+-+---+---+---+
| Alexis  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Aris|10 |10 |20 |
| ATMunn  | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Corona  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cuddle Beam | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| G.  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gaelan  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| nichdel | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| o   | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| PSS[1]  | 0 | 0 |  

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Clork] Weekly Report

[Madeline]

Isn't that still pending CFJ?


On 2017-12-11 14:31, Aris Merchant wrote:

I CoE this and the previous Clork report for not showing my standing with
the Row-Reduced politicians.

-Aris

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 7:27 PM Telnaior  wrote:


I create a new Politician with the name Awuton Cyroce in the Costume
Conservatives.


PARTIES AND FAVOURS
---

PLA - Platonic Isolationists   (4 Politicians, Participation)
NPR - New Punchbowl Reformers  (3 Politicians, Economy)
COS - Costume Conservatives(5 Politicians, Justice)
SUL - Substance Use Liberals   (4 Politicians, Efficiency)
MLP - Official Raving Monster Looney Party (4 Politicians, Legislation)

+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Player  | PLA | NPR | COS | SUL | MLP |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Alexis  |   2 |   3 |   7 |   9 |   4 |
| Aris|   0 | 183 |   6 |   3 |   5 |
| ATMunn  |   2 | 214 |   2 |   5 |   4 |
| Corona  |   2 | 215 |   0 |   1 |   2 |
| Cuddle Beam |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| G.  |   2 | 429 |   2 |   5 |   4 |
| Gaelan  |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| nichdel |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| o   |   0 | 214 |   7 |   7 |   4 |
| PSS[1]  |   2 | 216 |   5 |   5 |   5 |
| Quazie  |   0 | 214 |   1 |   1 |   0 |
| Telnaior|   0 | 215 |   2 |   2 |   4 |
| 天火狐 |   0 | 214 |   1 |   1 |   2 | (not even gonna try)
| Trigon  |   2 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+


RANKS AND POLITICIANS
-

CHAMBER OF POWER[Rank 5]
Host  - VACANT (???, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
Break Election Ties

UPPER ECHELON   [Rank 3]
Planner   - Joseph "Stealin'" McCarthy (PLA, 15 Stress, No Advisor)
Decide Party Policies
  10 Influence - VJ Rada
Enforcer  - Xi Kingpin (PLA, 15 Stress, No Advisor)
Remove Row Echelon Politicians
  8 Influence - VJ Rada
Organiser - Mad "Max" Robespierre (COS, 15 Stress, No Advisor)
Extra Voting Power
  No Influencers
Creep - Politician McPoliticianface (NPR, 15 Stress, Aris)
Increase Politician Stress
  10 Influence - Aris

ROW ECHELON [Rank 1]
Schmoozer - The Drunk Clinton (SUL, 05 Stress, No Advisor)
Change Politician Parties
  6 Influence - VJ Rada
Decorator - John Johnson (MLP, 05 Stress, ATMunn)
Extra Balloon
  3 Influence - ATMunn
  3 Influence - VJ Rada
Loner - Pinocchio (COS, 05 Stress, No Advisor)
PLA Favours
  No Influencers
Drunk - Aristotle (PLA, 05 Stress, No Advisor)
NPR Favours
  3 Influence - VJ Rada
Mystery   - Mickey Joker (NPR, 05 Stress, Aris)
COS Favours
  12 Influence - Aris
Wild One  - Malcolm Turncoat (COS, 05 Stress, No Advisor)
SUL Favours
  No Influencers
Hat Rack  - Nick P. Ronald (NPR, 05 Stress, Aris)
MLP Favours
  12 Influence - Aris

ROW-REDUCED ECHELON [Rank 0]
No Post   - Nikolai Shootemdedsky (SUL, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
  No Influencers
No Post   - Bob (SUL, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
  2 Influence - VJ Rada
No Post   - Natasha Nogoodnik (SUL, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
  No Influencers
No Post   - Weird Al (MLP, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
  No Influencers
No Post   - Rob Boss (COS, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
  No Influencers
No Post   - Cookie Monster (MLP, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
  No Influencers
No Post   - Screaming Lord Sutch (MLP, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
  No Influencers
No Post   - Boris Eatstumuch (PLA, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
  No Influencers
No Post   - Awuton Cyroce (COS, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
  No Influencers


RETIREMENT AND ELECTIONS

Announcing Retirement:
No One

Recently Retired:
Mad Cap'n Tom (Host)

Election for Host:
Retirement Announced 2017-12-04
Retired 2017-12-11
No Votes Recorded Yet

BALLOONS


+-+---+---+---+
| Player  | Last Week | This Week | Total |
+-+---+---+---+
| Alexis  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Aris|10 |10 |20 |
| ATMunn  | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| Corona  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cuddle Beam | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| G.  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gaelan  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| nichdel | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| o   | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| PSS[1]  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Quazie  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Telnaior| 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 天火狐 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Trigon  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
+-+---+---+---+

[1] Full name "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus"

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report

[Madeline]

"Number of Agora's shinies" isn't something I'm expected to know. ;_;

On 2017-12-11 03:54, Corona wrote:

I cause ACU to transfer to me 5-(no. of Agora's shinies) shinies,
destroying ten times that number of bills.

Then, I spend those shinies on gaining favor with the Party holding
Economy, and then I claim my reward for the Weekly Herald Report.

On 12/10/17, Corona  wrote:

As Herald I publish the following weekly report:

Court:

KarmaEntity
-
SAMURAI
-
+4   ATMunn <-- SHOGUN
+3   o
+3   Alexis
+3   Telnaior
+3   G.
+2   Trigon
+2   Aris
+1   天火狐
-1   Quazie
-1   omd
-1   Bayushi
-2   ProofTechnique
-2   Murphy
-2   Ienpw III
-2   Gaelan
-4   CuddleBeam
-6   V.J. Rada <-- HONOURLESS WORM
-
GAMMAS
-
KarmaEntity


All other entities have 0 Karma.

---
Notices of Honour:

Corona (28 Nov 2017)
-1 Corona (not giving karma to Alexis instead, intent to bribe)
+1 VJ Rada (has given Corona shinies, balancing eir karma)

o (27 Nov 2017)
-1 o (spending too long at the top of the list)
+1 CuddleBeam (having been duly chastened)

Alexis (27 Nov 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (generally poor sportsmanship)
+1 Telnaior (stepping up as Clork)

PSS (27 Nov 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (disrespecting others, the game and sportsmanship)
+1 Aris (encouraging civility)

G. (27 Nov 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (bad officing)
+1 ATMunn (being a good sport about ribbons)

ATMunn (28 Nov 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (bad ADoP, bad officer, bad Agoran)
+1 G. (good long-term player who know's what e's doing)

Telnaior (28 Nov 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (intentionally causing trouble several times)
+1 Corona (cool newbie)

[New Week]

PSS (20 Nov 2017)
-1 nichdel (for inactivity)
+1 ATMunn (for improving upon ADoP report)

[New Week]

ATMunn (16 Nov 2017)
-1 ATMunn (pushing boundaries of karma)
+1 G. (pushing boundaries of karma)

V.J. Rada 15 Nov 2017)
-1 Quazie (for inactivity)
+1 Alexis (innovative timely rulekeepor)

Telnaior (15 Nov 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (being a contrarian)
+1 Alexis (Telnaior's favourite large proposal)

[Last Report Wed Nov 15]
[New Week]

G. (12 Nov 2017)
-1 天火狐 (for a low-effort newspaper report).
+1 omd (for quick response to Distributor directives).

ATMunn (6 Nov 2017)
-1 ATMunn (for forgetting to state quorum on Decision initiations).
+1 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus (for putting up with such mistakes).


[New Week]


G. (3 Nov 17)
-1 Murphy (for being a near-Zombie).
+1 Alexis (for putting the time into this thesis).

ATMunn (30 Oct 2017)
-1 omd (can't think of anyone else to lose karma and e is inactive).
+1 Trigon (for seeming to do really well so far at publishing rulesets).

Alexis (30 Oct 2017)
-1 Alexis (for introducing such a silly pedantic bug into the ruleset).
+1 ATMunn (for putting up with it).

Telnaior (30 Oct 2017)
-1 CuddleBeam (for attempting to game the karma system).
+1 Aris (for putting in a valiant effort as Promotor during busy period).

V.J. Rada (30 Oct 2017)
-1 Bayushi (for inactivity).
+1 Alexis (for having to judge my stupid cfjs).


[New Week]


Telnaior (29 Oct 2017)
-1 ProofTechnique (for not existing but having more karma than other
inactives).
+1 天火狐 (for creating a very cool contract).

o (27 Oct 17)
-1 CuddleBeam (for generally being contrarian)
+1 G. (for producing a magnificent judgement)

Alexis (25 Oct 17)
-1 CuddleBeam (for objecting to deregistration making karma-sinks)
+1 nichdel (for jumping right back in)

PSS (25 Oct 17)
-1 CuddleBeam (for confusing nichdel and being a contrarian)
+1 天火狐 (for being a fun player and pushing boundaries with language)

Nichdel (25 Oct 17)
-1 PSS (for being a contrarian)
+1 o (for being the best at what e does)

Trigon (25 Oct 17)
-1 Ienpw III (for being inactive)
+1 ATMunn (for being a fantastic active new player)

ATMunn (25 Oct 17)
-1 Ienpw III (for being inactive)
+1 o (for being honest, hardworking and generally awesome player)

Aris (25 Oct 17)
-1 ProofTechnique (for being inactive)
+1 Trigon (for being a new active player)

V.J. Rada (25 Oct 17)
-1 omd (for being inactive)
+1 Telnaior (cool that V.J. Rada brought em back and being clever)

G. (24 Oct 17)
-1 V.J. Rada (making a deputization mess)
+1 o (for being the one to clean up messes)


[New Week]


Telnaior (22 Oct 17)
-1 Gaelan (for slack Rulekeeping)
+1 Alexis (for being helpful)

Alexis (22 Oct 17)
-1 CuddleBeam (for blocking deregistrations of inactives)
+1 Telnaior (for coming back with vigour)

V.J. Rada (22 Oct 17)
-1 Murphy (being inactive)
+1 ATMunn (for being a good player, and proposals)

G. (22 Oct 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (random choice), +1 ATMunn (good first proposal).


~Corona

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3616 assigned to Telnaior

[Madeline]

I'm probably not the best choice for this CFJ, given I have somewhat of 
a stake in it. I'll judge it if you're sure, but...



On 2017-12-09 10:52, Kerim Aydin wrote:



On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:

I AP-CFJ on the statement:

In the message quoted in full below, Corona performed exactly and only the 
following actions:

* Withdrew all eir Shinies from the ACU.
* Advised all politicians e had the most influence with.
* Deposited all eir Shinies with the ACU.

This is CFJ 3616.  I assign it to Telnaior.



Caller’s evidence:

Exhibit 1 consists of Corona’s message, quoted below.

Exhibit 2: CFJ 1215 (https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1215):


I note that Caller's analogy to the stockbroker also supports this
interpretation--while "if and only if we have not already bought shares
of this stock in the last day or two, we want to buy X number of shares"
would be accepted by the stockbroker, this is only because the
stockbroker is generally responsible for knowing whether or not the
trader has bought shares recently.  A statement such as "if and only
if t is standing, we want to buy X number of shares" would be
rejected by the stockbroker.

It is no officer’s responsibility to know all of the parts of the game state 
needed to resolve apparently-conditional actions such as


--Else, if eir Party is PLA, I spend a number of Shinies equal to the
minimum Favor I'd need to Advise em on gaining Favor with PLA, then I
pay the minimum Favor I'd need to advise em to Influence em.

and the information is not readily discoverable without effort equivalent to 
compiling those officers’ reports.

-o


On Nov 26, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Corona  wrote:

The following 5 paragraphs apply to all actions taken in this message,
other text to the contrary notwithstanding:

All "if" words used in this message mean "if and only if".

Whenever I mention a Post in the context of gaining Influence with it,
advising it or other actions that may be performed only on Politicians
(and not Posts), I mean the Politician who holds that Post instead.

Similarly, if I mention an Echelon in that context, I mean all
Politicians in that Echelon.

Whenever I gain Influence with a Politician, I attempt to advise em
immediately afterwards.

If I am already Advising a Politician, I shall not spend any favors to
gain Influence with em.

-

I destroy all Bills in my possession, so that ACU transfers me the
appropriate amount of shinies.


For each Politician, the maximum Favor I'm willing to pay to Influence
em is defined as follows:

-Upper Echelon Politicians & Host: 15 Favors each

-Loner, Drunk, Mystery, Wild One, Hat Rack:  If I am advising the
Enforcer, 18 Favors each. Else, 12 Favors each.

-Schmoozer, Decorator: 6 Favors each

-Row-reduced Echelon: 1 Favor each

Also, for each Politician, the minimum Favor I'd need to Advise em is
defined as the lowest number of Favors that I can pay to gain
Influence with that Politician such that I can Advise the Politician
successfully afterwards.

Then, for each Politician, in this order:

Mad Cap'n Tom, Xi Kingpin, Mad "Max" Robespierre, Joseph "Stealin'"
McCarthy, Politician McPoliticianface, Pinocchio, Aristotle, Mickey
Joker, Malcolm Turncoat, Nick P. Ronald, John Johnson, The Drunk
Clinton, Nikolai Shootemdedsky, Bob, Natasha Nogoodnik, Weird Al, Rob
Boss, Cookie Monster, Screaming Lord Sutch, Boris Eatstumuch

I perform the following:

-If the minimum Favor I'd need to Advise that Politician is higher
than the maximum Favor I'm willing to pay to Influence em, I do
nothing.

-Else:

--If I have have enough Favor with eir Party to pay the minimum Favor
I'd need to Advise em, I pay the minimum Favor I'd need to advise em
to Influence em.

--Else, if eir Party is PLA, I spend a number of Shinies equal to the
minimum Favor I'd need to Advise em on gaining Favor with PLA, then I
pay the minimum Favor I'd need to advise em to Influence em.

--Else, multiply the minimum Favor I'd need to Advise that Politician
by 3; if it is still lower than the maximum Favor I'm willing to pay
to Influence em, spend a number of NPR equal to triple the minimum
Favor I'd need to Advise em on gaining Favor with eir Party, then I
pay the minimum Favor I'd need to advise em to Influence em.


-

For good measure: I Advise all politicians with whom I have more
Influence than all other players.

I transfer all my Shinies to ACU, causing 10 times as many Bills to be
created in my possession

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Referee Election Decision Initiation (for real this time)

[Madeline]

Set notation, surely?


On 2017-12-02 10:49, Aris Merchant wrote:

I vote [o]. When did everyone start using curly braces instead of square
brackets?

-Aris

On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 3:47 PM Corona  wrote:


I vote {}.

On 12/1/17, ATMunn  wrote:

As per my duties as ADoP, I hereby initiate the Agoran Decision to
select the winner of the Referee election.

For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the quorum is 6,
the valid options are the candidates (PRESENT is always a valid vote, as
are conditionals), and the voting method is instant runoff.

Currently, the candidates are Corona, PSS, and o. As the election is
contested, any player still may become a candidate until the poll ends.
(Note to Corona: You should withdraw your nomination, as you pledged to
do so if you became Herald.)

There were no campaign proposals.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3607 assigned to G. (and judged with help from ATMunn)

[Madeline]

Wouldn't something something self-ratification?


On 2017-11-28 14:57, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:

Oooh, yes - that's very far reaching and precisely the sort of thing 
that

clause is meant to stop.  I need to go do Something Else now and this
deserves some thoughts about arguments, but if no one gets to it 
before me,

I'll call it tomorrow-ish.


So given that the rule 217 provision affects rule changes, rule 2507 
was never created, perhaps... Black Cards don't exist.


Greetings,
Ørjan.


On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
Would like someone to make a challenge on that basis, won't myself 
bc of

uncertainty.

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:23 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:


It's not just can't register, it's CAN'T TAKE ANY GAME ACTIONS.

Actually, now that I Think of it, it's probably null and void bc of 
the

"stopping someone from formally resolving a controversy" clause.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7982-7988

[Madeline]

The contract doesn't give any limitations on their ownership.


On 2017-11-28 14:37, VJ Rada wrote:

Can persons own bills?

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

I change my vote to AGAINST on proposal 7988.

I pay Ørjan 5 Bills for spotting a significant error.

-o


On Nov 26, 2017, at 9:27 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
 wrote:

As do I.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com




On Nov 26, 2017, at 9:26 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

I change my vote to AGAINST on minimal econ reforms.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:


//
ID: 7982
Title: Referee Reform Fix
Adoption index: 1.7
Author: V.J. Rada
Co-authors:


At the end of rule 2478 "Viglilante Justice", add a new
paragraph with the text "The Referee CANNOT Point eir Finger. The
Arbitor CANNOT Point eir Finger at the Referee".


The title of the rule is misspelled, and also the text misses a period.


//
ID: 7988
Title: Minimal Econ reforms
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: G.
Co-authors:



Amend Rule 991 (Calls for Judgement) by replacing:
a) by announcement, and spending 1 Action Point, OR

b) by announcement, and spending the current CFJ cost in shinies,
   OR

c) by announcement if e is not a player.
with:
a) by announcement, and spending the current CFJ cost in shinies,
   OR

b) Without 2 Objections.  Players SHOULD object unless paying
   with shinies is a significant barrier to the Caller's
   ability to seek a resolution to the controversy.


I might not be calling a lot of CFJs if this passes, then.

Greetings,
Ørjan.



--
 From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] CFJ 3607 assigned to G. (and judged with help from ATMunn)

[Madeline]

I made a CFJ so we can figure this out D:


On 2017-11-28 14:06, VJ Rada wrote:

Yeah, if this is TRUE it's not a CFJ. That needs to be grappled w/.

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:06 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:


Actually, G, if the CFJ is TRUE, it's not a CFJ because I can't take game
actions. So by judging this CFJ you've implicitly recognized that I can
indeed take game actions.

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:05 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:


pf

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:05 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:


I intend to file a motion to reconsider this CFJ, with 2 support.

Arguments to follow.

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Kerim Aydin 
wrote:



On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:

I use AP to call a CFJ with the statement: The Door cannot be Slammed

on

V.J. Rada.

I bar ATMunn.

I assign this CFJ to myself and number it 3607.

[Note: I had not read the judgement in full and not really formed an
opinion on the matter].


I judge CFJ 3607 as follows:

[Note for the record: these arguments were written by ATMunn, who was
the appropriate judge for this matter, as a matter of courtesy and
precedent, whenever possible I respect the judgement of "first judges"
on any matter until overturned.  If a motion to reconsider is filed,
I intend to give ATMunn the option to write a new opinion -the Arbitor]

The Door CAN generally be Slammed on a player after a Black Card is
awarded to em, provided that eir most recent deregistration took
place with eir consent.

Rule in question (2507):
 A Black Card is a card appropriate for a person who plays the
 game, not currently a player, who either broke the rules while not
 a player or broke them while a player and then deregistered in bad
 faith. A Black Card CANNOT be issued to current players, and no
 more than 3 Black Cards CAN be issued per week. Any attempt to
 issue a Black Card in violation of these limitations is
 INEFFECTIVE.
 When a Black Card is issued, as a penalty, within the next 7
days,
 any player CAN once, with Agoran Consent, Slam the Door at the bad
 sport. After the Door is Slammed at a person, e CANNOT register or
 take any game actions for 30 days, rules to the contrary
 notwithstanding. Any attempt to Slam the Door on a player or a
 person whose most recent deregistration took place without eir
 consent is INEFFECTIVE, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.

The rule in question here (see above) clearly states that the Door CAN
be slammed on a bad sport after e has had a Black Card issued to them.
The problem then is, can it also be slammed on a player, as long as eir
most recent deregistration took place with eir consent?

This rule strictly states that Black Cards CANNOT be issued to players.
Rule 2426 says that "It is inappropriate to award a card to a non-player
person unless the rule defining the card says otherwise." The Black
Cards rule certainly says otherwise, and "inappropriate" is not a
binding term. So, it is IMPOSSIBLE to issue a Black Card to a current
player.

So, this arises the question: What if a Black Card was issued to a
non-player person who then became a player? This is certainly possible,
as long as the Door was not Slammed on em when they were a non-player.

Now we must determine if the Door CAN be Slammed on a player, if that
player managed to get a Black Card as a non-player and then registered
within the last 7 days. Rule 2507 says that "any attempt to Slam the
Door at a *player* or a person whose most recent deregistration took
place without eir consent is INEFFECTIVE." The answer is right here.
The rule specifically says a player or a person, so the Door CAN be
Slammed on players. And, if it is IMPOSSIBLE to Slam the Door on
someone if eir most recent deregistration took place without eir
consent, then the reverse is true as well, and it is POSSIBLE to Slam
the Door on a person whose most recent deregistration took place with
eir consent.

I judge CFJ 3607 TRUE.






--
 From V.J. Rada




--
 From V.J. Rada




--
 From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: This time w/ passion

[Madeline]

It could perhaps be considered reasonable normally, but when the reason 
for the original judgement's invalidation was your own error that's just 
unreasonably gaming the system.



On 2017-11-28 14:03, VJ Rada wrote:

(also barring the person who already wrote the judgement is kind of a jerk

move)

Yes but you see I actually like being able to take actions for an entire
month unbarred by incorrect textual interpretation. I think that my right
to do that should supplant the ettiquete of cfj calling!

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Telnaior  wrote:


We've just been talking about how non-players need to be able to call CFJs
so they can dispute eir own deregistration. That suggests the
deregistration still takes hold, at least initially.
In this instance the Door has already been Slammed, so I think a better
idea for now might be to do this:

I spend an Action Point (2 -> 1) to call a CFJ with the text "VJ Rada
successfully called the quoted CFJ".

Slamming the Door has no such protection, and we do already have an
"informal opinion" that states it could have worked. I don't think it could
have gone through.
(also barring the person who already wrote the judgement is kind of a jerk
move)



On 2017-11-28 13:49, VJ Rada wrote:


I use AP to call a CFJ with the statement: The Door cannot be Slammed on
V.J. Rada.

I bar ATMunn.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Madeline]

On 2017-11-28 13:05, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Madeline wrote:

Not that it matters in this case, but what happens to the assets held by a
contract when it's destroyed?

"If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by Agora."



And if Agora can't own a given type of asset? (Or does this supersede 
those provisions?)

DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation, favours, and pledge

[Madeline]

Not that it matters in this case, but what happens to the assets held by 
a contract when it's destroyed?



On 2017-11-28 12:56, Owen Jacobson wrote:

On Nov 22, 2017, at 6:50 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

I pay one shiny to create the following contract (destroying 10 bills
and trading w/ ACU)
TITLE: WHATEVER
TEXT: THIS CONTRACT HOLDS RADA's Assets

i transfer 3,000 justice favours to this contract

If this contract still exists, I intend, with Agoran Consent, to destroy it. It 
has served its purpose, and in any case, appears not to function.

-o

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Karma Report

[Madeline]

On 2017-11-28 11:29, Alexis Hunt wrote:

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 19:24 Kerim Aydin  wrote:



On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, VJ Rada wrote:

I deputise for Herald to publish the following weekly report (unless
PSS is the Herald).

You should clearly know this to be false.  It updates nothing.

It is questionable whether you can call this the weekly report for the
appropriate (missing) week.

Also:  trying this is a complete fucking, fucking insult to officers
who actually, you know, work on their offices and don't just see them
as scam opportunities.  Just some constructive feedback there.


I point my finger at V.J. Rada for violating Rule 2143 by publishing a
document purporting to be a Herald's report containing incorrect
information.

-Alexis


You're still Referee, I don't think that's possible?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Transparent Ribbon

[Madeline]

It's worth noting you don't actually have to claim Green and White to be 
considered qualified for them for the purpose of Transparent.



On 2017-11-28 11:13, ATMunn wrote:

Ah, right. I don't feel so bad, then. :P

On 11/27/2017 7:13 PM, VJ Rada wrote:

The ribbon rule itself is broken for all ribbons.

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:11 AM, ATMunn  
wrote:
How come? They were seperate actions. (I mean, if it does work that 
way,

then great, but I don't think it does.)


On 11/27/2017 7:10 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:


You still will, because you didn't get your White Ribbon either.

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 19:08 ATMunn  wrote:


That's quite unfortunate, because now I no longer have the option to
claim
a White Ribbon to obtain a Transparent Ribbon in the future. :(

On 11/27/2017 7:06 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:


On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 at 14:28 ATMunn  wrote:


Ok, here goes nothing.

In the last 7 days, I earned a Black Ribbon, and qualified for 
Blue and
Orange (I just judged a CFJ, and my Auctions proposal was 
unanimously

adopted)

I also have the ability to claim a White Ribbon at any time, as 
I have

never previously owned one.

That is 4 ribbons out of 5 I need for a Transparent Ribbon.

However, I have held the office of ADoP for more than 30 days. I 
don't

believe I have failed to perform any duties in the last 30 days.

Therefore...

I claim a Green Ribbon.

I claim a White Ribbon.

I now have qualified for 5 ribbons within the last 7 days. I 
claim a

Transparent Ribbon!

(I really hope this works...)



Per CFJ 3610, it does not.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] Weekly Report

[Madeline]

  A doubt is an explicit public challenge via one of the following
  methods, identifying a document and explaining the scope and
  nature of a perceived error in it:
  
  1. An inquiry case, appropriate for questions of legal

 interpretation.
  
  2. A claim of error, appropriate for matters of fact. The

 publisher of the original document SHALL (if e was required to
 publish that document) or SHOULD (otherwise) do one of the
 following in a timely fashion:
  
 1. Deny the claim (causing it to cease to be a doubt).

 2. Publish a revision.
 3. Initiate an inquiry case regarding the truth of the claim
(if the subject is actually a matter of law), or cite a
relevant existing inquiry case.


I'll take the inquiry case option?


On 2017-11-27 13:22, VJ Rada wrote:

You can either deny it or publish a revision. You should do neither,
but note that you will eventually have to choose one if the cfj isn't
judged w/in the next 7 days, which it won't be.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Telnaior <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

I'm pretty sure I have to respond to this by saying this CoE is waiting on
the result of a CFJ, yeah?
I should probably go over the rules there again.



On 2017-11-27 12:59, VJ Rada wrote:

oh that should just be a coe to avoid self-ratification.

coe: aris advised every politician.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:58 PM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:

did you do the ones where e used eir favours to bribe every
politician, even ones from other parties?

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

I did those.



On 2017-11-27 12:51, VJ Rada wrote:

um i meant aris's actions sure they're basically the same person right?

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

Uh, which one are you referring to?



On 2017-11-27 12:45, VJ Rada wrote:

I don't think ATMunn's actions were super-conditional?

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Telnaior <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

The two mega-super-conditional actions I'm not gonna count barring a
CFJ

_>

I award VJ Rada 3 NPR favours for being the Advisor of the Drunk.
I award Aris 3 OOS favours for being the Advisor of the Mystery.
I award Aris 3 MLP favours for being the Advisor of the Hat Rack.


PARTIES AND FAVOURS
---

PLA - Platonic Isolationists   (4 Politicians, Economy)
NPR - New Punchbowl Reformers  (4 Politicians, Justice)
COS - Costume Conservatives(4 Politicians,
Efficiency)
SUL - Substance Use Liberals   (4 Politicians,
Legislation)
MLP - Official Raving Monster Looney Party (4 Politicians,
Participation)

+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Player  | PLA | NPR | COS | SUL | MLP |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Alexis  |   0 |   3 |   0 |   2 |   4 |
| Aris|   0 | 183 |   0 |   0 |   2 |
| ATMunn  |   0 | 214 |   0 |   3 |   4 |
| Corona  |   0 | 215 |   0 |   0 |   2 |
| Cuddle Beam |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| G.  |   0 | 429 |   0 |   3 |   4 |
| Gaelan  |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| nichdel |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| o   |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   4 |
| PSS[1]  |   0 | 216 |   0 |   0 |   2 |
| Quazie  |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| Telnaior|   0 | 215 |   0 |   0 |   4 |
| 天火狐 |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   2 | (not even gonna try)
| Trigon  |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| VJ Rada |   0 |   3 |   0 |   0 |   2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+


RANKS AND POLITICIANS
-

CHAMBER OF POWER[Rank 5]
Host  - Mad Cap'n Tom (NPR, 15 Stress, Aris)
Break Election Ties
   16 Influence - Aris
2 Influence - Alexis

UPPER ECHELON   [Rank 3]
Planner   - Joseph "Stealin'" McCarthy (PLA, 09 Stress, VJ Rada)
Decide Party Policies
10 Influence - VJ Rada
Enforcer  - Xi Kingpin (PLA, 09 Stress, VJ Rada)
Remove Row Echelon Politicians
8 Influence - VJ Rada
Organiser - Mad "Max" Robespierre (COS, 09 Stress, No Advisor)
Extra Voting Power
No Influencers
Creep - Politician McPoliticianface (NPR, 09 Stress, Aris)
Increase Politician Stress
10 Influence - Aris

ROW ECHELON [Rank 1]
Schmoozer - The Drunk Clinton (SUL, 03 Stress, VJ Rada)
Change Politician Parties
6 Influence - VJ Rada
Decorator - John Johnson (MLP, 03 Stress, ATMunn)
Extra Balloon
3 Influence - ATMunn
3 Influence - VJ Rada
Loner - Pinocchio (COS, 03 Stress, No Advisor)
PLA Favours
No Influencers
Drunk - Aristotle (PLA, 03 Stress, VJ Rada)
NPR Favours
3 Influence - VJ Rada
Mystery   - Mickey Joker (NPR, 03 Stress, Aris)
COS Favours
12 Influenc

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] Weekly Report

[Madeline]

No, pending CFJ.


On 2017-11-27 12:58, VJ Rada wrote:

did you do the ones where e used eir favours to bribe every
politician, even ones from other parties?

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:54 PM, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

I did those.



On 2017-11-27 12:51, VJ Rada wrote:

um i meant aris's actions sure they're basically the same person right?

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

Uh, which one are you referring to?



On 2017-11-27 12:45, VJ Rada wrote:

I don't think ATMunn's actions were super-conditional?

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Telnaior <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

The two mega-super-conditional actions I'm not gonna count barring a
CFJ

_>

I award VJ Rada 3 NPR favours for being the Advisor of the Drunk.
I award Aris 3 OOS favours for being the Advisor of the Mystery.
I award Aris 3 MLP favours for being the Advisor of the Hat Rack.


PARTIES AND FAVOURS
---

PLA - Platonic Isolationists   (4 Politicians, Economy)
NPR - New Punchbowl Reformers  (4 Politicians, Justice)
COS - Costume Conservatives(4 Politicians, Efficiency)
SUL - Substance Use Liberals   (4 Politicians, Legislation)
MLP - Official Raving Monster Looney Party (4 Politicians,
Participation)

+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Player  | PLA | NPR | COS | SUL | MLP |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Alexis  |   0 |   3 |   0 |   2 |   4 |
| Aris|   0 | 183 |   0 |   0 |   2 |
| ATMunn  |   0 | 214 |   0 |   3 |   4 |
| Corona  |   0 | 215 |   0 |   0 |   2 |
| Cuddle Beam |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| G.  |   0 | 429 |   0 |   3 |   4 |
| Gaelan  |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| nichdel |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| o   |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   4 |
| PSS[1]  |   0 | 216 |   0 |   0 |   2 |
| Quazie  |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| Telnaior|   0 | 215 |   0 |   0 |   4 |
| 天火狐 |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   2 | (not even gonna try)
| Trigon  |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| VJ Rada |   0 |   3 |   0 |   0 |   2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+


RANKS AND POLITICIANS
-

CHAMBER OF POWER[Rank 5]
Host  - Mad Cap'n Tom (NPR, 15 Stress, Aris)
Break Election Ties
  16 Influence - Aris
   2 Influence - Alexis

UPPER ECHELON   [Rank 3]
Planner   - Joseph "Stealin'" McCarthy (PLA, 09 Stress, VJ Rada)
Decide Party Policies
   10 Influence - VJ Rada
Enforcer  - Xi Kingpin (PLA, 09 Stress, VJ Rada)
Remove Row Echelon Politicians
   8 Influence - VJ Rada
Organiser - Mad "Max" Robespierre (COS, 09 Stress, No Advisor)
Extra Voting Power
   No Influencers
Creep - Politician McPoliticianface (NPR, 09 Stress, Aris)
Increase Politician Stress
   10 Influence - Aris

ROW ECHELON [Rank 1]
Schmoozer - The Drunk Clinton (SUL, 03 Stress, VJ Rada)
Change Politician Parties
   6 Influence - VJ Rada
Decorator - John Johnson (MLP, 03 Stress, ATMunn)
Extra Balloon
   3 Influence - ATMunn
   3 Influence - VJ Rada
Loner - Pinocchio (COS, 03 Stress, No Advisor)
PLA Favours
   No Influencers
Drunk - Aristotle (PLA, 03 Stress, VJ Rada)
NPR Favours
   3 Influence - VJ Rada
Mystery   - Mickey Joker (NPR, 03 Stress, Aris)
COS Favours
   12 Influence - Aris
Wild One  - Malcolm Turncoat (COS, 03 Stress, No Advisor)
SUL Favours
   No Influencers
Hat Rack  - Nick P. Ronald (NPR, 03 Stress, Aris)
MLP Favours
   12 Influence - Aris

ROW-REDUCED ECHELON [Rank 0]
No Post   - Nikolai Shootemdedsky (SUL, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
   No Influencers
No Post   - Bob (SUL, 00 Stress, VJ Rada)
   2 Influence - VJ Rada
No Post   - Natasha Nogoodnik (SUL, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
   No Influencers
No Post   - Weird Al (MLP, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
   No Influencers
No Post   - Rob Boss (COS, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
   No Influencers
No Post   - Cookie Monster (MLP, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
   No Influencers
No Post   - Screaming Lord Sutch (MLP, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
   No Influencers
No Post   - Boris Eatstumuch (PLA, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
   No Influencers


RETIREMENT AND ELECTIONS

Announcing Retirement:
No One

Recently Retired:
No One


BALLOONS


+-+---+---+---+
| Player  | Last Week | This Week | Total |
+-+---+---+---+
| Alexis  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Aris| 0 |10 |10 |
| ATMunn  | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Corona  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cuddle Beam | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| G.  | 0 | 

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] Weekly Report

[Madeline]

I did those.


On 2017-11-27 12:51, VJ Rada wrote:

um i meant aris's actions sure they're basically the same person right?

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

Uh, which one are you referring to?



On 2017-11-27 12:45, VJ Rada wrote:

I don't think ATMunn's actions were super-conditional?

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Telnaior <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

The two mega-super-conditional actions I'm not gonna count barring a CFJ

_>

I award VJ Rada 3 NPR favours for being the Advisor of the Drunk.
I award Aris 3 OOS favours for being the Advisor of the Mystery.
I award Aris 3 MLP favours for being the Advisor of the Hat Rack.


PARTIES AND FAVOURS
---

PLA - Platonic Isolationists   (4 Politicians, Economy)
NPR - New Punchbowl Reformers  (4 Politicians, Justice)
COS - Costume Conservatives(4 Politicians, Efficiency)
SUL - Substance Use Liberals   (4 Politicians, Legislation)
MLP - Official Raving Monster Looney Party (4 Politicians, Participation)

+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Player  | PLA | NPR | COS | SUL | MLP |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Alexis  |   0 |   3 |   0 |   2 |   4 |
| Aris|   0 | 183 |   0 |   0 |   2 |
| ATMunn  |   0 | 214 |   0 |   3 |   4 |
| Corona  |   0 | 215 |   0 |   0 |   2 |
| Cuddle Beam |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| G.  |   0 | 429 |   0 |   3 |   4 |
| Gaelan  |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| nichdel |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| o   |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   4 |
| PSS[1]  |   0 | 216 |   0 |   0 |   2 |
| Quazie  |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| Telnaior|   0 | 215 |   0 |   0 |   4 |
| 天火狐 |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   2 | (not even gonna try)
| Trigon  |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| VJ Rada |   0 |   3 |   0 |   0 |   2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+


RANKS AND POLITICIANS
-

CHAMBER OF POWER[Rank 5]
Host  - Mad Cap'n Tom (NPR, 15 Stress, Aris)
Break Election Ties
 16 Influence - Aris
  2 Influence - Alexis

UPPER ECHELON   [Rank 3]
Planner   - Joseph "Stealin'" McCarthy (PLA, 09 Stress, VJ Rada)
Decide Party Policies
  10 Influence - VJ Rada
Enforcer  - Xi Kingpin (PLA, 09 Stress, VJ Rada)
Remove Row Echelon Politicians
  8 Influence - VJ Rada
Organiser - Mad "Max" Robespierre (COS, 09 Stress, No Advisor)
Extra Voting Power
  No Influencers
Creep - Politician McPoliticianface (NPR, 09 Stress, Aris)
Increase Politician Stress
  10 Influence - Aris

ROW ECHELON [Rank 1]
Schmoozer - The Drunk Clinton (SUL, 03 Stress, VJ Rada)
Change Politician Parties
  6 Influence - VJ Rada
Decorator - John Johnson (MLP, 03 Stress, ATMunn)
Extra Balloon
  3 Influence - ATMunn
  3 Influence - VJ Rada
Loner - Pinocchio (COS, 03 Stress, No Advisor)
PLA Favours
  No Influencers
Drunk - Aristotle (PLA, 03 Stress, VJ Rada)
NPR Favours
  3 Influence - VJ Rada
Mystery   - Mickey Joker (NPR, 03 Stress, Aris)
COS Favours
  12 Influence - Aris
Wild One  - Malcolm Turncoat (COS, 03 Stress, No Advisor)
SUL Favours
  No Influencers
Hat Rack  - Nick P. Ronald (NPR, 03 Stress, Aris)
MLP Favours
  12 Influence - Aris

ROW-REDUCED ECHELON [Rank 0]
No Post   - Nikolai Shootemdedsky (SUL, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
  No Influencers
No Post   - Bob (SUL, 00 Stress, VJ Rada)
  2 Influence - VJ Rada
No Post   - Natasha Nogoodnik (SUL, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
  No Influencers
No Post   - Weird Al (MLP, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
  No Influencers
No Post   - Rob Boss (COS, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
  No Influencers
No Post   - Cookie Monster (MLP, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
  No Influencers
No Post   - Screaming Lord Sutch (MLP, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
  No Influencers
No Post   - Boris Eatstumuch (PLA, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
  No Influencers


RETIREMENT AND ELECTIONS

Announcing Retirement:
No One

Recently Retired:
No One


BALLOONS


+-+---+---+---+
| Player  | Last Week | This Week | Total |
+-+---+---+---+
| Alexis  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Aris| 0 |10 |10 |
| ATMunn  | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Corona  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cuddle Beam | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| G.  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gaelan  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| nichdel | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| o   | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| PSS[1]  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Quazie  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] Weekly Report

[Madeline]

Uh, which one are you referring to?


On 2017-11-27 12:45, VJ Rada wrote:

I don't think ATMunn's actions were super-conditional?

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Telnaior  wrote:

The two mega-super-conditional actions I'm not gonna count barring a CFJ >_>
I award VJ Rada 3 NPR favours for being the Advisor of the Drunk.
I award Aris 3 OOS favours for being the Advisor of the Mystery.
I award Aris 3 MLP favours for being the Advisor of the Hat Rack.


PARTIES AND FAVOURS
---

PLA - Platonic Isolationists   (4 Politicians, Economy)
NPR - New Punchbowl Reformers  (4 Politicians, Justice)
COS - Costume Conservatives(4 Politicians, Efficiency)
SUL - Substance Use Liberals   (4 Politicians, Legislation)
MLP - Official Raving Monster Looney Party (4 Politicians, Participation)

+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Player  | PLA | NPR | COS | SUL | MLP |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Alexis  |   0 |   3 |   0 |   2 |   4 |
| Aris|   0 | 183 |   0 |   0 |   2 |
| ATMunn  |   0 | 214 |   0 |   3 |   4 |
| Corona  |   0 | 215 |   0 |   0 |   2 |
| Cuddle Beam |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| G.  |   0 | 429 |   0 |   3 |   4 |
| Gaelan  |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| nichdel |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| o   |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   4 |
| PSS[1]  |   0 | 216 |   0 |   0 |   2 |
| Quazie  |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| Telnaior|   0 | 215 |   0 |   0 |   4 |
| 天火狐 |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   2 | (not even gonna try)
| Trigon  |   0 | 214 |   0 |   0 |   0 |
| VJ Rada |   0 |   3 |   0 |   0 |   2 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+


RANKS AND POLITICIANS
-

CHAMBER OF POWER[Rank 5]
Host  - Mad Cap'n Tom (NPR, 15 Stress, Aris)
Break Election Ties
16 Influence - Aris
 2 Influence - Alexis

UPPER ECHELON   [Rank 3]
Planner   - Joseph "Stealin'" McCarthy (PLA, 09 Stress, VJ Rada)
Decide Party Policies
 10 Influence - VJ Rada
Enforcer  - Xi Kingpin (PLA, 09 Stress, VJ Rada)
Remove Row Echelon Politicians
 8 Influence - VJ Rada
Organiser - Mad "Max" Robespierre (COS, 09 Stress, No Advisor)
Extra Voting Power
 No Influencers
Creep - Politician McPoliticianface (NPR, 09 Stress, Aris)
Increase Politician Stress
 10 Influence - Aris

ROW ECHELON [Rank 1]
Schmoozer - The Drunk Clinton (SUL, 03 Stress, VJ Rada)
Change Politician Parties
 6 Influence - VJ Rada
Decorator - John Johnson (MLP, 03 Stress, ATMunn)
Extra Balloon
 3 Influence - ATMunn
 3 Influence - VJ Rada
Loner - Pinocchio (COS, 03 Stress, No Advisor)
PLA Favours
 No Influencers
Drunk - Aristotle (PLA, 03 Stress, VJ Rada)
NPR Favours
 3 Influence - VJ Rada
Mystery   - Mickey Joker (NPR, 03 Stress, Aris)
COS Favours
 12 Influence - Aris
Wild One  - Malcolm Turncoat (COS, 03 Stress, No Advisor)
SUL Favours
 No Influencers
Hat Rack  - Nick P. Ronald (NPR, 03 Stress, Aris)
MLP Favours
 12 Influence - Aris

ROW-REDUCED ECHELON [Rank 0]
No Post   - Nikolai Shootemdedsky (SUL, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
 No Influencers
No Post   - Bob (SUL, 00 Stress, VJ Rada)
 2 Influence - VJ Rada
No Post   - Natasha Nogoodnik (SUL, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
 No Influencers
No Post   - Weird Al (MLP, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
 No Influencers
No Post   - Rob Boss (COS, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
 No Influencers
No Post   - Cookie Monster (MLP, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
 No Influencers
No Post   - Screaming Lord Sutch (MLP, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
 No Influencers
No Post   - Boris Eatstumuch (PLA, 00 Stress, No Advisor)
 No Influencers


RETIREMENT AND ELECTIONS

Announcing Retirement:
No One

Recently Retired:
No One


BALLOONS


+-+---+---+---+
| Player  | Last Week | This Week | Total |
+-+---+---+---+
| Alexis  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Aris| 0 |10 |10 |
| ATMunn  | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Corona  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Cuddle Beam | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| G.  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gaelan  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| nichdel | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| o   | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| PSS[1]  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Quazie  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Telnaior| 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 天火狐 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Trigon  | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| VJ Rada | 0 | 8 | 8 |
+-+---+---+---+

[1] Full name "Publius 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: party party party

[Madeline]

VJ Rada didn't throw down enough to beat you in the first place, only 
tie you :P



On 2017-11-27 12:36, ATMunn wrote:

How come I get to be advisor anyway?

On 11/26/2017 8:28 PM, Madeline wrote:
This fails because row-echelon politicians can only be influenced in 
even amounts (but you get to be advisor anyway)



On 2017-11-27 11:00, ATMunn wrote:
I use 3 participation favours to influence John Johnson, then advise 
him.


:P

On 11/26/2017 4:52 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
I use 2 participation favours to influence John Johnson, then 
advise him.


Dudes, use your damn favours.

DIS: Re: BUS: party party party

[Madeline]

This fails because row-echelon politicians can only be influenced in 
even amounts (but you get to be advisor anyway)



On 2017-11-27 11:00, ATMunn wrote:

I use 3 participation favours to influence John Johnson, then advise him.

:P

On 11/26/2017 4:52 PM, VJ Rada wrote:
I use 2 participation favours to influence John Johnson, then advise 
him.


Dudes, use your damn favours.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Justice Favours

[Madeline]

Yup - and him drawing Host was the most hilarious thing.


On 2017-11-27 11:52, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:

Is that a Tom Scott reference?

On 11/26/2017 06:51 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 at 17:20 Kerim Aydin  wrote:


I award 3 Favours in the Party holding Justice to:

  - Alexis for CFJ 3603.
  - Alexis for CFJ 3604.
  - Aris for CFJ 3605.

-G.


I spend 3 Favours to gain 2 Influence over Mad Cap'n Tom, then advise em.

-Alexis

DIS: Re: BUS: Looking interesting

[Madeline]

I only went after the really-obviously-super-inactives, and I think I 
found some message from you sometime in last month when I checked.



On 2017-11-26 20:40, Gaelan Steele wrote:

Darn, nobody deregistered me. Can’t make CFJs about that then. If I’m a zombie 
with a master other than Gaelan, I flip my master switch to Gaelan.

Gaelan


On Nov 26, 2017, at 1:28 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

I’ve been looking to get back into Agora. Now seems like a good time.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: [Proto Contract] MiniNomic

[Madeline]

There's no clear requirement that votes cast have to be valid.


On 2017-11-24 13:15, ATMunn wrote:

I wasn't originally going to make this a proto, so that's why this
contains actions and not just the contract itself. I just want to make
sure that this isn't totally broken before I create it. I'm also aware
that some people might not be up for this sort of thing right now (we
sort of have enough trouble going on in the real nomic right now, we
don't need another one!), but I think it's a fun idea, and I want to
see what people think. If enough people say they don't want it, I won't
make the contract (but I'll still keep it saved in case I want to bring
it up again later).

[by the way, this took way longer than I expected; I was originally
just going to have it say "Any party to this contract CAN amend it with
2 Agoran Consent from part members" or something like that, but then I
decided to make it defined in a bit more detail, and it just kept going
from there.]

I cause the ACU to pay me 1 shiny by destroying 10 of my bills. I create
the following contract, entitled "MiniNomic", paying 1 shiny to Agora to
do so:


---IMMUTABLE SECTION
Text in the section of this contract below the dividing line labeled
"IMMUTABLE SECTION" is considered immutable. Text below the dividing
line labeled "MUTABLE SECTION" is considered mutable.

Any player CAN become a party (or cease to be a party) to this contract
by announcement.

Amendment Proposals are a type of fixed asset, which can only be owned
by this contract. This contract is willing to receive Amendment
Proposals.

Any party to this contract CAN cause an Amendment Proposal to be created
in this contract's possession, by announcement, specifying the amendment
e wishes to make. This is known as Proposing an Amendment.

Immutable text CANNOT be amended. Instead, in order for a block of
immutable text to be amended, it must first be moved to the mutable
section. This is known as transmutation. Transmutation can also consist
of moving a block of mutable text to the immutable section.

A valid amendment is transmutation of a block of immutable text to
mutable text or vice versa, or deletion, changing, or adding of mutable
text. An invalid amendment CANNOT be made.

After a valid amendment is proposed, a voting period for that amendment
begins. All parties to this contract (including the party who proposed
the amendment) are considered Voters. Any Voter CAN cast a vote on an a
mendment by announcement. Valid votes are YAY and NAY. All Voters SHALL
cast a vote on amendments in a timely fashion after they are proposed.

After 7 days have passed from the proposing of an amendment, no more
votes can be cast, and any party CAN resolve the vote by announcement.
When the vote is resolved for an Amendment Proposal, the Amendment
Proposal is destroyed, and if more than half of the votes (rounded up)
were YAY, then the Proposal passes and the amendment is made. Otherwise,
the Proposal fails, and nothing happens.
MUTABLE SECTION-

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I have no idea what I'm doing

[Madeline]

You already did! <_<


On 2017-11-23 13:02, VJ Rada wrote:

Speaking of trust tokens, I give corona and telnaior one.

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

One idea I had is a list of "goals" that could be maintained - goals could
be added through proposal, and when someone achieved a goal it was removed
from the list and that player won the game. That'd allow for things like how
trust tokens say the "first" player to do whatever wins. Perhaps it could
also be expanded to have goals have rules tied to them that get repealed
with the goal's removal?



On 2017-11-23 12:50, Alex Smith wrote:

On Thu, 2017-11-23 at 12:33 +1100, Madeline wrote:

Potential expansion: They name an English letter along with the attempt,
and whoever resolves it gets a token of that letter. Someone who manages
to collect a token of every letter can receive a Black Ribbon.
Alternatively this may work better as a contract, but then I have no
idea what kind of reward to offer.

We should bring back Contests. They were always one of the simplest
ways to try out interesting win conditions.

I'd try something like this, to get started:

Proto: Contests (AI 1)

Create a new rule, "Contests and Scoring", with Power 1 and the
following text:
{{{
The Scorekeepor is an office. Points are a currency, tracked by the
Scorekeepor. Points can be owned only by persons and contracts.

Whenever a person owns 100 or more points, the Scorekeepor CAN by
announcement, and SHALL in a timely manner, destroy all points in the
possession of each person who has 100 or more points, and half the
points in the possession of each other person. When points are
destroyed in this manner, each person who had 100 or more points
immediately before the destruction wins the game.

A Contest is a type of contract. The Scorekeepor's weekly report
includes a list of all Contests. A contract is never a Contest unless
it has been made into a Contest by a rules-defined process. As long as
at least one contest exists, the Scorekeepor SHALL once each week, and
CAN once per week by announcement, create a number of points in the
possession of each Contest equal to the number of parties that contract
has.

A player CAN cause a contract to be come a Contest without 3
objections. Players SHOULD NOT intend to make a contract into a
Contest, and SHOULD object to such intents, if the contract does not
give each player a fair opportunity to earn its points, or if the
contract has insufficient protections against being amended so that it
no longer gives each player a fair opportunity to earn its points.
}}}


Agora's gone back and forth on how freely tradeable points are in the
past, but I think it's probably best to start with them as liquid so
that they can help to form the basis of an economy alongside Shinies.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I have no idea what I'm doing

[Madeline]

One idea I had is a list of "goals" that could be maintained - goals 
could be added through proposal, and when someone achieved a goal it was 
removed from the list and that player won the game. That'd allow for 
things like how trust tokens say the "first" player to do whatever wins. 
Perhaps it could also be expanded to have goals have rules tied to them 
that get repealed with the goal's removal?



On 2017-11-23 12:50, Alex Smith wrote:

On Thu, 2017-11-23 at 12:33 +1100, Madeline wrote:

Potential expansion: They name an English letter along with the attempt,
and whoever resolves it gets a token of that letter. Someone who manages
to collect a token of every letter can receive a Black Ribbon.
Alternatively this may work better as a contract, but then I have no
idea what kind of reward to offer.

We should bring back Contests. They were always one of the simplest
ways to try out interesting win conditions.

I'd try something like this, to get started:

Proto: Contests (AI 1)

Create a new rule, "Contests and Scoring", with Power 1 and the
following text:
{{{
The Scorekeepor is an office. Points are a currency, tracked by the
Scorekeepor. Points can be owned only by persons and contracts.

Whenever a person owns 100 or more points, the Scorekeepor CAN by
announcement, and SHALL in a timely manner, destroy all points in the
possession of each person who has 100 or more points, and half the
points in the possession of each other person. When points are
destroyed in this manner, each person who had 100 or more points
immediately before the destruction wins the game.

A Contest is a type of contract. The Scorekeepor's weekly report
includes a list of all Contests. A contract is never a Contest unless
it has been made into a Contest by a rules-defined process. As long as
at least one contest exists, the Scorekeepor SHALL once each week, and
CAN once per week by announcement, create a number of points in the
possession of each Contest equal to the number of parties that contract
has.

A player CAN cause a contract to be come a Contest without 3
objections. Players SHOULD NOT intend to make a contract into a
Contest, and SHOULD object to such intents, if the contract does not
give each player a fair opportunity to earn its points, or if the
contract has insufficient protections against being amended so that it
no longer gives each player a fair opportunity to earn its points.
}}}


Agora's gone back and forth on how freely tradeable points are in the
past, but I think it's probably best to start with them as liquid so
that they can help to form the basis of an economy alongside Shinies.

Re: BUS: SCAMMERS FOUND! (Was: Re: DIS: Re: URGENT! SCAM ALERT! ALL HANDS ON DECK! SCAM INCOMING! SCAM WARNING! SCAM WARNING!)

[Madeline]

How many E-mails actually went THROUGH seemed inconsistent and I'm not 
really sure at all what to make of it.



On 2017-11-23 12:44, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:

In the future, I will. Part of the joke was the mass of emails, demonstrating 
the overreaction.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com




On Nov 22, 2017, at 8:42 PM, Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

OOC: pick one forum please, to avoid spamming.

-Aris

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
<p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

SCAMMERS FOUND! A test message contains confusing contents was received at 0:45 
on November 23, 2017. This message took the form of other similar messages that 
led up to timing scams. Please be aware that a scam may be incoming. Watch out 
for suspicious messages from this player or eir associates and scrutinize all 
messages thoroughly. Agora has recently experienced an attempted scam and this 
could be in preparation for a follow-up. Please monitor the list carefully. 
Please forward this as widely as possible for maximum awareness. Following 
this, Aris engaged in an attempt to cover up the scam attempt. Please be aware 
and suspicious of any actions from Aris or Telnaior.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com




On Nov 22, 2017, at 8:38 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:



You're in on it.

I knew it.

Traitor.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:

Isn't it possible that e was trying to test the size of different
whitespace characters to make a report table line up? That's what it
looks like to me.

-Aris

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 4:53 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
<p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

SCAM ALERT! ALL HANDS ON DECK! SCAM INCOMING! SCAM WARNING! SCAM WARNING! A 
test message contains confusing contents was received at 0:45 on November 23, 
2017. This message took the form of other similar messages that led up to 
timing scams. Please be aware that a scam may be incoming. Watch out for 
suspicious messages from this player or eir associates and scrutinize all 
messages thoroughly. Agora has recently experienced an attempted scam and this 
could be in preparation for a follow-up. Please monitor the list carefully. 
Please forward this as widely as possible for maximum awareness.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com




On Nov 22, 2017, at 7:45 PM, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

| Telnaior|
| 天火狐 |
| Trigon  |


| Telnaior|
| 天火狐   |
| Trigon  |


| Telnaior|
| 天火狐  |
| Trigon  |

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I have no idea what I'm doing

[Madeline]

Potential expansion: They name an English letter along with the attempt, 
and whoever resolves it gets a token of that letter. Someone who manages 
to collect a token of every letter can receive a Black Ribbon.
Alternatively this may work better as a contract, but then I have no 
idea what kind of reward to offer.



On 2017-11-23 12:28, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:

I like this day.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com




On Nov 22, 2017, at 8:24 PM, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:

On 2017-11-23 12:17, ATMunn wrote:

It seems like Agora is in a scammy mood.

I hereby declare that this message is a scam.

Proposal draft:

Any player can Attempt to Scam by announcement. Only one Attempt to Scam may be 
ongoing at a time.

After an Attempt to Scam, any player can Resolve the Scam by announcement, but 
not in a timely fashion.

If the player who Resolves the Scam is the same player who Attempted to Scam, 
that player earns a Scam Token.

Scam Tokens may be traded in for some reward (I'm thinking assigning emself as 
the judge of any CFJ, though if we want to do this seriously perhaps something 
marginally less ridiculous)

DIS: Re: BUS: I have no idea what I'm doing

[Madeline]

On 2017-11-23 12:17, ATMunn wrote:

It seems like Agora is in a scammy mood.

I hereby declare that this message is a scam.


Proposal draft:

Any player can Attempt to Scam by announcement. Only one Attempt to Scam 
may be ongoing at a time.


After an Attempt to Scam, any player can Resolve the Scam by 
announcement, but not in a timely fashion.


If the player who Resolves the Scam is the same player who Attempted to 
Scam, that player earns a Scam Token.


Scam Tokens may be traded in for some reward (I'm thinking assigning 
emself as the judge of any CFJ, though if we want to do this seriously 
perhaps something marginally less ridiculous)