DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: = THE SCROLL OF AGORA = Last report: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 Recent Activity: 31 May 2012: The Herald awards The President the patent title Champion (Anarchy, via Ratification). --- DEFINED PATENT TITLES --- CHAMPION by Anarchy scshunt Pseudo-CoE: Shouldn't the President be on the list of Champion holders? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora
On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Roger Hicks wrote: Anarchy scshunt Pseudo-CoE: Shouldn't the President be on the list of Champion holders? E is, lower down, under Via Ratification. That's a category I'm using for win announcements that have ratified, but the facts post-ratification find that the victory announcement was wrong, so ratification was the actual method by which e won. -G. Oops, now I remember you saying that - sorry! BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3214 assigned to scshunt
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Benjamin Schultz ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote: Both are acceptable usage. One may file/submit a motion to do something (useful in courts); one may move to do something (useful in assemblies). But one never motions to do something. Unless you are a Jedi... BobTHJ
Re: DIS: very hash hash
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Restrict it to casting votes? It should be legal for non-rules defined actions as well. I could see this mechanism being useful for contracts/contests/promises/whatever form of binding agreements exist presently. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: very hash hash
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: The Rules may specify a date or event after which a particular type of Cypher becomes Declassified; with a default of as soon as possible after the Cypher is first published. As soon as possible after a particular Cypher becomes declassified, its recordkeepor SHALL announce the fact. As soon as possible after such an announcement, the originally posting player CAN and SHALL Decypher the information by publishing a different statement (the Plaintext) and publishing or referencing a method (the cypher algorithm) by which the Plaintext was converted into the Cypher. Failure to do so is the class-3 Crime of Secret-Keeping. [problem: possible two week delay here; results for a vote due within a week or assessor breaks rule. Thoughts on timeline?]. Why bother having the recordkeepor announce the declassification? It seems reasonable to simply require the player posting the classified information to publish its plaintext ASAP after the declassification date (without a reminder from the recordkeepor). BobTHJ
Re: DIS: very hash hash
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Mon, 16 Jul 2012, omd wrote: On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: then the encoding is interpreted as if its plaintext had been published at the time the original encoding was published. i think this is too vague - what if the plaintext is I deregister? Ah, good point. Hmm, the plaintext should be valid if applied to the actions manipulating the Rules-defined Confidential record, but not otherwise valid. That might be a little tricky to generalize correctly... -G. The rule specifying the secret should additionally specify the encryption (I hate this word in this context, fwiw) method and the rule allowing secrets should define explicitly what sort of actions or information can be contained within. For instance, on voting, we could say that a player may indicate that their vote is contained in a secret, but they must clearly identify which secret and it cannot contain anything other than a vote. Its probably best to simply not allow rules-defined actions to be performed Confidentially except when specifically permitted (ie voting). BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [assumed promotor] distribution of proposals 6960-6961
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:12, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
On 16 February 2011 17:22, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
Ok start at the endpoint. What items of value are we selling? Anything
other than the trifecta of voting power, proposal distributing, and
penalty removal?
Perhaps we should use voting power as currency. Because, you know, to
hell with democracy.
proto-proto:
{
Acorns are a currency. When a first-class player registers five
acorns are created in eir possession. When a player wins the game
three acorns are created in eir possession. A player CAN destroy 2
acorns in eir possession to destroy an acorn in another player's
possession.
A player's voting limit on ordinary decisions is equal to the number
of acorns in eir possession at the start of the voting period.
}
BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [assumed promotor] distribution of proposals 6960-6961
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 14:10, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: On 16 February 2011 20:44, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Yeah, except as discussed many many times, if you can get almost anything else but that anything else isn't specified, you just sit around and do nothing. Oh, the idea would be to have an actual market where you can use vote-currency to buy actual things. I'm just saying that voting power is a good, stable source of value, because fiat currency in a nomic doesn't seem to be working. This was part of my thinking behind the Achievements proto I posted. Lasting in-game recognition is worth playing the game to purchase (either directly or indirectly). Another idea is to let players use large quantities of currency to buy their way out of official duties. New players would (as a result) be saddled with the difficult recordkeeping offices and an Agoran thug could be hired to bust their virtual kneecaps should they fail to comply On a only mildly related note - I considered at one point running a nomic with actual real-world currency involved. You'd pay $20.00 or so to buy in as a player which would go into the nomic's pool and the rules would determine what happened to the money, and the first person to scam dictatorship could award themselves the pot. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [assumed promotor] distribution of proposals 6960-6961
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 14:23, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: On 16 February 2011 21:21, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: Another idea is to let players use large quantities of currency to buy their way out of official duties. New players would (as a result) be saddled with the difficult recordkeeping offices and an Agoran thug could be hired to bust their virtual kneecaps should they fail to comply Proto-ragequit. Twas only in jest of course :) BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [assumed promotor] distribution of proposals 6960-6961
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 14:28, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: On 16 February 2011 20:50, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Seeds decay (hoarding only semi-successful). If decay is exponential there can be a steady state but with bursts. Finally, every so often acorns go away, too (otherwise new players will be left out after a bit). ais makes a good point here: The issue is that in the erg-based economy, there was no real benefit for officekeeping at all; compare my officer activity in the Note era, where it gave permanent and useful gains, to the erg era, where it didn't; that's not a coincidence. G. always tries that sort of thing complaining about permanent buildup, etc.; we've done that a lot recently, and it doesn't seem to work well. i.e., incentives for officekeeping only work if you can hoard the spoils and use them for your dastardly, dastardly* deeds in the future. *Dastardliness optional. Hear! Hear!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [assumed promotor] distribution of proposals 6960-6961
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 15:43, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Wed, 16 Feb 2011, Elliott Hird wrote: i.e., incentives for officekeeping only work if you can hoard the spoils and use them for your dastardly, dastardly* deeds in the future. I think you misunderstand, by the way. When I say every so often, it's much much LESS often then with Ergs that I have in mind. Say quarterly or even annual adjustments. Not weekly or even monthly; enough time to hoard but knowing you need to hatch your scheme within the next several months. Since it's about game balance, a very, very good way is to soft-code supply and decay and leave it up to officers within bounds; e.g. an officer can mint 1-5 of eir currency or decide to tax at a certain rate between 0 and 20% and decide frequency (but no more frequent than once a quarter), and the officer's money supply policy becomes an election issue. Real election issues are good! (remember the Poobah?) (Quietly shuffles over to G.'s side...)
Re: Fwd: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [assumed promotor] distribution of proposals 6960-6961
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 17:39, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Wed, 16 Feb 2011, Ed Murphy wrote: I transfer a proposal from myself to ehird. Oooh, turning proposals into assets. Now *there's* an idea. I had an unpublished draft proposal a while back that did similar with rules. I wonder what could be done if rules, proposals, CFJs, and NOVs were all tradable assets? I destroy R101 in my possession to... BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [assumed promotor] distribution of proposals 6960-6961
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:40, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Tue, 15 Feb 2011, Roger Hicks wrote: 6961 O 1 3.0 G. 52-pickup v2 AGAINST (like the President bit, but I'm opposed to wisespread repeals. If you're getting rid of something it should be because you're replacing it with something better - and I think that the recent scams led to recent apathy, not ruleset bloat). So, you're volunteering to do some officers' jobs that no-one seems to want, then? If there were a quantifiable gamestate then yes - I would happily serve as an officer. What didn't interest me was trying to sort back through messages from a time when I wasn't playing to understand and determine the results of several scams that seemed to really cause havoc with Agora. If someone wants to publish a deputy or unofficial report for an office that shows the current gamestate along with any known caveats and what CFJs they rely upon I'll nominate myself / assume that office. BobTHJ
DIS: Past-Proto-Contract: Router (for discussion only)
This was in my drafts folder from the last time I was playing, back
when there were dozens of contracts floating around. The intent here
was to allow a contract to transclude sections of other contracts,
thus allowing the elimination of mot of the boilerplate that was in
even trivial contracts. Just thought I'd post it in case anyone was
interested in having a look:
This is a public pledge named Router governed by the rules of Agora.
The System Administrator (syn. SA) is responsible for maintaining this
contract. The System Administrator is BobTHJ. An entity can send a
notice to the SA by e-mailing pidge...@gmail.com. The Network is a
list of all Clients, plus all other entities which request to be part
of the Network and provide a valid e-mail address for notification.
The System Administrator SHALL regularly report a list of all
published methods, their text, and all known subscribers to those
methods to the Network.
For the purposes of this contract a Binding Document is a document to
which one or more persons (its parties) have agreed to abide by. This
includes (but is not limited to) the rules of a nomic or a legally
binding contract governed by an outside agency.
A Method is a block of text. Each method has a type and a unique name
- both alphanumeric strings of characters. Methods may be defined in
any Binding Document (hereafter known as a Server). A Server (or its
agent) CAN (through the document's internal mechanisms) publish a
method by sending notice of that method's type, name, and text to the
SA clearly indicating that the method should be published. If that
method's name is unique among all published method names (past and
present) the method becomes published upon the reciept of such a
message.
A Server (or its agent) CAN (through the document's internal
mechanisms) revise a method that has previously been published by that
Server by sending notice to the SA clearly indicating the unique name
of that method and specifying the new text for that method. Upon the
reciept of such a message that method becomes CHANGE PENDING and
BobTHJ SHALL as soon as possible issue a report to the Network clearly
indicating the CHANGE PENDING state of the method and the new text.
Exactly one week following the issuance of such a report the text of
the published method is changed to reflect the new text and the method
ceases to be CHANGE PENDING.
A Server (or its agent) CAN (through the document's internal
mechanisms) terminate a method that has previously been published by
that Server by sending notice to the SA clearly indicating the unique
name of that method and indicating that it should be terminated. Upon
the reciept of such a message the method in question ceases to be
published, and the SA SHALL report the terminated state of this method
to the Network as soon as possible.
Any Binding Document may become a Client by specifying its agreement
to this contract in its text in such a way that all members of that
document are bound by this contract as well. A Client can become a
Public Client by sending (possibly through its agent, as permitted by
its internal mechanisms) notice to the SA requesting to become a
Public Client. Upon the reciept of such a message the Client becomes a
Public Client. A Client which no longer specifies agreement to this
contract in its text ceases to be a Client.
A Client CAN specify a list of Subscriptions (either in its text or
through a mechanism described in that document). Each Subscription
contains a Method type followed by an ordered list of zero or more
names. These names SHOULD correspond to published methods of the
specified type. A Client may not have more than one Subscription for
each Method type. At any given time at most one published Method
corresponding to a name in the Subscription's ordered list and
corresponding to the type of the Subscription is the Provider. A
Client may define its own guidelines for determining which Published
Method from among those named in the Subscription is the Provider, but
in the absence of such a definition the first listed name in the
ordered list which corresponds to a Published Method of the
appropriate type is the Provider. The Client transcludes the text of
all Provider methods, and parties who have agreed to the Client agree
to the text of all Provider methods as well. A Client CAN modify its
list of subscriptions, or the ordered list of names in any
subscription through its own internal mechanisms.
METHODS
---
This contract defines the following Methods. Creating, amending, or
deleting a method definition here is equivalent to the SA being
notified of that creation, amendment, or termination of the method as
described above.
AGORAN ANNOUNCEMENT
Type: Performance
Text: {
A public message is a message sent via an Agoran public forum, or sent
to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to
be public. A person publishes or announces something by
sending a public message.
DIS: Proto: Acheivements
I'll likely wait to propose this until after the current scam(s) have
been resolved and the gamestate can be quantified (as I re-registered
mid-scam and don't care to sort it out). I am open to suggestions for
additional achievements, or better (more-punny) names, as well as
general comments and critique on the proposal.
Proto: Acheivements (II: 2, AI: 1)
{
Create a new rule titled Achievements with power=1 and the text:
{{
The Statistician is an office. It's holder is responsible for tracking
achievements.
The List of Achievements is a document maintained by the Statistician
and SHALL be published in eir weekly report. Any player CAN modify the
List of Achievements without 2 objections to add an achievement or
modify an existing achievement. Achievements CAN not be removed from
the List of Achievements unless no person has completed that
achievement. The Statistician SHOULD modify the List of Achievements
to ensure it's parity with the current ruleset by adding new
achievements corresponding to new gameplay and modifying the condition
of achievements which do not fit the current ruleset while preserving
their spirit.
Each achievement defined on the List of Achievements has the following
attributes:
* A title (unique among all achievements)
* A value in the range of 5 to 30, corresponding to the difficulty to
complete that achievement (where a higher number corresponds to a
higher difficulty)
* A condition that must be fulfilled in order for that achievement to
be completed
Each person has an integer Achievement Score equal to the sum total of
values of all achievements e has ever completed. A person's
achievement score is a measure of eir long term participation in
Agora. A list of persons with non-zero Achievement Scores and those
scores is part of the Statistician's weekly report.
A player completes an achievement when e fulfills that achievement's
condition. However, actions that occurred prior to the creation of
this rule that led to persons fulfilling the conditions of
achievements are not considered for the previous statement unless the
person in question still meets those conditions when this rule is
created. The condition of some achievements specify multiple
sub-conditions that must be fulfilled. Unless otherwise specified by
that achievement sub-conditions need not be fulfilled simultaneously.
The Statistician's report includes for each achievement a list of
persons who have fulfilled that achievement as well as a list of all
persons who have progressed toward that achievement by fulfilling at
least one subcondition.
}}
Set the List of Achievements to the following:
{{
We are the Champions (10)
Win the game
Jack of all Victories (25)
Satisfy each of the following winning conditions:
* Clout
* Dictatorship
* Game Club
* Leadership
* Legislation
* Paradox
* Respect
* Solitude
Jack of all Defeats (10)
Satisfy each of the following losing conditions:
* Inactivity
* Owning one or more rests
Official (5)
Hold an office
Ultimate Public Servant (20)
Hold each of the following offices:
* Rulekeepor
* Registrar
* Pariah
* IADoP
* Promotor
* Assessor
* Fearmonger
* Justicar
* CotC
* PSM
* ATC
* Herald
* Speaker
Tidy Up (10)
Clean a rule
Quitter! (20)
Deregister or be deregistered by each of the following methods:
* Voluntarily by announcement
* In a Writ of FAGE
* For inactivity
* For having 24 or more rests
* By any means other than the above
Politics Pleasure (5)
Become a senator
Emergency! (10)
Call (or support the call of) an emergency session
Brains!!! (10)
Become a zombie
I Shot The Sheriff (10)
Deputize for an office
Popularity Contest (10)
Win 5 elections
@$$ Out of U and Me (5)
Assume an office
Legislator (10)
Author a proposal that is adopted
Grand Legislator (25)
Author 50 adopted proposals
LOLWUT? (15)
Sucessfully award yourself a leadership token for authoring an
adopted proposal containing exactly 1337 words
A Higher Power (10)
Author an adopted proposal with an adoption index of 4 or greater
How Interesting! (10)
Author an adopted proposal with an interest index of 3
Honorable Judge (5)
Issue the final judgment on a CFJ
Distinguished Judge (25)
Issue 30 final judgments on CFJs
High Profile Case (10)
Issue a judgment on a CFJ with interest index 3 that isn't overturned on appeal
Law Enforcement (10)
Publish a valid NOV that is closed without being contested
Circuit Riding (15)
Serve on 25 judicial panels that issue a judgment in an appeals case
Fully Charged (20)
Make a truthful announcement that you currently possess 50 or more ergs
Call 'Em Like I See 'Em (10)
Bear a non-rule defined patent title
Gentleman and a Scholar (15)
Bear at least five rule-defined patent titles
Full House (10)
For each of the following positions, make a truthful announcement
that you hold that position:
* Kitchen Staff Supervisor
* Chief Justice
* Grand Vizier
* Chief Gardener
* Crown
Re: DIS: Proto: Acheivements
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 13:03, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: I'll likely wait to propose this until after the current scam(s) have been resolved and the gamestate can be quantified (as I re-registered mid-scam and don't care to sort it out). I am open to suggestions for additional achievements, or better (more-punny) names, as well as general comments and critique on the proposal. I submitted a similarly themed proto somewhat recently and I was going to propose it in a week... but maybe yours is better. *reads* Really? Sorry - I must have missed it or it was before I re-registered. I'll go hunt it up and read it. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset (Part 2 of 2)
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 05:33, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: On 5 January 2011 07:01, Taral tar...@gmail.com wrote: If there is no objection, yes, it can be raised. I object to 1 megabyte messages; perhaps 512 kilobytes at the maximum? I find this to be a reasonable compromise BobTHJ
DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 01:19, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: Registrar's Census Fri 04 Mar 00:00 BobTHJ becomes a Senator I thought Senator persisted through deregistration? Proto: When a player who was once a Senator registers he becomes a Senator again. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset (Part 2 of 2)
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 22:19, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Jonathan Rouillard jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote: Way to bypass the size limit. =) ~ Roujo Way to bypass a limit that does not need to be bypassed, as e could have just asked Taral? Could the size limit just be increased to 1MB? That would solve the ruleset issue and most other large messages that get hung. In today's age it's hard to find an e-mail client that won't handle 1MB messages BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Proto-proto: Scam Day
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 13:28, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: Players are encouraged (in the ordinary-language sense) to take advantage of these definitions to carry out scams which would be illegal or impossible on other days. However, scams SHOULD NOT be carried out which are detrimental to the game as a whole. Don't you mean MUST NOT? (given the redefinition) BobTHJ
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6648 - 6668
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 16:50, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Voting results for Proposals 6648 - 6668: I'm saddened that I didn't come back sooner. I could have voted against the repeal of contracts. Did it pass by a large margin? BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 00:44, Charles Reiss woggl...@gmail.com wrote: I hereby register. - woggle Welcome back! BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2768-69 judged UNDETERMINED by G.
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 15:50, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: On 03/02/2010 12:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Gratuitous: As previous judge I request REASSIGN -- I think I've been responsible for a lot of the official (rather than gratuitous) precedents on personhood and it would be good to have another voice in here. Also, just had a new addition to the family (two weeks earlier than expected but healthy and happy :) ) so I might be a bit distracted from the intricacies of such a case for a few weeks! -G. Congratulations! Yes, congrats! BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2732 assigned to G.
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 01:58, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On Sun, 2009-12-06 at 21:24 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: === Equity Case 2732 (Interest Index = 0) BobTHJ abused eir position as Secretary of Agriculture to award emself points and grant emself a victory when others were awaiting eir actions and report - myself in particular, waiting on a rather large sum of points to be awarded to myself. Barred: Taral, woggle, Quazie, People's Bank of Agora, allispaul, BobTHJ, coppro, Warrigal, ais523, Murphy, c. I believe BobTHJ did in fact act in poor faith; I invite members to to opine on manners of restoring equity. -G. This feels like a similar situation to an officer violating a deadline so as to be able to give emself a win (even though it's not quite that situation); I'm not sure if that's happened before, or what the penalty should be in such a case. Perhaps a future bar on points from the contest to BobTHJ, for a while, but that would be rather gameable considering the way the AAA works; perhaps the next n points e would gain from the contest are instead not awarded. Arguments (I thought I may have submitted these already): I intentionally did not award other points to other farmers from the AAA first as a courtesy to them. I was likely that my win by high score would reset points (sorry, I didn't follow to see if it was skunked) and I figured the people owed points would rather have them after the reset than before. I acted in what I believed to be the best interest of the farmers. NOTE: I'm still not following Agoran mail, so if anyone wants to discuss this further with me please copy me directly. Thanks to coppro for making me aware of the continued messages on this case. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: insulate will be a little late
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 16:55, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I apologize in advance the insulator weekly report will be a little late (I hope 24 hours). I just noticed BobTHJ missed a few rest actions that happened just before eir pseudo-report so I want to check back to the Oct 24th report. I just realized the date on my pseudo-report was wrong. It showed Friday because Taral used my system to attempt a deal on that day. However, I only updated my data through Tuesday just prior to the assessor resolving the Dealing Refactor proposal. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Insulator] Unofficial outdated report
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 09:53, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Wooble wrote: On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: Wooble 13 Fugitive Can't Register I believe these were all destroyed by proposal. If they weren't otherwise destroyed or transferred, then yes, Proposal 6541 destroyed them (and has self-ratified by now, just to be sure). CoE: One way or another, Wooble has 0 rests. Yes, Wooble has 0 rests. They were destroyed by proposal 6541 just shortly after I stopped my recordkeeping. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Stepping Down
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 15:09, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote: 2009/11/9 Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com: I have decided to cease maintaining nomic.bob-space.com and step back from Agora for a bit. I have a strange feeling of déjà vu... Ahh, ehirdI knew you wouldn't let me down. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Stepping Down
On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 16:11, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: It's less than one week of backlog, FYI. BobTHJ Two. Your last reports were on October 26, except for your posting of what cards people were owed (a reminder to recordkeepors, including myself, that draws earned need to be posted). My site contains accurate reports and data up to the recent assessor report that resolved your dealing refactor proposal (Nov 3). If you'd like I'll send unofficial copies of those reports to the list. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Interstellar Manifest
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 16:36, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: Accountor Assets monthly 2009-09-06 Overdue Anarchist Anarchy Attempts monthly 2009-09-04 Overdue Accountor Report Salary for month monthly 2009-09-01 Overdue Anarchist Propose repeals weekly 2009-10-12 Overdue Forgot about monthly reports, sorry. I'll get those issued this week. I do intend to resign as Anarchist (If I haven't already been replaced) once it is no longer a Dealor. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 21:49, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: Roger Hicks wrote: Reflects actions up to and including Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:50 Agoran Agricultural Association CoE: This whole report is inaccurate as it purports actions that were never performed. Care to explain? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 09:29, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: Care to explain? BobTHJ I explained with my last CoE but I just realized I only CoEd my holdings, not everyone. You recorded events as if the mere act of harvesting or buying a ranch causes the appropriate adjustments to be made to holdings; it does not. You owe a large number of people a large number of crops, WRV, lands, and points. Actually, this is probably true of the Scorekeepor report as well. I CoE that for the same reason. If you're not convinced I'm handling this right take a look at your latest harvestings of proposals for points. The AAA report shows your crops being deducted for the harvesting, but the Scorekeepor report does not yet show you receiving the points. You'll get those in my next automated actions e-mail when they are awarded to you by the SoA. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 15:13, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:58 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: coppro 2 12 0 20 12 17 12 21 24 22 0 14 CoE: AAA actions are not, and to my knowledge have never been, platonic. -coppro I mill 9 - 7 = 2, 9 - 7 = 2, 8 + 3 = 0, 9 * 8 = 6. I purchase a Mill. I harvest 6543, 6544, 6545, 6546, and 6547 for points. NOTE: At the time you harvested these 6543, 6544, and 6547 are Democratic, so this will net you 8 y-points and 24 x-points. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Actions
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 13:04, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: I harvest 2719, 2720, 2721, 2722, 2723, 2724, 2725, 2726 and 2727 for 18 WRV. In ascending order, I harvest as many of these as I can for 2 WRV each (note that I already harvested 2726 and 2727). (4433) Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:04 - coppro harvests 2719 (CFJ, +2 WRV) (4434) Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:04 - coppro harvests 2720 (CFJ, +2 WRV) (4435) Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:04 - coppro harvests 2721 (CFJ, +2 WRV) (4436) Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:04 - coppro harvests 2722 (using crops: 227X) (CFJ, +2 WRV) (4437) Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:04 - coppro harvests 2723 (using crops: 37XX) (CFJ, +2 WRV) (4438) Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:04 - coppro harvests 2724 (CFJ, +2 WRV) (FAILED - Missing required crops to harvest this number) (4439) Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:04 - coppro harvests 2725 (CFJ, +2 WRV) (FAILED - Missing required crops to harvest this number)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Actions
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 13:46, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 13:04, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: I harvest 2719, 2720, 2721, 2722, 2723, 2724, 2725, 2726 and 2727 for 18 WRV. In ascending order, I harvest as many of these as I can for 2 WRV each (note that I already harvested 2726 and 2727). (4433) Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:04 - coppro harvests 2719 (CFJ, +2 WRV) (4434) Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:04 - coppro harvests 2720 (CFJ, +2 WRV) (4435) Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:04 - coppro harvests 2721 (CFJ, +2 WRV) (4436) Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:04 - coppro harvests 2722 (using crops: 227X) (CFJ, +2 WRV) (4437) Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:04 - coppro harvests 2723 (using crops: 37XX) (CFJ, +2 WRV) (4438) Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:04 - coppro harvests 2724 (CFJ, +2 WRV) (FAILED - Missing required crops to harvest this number) (4439) Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:04 - coppro harvests 2725 (CFJ, +2 WRV) (FAILED - Missing required crops to harvest this number) Thanks (report soon?) Oops, I missed the AAA report when I sent reports yesterday. Report coming now. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 13:58, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: coppro 2 12 0 20 12 17 12 21 24 22 0 14 CoE: AAA actions are not, and to my knowledge have never been, platonic. I'm not understanding the nature of your CoE, can you clarify? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Secretary of Agriculture Report
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 14:02, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 13:58, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: coppro 2 12 0 20 12 17 12 21 24 22 0 14 CoE: AAA actions are not, and to my knowledge have never been, platonic. I'm not understanding the nature of your CoE, can you clarify? BobTHJ You show that I have acquired all the WRV I harvested for, but you never performed the actual harvesting actions. CFJ harvesting was changed a while back because it had a fixed result: b. Within one week after an ID number is assigned to a CFJ, a Farmer CAN once Harvest the ID number of that CFJ. Upon doing so, two Water Rights Vouchers are created in that Farmer's possession BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Scorekeepor] Score Report
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 15:35, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: Sat, 24 Oct 2009 10:45 - The office of Ambassador becomes assumable I don't believe this is in the right report. Yes. A flaw in my design. Since an office becoming assumable is a triggered response to another action (one which causes an office to become vacant) it attaches to the triggering action and shares all the report flags of that action. In this case, Walker's deregistration triggered points being transferred to the LFD and Ambassador becoming assumable, all three messages will appear on the Scorekeepors, Registrars, and IADoPs reports. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Accountor] Salaries Hand Limits
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 13:44, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: Walker 10 Wooble 7 Change Justice Justice Government I intend, with the support of the people, to cause the PBA to publish an NoV alleging that BobTHJ violated R2143, a power 1 rule, by publishing the incorrect report containing the above 2 lines. Incorrect? How? The only thing incorrect there is that you don't have a salary anymore (I'll fix that). BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Request for BobTHJ
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 16:30, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: Do you have a copy of the card history on your website not trimmed to the last month? You can use the following variables in the querystring: time - specify an integer number of days, the history section will include the specified number of days of history (defaults to 30) past - specify a past date and time (from July 2009 on). The reports will display a snapshot of the Agoran gamestate as of that date (defaults to the current date/time) Example: http://nomic.bob-space.com/agoralog.aspx?time=90past=10/01/09 Displays a snapshot of Agoran history as of October 1st, including the preceding 90 days history. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Request for BobTHJ
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 16:47, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 16:30, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: Do you have a copy of the card history on your website not trimmed to the last month? You can use the following variables in the querystring: time - specify an integer number of days, the history section will include the specified number of days of history (defaults to 30) past - specify a past date and time (from July 2009 on). The reports will display a snapshot of the Agoran gamestate as of that date (defaults to the current date/time) Example: http://nomic.bob-space.com/agoralog.aspx?time=90past=10/01/09 Displays a snapshot of Agoran history as of October 1st, including the preceding 90 days history. BobTHJ Oh, and you can use those variables on either the HTML or the plain text versions of the reports. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Proto: The Citrine Repeals
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 06:31, Alex Smith callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: --- On Sun, 25/10/09, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: I suppose. One point is that it would be nice to limit mousetraps to impose unfair obligations, not I can act on behalf of you to steal all your assets and deregister. Your home is your castle and whatnot-- in this case, your person. This is almost certainly a loophole; it was unclear whether it existed beforehand, but definitely existed once act-on- behalf was defined in the ruleset. (I was carefully giving feedback on the proposal in question in such a way as to try to ensure that a version with the loophole in question was the one adopted, so that I could use it with my recent mousetrap; once that's resolved, I'd be fine with locking contract act-on-behalf down a bit more tightly.) Maybe all acting-on-behalf should be done equitably? I do tire of the Mousetrap scams. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgements
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 12:28, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: 2721: GUILTY / APOLOGY 2722: GUILTY / DISCHARGE 2723: GUILTY / DISCHARGE Technically GUILTY, but for the various reasons cited, an APOLOGY should be sufficient - provided that it isn't phoned in this time. For today's prescribed-words list, we go to Urban Dictionary for some noun phrases: different hats roll call bedding the rules objectively attractive Not that I think you've been unfair, but did you consider my argument for NOT GUILTY via implicit announcement? The NOVs were announced in the Insulator report, and by assigning them ID numbers I implicitly declared their validity. I think this does satisfy the requirement in the rules. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SILENCE
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 23:47, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: Roger Hicks wrote: On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 18:59, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: I repeat the following action 24 times: - I create one rest in BobTHJ's possession (as allowed by Rule 1504, due to CFJ 2674). As allowed by R1504 I destroy the above 24 rests. Then I destroy 2 more rests in my possession. This doesn't work; R1504 pretty clearly refers to Rests that were created as a result of the prior judgment. Note that I'm not entirely sure that comex's actions worked; these certainly don't. I'm not sureit seems to say that as long as there was an appealed judgment SOMEWHERE that any Player CAN destroy ANY created rest. All rests were created at some point right? BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: [IBA] Report, now with extra accuracy
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 18:37, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: in which I realize that Stool Pigeon and Shrink Potion were both assigned the abbreviation SP, causing my automation to charge Shrink Potion's rate for Stool Pigeons.. === Industrial Bank Agora Report Date of this report: 22 October 2009 President of the IBA: comex === Current Rates: asset rate (zm) # in bank - Goverment Ball 500 2 Quasi-CoE: Only 1. coppro deposited it, ais523 Presto!'d it from the IBA and re-deposited it. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement, CFJ 2720
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:38, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 9:24 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: I think it's pretty clear that CFJ 2720 has found an instance of Admiral of the Navy to not exist. Therefore I create an Admiral of the Navy card in the possession of Murphy (selected at random among the 7 active players holding the patent title Champion). NoV: BobTHJ violated Rule 2253 (Power-2) by creating an Admiral of the Navy card in Murphy's possession. not exists is hardly indeterminate. I play Drop Your Weapon, naming Murphy's Admiral of the Navy card. This whole string fails platonically due to R2254p1 - comex Discard Picking-ed AotN, so BobTHJ's attempt to create it failed, so comex's attempt to destroy it failed and eir NoV is invalid. E did? when? (I must have overlooked the message). BobTHJ
DIS: Re: OFF: Voting results for Proposals 6522 - 6531
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 16:37, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
Voting results for Proposals 6522 - 6531:
[This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the
following proposals. For each decision, the options available to
Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!).]
*6522 D1 2.0 Walker Rest Reform
*6523 O0 1.0 Walker Fix Ambassador Duties
x6524 D2 2.0 coppro Foreign Relations are Useless
*6525 D1 1.0 coppro Janitor is Useless
*6526 D1 2.0 ais523 Break the Presto Picking Loop
*6527 D0 2.0 BobTHJ Audit Timing
*6528 D0 2.0 coppro Don't Assume Assumption
*6529 D0 2.0 Pavitra Assumption During Elections
*6530 D2 2.0 Walker Deck of Change is Changed
*6531 D3 2.0 Walker Chamber
6522 6523 6524 6525 6526 6527 6528 6529 6530 6531
ais523 F F A P F F F F F A
coppro F F F F F F F P F
Tiger P 2F F F F P F P P F
Walker F 8F A F F F F F F F
Yally A F A A F F F P F P
AI 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
VI 3 *U* 0.6+ 3 *U* *U* *U* *U* *U* 3
F/A 3/1 12/0 2/3 3/1 5/0 4/0 5/0 3/0 3/0 3/1
Quorum 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Voters 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Text of adopted proposals:
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Didn't 6523 fail quorum?
BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Proto: The Citrine Repeals
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 17:09, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 12:35 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: Proto: The Citrine Repeals I agree; the game has gotten too complex and especially focused on minor issues with the rules, etc. But I would support even more severe simplification. I would suggest also repealing in the areas of offices and justice. This is Agora, not B Nomic.it's supposed to be focused on minor issues with the rules. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Proto: The Citrine Repeals
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 11:35, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: Proto: The Citrine Repeals [We've had too many deregistrations lately (some my fault, I guess) Were a proposal like this to go through, I would likely deregister. I've spent countless hours working to model Agora as it stands currently, I'd hate for it all to be a waste. More importantly however I don't know if Agora without all the trappings detailed below would be a game I'd like to play. and general inactivity in Agora, which worries me... and leads me to suspect that it may be time for another mass repeals: because Agora needs a reset once in a while; because the ruleset is bloated; and because removing rules encourages replacements to grow in their place. This proposal would repeal 45 out of 153 rules, including cards, partnerships, protectorates, prerogatives, and distributability, and reduce the SLR line count to approx. 3122. Historical trivia: When a mass repeal of rules was proposed in 2006, there were 197 rules, quite a bit more than our current 153. However, the figure is misleading: the SLR was approx. 4604 lines long then, not much more than the current 4227. The current *number* of rules is much lower, but the amount of text is comparable.] I'm not sure if lengthy ruleset is a good reason to start repealing stuff. Repeal Rule 2244 (The Games of Agora). Repeal Rule 2199 (Ribbons). Repeal Rule 2216 (The Repeal-o-Matic). Repeal Rule 2174 (Aliens). Repeal Rule 2268 (Entanglement). These I don't have a huge problem with. Repeal Rule 2145 (Partnerships). I still think partnerships have a niche to fill and still have some value. Amend Rule 2263 (Acting on Behalf) to read: It is not possible for one person to act on behalf of another person. Bleh! This has many valid uses. Amend Rule 2143 (Official Reports and Duties) by replacing Class-N crime of Tardiness, where N in the Interest Index of that office with Class-2 Crime of Tardiness. Repeal Rule 2227 (Interest Index of Offices). Repeal Rule 2217 (Periodic Elections). Repeal Rule 2224 (Interest Index of Proposals). Amend Rule 1607 (The Promotor) to read: Repeal Rule 2250 (Officer's Proposals). Repeal Rule 2267 (Judge's Proposals). These I could live with (though I still wouldn't be in favor of repealing them). Repeal Rule 2246 (Submitting a CFJ to the Justiciar). Repeal Rule 2225 (Interest Index of Judicial Cases). Repeal Rule 2226 (Judicial Rank). Repeal Rule 2248 (Second-Class Judges). Repeal Rule 2212 (Judicial Declarations). Justice could be simplified, I'm ok with this. Repeal Rule 2253 (Cards). Repeal Rule 2254 (Position Cards). Repeal Rule 2255 (Major Arcana). Repeal Rule 2275 (Government). Repeal Rule 2256 (Exploit Cards). Repeal Rule 2266 (Effect Cards). Repeal Rule 2257 (Dealing Cards). Repeal Rule 2258 (Decks, Draws, and Salaries). Repeal Rule 2259 (Hand Limits). Repeal Rule 2260 (The Deck of Government). Repeal Rule 2261 (The Deck of Change). Repeal Rule 2262 (The Deck of Justice). Cards have not yet had the chance to run their course. There is still considerable untapped potential here. They've gotten a slow start due to multiple bugs in the rules (some I introduced myself, sorry) but if we iron those out there is a lot we could do with cards. Repeal Rule 2269 (Couple Coups). Repeal Rule 2270 (Coups D'etat). Repeal Rule 2271 (Ongoing Change). Repeal Rule 2272 (Leadership Tokens). Repeal Rule 2273 (Coups de Grace). Repeal Rule 2274 (Chicken Coups). We haven't used this yet. I'd be nice to try it out once or twice before we can it. A lot of Agora's ruleset deals with special situations and fringe cases. Perhaps we would be good to separate the ruleset into two bodies of law. A supreme constitution including R101, and the basis of the legislative, judicial, and executive systems, and then all the details and specifics in a second lesser law. Power does this already to some extent, but by separating it out into two different documents new players could be presented with the first (the basics) to get started and then reference the second as they gained experience. BobTHJ
DIS: Proto: Free Parking
Add a new card to the deck of change: Free Parking - Specify up to three assets owned by the LFD. Those assets are transferred to you. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Oh, and since ais523's mousetrap was evidently judged unsuccessful
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 19:32, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: Sean Hunt wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: If I have at least as many Distrib-u-Matics as undistributable proposals in the pool, then for each such proposal, I play Distrib-u-Matic to make it distributable. Having worked things back through the history, I can conclusively say this failed. -coppro And that Murphy has 3 Distrib-u-Matics right now. Deputy distribution arriving shortly. I just got my records caught up to this point, and I am in agreement that Murphy had 3 Distrib-u-Matics as of the time of your message. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Proto: Free Parking
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 11:50, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: Add a new card to the deck of change: Free Parking - Specify up to three assets owned by the LFD. Those assets are transferred to you. I could get ribbons and all sorts with that. I'd restrict it to cards. Restrict it to one asset then, or make it three non-fixed assets. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: SILENCE
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 18:59, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: I repeat the following action 24 times: - I create one rest in BobTHJ's possession (as allowed by Rule 1504, due to CFJ 2674). Well, that was fun. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Decruft Speed
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:25, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 09:18, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote: For each of the following proposals, I intend, without 3 objections, to make it Distributable: Anarchy Anarchy I object Abduct the Aliens I object Invasion Alert Level Green I object End of the Accountor I object I can understand some of these objections, but why are you against repealing a Rule which has only an unused definition in it? I thought it was a useful definition, even if it is currently unusued. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Decruft Speed
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:38, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 10:25, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 09:18, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote: For each of the following proposals, I intend, without 3 objections, to make it Distributable: Anarchy Anarchy I object Abduct the Aliens I object Invasion Alert Level Green I object End of the Accountor I object I can understand some of these objections, but why are you against repealing a Rule which has only an unused definition in it? I thought it was a useful definition, even if it is currently unusued. How can something that isn't used possibly be useful? Hey, no one said my reasoning had to be logical :) BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Abuse
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:26, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: I object to all pending attempts to make an interested proposal distributable which I have not already objected to. Use a Distrib-u-Matic or make it disinterested. Can you do your job and deal me one then please? Working on it.I might be done already if I didn't have to spend all this time objecting to these attempts. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Abuse
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:31, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: I object to all pending attempts to make an interested proposal distributable which I have not already objected to. Use a Distrib-u-Matic or make it disinterested. Can you do your job and deal me one then please? Sorry, I've just realised how bitter that sounds. I wasn't meaning to be like that, and I understand that you will be very busy with your new child. And in any case, I'd rather you do your officer duties in your own time and do them properly than rush them and do a botch job. I'm not trying to hold things up here, and I'm sorry for the delays. I'll get pending deals made as quick as I can. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: [IBA] Report
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 13:45, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: === Industrial Bank Agora Report Date of this report: 19 October 2009 President of the IBA: comex === Current Holdings: Nickname zm - BobTHJ 649 CoE: I should have 659zm (You charged me 50zm for a Stool Pigeon withdraw in your history even though the rate is only 40zm) *coppro 349 CoE: coppro should have 835zm (The Gov. Ball deposit that was already CoEd, which adjusted eir subsequent deposits downward by 4zm) *Taral 868 CoE: Taral has 468zm (e was able to withdaw 6 WRV) *Walker 505 CoE: Walker has 840zm (e already CoEd, just doing it here again to keep everything in one place). === Current Rates: asset rate (zm) # in bank - -- Cards (Government) Kill Bill 110 7 Lobbyist 110 4 No Confidence 55 4 CoE: Should be 8, 3, and 3 (Walker's deposit/withdraw) BobTHJ
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Pending apology
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 17:04, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: And then, to ensure I meet the 200 word minimum, I wish to include the following (which I would have written by hand on a chalkboard, but copy/paste was easier): I transfer a prop from BobTHJ (who wrote this apology) to Murphy (who was going to give em the benefit of the doubt). I deserve that. I normally would have crafted a witty apology that actually used the prescribed words, but I thought it best to use my time to catch up on recordkeeping. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: A different rule-making game that might be of interest.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 09:26, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 3:31 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: I've been thinking for a while about setting up a contest which is a nomic or is nomic-like, which would reset when someone won it. This could be a good basis for that. The First Speaker emself had some related ideas: http://axiom.anu.edu.au/~michaeln/agora/subgame-manifesto.html FRC. BlogNomic. I mean a nomic within a nomic. Read Micheal's manifesto. Nomic Wars never seemed to garner interest, though perhaps it was just my interpretation of a sub-nomic? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Promotor] blah
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 17:26, Sgeo sgeos...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 6:15 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: It's been pointed out to me that I'm violating the rules by not reporting on the Distributability of proposals that aren't in the pool anymore. I resign as Promotor. I create 24 Rests in my possession; this may or may not be enough to cover my pass violations. I play Stool Pigeon, naming Wooble. I deregister Wooble. I transfer one prop from comex to coppro, for comex's deregistration of Wooble. NttPF
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flowers for Wooble
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 10:00, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: (If card recordkeeping isn't caught up soon, then I suggest a deputy Promotor distribute everything and plead for DISCHARGE if e thereby breaks Rule 1607. Better that than a stagnant pool.) I'm back in the office today and will be working on catching up my recordkeeping. Sorry for the delay. BobTHJ
DIS: Distrib-u-Matic?
I lost track of the gamestate.was ais523's attempt to destroy/transfer Murphy's Distrib-u-Matics successful? (and could someone point me to the CFJ this hinged upon?) I'm busily working to bring my recordkeeping up to date so I can issue reports. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Oh, and since ais523's mousetrap was evidently judged unsuccessful
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 15:28, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: If I have at least as many Distrib-u-Matics as undistributable proposals in the pool, then for each such proposal, I play Distrib-u-Matic to make it distributable. H. Former-Promotor Wooble, any chance you could let me know how many undistributable proposals were in the pool as of the time of this message? Murphy had either 3 or 9 Distrib-u-Matics, depending on the state of ais523's scam. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Distrib-u-Matic?
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 13:20, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:40 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 11:18 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: I lost track of the gamestate.was ais523's attempt to destroy/transfer Murphy's Distrib-u-Matics successful? (and could someone point me to the CFJ this hinged upon?) I'm busily working to bring my recordkeeping up to date so I can issue reports. IIRC, it hasn't been judged yet. I should be judging it this evening. BobTHJ, can't you just record Murphy as being at 0? Either way e's consumed all the Distrib-u-Matics... we can ratify a Promotor report later to deal with it. Agreed, e certainly has 0 Distrib-u-Matics at the moment. I'm not waiting on this to finish my updating, I just was hoping to get a clear answer so we knew what was distributable. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Distrib-u-Matic?
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 13:37, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: Agreed, e certainly has 0 Distrib-u-Matics at the moment. I'm not waiting on this to finish my updating, I just was hoping to get a clear answer so we knew what was distributable. BobTHJ Now that I think of it, if the Pool had more than 9 proposals and ais523's scam was unsuccessful (and I won't pass judgment yet), I believe e may still have some left. Best add a disclaimer (or work out the Pool) For the time being I am treating Murphy's attempt to distribute all undistributable proposals in the pool ineffective as I strongly suspect that there were more proposals in the pool than Distrib-u-Matics in Murphy's possession (regardless of the scam). If someone wants to do the research and find out for sure one way or the other it'd be great, but it appears the last pool report was Sept. 27 - too much history for me to review and get caught up on my recordkeeping in a reasonable amount of time. BobTHJ BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Proto: R101 changes
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 13:13, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: c. wrote: iii. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to a binding agreement, and the privilege to refuse to be bound by amendment to an agreement. In the case of becoming a party, the absence of a person's explicit, willful consent shall be considered a refusal. [iii. add the privilege to refuse to be bound by an amendment. a person must explicitly waive this, which is unlikely to happen with, say, the Points Party] How would this draw a line between mousetraps and not-intended-as-scams contract amendments that some parties don't like (e.g. W3O and only one party objects)? In particular, consider what happens if Y agrees to X can act on behalf of Y to Z, then X scam-removes to Z. Semi-related proto-proto: Make all acting on behalf that does not violate a R101 right permissible but not legal, with a minor infraction for doing so unintentionally without consent, and a serious (10+ rest penalty) infraction for willfully doing so without consent. Contract then grant consent to act on behalf, not permission.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Accusations
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 16:54, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: comex wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: Note that I'm not advocating removing penalties for mis-performing or non-performing officers. They need to be retained for cases of gross negligence in repeatedly ignoring duties even after becoming aware of the issue. However, simply because a method exists to penalize an officer does not mean it should be used. Yeah, these NoVs are ridiculous. I helped out but I'm not really sure what the point was... I'll disclaim that I did not intend BobTHJ to get a significant penalty for more than maybe one or two... largely, I was just interested in what the result would be. Also, I would not have any issues with someone issuing NoVs for my failures as Grand Poobah after the installation of Cards - I was unprepared for the recordkeeping, and that's my responsibility. Nor would I be upset at someone NoVing me for something else. My point is this: If we saddle officers with hefty fines for minor infractions, then who's going to want to go through the work of being an officer? BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Audit Card Destruction Cleanup
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:27, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:16 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: When any other entity is audited the auditing entity (or the Accountor if the auditing entity is a non-person) CAN and SHALL as soon as possible (by announcement) I don't think the current rule is ambiguous at all. And making it so you can wait a week before destroying the cards is ridiculous; you already got to wait a week before auditing at all. Address: what if the auditing entity is a non-person? BobTHJ
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: audits
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:26, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:02 AM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: It matters when the person we elect as recordkeepor uses someone else's broken program and an annoying act-on-behalf system to avoid doing the job at all. then surely we can elect someone else as recordkeepor? Umm, I did play a No Confidence in the message you were replying to, so... On the wrong office (if it's Tiger that you're really annoyed at for passing off eir Grand Poobah duties to me). BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Audit Card Destruction Cleanup
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:34, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: Address: what if the auditing entity is a non-person? A non-person shouldn't be able to hold one of the Dealor offices or take an action such as playing a Penalty Box card. If it can, that's a bug. Irrelevant. The audit rule specifically attempts to address what would occur if there is no auditing entity (and by this we can only infer that the author's intent was non-person entity). Since it would be impossible for the Accountor to perform destruction at the same instant a non-person entity or non-entity initiates an audit, the rule text suggests that the audit creates an obligation for future card destruction (one without a time limit). BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Audit Card Destruction Cleanup
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:12, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: Irrelevant. The audit rule specifically attempts to address what would occur if there is no auditing entity (and by this we can only infer that the author's intent was non-person entity). Since it would be impossible for the Accountor to perform destruction at the same instant a non-person entity or non-entity initiates an audit, the rule text suggests that the audit creates an obligation for future card destruction (one without a time limit). The fact that the Accountor will necessarily violate the rule just means e's NOT GUILTY under the old EXCUSED criteria, not that the rule doesn't mean what it says. Of course the rule means what it says. It just doesn't say what you're suggesting. Were you not among those adamant that the text of the rule is supreme even when it conflicts with the author's intent and the good of the game? BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: BobTHJ's Actions (automated)
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 11:35, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Acting on behalf of Grand Poobah (if required): {
coppro is dealt the following card(s) from the deck of Government:
Lobbyist
}
Reason: Janitor weekly salary
Fails, I wasn't the Janitor for last week (it fails because the Dealership
platonically prevents BobTHJ from performing an illegal deal...).
Does not fail. From R2258:
At the beginning of each
week, each holder of an office earns a number of draws from the
deck indicated by the switch equal to the interest index for
that office.
You were the holder of the Janitor office at the beginning of the
week, even if you didn't hold it for part of last week.
BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: BobTHJ's Actions (automated)
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 12:55, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: Roger Hicks wrote: For the week beginning Oct 12. Unless I recorded the date wrong you assumed the office of Janitor shortly before the new-week rollover: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:33 - coppro assumes the office of Janitor BobTHJ That was Walker. Oopsyou're right, sorry. I'll fix my records and then re-deal a card to Walker for Janitor salary. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Accusations
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 13:59, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: Roger Hicks wrote: On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 13:45, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: I publish an NoV alleging that BobTHJ violated Rule 2230, a Power-2 Rule, by failing to announce publicly the validity of the NoV identified as #1 in eir reports. I intend, with 1 support, to publish an NoV alleging that BobTHJ violated Rule 2230, a Power-1 Rule, by failing to announce publicly the validity of the NoV identified as #2 in eir reports. I intend, with 2 support, to publish an NoV alleging that BobTHJ violated Rule 2230, a Power-1 Rule, by failing to announce publicly the validity of the NoV identified as #3 in eir reports. I intend, with 3 support, to publish an NoV alleging that BobTHJ violated Rule 2230, a Power-1 Rule, by failing to announce publicly the validity of the NoV identified as #4 in eir reports. I contest all of these. Borrowing from the practice of the previous Insulator Murphy (a practice which was discussed on the lists and mutually agreed upon to be valid) I announced the validity of these NOVs as part of the weekly Insulator report. BobTHJ I initiate criminal cases from all of these NoVs and all the NoVs contested in your two subsequent messages to a-b. I set the II for all of these at 1. I humbly request the CotC refuse the excess cases initiated above. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Motion to Effect
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 17:25, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote: Sean Hunt wrote: I initiate a Motion To Effect, specifying the following Rate List: Distrib-u-Matic: 55 I vote AGAINST. I think this would stomp all other rates, making Distrib-u-Matics the only thing that the bank can trade. Distrib-u-Matic is (unless things have seriously changed in the last few weeks) easily the most common card in the game, but the demand is also high and I guess the lack of deposits indicates the rate is too low... still, maybe 55 is too high. -- I think Pavitra means that since this rate list includes only Distrub-u-Matic and makes no reference to leaving other rates unchanged it will NULL all other rates. BobTHJ
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: audits
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 15:25, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 12:21 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: After reading it again, I see how it could be interpreted differently (and the way you suggest is probably the intent of the rule), however when I read the rule and coded it into my site I noticed the former interpretation. Yes. Suber warned against automation because it puts rule interpretation in the hands of the programmers where it probably doesn't belong. Perhapsmy program can be easily changed, though this really has nothing to do with automation, it has to do with how I (a human person) interpreted the rule. I believe this is another case where there are two valid ways to interpret the rule. One is in the intent of the rule and other (most likely) is not. After reading it again I realized that my interpretation was probably not in the intent of the rule - and therefore it's in the best interest of Agora to do it the other way (and I'm modifying my automation accordingly). However, that doesn't make my interpretation any less valid. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: audits
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 23:18, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: Geoffrey Spear wrote: Were any entities actually audited in the first 7 days of this month? If not, why not? I don't believe so. BobTHJ attempted and failed to audit ais523 for the Government deck; e never attempted Change or Justice. -coppro Yes, the LFD was audited thrice (once manually by me after realizing ais523's audit may have failed, and twice through an automated message. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: audits
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 11:16, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 23:18, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: Geoffrey Spear wrote: Were any entities actually audited in the first 7 days of this month? If not, why not? I don't believe so. BobTHJ attempted and failed to audit ais523 for the Government deck; e never attempted Change or Justice. -coppro Yes, the LFD was audited thrice (once manually by me after realizing ais523's audit may have failed, and twice through an automated message. The LFD did not have more cards of either of the 2 types you didn't audit first after it was audited once; so this was illegal if it happened (I can't find a message where it did.) a) would not have been ILLEGAL but INVALID b) the audit does not cause cards to have been destroyed; they must be destroyed by the auditing entity (in this case, Tiger, I believe, must destroy all of the LFD's cards) Read the audit rule again. Each audit of the LFD started a new ASAP time limit for me to destroy cards (I have it in my queue for the next automated batch I send). BobTHJ
Re: DIS: audits
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 19:39, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: Read the audit rule again. Each audit of the LFD started a new ASAP time limit for me to destroy cards (I have it in my queue for the next automated batch I send). You read it again: When any other entity is audited, the auditing entity (or, if there is none, the Accountor) CAN and SHALL by announcement destroy X of eir cards, selected at random, where X is one-half rounded up of the number of cards e owns in excess of eir Hand Limit. when =! as soon as possible after. NoVs coming Monday morning when I need less support. Hmm...so it would seem there is no time limit at all on this action. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: audits
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 22:10, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: When any other entity is audited, the auditing entity (or, if there is none, the Accountor) CAN and SHALL by announcement destroy X of eir cards, selected at random, where X is one-half rounded up of the number of cards e owns in excess of eir Hand Limit. when =! as soon as possible after. NoVs coming Monday morning when I need less support. Hmm...so it would seem there is no time limit at all on this action. when aka at the same time / in the same message Yes, that's a good definition for when. But I think due to the wording of the paragraph, the when applies to the creation of an obligation: When a player is audited - An obligation to destroy cards is created. Because the auditing entity must destroy cards by announcement the text suggests that this destruction is a separate and distinct action from the action of auditing that can occur at a separate time. After reading it again, I see how it could be interpreted differently (and the way you suggest is probably the intent of the rule), however when I read the rule and coded it into my site I noticed the former interpretation. BobTHJ BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Actions
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 14:21, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: Selling: 100zm For Cost: Play Absolv-o-Matic specifying BobTHJ Repeats: 3 I fill the above quoted offer, doing the following: I spend Absolv-o-matic, specifying BobTHJ. I act on behalf of BobTHJ to transfer 100zm from em to me. I spend Stool Pigeon to create a Rest in BobTHJ's possession. Uh, thanksI think... BobTHJ
Re: DIS: audits
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 10:52, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: Roger Hicks wrote: On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 23:18, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: Geoffrey Spear wrote: Were any entities actually audited in the first 7 days of this month? If not, why not? I don't believe so. BobTHJ attempted and failed to audit ais523 for the Government deck; e never attempted Change or Justice. -coppro Yes, the LFD was audited thrice (once manually by me after realizing ais523's audit may have failed, and twice through an automated message. BobTHJ In what message where the other two audits (I now see the Government audit, but not the Change or Justice ones) Well, it appears my system bugged and never sent the message as I intended, so I messed this one up (along with the Government one as you mentioned since I forgot to act on behalf). I'll re-do these correctly shortly. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Deputisation
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 12:40, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I intend to deputise for the dealer of each basic deck to audit the appropriate entities. I totally forgot about thiscoming up shortly. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Card Actions and Suggestion [Attn: BobTHJ]
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 13:51, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote: Suggestion: On nomic.bob-space.com, each player report includes that player's Hand Limit, total number of Cards owned from each Deck (and total number of cards owned overall), and number of Cards they are over their Hand Limit. On the text versions of each deck report (as well as the All Decks report) players are now listed with hand limit and total cards owned from the respective deck. I'll add this to the HTML reports as well at a future date. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: another partnership intend
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 11:22, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: I deregister the LNP. Fails. The LNP is still a person for 7 days following c.'s departure. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: BobTHJ's Actions (automated)
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 15:22, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
On Wed, 2009-10-07 at 16:20 -0500, pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Acting on behalf of AAA (if required): {
The AAA isn't a person. First coppro trying to act on behalf of
non-persons, now you; what is the world coming to?
Yeah, I noticed that, but since it doesn't hurt anything I haven't got
around to fixing it yet.
BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Possibilities...
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 16:27, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
I CFJ (II=1) { A Government was Formed on September 1.}
On September 1, Wooble assigned the Major Arcana cards to various
players. It was not at the time defined as Forming a Government,
however, the action was effectively renamed to Forming a Government by
the proposal allowing for a coup. Does such an assignment count as
Forming a Government for the purposes of the rules, specifically the
rules regarding the initiation of a coup?
I can't seem to find it now, but I'm fairly certain the rules referred
to forming a government prior to your recent Mutinous Military
proposal taking effect. Something to the effect of (when allowed)
...the Speaker may form a government by... (redistributing Major
Arcana)
BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: BobTHJ's Actions (automated)
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 13:06, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
Acting on behalf of Grand Poobah (if required): {
coppro is dealt the following card(s) from the deck of Government:
Government Ball, Kill Bill
}
Reason: monthly salary
I deposit to the IBA a Government Ball, and ask BobTHJ to verify his
code to make sure that I did in fact just get amazingly incredibly
lucky.
I triple checked it to make sure (I even auto-generated 1,000,000
cards to ensure the ratios were correct). Congrats, its your lucky
day.
BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No Rest Multiplication
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 06:46, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
I submit the following AI-2 proposal, No Rest Multiplication:
{{
In Rule 2262, replace:
* Stool Pigeon - Indicate a player who has not been
indicated for this card within the last 72
hours. A Rest is created in that player's
possession.
with:
* Stool Pigeon - Indicate a first-class player who has not been
indicated for this card within the last 72
hours. A Rest is created in that player's
possession.
}}
This was in the rule originally, not sure when it got edited out
(perhaps it was done so intentionally as a pre-cursor to ais523's
solitude scam?).
BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Status
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 21:10, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: I initiate an election for Accountor. I initiate an election for Janitor. Can you (without playing No Confidence)? You're not the IADoP anymore. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Champions
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 13:12, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Roger Hicks pidge...@gmail.com wrote: This was supposed to be sent as part of my recent automated action e-mail but there must be a bug: I award the patent title Champion to coppro I award the patent title Champion to ais523 I award the patent title Champion to c. I award the patent title Champion to ais523 I award the patent title Champion to coppro. Both the list of succession and speakerhood (Wooble) remain the same. BobTHJ I come off hold. I go on hold. Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:12 - Wooble is dethroned. Long live Speaker BobTHJ!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:41, comex com...@gmail.com wrote: N.B. auditing the IBA doesn't create rests, it just destroys cards. Didn't notice that changed with coppro's revision. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: IBA Stuff
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:48, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@googlemail.com wrote: I deposit 3 * X Crop for 300zm. This fails, you have no X crops to deposit. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2695 assigned to Pavitra
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 23:01, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote: == CFJ 2695 == c. awarded emself 70 x-points via the Contract B contest. Caller's Arguments: My intent when writing the rule was to create four limits for each contest (X-awarded, Y-awarded, X-revoked, Y-revoked). The text of the rule seems open to multiple interpretations however. I will immediately dispense with the interpretation that the limit is a real bound on a complex number of points, as exceed has no mathematical definition with respect to complex numbers as it does with respect to the reals. R2233 reads, in part: The contestmaster of a contest CAN and SHALL award and revoke points as directed by that contract up so long as the total number of points awarded or revoked on any axis do not exceed that contest's threshold index. Awards and revocations that counteract a previous award or revocation for that contest that was not in accordance with it's contract or that exceeded the contest's threshold index do not count against this limit. The key words here appear to be total, any, and the or in awarded or revoked. I interpret any axis to mean any given axis; that is, each axis. x-points and y-points are individually constrained. The plurality of the verb do not exceed implies that the subject of the key sentence is not the (singular) total number of points. It cannot be points, which is clearly enclosed in a prepositional phrase; could or be interpreted in such a way as to make the total ... awarded or revoked plural? I can imagine no reasonable interpretation for or other than that points awarded and points revoked both count towards the same total. The use of do rather than does must be treated as a R754(1) difference in grammar or dialect. Total has no further qualifiers or constraints on it, and I can see no excuse in the text of the rule for inventing any. In particular, the total number of points awarded or revoked on a particular axis is totaled over all players, over all time, and over all contracts or other mechanisms for awarding or revoking points. Rule 1586 suggests to me that x-points should be considered the same thing as pre-Axis points, which implies that no contract has ever awarded x-points. I suggest ignoring the text of this rule and letting the incorrect obvious interpretation ratify until the situation can be fixed legislatively. FALSE. This judgment implies that c. was not able to award any points via eir scam contests. This is what I am recording barring any appeal or follow-up case. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 18:15, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: I join Scumbuddies and change my membership to full. -coppro Did comex and ais523 grant their consent? of not this was unsuccessful. BobTHJ
DIS: Notes on last automated action e-mail
Notes: 1. I have revised the acting on behalf wording in hopes of bringing it in compliance with the current ruleset. Please let me know if you think the new updated wording is ineffective. 2. I mistakenly attempted to revoke points and issue a digit ranch to Taral. This obviously failed. 3. Darth Cliche is being dealt 2 extra cards from the Deck of Change for eir previous registration (the Anarchist at the time was inactive and never dealt em cards before e mistakenly deregistered) BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: BobTHJ's Actions (automated)
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 14:27, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
pidge...@gmail.com wrote:
Acting on behalf of Grand Poobah (if required): {
Darth Cliche is dealt the following card(s) from the deck of Government:
Arm-Twist, Roll Call
}
This fails.
Why?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Acting Grand Poobah] Deck of Government Report
On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 14:40, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote: Sean Hunt wrote: Roger Hicks wrote: I act on behalf of Tiger to publish the following: I publish an NoV alleging that BobTHJ violated Rule 2215, a power-1 rule, by having made a public statement on a matter relevant to the rules (that e acts on behalf of Tiger) without a reasonable belief that it was true. Arguments: BobTHJ devised a contract to allow him to act on Tiger's behalf, but Tiger never agreed to it to a DF, and if he did, the contract was never made public in any case. A public contract is required for act-on-behalf, and there was no public contract and probably no contract at all that would authorize BobTHJ's actions. -coppro Oh, irritating. I mis-searched and discovered Tiger did agree to a PF (weird). The report still fails for not mentioning the contract. How does this not satisfy R2263(a)? Note the clauses of R2263 are ORed. BobTHJ
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2693 assigned to BobTHJ
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 00:50, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
Roger Hicks wrote:
This judge's opinion is that such a Hard Deregistration is exercised
by the player ceasing to be involved in the Agoran forums and
essentially ignoring the game. When such occurs, R101 vii is fulfilled
as Agora makes no attempt to impose any penalty upon a absent player
other than to deregister them.
I pledge: {
This pledge is named Acid Test.
Pavitra SHALL NOT deregister.
Pavitra CAN terminate this pledge by announcement.
}
I CFJ, II-2: {
If Pavitra were to deregister now, explicitly invoking eir
R101(vii) right, the only appropriate judgement in a criminal
CFJ against em for violating the Power-2 R1742 by violating
Acid Test by deregistering would be GUILTY/DISCHARGE.
}
Arguments:
Judge BobTHJ's arguments in CFJ 2693 limit the R101 protection of the
act of deregistration to the fact that Agora makes no attempt to impose
any penalty upon an absent player other than to deregister them. It
follows that this fact should be maintained with extraordinary
strictness, if R101(vii) is to have any meaning as a fundamental right.
I strongly recommend TRUE.
Perhaps I wasn't clear enough with my arguments. Short of physically
hiring a police force (or bruiser) that physically travels to a former
player's home and beats the $...@! out of them I don't think its
possible to infringe on a person's R101vii rights. Someone can
unsubscribe to the Agoran lists and completely forget about Agora and
never have any adverse effect as a result.
BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2693 assigned to BobTHJ
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:53, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Thu, 24 Sep 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 00:50, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps I wasn't clear enough with my arguments. Short of physically hiring a police force (or bruiser) that physically travels to a former player's home and beats the $...@! out of them I don't think its possible to infringe on a person's R101vii rights. Someone can unsubscribe to the Agoran lists and completely forget about Agora and never have any adverse effect as a result. Why is it so hard to see continue to play = continue to be a player = deregister? With this moron-level-obvious translation, You can always deregister instead of continuing to be a player fits every definition within the ruleset for these terms, is straightforward, untwisted, and makes sense and is fully in keeping with the context of the right when it was adopted. And sure, it's trivial to infringe on this right, how about a rule no officer can deregister. Good lord, I want a cluebat. That of course is another perfectly valid interpretation of R101 vii, and since it is no conflicting with the interpretation I stated above both should be followed. I wasn't arguing for ignoring this plain-text definition. I think we agree on this more than you realize. My judgment was an attempt to debunk the hard deregistration idea whereby a person ceases to be a player and is freed from all obligations (including contractual ones). Such a think need not be spelled out clearly in the rules since a player can exercise this right (unsubscribing from the lists and never coming back) regardless of what the rules state. Short of doing so however, the player is still participating in Agora, and while eir de-citizenship is protected via R101 vii, eir past obligations (including contractual obligations) are not. BobTHJ
