DIS: Re: BUS: I judge this TRUE
On 10-11-20 06:20 PM, ais523 wrote: I'm sorry, there had to be a time difference between the messages or it wouldn't have worked. (I do think the correct judgement is TRUE, though, although there isn't strong evidence either way.) Can you please provide your reasoning? Regardless of how the CFJ is judged, it is the platonic truth that matters. -scshunt
Re: DIS: proto: Marks
On 10-11-16 06:32 PM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: This confirms what I understand of Agoran Politics so far: Fun = CfJs all around. =P You got it backwards. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On 10-11-15 08:55 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
I CFJ {If the Registrar's report should, by the rules, have included that
Tiger became Inactive on 2 May, 2010, then Wooble would be able to resort to
the defense of reasonable error in a criminal CFJ over that rules
violation.}
Arguments: In my view, this case would constitute failure to know the rules,
which is not a reasonable defense.
I'm *able* to present any defense. Whether a particular Judge or
appeals panel would buy it probably can't be determined by CFJ.
In a legal context, being able to use a defence refers to doing it
successfully.
-scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Registering
On 10-11-09 11:02 PM, omd wrote: On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Flameshadowxeroshin wrote: I, a first-class citizen named Flameshadowxeroshin, indicate my intent to become a player of Agora. CoE: You weren't a citizen before you became a player. Also, hi. You should NoV -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6870-6876
On 10-11-07 05:23 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: You still have a voting limit of zero due to Rests, so these would have been ineffective even if they hadn't been NttPF. These were cleared when the Rebellion wiped them. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6863-6869
On 10-11-07 09:39 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: Ugh, you're right. I transfer a prop from myself (for getting 6864 and 6865 mixed up) to coppro (for pointing it out). 6864 still failed quorum (and would have failed even if I had voted FOR it, actually I probably would have voted PRESENT). CoE on my previous results message for 6863-69, admitted: my votes on 6865 were ineffective. I hereby resolve the decision on 6865 as follows: ais523 voted 5F G. voted 7F Tiger voted 2F Wooble voted 5F outcome is FAILED QUORUM I submit a proposal identical to Proposal 6864 in every attribute I can control, and then pay a fee to make it Distributable. -coppro
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2891 assigned to coppro
On 10-11-07 10:00 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2891 == Criminal Case 2891 (Interest Index = 0) === Warrigal violated committed the Class-2 Crime of Restricted Behavior by violating rule 2125, because rule 1006 states that an officer may be referred to by the name of that office, and Warrigal violated the rules by being referred to by the name of Herald whilst not holding that office. HILARIOUS. Oh wait, that's not actually a judgment... NOT GUILTY per Wooble. -coppro
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6870-6876
On 10-10-31 01:34 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: This distribution of proposals 6870-6876 initiates the Agoran Decisions on whether to adopt them. The eligible voters are the active players at the time of this distribution, and the vote collector is the Assessor. The valid options on each decision are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote). Each proposal is hereby assigned the corresponding ID number listed with it. NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE 6870 O 1 3.0 omd nai cleanup Conditional: FOR if an only if Bucky has not won the game, AGAINST otherwise. 6871 O 0 3.0 G. The gods have spoken AGAINST 6872 O 0 2.0 G. And eir name is PRESENT 6873 O 0 1.0 G. Auctions FOR 6874 O 1 1.0 omd These are getting really old Conditional: ENDORSE ehird iff ehird has cast a non-PRESENT vote after resolving conditionals, ENDORSE G. otherwise. 6875 O 1 2.0 omd Let's have inactive officeholders FOR 6876 O 1 1.9 G. Condensation FOR -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6863-6869
On 10-10-24 11:54 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: I transfer a kudo from Wooble (for the delay) to G. (for reminding me of the shorter voting period, which I would otherwise have botched). prop? -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)
On 10-10-20 11:52 PM, omd wrote: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Zac Sipes wrote: zac0...@gmail.com Do you want to register as a player? If so, you should say so-- sorry, I think this is a bit too unclear. Yes, yes it is.
DIS: Re: BUS: Shame!
On 10-10-18 01:14 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: The voting periods on Proposals 6858 - 6862 have been extended. Quorum is 5; the following players have voted: coppro (ineffective, too many Rests) I believe I vetoed every decision before voting, making Rests not matter? -coppro
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2890 assigned to coppro
On 10-10-17 05:25 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2890 === CFJ 2890 (Interest Index = 0) It is generally POSSIBLE for me to make a proposal Undistributable for a fee. Caller: omd Judge: coppro Judgement: History: Called by omd: 15 Oct 2010 04:00:11 GMT Assigned to coppro: (as of this message) Caller's Arguments: Rule 2283 states: To perform a fee-based action, a Player (the Actor) who is not otherwise forbidden to perform the action CAN perform it by announcing that e is performing the action while also announcing that there is a fee for that action. However, I am "otherwise forbidden to perform the action": there is no other way for me to make a proposal Undistributable than by announcing I am performing the action while also announcing that there is a fee for that action, etc. TRUE. Not being permitted to perform something is different than being forbidden from performing it. The rule thus means "a player CAN do this unless some other rule says he can't". It is, thus, a manner of subtly deferring to any rule, including one of lower power. Now, someone is invariably going to complain about the rules defining precedence and this getting around it not working, however, since there is never an actual contradiction of rules, precedence need not apply. -coppro
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2884 assigned to coppro
On 10-10-17 04:46 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2884 === CFJ 2884 (Interest Index = 0) Bucky CAN register by announcement I set the II of this case to 1, judge it TRUE, and create a capacitor in my possession for the judgment. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: List fixes
bOn 10/11/2010 12:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Hmm, yes. Looking at a table for both, it depends on whether you think players should be able to move through multiple named positions in a single week. My feeling is no; moving a single named position should take all your savings for that week (brings stability to offices). Here's the two tables, any further thoughts looking at them? Hmmm... mine looks like it could use a little more thought. Let's go with yours for now and then mess with things later. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: List fixes
On 10/11/2010 05:09 AM, ais523 wrote:
On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 01:20 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote:
Oh, also, CFJ: {Posting an intent to perform a dependent action is
itself an action.}
This is relevant because of "I intend, with support, to intend, without
objection, to...", presumably?
And, in the past, acting on behalf to intend (before acting on behalf
was codified as publishing a message on behalf of another).
-coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: List fixes
On 10/11/2010 01:44 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, 11 Oct 2010, Sean Hunt wrote: On 10/11/2010 12:34 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: - A player CAN move an indicated player an indicated number of positions P on the list in an indicated direction (up or down) for a charge equal to the sum of the Influence Levels of all the positions between the indicated player's starting and ending positions, inclusive. Makes moves far too difficult. I was going to propose something involving the voting difference between them or something. I need to work that out exactly. How about the above scheme divided by 2? The specific scheme I was going for was going to be something akin to max(C, N) where N is the number of slots moved and C is the difference between the largest influence of an affected position and the lowest influence. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: List fixes
On 10/11/2010 01:44 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Need to fix something here or the list isn't stable... Less intrusive patch idea? -G. To fix the immediate problem, just say "If a judicial finding indicates that the list's order is ambiguous, then the judge SHALL issue a judicial declaration" etc. and let self-ratification plaster over the rest. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: List fixes
On 10/11/2010 12:34 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
- A player CAN move an indicated player an indicated number of
positions P on the list in an indicated direction (up or down)
for a charge equal to the sum of the Influence Levels of all
the positions between the indicated player's starting and
ending positions, inclusive.
Makes moves far too difficult. I was going to propose something
involving the voting difference between them or something. I need to
work that out exactly.
Position: The Grand Vizier CAN perform any action that an officer
both CAN and MAY (or SHALL) perform by virtue of holding that
office as follows:
(a) If the rules specify that the officer CAN perform the
action in question by announcement, then the Grand Vizier CAN
perform that action With Notice, indicating also that e is
acting as Vizier;
(b) If the rules specify a dependent action method for the
officer performing the action, then the Grand Vizier CAN perform
the action using the same dependent action method, indicating
also that e is acting as Vizier.
(c) If a player becomes the Grand Vizier; no notices of intent
posted by the previous Vizier, or posted by the new Vizier prior
to becoming Vizier, CAN be used to resolve dependent actions
described in (a) or (b), above.
I greatly oppose (c). For starters, I'm not sure how it works with
precedence; secondly, it makes the Vizier useless if it changes more
than once every 4 days.
Also, (b) should still require notice.
Oh, also, CFJ: {Posting an intent to perform a dependent action is
itself an action.}
Amend Rule 2212 (Judicial Declarations) to read:
Separate proposal please.
-coppro
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Ship Computor] Ship rundown
On 10/07/2010 06:28 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: Okay, sorry. The Shuttle's Position is 6, as it has moved 6 times since last report (when it was 0). Isn't the Shuttle destroyed? -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Favors
On 10/07/2010 06:13 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: On 7 October 2010 23:57, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 7 Oct 2010, Sean Hunt wrote: On 10/07/2010 05:23 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: On 7 October 2010 23:13, Sean Huntwrote: I intend, with notice, to Bestow Favors. -coppro Can you do that? I can intend to do anything. In fact, I intend, with notice, to cause Rule 101 to amend itself to say "coppro is The Agoran" at the end. It's not clear that you can do things With Notice that other officers can only due without Objection. For example, you may need to do those both with notice and without objection. Anyway, I recommend someone move em off the title of grand vizier. I'd do it but I won't have the ergs before the notice period ends. If someone moves me to grand vizier (cost: 5 ergs) I promise not to use said powers until we judge whether a fix is needed. -G. I hereby Bestow Favours! I want everyone currently in the highest positions of the list to stay there, in the same order, except coppro who should be just outside the range for a fancy title (or, I mean, the range of positions which I can put people on when Bestowing Favours.) So the one who's right below there shuffles one step up, and coppro shouldn't be Grand Vizier. Yeah. I bestow those favours. INEFFECTIVE. -coppro
DIS: Re: OFF: [Ship Computor] Ship rundown
On 10/07/2010 05:57 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: Ship Computor Printout All data is irrelevant as the journey is over and everything will be created anew if another one is started.. The rules are unclear about whether movement and stuff keeps happening after the journey is finished; common sense says no. If it does, the ship should be at position 5 or something, having moved 1 each week since Aug 26. If there is nothing saying that movement doesn't occur when the journey is over, the rules stuff common sense and things keep moving, damn it. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: I'm totally sorry
On 10/04/2010 12:41 PM, omd wrote: On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, 4 Oct 2010, Keba wrote: I resign all my offices and go on hold. For this, a prop from Wooble to Keba, please. -G. As requested, I transfer a prop from Wooble to Keba. --moron in a hurry I believe this fails because I haven't a clue what Wooble has to do with this. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Oops?
On 09/30/2010 09:14 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: coppro wrote: On 09/30/2010 07:28 AM, Alex Smith wrote: I CFJ on the statement "At some time in the past, Keba was the Speaker", barring Wooble. Arguments: Rule 2315 only allows initialisation the List of Succession "as soon as possible after this proposal takes effect"; unfortunately, rule 2315 is not a proposal, so this never happened. Thus, as far as I can tell the List of Succession was never initially initalised. I'm not entirely sure what knock-on effects this has/had, or how much has ratified away by now; luckily it didn't happen so long ago that it's going to be impossible to calculate the resulting effects. I'd appreciate judicial input on whether there actually was a mistake, though, before trying to figure out what effects it had. TRUE; the IADoP's report has self-ratified. Herald's, but yeah, if the list self-ratified (per Rule 2314) at any point then the first paragraph of Rule 2315 is no longer relevant. The IADoP reports on the Speaker; the Herald's report on the list has also self-ratified, but that is not directly related to the inquiry. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Oops?
On 09/30/2010 07:28 AM, Alex Smith wrote: I CFJ on the statement "At some time in the past, Keba was the Speaker", barring Wooble. Arguments: Rule 2315 only allows initialisation the List of Succession "as soon as possible after this proposal takes effect"; unfortunately, rule 2315 is not a proposal, so this never happened. Thus, as far as I can tell the List of Succession was never initially initalised. I'm not entirely sure what knock-on effects this has/had, or how much has ratified away by now; luckily it didn't happen so long ago that it's going to be impossible to calculate the resulting effects. I'd appreciate judicial input on whether there actually was a mistake, though, before trying to figure out what effects it had. TRUE; the IADoP's report has self-ratified. -coppro
Re: DIS: Pariah protos
On 09/24/2010 09:01 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: Taral wrote: On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: At the end of each week, if the number of Rests (R) in the current Pariah's possession that were destroyed during that week [and while e was Pariah] [and since e most recently became Pariah] is greater than 6, then e gains R-6 Rests. Destroyed rests are no longer in the player's possession... Would "the number of Rests (R) that were destroyed in the current Pariah's possession during that week" work? Same problem -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No Voting Limit Timing Scams
On 09/24/2010 02:45 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: coppro wrote: It's already meaningless. Voting limits are locked at the end of the voting period. Not for ordinary decisions (the only ones where voting limits routinely change). Rule 2156, excerpt: The voting limit of a player on an ordinary decision is defined elsewhere in the rules, but is fixed at the resolution of the Decision ^ Oh, that's a bug then. It definitely should be the end of the voting period. I should know because I wrote that rule as part of a scam that would have failed due to that bug. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No Voting Limit Timing Scams
On 09/22/2010 03:49 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
On 22 September 2010 21:11, Sean Hunt wrote:
On 09/22/2010 12:19 PM, Keba wrote:
Proposal "No Voting Limit Timing Scams" (AI=2, II=1, distributable via
fee)
{{{
Amend Rule 2279 "Voting Limits on Ordinary Decisions" by replacing
Take the Influence Level associated with the player's position
on the list of succession, or 5 if the player is the Speaker.
with:
Take the Influence Level associated with the player's position
on the list of succession at the beginning of this week, or 5 if
the player is the Speaker.
[It would be much easier to track then and it should avoid most timing
scams.]
}}}
It would not alleviate timing scams in the slightest. Just do it before the
Sunday during the voting period of the decision, rather than before the end
of the voting period.
-coppro
Woulsn't it remove the Assessor's ability to influence timing scams,
by making eir choice of when to resolve the decision meaningless for
this prupose?
It's already meaningless. Voting limits are locked at the end of the
voting period.
-coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No Voting Limit Timing Scams
On 09/22/2010 12:19 PM, Keba wrote:
Proposal "No Voting Limit Timing Scams" (AI=2, II=1, distributable via
fee)
{{{
Amend Rule 2279 "Voting Limits on Ordinary Decisions" by replacing
Take the Influence Level associated with the player's position
on the list of succession, or 5 if the player is the Speaker.
with:
Take the Influence Level associated with the player's position
on the list of succession at the beginning of this week, or 5 if
the player is the Speaker.
[It would be much easier to track then and it should avoid most timing
scams.]
}}}
It would not alleviate timing scams in the slightest. Just do it before
the Sunday during the voting period of the decision, rather than before
the end of the voting period.
-coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement, CFJ 2862
On 09/19/2010 08:57 PM, Taral wrote: On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 5:40 PM, omd wrote: I intend to appeal this with two support. I believe that this judgement is correct, but should clarify that failing to check did not actually absolve coppro of any liability were eir original belief in Wooble's IADoP-ness not quite so certain. That's really not the point of appeals. If you want clarification, just ask the judge for it. Yes it is. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Rest
On 09/19/2010 10:38 AM, ais523 wrote: On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 15:14 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote: I destroy a Rest in my possession. This costs me some ergs. Were you on 24 for a moment there? I do not believe so. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Herald NoV
On 09/17/2010 06:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Fri, 17 Sep 2010, Sean Hunt wrote: The second is that it is impossible to publish the List of Succession, as it would only be a copy. Therefore, the alleged List of Succession report in the aforementioned week was not actually a publication of the List of Succession, and thus a failure to perform duties. Er, you should add to the equation whether a document purporting to be the list of succession self-ratified. -G. The list itself is self-ratifying, though it's not clear what that means because I guess all it would do is ratify that it is in fact a list of all active players other than the Speaker? -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Herald NoV
On 09/17/2010 06:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Fri, 17 Sep 2010, Sean Hunt wrote: The second is that it is impossible to publish the List of Succession, as it would only be a copy. Therefore, the alleged List of Succession report in the aforementioned week was not actually a publication of the List of Succession, and thus a failure to perform duties. Er, you should add to the equation whether a document purporting to be the list of succession self-ratified. -G. The list is self-ratifying; reports of the list are not. -coppro
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: A Thesis
On 09/17/2010 03:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Fri, 17 Sep 2010, Warrigal wrote: Conclusion: List-of-Succession-like things are a huge headache. Let's go back to VLOPs. It's trivial. I deputize for the Herald to publish the following LIST OF SUCCESSION report Order Influence No Declaration Declaration Position - 5 Keba Keba Speaker 1 10 omd G. K.S Supervisor 2 7 G. coppro Justiciar 3 5 coppro omd Grand Vizier 4 5 Wooble woggle Head Gardener 5 0 TigerWooble Crown Prince 6 2 TaralTiger 7 2 ehirdTaral 8 2 Sgeo ehird 9 2 Tanner L. Swett Sgeo 10 2 ais523 Tanner L. Swett 11 2 woggle ais523 12 2 Murphy Murphy 13 2 YallyYally Declaration?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Herald NoV
On 09/17/2010 01:05 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote: Gratuitous: The interpretation suggested by the caller is absurd. Would you prefer the interpretation that the list published in the message was rearranged to match the List of Succession. -coppro
Re: DIS: Response
On 09/17/2010 12:08 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: 2010/9/17 Sean Hunt: Proto: invade BN. This would involve remembering to visit their website. You could subscribe to the feed. -coppro
DIS: Response
Proto: invade BN. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2853 assigned to Taral
On 09/13/2010 07:15 PM, Taral wrote: On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: == Criminal Case 2853 (Interest Index = 0) === ais523 committed the Class-1 Crime of Tardiness by breaking rule 2143 by failing to publish a Referee's Report last week. GUILTY / FINE 1 erg. I really can't let you off with nothing, and 1 erg is closest to half a rest. ergs can't be fined, iirc. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: ooh
On 09/13/2010 05:16 PM, Keba wrote: Am Sonntag, den 12.09.2010, 20:22 -0400 schrieb Sean Hunt: I make myself the Pariah. Hm, if I'm right you gained 23 rests for doing so (if making yourself the Pariah means assuming the Pariah), because you were the Pariah for a few hours? Was this intended? What do you think the odds are that I'll tell you? -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: yargh
On 09/13/2010 12:47 AM, omd wrote: On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: NoV: The Pariah violated Power-1 Rule 2215 by making a statement which e could not reasonably believe (with any kind of certainty) to be true, as, by eir own admission, e didn't check whether the violation actually occurred. I contest this NoV. I initiate a criminal case. Defense: I did in fact reasonably believe that Wooble was the IADoP, however, I did not check on this fact to avoid potential liability. I have been following the lists despite my inactivity and I did not recall Wooble to have resigned. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: court merry go round
On 09/10/2010 06:21 PM, comex wrote:
As judge of CFJ 2857, I publish the following /incorrect/ judicial declarations:
{ G.'s position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ coppro's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ omd's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ woggle's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Wooble's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Tiger's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Taral's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ ehird's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Sgeo's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Tanner L. Swett's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ ais523's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Murphy's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Yally's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
Assuming that announcement is a valid way to publish a judicial
declaration (no particular mechanism is specified in the rules), I
don't know whether that succeeded in doing anything. In CFJ 1971 it
was ruled that actions like posting a report don't work with excessive
disclaimers (presumably that would include explicitly calling it
incorrect), and in the "five lights" scam it was held (I think?) that
you can't post a NoV without being Truthfulness-liable for its
contents, but we do allow ratifying incorrect documents, and I don't
see a clear distinction between that and this-- both are attempts to
submit incorrect documents to the Rules.
But in any case, since I don't know whether the last action succeeded,
I can quite honestly publish the following judicial declarations (same
as above):
{ G.'s position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ coppro's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ omd's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ woggle's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Wooble's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Tiger's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Taral's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ ehird's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Sgeo's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Tanner L. Swett's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ ais523's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Murphy's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
{ Yally's position on the List of Succession is unknown. }
...As a certain person would say, in light of this, the issue between
Wooble and Tiger takes on a somewhat academic cast, but I judge FALSE.
Although the caller's arguments are tempting, out of the three
dictionaries I tried (Merriam-Webster, Google, OS X Dictionary.app),
only Google offers The Hierophant as a definition of "pope", and the
metaphors of court, church, and Tarot deck are a bit too confused to
accept that particular interpretation.
Judicial declarations are only self-ratifying if their publication is
required, and these certainly were not.
-coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6830 - 6833
On 09/09/2010 06:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: G. cast 7 valid ballots on the decision to adopt proposal 6830. Poking in to note that casting 7 valid ballots and voting 7 times are not the same. Also, my interpretation of this has always been that a simple FOR is exactly the same as FORx5 or FORx3 or FORxN where N is the voting limit. Whether the limit changes later is immaterial, however, if it goes down, then only the new limit of votes are counted (if, on the other hand, it goes up, then only the old limit are counted unless additional ballots are submitted.) This seems, to me, the only logical way to interpret the rules. When chamber was around, I was going to attempt a forcethrough scam based on this, but it turns out that you really didn't need that to get a random proposal passed (see, for instance, my win). I should (hopefully) be back next week. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: White Renaissance
On 09/08/2010 12:07 AM, omd wrote: On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Warrigal wrote: The asset defined is not "white ribbon"; it is "ribbon". Every ribbon then has a color. A white ribbon is a ribbon whose color is white; even though the rules stop using the term "white ribbon", white does not cease to be a color. (Likewise, a rule can have power 3 even though the rules never define 3 as a valid non-negative rational number.) Even if it white did cease to be a color for some reason, the ribbon would have to revert to a default color; there is no reason for a ribbon to stop existing simply because its color ceases to be defined, any more than a proposal or a player would cease to exist if its Title ceased to be defined. I can't believe nobody has noticed this before. I did but was too busy to mention it. I was probably just going to bury it in a report or something. I'm glad tswett did. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: coup bug
On 09/05/2010 10:07 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I retract my previous proposal, Coup Bug Fix. I submit the following proposal, Coup Bug Fix, AI-2. I pay a fee to make it distributable. -- Any coup that has begun since September 1, 2010 while a previous coup was in progress (i.e. begun and not resolved) is hereby deemed to have failed to begin (e.g. is treated as if it were IMPOSSIBLE to so begin a coup at the time) and all game effects of successfully starting or resolving such a coup are thus nullified. I do not believe a proposal at power 2 necessarily has the ability to do this, because of the discovery that proposals can't override rules, ever. It would be better to just use ratification. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: And the new speaker is...
On 09/04/2010 07:28 PM, ais523 wrote: On Sun, 2010-09-05 at 01:24 +0200, Keba wrote: ais523 wrote: I do not rebel, nor plan to rebel. I didn't plan to anyway, but you want to explicitly reward this for some reason... Well, I want to get the Leadership Token and need to react to G's offer. I don't care much about the ordering, I even offered you to become K.S Supervisor for helping me out here, but you declined indirectly. As G has retract eir offer, I retract my offer as well. I forgot about FSCN, of course it's members could and should take advantage of this "scam". Additionally, bribes of one prop are also not bad, if you want to jump up, of course ;) I dislike the concept of using props for bribery; they used to just be a voluntary thing tracked separately from the rules. I'm vaguely annoyed that they even have a game effect... I concur. -coppro
Re: DIS: The FSCN
On 09/02/2010 08:05 PM, Warrigal wrote: For that matter, what does Agora as a whole think, since FSCN currently has no special power at all? —Co-Founder Tanner L. Swett My response was posted to #really-a-cow. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Sysadmin] Website Voting
On 09/01/2010 04:36 PM, ais523 wrote: On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 16:29 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: This announcement opens the voting period on the decision to adopt the winning Website Submission. The Sysadmin is the vote collector; the voting period is one week. Every active player and Taral are eligible voters. The options are: Website Submission 1, authored by Murphy Website Submission 2, authored by ais523 NO WINNER CoE: This is missing the text of the submissions. If this decision exists, I vote for submission 2; but I suspect it doesn't. erp, you're right. Proper decision coming -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Perpetuum mobile
On 08/29/2010 06:52 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote: AGAINST unless it's "labour" Sent from my iPhone On Aug 29, 2010, at 8:28 PM, Warrigal wrote: "Labour" still means "work", not "worker". May I suggest "Undergrad" or "Intern"? —Tanner L. Swett How about Labor? -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: cleaner fees
On 08/29/2010 04:26 PM, ais523 wrote: On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 00:24 +0200, Keba wrote: TTttPP Is this a synonym for TTttPF? If so (or if not), what does it stand for? It's a secret agreement between em and the Distributor that it means NttPF. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Resignation
On 08/29/2010 12:07 PM, Sgeo wrote: I don't think I have the willpower to be Chroniclor... I resign from Chroniclor You're not allowed to do that. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Fearmongor] Change is Nigh!
On 08/27/2010 02:00 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
And, from the rulest of 5 years ago today:
Proposal: Church and State (AI=1, II=0)
{{{
Enact a new rule entitled "Church and State" reading
A cardinal is an active, ready player who is neither the current
Speaker nor the Associate Director of Personnel.
While there is a pope, no other player may become a pope.
Whenever a pope is not a cardinal, e ceases being a pope.
A notice of papal succession declares that a specified player is
a pope. The notice is valid only if it is published by the
Associate Director of Personnel and the specified player is
indeed a pope.
Upon publication of a valid notice of papal succession, the
current Speaker ceases to be Speaker, the pope becomes the new
Speaker, and the pope ceases to be a pope.
}}}
-coppro
Am I missing something, or is there no way to become a pope?
Nope. There are very few past rules that could be adopted into the
ruleset as-is and function straight up. Some of those that would
arguably only work because they have no function (Rargh!), and others
are far too recent to be interesting.
-coppro
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2844-45 assigned to coppro
On 08/27/2010 06:05 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2844 === CFJ 2844 (Interest Index = 0) I have CFJed on this exact statement, except with 'United' and 'City' exchanged. === CFJ 2845 (Interest Index = 0) I have CFJed on this exact statement, except with 'City' and 'United' exchanged. I honestly cannot bother to get a free capacitor out of these two cases, they are so straightforward - there is no reason to even vary a bit from established precedent. I judge FALSE and TRUE respectively. I stand up. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2837 assigned to coppro
On 08/27/2010 02:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Fri, 27 Aug 2010, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: On 26 August 2010 23:22, Keba wrote: I submit a Proposal "Journey fix" (AI=1, II=1, distributable via fee) I'd personally prefer a fix that made the first wormhole explicitly a "Shuttle loses, enemy wins" scenario and pushing backwards into it fit into Hoisting one's own petard, but as I'm to lazy/busy to write proposals at this time I'm happy with any fix. This whole thing is a contest now anyway, right? CFJ: G. has joined the Space Alert contest. I bar Tiger Arguments: Does this clause: Create a new contest whose contestmaster is the current holder of the office of Ship Computor, whose instructions are the concatenated texts of rules 2297, 2298, 2299, 2300, 2301, 2302 (in the given order), and whose internal gamestate is identical, in all possible respects, to the current state of the subgame of Space Alert as defined by those rules. apply to membership which isn't defined for Space Alert? Does this make me a member without explicit consent? Does the fact that contestification of Space Alert was adopted before contests were defined (proposals 6791 and 6792) matter? Also note, if my voting FOR these proposals (I did) is what makes me consent, it would be interesting to know the answer for someone who didn't vote, or voted AGAINST. Does "participate" in the contest rule mean one can play without "joining"? If any player can "participate", if they break a contest instruction (former rule) what happens? Etc. 6792 was resolved first. Also, contests are binding only on the contestmaster, so in effect what constitutes joining is up to them. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Another robot precedent
On 08/26/2010 05:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, 26 Aug 2010, Sean Hunt wrote: On 08/26/2010 11:11 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I submit the following 3-line public document, TheRobot. 10 PRINT "I AM THE ROBOT. I DO THE ROBOT DANCE." 20 REM G. MAY MODIFY THIS DOCUMENT BY ANNOUNCEMENT 30 GOTO 10 I submit that this is the first entity within Agora that fits any reasonable extent a common definition of a robot. ISIDTID In the case of submitting a public document, saying you did is in fact doing. I think you've recently amended the public document delimiters etc. to allow this. -G. You can't just name it, though. -The Robot
DIS: Re: BUS: Another robot precedent
On 08/26/2010 11:11 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I submit the following 3-line public document, TheRobot. 10 PRINT "I AM THE ROBOT. I DO THE ROBOT DANCE." 20 REM G. MAY MODIFY THIS DOCUMENT BY ANNOUNCEMENT 30 GOTO 10 I submit that this is the first entity within Agora that fits any reasonable extent a common definition of a robot. ISIDTID -The Robot
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6811-6821
On 08/26/2010 04:08 PM, Keba wrote: Well, what's about a scam like "I change my name to Crown Prince" (or any other Courtier)? I don't know whether the voting limits are increased by re-naming, but at least the special duties and powers should apply, if coppro's (or the Robot's?) scam worked. Maybe many players vote for this Proposal, because they intend to change their names at the beginning of next week? In this case, the rule defines those names as positions. I had to make a very careful effort to make sure that Super Robot Powers would pass with The Robot /not/ defined by rules. -The Robot
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not a cronjob
On 08/25/2010 01:55 AM, Alex Smith wrote: --- On Wed, 25/8/10, Geoffrey Spear wrote: I contest this NoV. I initiate a criminal CFJ regarding this NoV and submit it to the Justiciar. Who is the Justiciar, anyway? And is this the first time that power's been used, since its modern reintroduction, in a non-scam manner? Wooble, and based on comments in ##nomic, I believe e's attempting a counterscam. -The Robot
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not a cronjob
On 08/25/2010 01:30 AM, Alex Smith wrote: --- On Tue, 24/8/10, omd wrote: In this case, the entity with the name "The Robot" will be coppro *at the time of the enaction of the rule*. Also: A document referring to an entity by name refers to the entity that had that name when the document first came to include that reference, even if the entity's name has since changed. Is "the document" the rule or proposal? Or both? It will be the rule. -The Robot
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6811-6821
On 08/24/2010 07:53 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: Any of these that worked the first time fail here. This distribution of proposals 6811-6821 initiates the Agoran Decisions on whether to adopt them. The eligible voters are the active players at the time of this distribution, and the vote collector is the Assessor. The valid options on each decision are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote). Each proposal is hereby assigned the corresponding ID number listed with it. NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE 6811 G 1 1.7 Murphy Stereotypes FOR 6812 P 1 2.0 ais523 To make chambers interesting FOR 6813 G 1 2.0 KebaHard times, tape two FOR 6814 P 1 1.7 ais523 The Pariah ENDORSE Yally 6815 G 1 3.0 Murphy Initial security FOR 6816 P 1 3.0 G. Urgency ENDORSE Promotor 6817 G 1 1.0 Kebacoauthorship Ribbon AGAINST 6818 G 1 3.0 KebaUrgent Limit AGAINST 6819 G 1 2.0 KebaYour chamber is my chamber AGAINST - On the one hand, I've vote for it because it's so easily scammable. On the other hand, everyone should know this, and forcethroughs are so easy nowadays that I haven't even bothered. Let's not make it any easier. 6820 G 1 2.0 KebaMinority becomes majority AGAINST 6821 P 1 2.1 G. Relisting FOR -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not a cronjob
On 08/24/2010 05:28 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: When Distributed Proposal 6808 is resolved and ADOPTED, s/When/If/ It's 22-20 and the voting period is over. -The Robot
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not a cronjob
On 08/24/2010 12:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Well, that's slightly more interesting, but the Proposal was a document that predated coppro's name change, so there's a case to be made that the Proposal's referent transfers to the Rules along with the actual language. -G. The language clearly says that it's when the document first comes to reference an entity. There is no rule that references an entity named 'The Robot' right now, and there is no entity named 'The Robot' (there is a propoal with that title, but its name is Distributed Proposal 6796, per rule 2161). When Distributed Proposal 6808 is resolved and ADOPTED, then a rule will come into existence that references The Robot, and will thus come to refer to the entity that had that name - i.e. me. -The Robot
Re: DIS: PM protosal
On 08/23/2010 05:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, ag...@kebay.org wrote: On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 10:11:32 -0700 (PDT), Kerim Aydin wrote: This violates R101(vii). The only way I can think to get around it (it has come up before for other non-natural players) is to re-define R101 so that rights apply to "natural persons" only. This is probably a good idea anyway in a separate proposal, and a good time to do it while we have no non-natural players. Right, thanks for the proposal ;) But if I remember correctly, the Robot has a similar clause... Heh. I didn't read the Robot quite as carefully, I would have noted it there, too... -G. Some other non-natural players like Bayes and other nomics should have (had) rights. I think the restriction should be limited so that only rule-defined entities have no rights. -coppco
Re: DIS: and another
On 08/23/2010 12:38 PM, Alex Smith wrote: --- On Mon, 23/8/10, Sean Hunt wrote: I hope things are working now I conclude on general principles that you're planning a timing scam, and am wondering what it is. I was testing email filters, actually. It's the first time I've used procmail and the manpage I was using was damaged. -coppro
Re: DIS: One more
On 08/23/2010 02:35 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: On 08/23/2010 02:31 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: sorry for spamming. -coppro yep. I ain't done yet :( getting this to work is annoyinger than I thought. -coppro Okay, last go for now. I promise this will end, whether it works or not. Hopefully using the correct filename will work. -coppro
Re: DIS: One more
On 08/23/2010 02:31 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: sorry for spamming. -coppro yep. I ain't done yet :( getting this to work is annoyinger than I thought. -coppro
DIS: One more
sorry for spamming. -coppro
DIS: and another
I hope things are working now
DIS: yet another test mail
arrr -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6783-6789
On 08/22/2010 07:31 AM, Warrigal wrote: 6788 P 1 1.5 coppro Ribbon Rewrite Fix AGAINST, as I can't tell what the purpose of this proposal is. It /was/ to get rid of a duplicate paragraph in that rule... (thankfully, it doesn't break anything to leave it in). -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6790-6810
On 08/21/2010 02:32 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: 6808 P 1 1.0 coppro Super Robot Powers AGAINST (I smell a scam consisting of an affordably short sub-message within a 1000+ word container message) I sure hope not; that's why I built the Robot rule and the recent proposed amendment of sending messages as components of other messages to guard against this. -coppor
DIS: Test
-coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: D-Proposal: Barrel of Monkeys
On 08/20/2010 04:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, Alex Smith wrote:
--- On Fri, 20/8/10, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
Proposal: Barrel of Monkeys (AI = 1, II = 2)
Ugh, is Agora turning into BlogNomic?
Yeah, I'm disappointed people here think "clever" in fragments is just
stringing together random phrases ("he said monkeys. hehhehheh") rather
than trying to be particularly Agoran and putting out fragments that might
work cleverly with the existing ruleset.
Personally I was thinking that Monkeys and Barrels could be the basis
for an Agoran economy. The basic idea is that past elements of economy
have worked best when there are lots of different parts, but that they
form part of a coherent system. My idea was to provide Monkeys easily
but limit Barrels, and one would need to fill a Barrel with Monkeys and
then use it up, and the effects possible would depend on the Monkeys in
the Barrel.
-coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: D-Proposal: Barrel of Monkeys
On 08/20/2010 02:01 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: Proposal: Barrel of Monkeys (AI = 1, II = 2) Create a new power-1 rule entitled "Barrel of Monkeys" with the following text: The zookeepor is an office. Barrels are a currency, tracked by the zookeepor. Monkeys are a currency, tracked by the zookeepor. Gunpowder Monkeys are a currency, tracked by the zookeepor. The zookeepor's weekly repot lists, for each Barrel, its owner and the Monkeys inside of it. Eir report also includes the number of Gunpowder Monkeys in each player's possession, as well as a list of Monkey, Gunpowder Monkey, and Barrel transactions from the past week. Barrels can contain up to 10 Monkeys. A Barrel is considered to be full when it has 10 Monkeys in it. A Barrel is considered to be empty when it has 0 Monkeys in it. The rest of this rule notwithstanding a Barrel CAN NOT have fewer than 0 Monkeys or more than 10 Monkeys at any time; any transaction that would cause such a condition to exist does not occur. A Player CAN, for a charge of 7 ergs, award emself a Barrel. A Player CAN, for a charge of 7 ergs, destroy a specified Barrel. When a Barrel is destroyed in this way, all the Monkeys inside that Barrel are also destroyed. A Player CAN destroy any specified Monkey in any specified Barrel e owns by announcement. At the start of each week, all Monkeys not in Barrels are destroyed and then three Monkeys are created in the possession of each Player. A Player may add a Monkey e owns to any Barrel by announcement. Any Player CAN, by announcement, initiate a Monkey Invasion, provided e specifies a full Barrel in the same message. The specified Barrel then becomes empty. All Monkeys in that Barrel then become Gunpowder Monkeys in the possesson of the player who initiated the Monkey Invasion. A Player who owns a Gunpowder Monkey may destroy any specified Monkey or Gunpowder Monkey by announcement, destroying a Gunpowder Monkey in eir possession in the process. Upon a win announcement that there exist no Barrels or all existing Barrels are empty, and exactly one Player has at least one Gunpowder Monkey in eir posession, that player satisfies the Winning Condition of Flying Feces. Cleanup procedure: All Monkeys, Gunpowder Monkeys, and Barrels are destroyed. END OF RULE I make the above proposal a D-Proposal. I believe this fails; you did not specify which Fragments you were using. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Hoisting one's own wormhole
On 08/19/2010 04:58 PM, Keba wrote: Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: Uh, yeah, the shuttle is in a wormhole right now. It has been warped and disappeared, but I think that was deemed to mean destroyed. So, yeah, wooble probably just won. We have omd to thank for firing the laser cannon whose recoil caused the shuttle to shoot backwards. Congratulations, wooble. Maybe an interesting IRC quote (17 Aug, times are gmt+2): (14:47:02) ais523: why are you doing enemy duties? (15:04:48) Wooble: because I'm the enemy. (15:08:54) ais523: I mean, why did you become the enemy? (15:09:16) Wooble: I mostly wanted the ribbon. (15:09:50) ais523: if I were to become enemy just for the ribbon, I'd either make the map very short, along the lines of @>@ (15:10:04) ais523: or I'd try my best to play as a really powerful Enemy, exploiting every exploit I could (15:10:27) Wooble: yes, also to keep your from exploiting it. :P (15:10:31) Wooble: you* (I assume quoting public fora should be legitim, even without asking?) It's a discussion forum. Also, it used to be logged while Normish was around. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Hoisting one's own wormhole
On 08/19/2010 04:06 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: Uh, yeah, the shuttle is in a wormhole right now. It has been warped and disappeared, but I think that was deemed to mean destroyed. So, yeah, wooble probably just won. We have omd to thank for firing the laser cannon whose recoil caused the shuttle to shoot backwards. I CFJ: "On or about 00:00 August 19, Wooble was awarded a Leadership Token due to the shuttle being destroyed." Above text is caller's arguments for TRUE. Gratuitous arguments: R2299 says "If the Shuttle reaches the end of the journey and is warped." The definition of end here is very confusing, however, based on the use of "start of the journey" in the preceeding paragraph, it makes most sense to interpret it temporally, rather than spatially. Therefore, the statement should really be interpreted as "When the shuttle is warped, the journey ends", which is supported by CFJ 2832. The wormhole in which the shuttle is warped is irrelevant. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6790-6810
On 08/17/2010 09:58 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: 6800 P 1 1.5 coppro Distribution Endorse Taral While I support this vote generally, Taral is not an eligible voter and so the vote will be PRESENT. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: Bridge
On 08/17/2010 05:59 PM, omd wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: comex Date: Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 6:13 PM Subject: Bridge To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org I push the Heavy Laser Cannon button harder. Note: Per the headers, this message left omd's domain of control one second after the new day started. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6790-6810
On 08/17/2010 02:24 PM, ais523 wrote: 6794 P 0 1.0 coppro Restore White Conditional: AGAINST if proposal 6794 passes/would pass, FOR otherwise Uh... If you meant 6795, it should be totally ineffective if 6795 does pass, as White Ribbons won't be defined and will cease to exist/fail to be awarded. -coppro
Re: DIS: To repair listlessness v0.2
On 08/16/2010 11:05 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: coppro wrote: Nah, Chamber doesn't work that well anyways. What about that change that ehird suggested, where you got 5 votes on some chamber other than your own? I'm a fan. I suppose we could leave it in with this proposal - though it would mean changing the influence mechanic somewhat and I'm a fan of its current form. -coppro
Re: DIS: To repair listlessness v0.2
On 08/16/2010 05:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Sean Hunt wrote: [When multiple players win, they can cycle through speakership at 7-day intervals with order of winning not mattering] 7 or 14? I like that there may be a ratrace to crown other people so as to get the Speakership when the dust settles. Does that mean you prefer 7? It was 7 in the original and I changed it to 14 (but forgot to edit the comment). I prefer 14, given that the switch (good idea) makes it easy to track. -coppro
Re: DIS: To repair listlessness v0.2
On 08/16/2010 05:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Sean Hunt wrote: waitwhat? This does nicely solve the rapid Court manipulation problem, I think. I would give you a prop for this idea, but I'd end up taking it from you for suggesting the current system, so it's a wash. Hey now hooold on there...the "last system but one" for succession was a Work of Art, some other folks beat it to pieces with platonicness or something, I said so at the time, but no... I voted for it because at any time, I didn't have a clue who the Speaker was because it was that confusing. -coppro
Re: DIS: To repair listlessness v0.2
On 08/16/2010 05:06 PM, Keba wrote: Kerim Aydin wrote: Proto: Reinventing The List v0.2 (AI-2) AI should be 2.1 because of "Create the following Rule, Leader Bootstrap, power-2.1:", shouldn’t it? I like most of the idea, but I don’t want DICE rolls here. The Rebbel system should work differently. 1/3 of all active Players could be a nice value? Agora has a system for random rolls, and generally accepts them if they aren't too frequent (see, for instance, the team rolls). I like the idea of a game of chance in Agora; gameplay is far too regular. Additionally, couldn’t "Leader Bootstrap" work without a Rule? I don’t like these "Do something, wait and repeal me"-rules. Besides, the current government should occupy the first positions. And I really like the current voting system. Maybe we could combine Chamber with this list? For example: Player who occupy a Position with modulo 3 = 0, 1 or 2 have a green, red or purple chamber, respectively and the Speaker can chose eir Chamber. The Courtiers could have some additional advantage, but not that much, because they have already some special power. The voting advantage in your portosal is - in my opinion - much too high. Nah, Chamber doesn't work that well anyways. This leads to another question: Does "Win by Clout" really need to be repealed? I'd say so. The odds of it being triggered are practically nil except in the event of a scam (actually, that's basically the case right now too). It was good when it was possible to win legitimately with it (as both ais523 and I did). -coppro
Re: DIS: To repair listlessness v0.2
On 08/16/2010 04:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: 3. Moved the office-tracking to the granulator (associated with Leadership, I suppose, and I'm willing to get it started). I think this belongs to the Herald and, honestly, Herald is currently in track-the-random-bits-of-the-gamestate-no-one-else-does mode, so making it a more active office would probably be good. Any attempt to move the Speaker on the list fails, as e is not on the list. Might as well say any player not on the list, given the next paragraph. Whenever a player other than the Speaker is not on the list, or eir position on the list is found by judicial declaration to be UNDETERMINED or UNDECIDABLE, e is added to the list below the lowest player whose position on the list is known. Judicial declarations need not reference specific judgments, it would probably be clearer by saying 'unknown or ambiguous' or something similar. Increase the power of Rule 402 (Identity of the Speaker) to 2. Amend Rule 402 (Identity of the Speaker) to read: A Coronation (crowning) is initiated by announcing that a player other than the Speaker is crowned as Speaker, provided the rules explicitly permit the announcing player (the crowner) to crown another player (the Speaker-to-be). Initiating something instantaneous is a bit weird. Destiny is a player switch tracked by the Granulator with values Unmarked (default) and Marked. When a player wins the game, e becomes Marked. If no player has been crowned in the previous 14 days, than any player CAN crown any single specified Marked player. When a player is crowned, e becomes Unmarked. [When multiple players win, they can cycle through speakership at 7-day intervals with order of winning not mattering] 7 or 14? I like that there may be a ratrace to crown other people so as to get the Speakership when the dust settles. Also, Fated or Unfated? If e has not already done so this month, or if e hasn't done so since e gained office, the Speaker CAN Bestow Favors, by announcement. An announcement Bestowing Favors is a list of other Players, one (different) name per Courtier position. The bestowing of favors has the effect of moving each named player to the indicated courtier position on the List of Succession. If ever the Court becomes defined so that it is not the consecutive top N positions, then exactly how to move everyone simultaneously might be ambiguous. I haven't looked through it. A rule with a power equal to or greater than this rule may associate a Position Name with numbered position on the List of Numbered seems bad here. Additionally, a rule with a power equal to or greater than this rule may associate an integer Influence Level with a specific numbered position on the List of Succession. Numbered seems even worse here The following positions on the List of Succession are named, and have inidicated Influence Levels. All other positions on the list have an Influence Level of 2. This isn't a numbered position! First Position: Justiciar. Influence Level: 10 Position: The Justiciar is granted particular abilities or privileges associated with the judicial process as described elsewhere in the Rules. Why does the Justiciar get such high votes? Right now, I think it's pretty clear that the Chief Whip is the most coveted position, so perhaps there should be an equivalent Courtier with a really high voting limit and no other powers. Second Position: Grand Vizier Influence Level: 7 Position: The Minister without Portfolio CAN, With Notice, perform any action that an officer both CAN and MAY (or SHALL) perform by virtue of holding that office. This should totally be the guy who gets to start coups. Also, MwoP is still there. Fourth Position: Head Gardener. Influence Level: 5 Position: the Head Gardener CAN rubberstamp a specified decision by announcement. I want to be the Head Gardener. Also, this made me think that the position of the guy with lots of votes should be the First Minister, in honor of two of Asimov's best characters. Nth Position, where N is the last position on the list: Privateer. Influence Level: 7 Position: The Privateer CAN begin a coup by announcing the ceremonial shelling of the palace, provding no coup has been resolved in the last 14 days. The effects of the coup (if any) are as described elsewhere in the rules. First, I don't think this should be last; this means a former Speaker is automatically the Privateer. Second, I don't like way of defining it - second-from-last position should do, or at least N, where N is the number of positions on the
Re: DIS: 2830
On 08/16/2010 02:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, omd wrote: So, what sort of disclaimers work? Looking through all this, I think disclaimers should have no direct legal effect other than to alert people that something might be wrong. Then, if a truthiness case is brought, an "honest" disclaimer about minor uncertainty (or truly difficult situations) would be grounds for guilty/discharge (or not bringing the case at all) while disclaimers to protect someone who's making an obnoxious play wouldn't get them out of punishment. This leaves it up to the discretion of the judge. I know this isn't the current precedent but it's cleaner than the current state and leaves disclaimers in the "be nice" realm. -G. FOR -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Last-day proposals
On 08/15/2010 10:46 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 13:31, Sean Hunt wrote:
On 08/15/2010 11:20 AM, Sean Hunt wrote:
I withdraw this proposal.
Proposal: Super Robot Powers (AI=1, II=1, coauthor)
{{{
Enact a new Rule reading
The Robot can, by announcement, cause this rule to amend any other
rule of equal power, provided that it does so in a message
of at least 1000 words.
}}}
-coppro
Huh, that didn't work right. I withdraw Super Robot Powers and submit an
identical one, except that Keba is a coauthor. Then I spend a fee to make it
distributable.
-coppro
CoE: You didn't have enough ergs to perform that action.
Hmm... I may have missed a spending - can you please provide your
accounting logs (apologies to H. Promotor)?
-coppro
DIS: [Herald] Correction?
It has come to my attention that, during a period in 2007, the title "First Speaker", borne by Michael, was dropped from the Herald's report. Can anyone confirm if this was or was not, in fact, a Patent Title? -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On 08/13/2010 01:49 PM, comex wrote: "I transfer all my assets to the bank and then deregister". There's some precedents here, but unfortunately, those precedents were for when assets were more strictly controlled and the rules came out and said you had to be very specific. That's not in the Rules anymore. Actually, the relevant text at the time of CFJ 1307 said you had to "specify" the assets to transfer. Rule 478 currently requires that you "unambiguously and clearly specify" the action, which (CFJ 2238) applies to the parameters of an action. Current game custom directly contradicts those precedents. I consider 'unambiguously and clearly' to be allowed to include shorthands; for instance, it is so widely accepted now that FOR in response to a proposal is a vote FOR, because it still conveys enough information. By contrast, due to historical precedent, AGAINT is viewed as ambiguous. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: That guy was fun
On 08/13/2010 05:21 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: Because they are supposed to be an automatic part of the game. In particular, the only reason someone would make an II=0 proposal undistributable is to delay it a week, which violates the idea of a once-a-week offering of weird rule changes. Proto: Voters MUST vote FOR rules submitted in accordance with this rule. Otherwise, the idea of randomly breaking the game would be violated. I was considering it. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: NoV: the ATC should take duties more seriously
On 08/13/2010 02:08 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: Keba wrote: Hereby, I publish a Notice of Violation alleging that Murphy violated Rule 2143, which has power 1, by failing to publish an Air Traffic Controller's report in the week starting on 5th July 2010. [It's not the point that they were no weekly reports, because not that much props are transferred. But Ed Murphy (at least I can assume e did) stated in our IRC channel that e does not care until e will get punished, so a simple "Please pull your duties" mail would not help.] It's a fair cop. I close this NoV. I pay a fee to remove the Rest thus gained. Proposal: Low altitude (AI = 1, II = 0, distributable by fee) Keba is a co-author of this proposal, unless e announces within a week after the publication of this proposal that e is not. Amend Rule 2287 (Props) by replacing this text: The Air Traffic Controller is an office and the recordkeepor of props. with this text: The Air Traffic Controller is an office and the recordkeepor of props; prop records are part of eir monthly report. a) The proposal just makes them part of the weekly and monthly reports. b) You can't have future-conditional actions like that. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: That guy was fun
On 08/12/2010 10:56 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 20:49, Sean Hunt mailto:ride...@gmail.com>> wrote: Players MUST NOT make proposals submitted in accordance with this rule Undistributable. Why not? If someone wants to pay the 2 ergs, what's the problem? Because they are supposed to be an automatic part of the game. In particular, the only reason someone would make an II=0 proposal undistributable is to delay it a week, which violates the idea of a once-a-week offering of weird rule changes. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: since I fail at ribbons
On 08/12/2010 12:51 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: On 08/12/2010 12:31 PM, comex wrote: Note: Some of these actions may fail. Murphy gets a Green Ribbon. Wooble gets a Blue Ribbon. I get a Yellow Ribbon. -coppro Oh, comex also gets a Silver Ribbon. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: since I fail at ribbons
On 08/12/2010 12:31 PM, comex wrote: Note: Some of these actions may fail. Murphy gets a Green Ribbon. Wooble gets a Blue Ribbon. I get a Yellow Ribbon. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2827 assigned to Wooble
On 08/12/2010 11:36 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: I create a Black ribbon in my possession. --Wooble Fails; I think you meant Blue. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: storage
On 08/11/2010 01:18 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 14:10, Aaron Goldfein mailto:aarongoldf...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 09:57, Geoffrey Spear mailto:geoffsp...@gmail.com>> wrote: I create 2 capacitors in my possession. --Wooble This fails, because you didn't specify the specific event that allowed you to do so. Nevermind. You created 2 capacitors in your possession for a fee of 6 ergs. No e did not; e did not explicitly state e was spending a fee to do so (R2283) -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Fragment
On 08/11/2010 10:37 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: I submit a fragment: While a player is Over a Barrel, e CANNOT INEFFECTIVE; the timeout hadn't been met and no one had submitted one after your first one of that message. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Thesis, compressed
On 08/10/2010 04:05 PM, Alex Smith wrote: On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 17:00 -0500, agora-business-ad...@agoranomic.org wrote: Your mail to 'agora-business' with the subject BUS: A History of Agoran Wins, 2009-Present Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. The reason it is being held: Message body is too big: 78665 bytes but there's a limit of 40 KB Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the moderator's decision. This always seems to happen to me when I try to submit theses! Assuming that Taral eventually approves the message, the thesis counts as being submitted already. So people can see what it is, I've attached a compressed version of the email I sent, to get around the size filters. Hmm... I will start the Decision to award a degree after a brief period for discussion. I notice a few minor errors, which is reasonable but I think it would have reflected better on the quality had you submitted it for review first. Most significant is comex's alleged win by Clout, which the Herald's records do not contain, and which I personally recall never occurred. While I don't have the time to search through the archives myself, is there any indication that comex actually won there? -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6763 - 6765
On 08/09/2010 10:39 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Taral wrote: On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 10:38 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: H. Distributor Taral, would you care to open the Submission Period? According to the subscriber list, e has message delivery disabled. E also hasn't been an active player for 51 weeks, which is why I voted against this proposal. I think you'll find that that's because you're looking at an alternate address for me. :) That's slightly encouraging, but I still don't care much for putting obligations on inactive players by name, even if they are reading the lists. That's why I made it up to em to start the Submission Period. If e didn't want to accept the obligation or wasn't around, e could simply let it lapse. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More Proposals!
On 08/07/2010 01:06 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: Is this setting up for the return of power of attorney, and if so, why not go ahead and propose (or at least proto) that too? Yes, but I haven't added it in because there's no strong framework for it right now. -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: At ehird's suggestion
On 08/06/2010 04:30 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
I submit the following proposal (AI 2, II 1, coauthor=ehird, title="To
make chambers interesting", not yet distributable):
Create a new power-2 rule "VLOD Bootstrapping":
{{{
A player's voting limit on an unresolved Ordinary decision that existed
before this rule was created is equal to the value it had immediately
before this rule was created, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
If there are no unresolved Ordinary decisions that existed before this
rule was created, this rule repeals itself.
}}}
[A pretty much standard to prevent a proposal that changes voting rules
interfering with other proposals that are undergoing voting at the
time.]
In rule 2279 "Voting limits on ordinary decisions", change
{{{
(a) If eir Chamber is superior, it is 2, else
(b) If eir Chamber is inferior, it is 1, else
(c) If the Chambers are identical, it is 5.
}}}
to
{{{
(a) If eir Chamber is superior, it is 5, else
(b) If eir Chamber is inferior, it is 1, else
(c) If the Chambers are identical, it is 2.
}}}
Feedback before I make this Distributable, anyone?
FOR
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6766-6782
On 08/02/2010 04:18 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: 6779 P 1 1.0 coppro A Team Player FPR As opposed to AGAINT? -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6766-6782
On 08/02/2010 01:04 PM, Aaron Goldfein wrote: 6779 P 1 1.0 coppro A Team Player AGAINST [Will players who own the old (contestmaster) yellow ribbon own this ribbon?] No; Yellow Ribbons do not exist currently. -coppro
