Re: DIS: test

[comex via agora-discussion]

On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 5:11 PM comexk--- via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> Nothing to see here, move along.

Now testing if Haraka can deliver to everyone.

Re: DIS: hmmm?

[comex]

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 7:04 AM ATMunn  wrote:
>
> I sent a message to BUS yesterday in the thread following the latest
> Promotor report. Did anyone get it? I don't seem to have gotten a copy
> myself, but that could just be my client.

FYI – my qmail logs were set to rotate way too quickly to check for
this (I've just changed the setting for the benefit of future cases),
but such a message definitely doesn't show up in the Mailman logs; in
particular, it wasn't held for some reason.

Re: DIS: Proto: Track it on the wiki

[comex]

(...argh, I thought the Gmail mobile app would strip the copied and pasted
formatting, but apparently not.  Enjoy the huge text…)

Re: DIS: Proto: Track it on the wiki

[comex]

On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:28 PM Alex Smith  wrote:

> Serious, strong objection to this. If I have to have a Github account
> to play, I'll just deregister.


If your reason for avoiding GitHub is what I think it is, IMHO it’s
misguided…


...but no worries, that’s just my opinion.  If this passes and assuming you
don’t change your mind, I can just set up a different wiki.

Re: DIS: Proto: Track it on the wiki

[comex]

On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 10:09 PM Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> I like the idea of having separate repositories per report (like we have
> now), which also allows recordkeepors to manage their tooling (under this
> rule, I couldn't keep the rules in YAML, for example). I think we should
> keep anything on GitHub as unofficial, which allows record keepers to do
> whatever they wish with regards to citizens updating the report (possibly
> with an Agency or Organization providing an incentive to do so).


Well, the ruleset is something I’d very much not want to track on the Wiki,
because (a) it doesn’t change that often, and (b) it’s easy enough to screw
up that it should be the job of a somewhat trusted player, or at least
someone who knows it’s eir responsibility and takes it seriously - not
‘whoever feels like updating the wiki’.

But I’m sympathetic to wanting to allow recordkeepors to manage their
tooling.  Basically, I have a few overlapping concerns about the “keep it
unofficial” model:

- Sometimes recordkeepors have come up with some super fancy tooling,
sometimes allowing self-service… and then gotten bored of the job of the
game, leaving the next recordkeepor to start from scratch.
- In that case and others, if the recordkeepor doesn’t have much direction
or perhaps is new to the game, e’s likely to gravitate towards just doing
what it says in the rules, not setting up (or even continuing) an
unofficial system - especially one that puts semi-high requirements on
other players (requiring them to update a website along with their actions).
- Most importantly:

Recordkeeping style is not always just an ‘implementation detail’.  It
fundamentally affects the type of rules we can, or tend to, enact.  For
example, some potential game systems have enough repetitive calculations
that they’re infeasible to run without automation; others depend so
fundamentally on interpreting human-written text that automation can be of
little benefit.  We can’t have the former without recordkeepors who know
how to program.  The latter is a bit more egalitarian, but requires more
time commitment and, importantly, waiting time: automation can accept
actions 24/7, run trusted, complex computations on them and show everyone
the new state, while a human recordkeepor can’t always be online (and has
better things to do), and even when actively working on recordkeeping,
takes longer to work through things.  So there has to be a slower pace,
less frequent actions.  And then there’s the third option of decentralized
human recordkeeping, like what I’m proposing for the Wiki, which is sort of
a compromise between automation and centralized human recordkeeping, but
not quite the same as either.  Latency is avoided because players can
update the records themselves, but the bandwidth problem is magnified, as
inexperienced players are both slower at making the necessary calculations,
and less willing to spend time doing so.  Unlike with an automated system,
we can call on humans to interpret text if desired, but unlike with a
single human recordkeepor, those interpretations can’t be
authoritative/trusted.

Significantly, even when a game idea is at its core amenable to different
styles of tracking, as is usually the case, expectations of which method
will be used often influence design decisions.  If I’m writing a rule I
expect to be implemented with automation, I can throw in random
calculations and extra steps ‘for free’ - it does make the rule a bit
harder for players to understand, but it won’t cause headaches for
recordkeepors.  On the other side, proposals are free-form text because we
expect a human Rulekeepor to read adopted proposals and manually apply them
to the ruleset.  What if we wanted to automate it?  We could try to design
a program that recognizes common proposal idioms (“Amend Rule XXX by
replacing… with…”), and maybe it would have a decent recognition rate… but
if the proposal system had been designed with that in mind from the start,
we’d just ask players to send proposals in diff format.  There could be a
little online script to assist less savvy players in generating them.  On a
larger scale, the whole idea that the canonical record of actions is a
mailing list reflects a game designed primarily around centralized human
recordkeeping - as opposed to automation, which would prefer a webapp, or
decentralized recordkeeping, which would prefer a spreadsheet or a wiki.

Not that I’m proposing making the wiki a canonical record, at least for now
(in the future, if desired, we could probably split the difference by
making a generic system for semi-structured wiki changes that also notify
the list).  But I think it can and should be ‘canonical enough’ to be
referenced by SHALLs.  Sure, in theory we could design rules around the
expectation of a wiki, yet steadfastly avoid mentioning this in the rule
text itself, leaving the details to explanatory annotations in proposals
and unofficial proclamations from office 

DIS: Re: BAK: Distribution issues

[comex]

On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 H. Distributor omd,

 I have not received any emails from the agora mailing list since
 your note that the list was back up on May 30.

 I can't find anything changed on my end.  Anything on yours that
 might explain?

@400053923df706f5f5a4 starting delivery 15420: msg 2345390 to
remote ke...@u.washington.edu
@400053923df706f6015c status: local 0/10 remote 1/20
@400053923df7073613b4 delivery 15420: deferral:
CNAME_lookup_failed_temporarily._(#4.4.3)/

Ugh.  I have no idea what qmail is doing.  Replying now in the
off-chance it works after upgrading even more packages; otherwise I'll
have to actually find the issue.

- occasionally much discord

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Flair

[comex]

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
 On 7 August 2013 22:57, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
   (The precise definition of text is generally left to the
   Registrar's discretion, but should be conservative; no emoji.)

 Please just allow Unicode strings -- or better, stay silent on the
 matter. Defining text is a fool's errand, and explicitly excluding
 emoji is both insufficient and pointless.

The quoted paragraph is intended to be explicitly mostly silent on the
matter, only using emoji as an example.  Em⭕️ji is annoying, but so is
z̸̨̜͈̦̹̜͕̥͈̱̟̙̰͍͈̻̠̩̝͈͝a̵̱̳̣̗̳̣͍̭̣̝̲̠͚̤̞͢͠ͅl̨̨̢̙̫̣̖̭̖͍̦̞̠̹͞g̢̛̻͇̜̙̟̗̲͇̬̫͘̕o͔͇̺͎͍̞̦͖̥͔̝̕͢͟ͅ,
ｆｕｌｌｗｉｄｔｈ, ├box drawing┤, p⚕ct⚽︎graphs, ‏rtl marks, etc.  But 日本語 or a
≤ b are reasonable.

DIS: Agora XX: 5th report

[comex]

On Friday, June 21, 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote:

 I vote AGAINST this.  (This doesn't actually fix the bug, btw, and
 the second part of the bug was possible negative points).


IMHO, only a moron in a hurry would interpret the wording as having either
bug.  I would invoke judgement on the matter, but I'm exhausted and about
to run out of battery :)

DIS: Re: BUS: rebirth

[comex]

Gratuitous: Received headers show the messages arriving at the *same* second, 
making it impossible to tell which came first (time-wise).

Nice job.

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 6, 2011, at 10:32 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 4:19 AM, Arkady English
 arkadyenglish+ag...@gmail.com wrote:
 I call a CFJ on the statement The player with the e-mail address
 'geoffsp...@gmail.com' (Wooble) is a player.
 
 I initiate a criminal CFJ alleging that H. CotC Murphy violated the
 Power-2 rule 1868 by failing to assign a judge to the above judicial
 case as soon as possible after it became Open.
 
 I submit the following gratuitous arguments in the quoted inquiry case
 (not the criminal case):
 
 {{
 I allegedly registered at 13:41:01 UTC; my previous deregistration
 occurred at 13:41:02 30 days earlier; I was still ineligible for 1
 second. This was intended to create secret ambiguity to protest the
 lack of to-the-second granularity in the current Registrar's reports.
 
 When I decided that it would be more interesting to be a platonic
 player confusingly instead of being a platonic non-player confusingly,
 I purportedly deregistered again and then actually registered.
 
 Therefore, at the time this CFJ was called, the statement was FALSE,
 although if re-called it would be TRUE.
 }}
 
 Pedantically Yours,
 
 Wooble

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6863-6869

[comex]

NttPF

On Sunday, November 7, 2010, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
 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

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6870-6876

[comex]

NttPF

On Sunday, November 7, 2010, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
 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

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6870-6876

[comex]

On Sunday, November 7, 2010, comex  wrote:
 NttPF

Also, the voting period is over because I did, in fact, successfully
rubberstamp those proposals.

DIS: Ugh!

[comex]

Proto:

[I think all this ambiguity about how proposals take effect is caused
by a cosmology of instruments that has evolved from simple to complex
without ditching some assumptions that now unnecessarily increase the
complexity.  Take this paragraph from Rule 106:

  Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change;
  this does not apply to generally preventing changes to specified
  areas of the gamestate, nor to a proposal preventing itself from
  taking effect (its no-effect clause is generally interpreted as
  applying only to the rest of the proposal).

What does that even mean?  Preventing a proposal from taking effect is
only arguably a change, and in any case a lower-powered rule that
attempted to do so would conflict with the clause of R106 that says it
does.  And the stuff afterwards is a very specific band-aid that, in
my opinion, fixes the symptom not the cause.

The original clause,

 It does not
  otherwise take effect.  This rule takes precedence over any rule
  which would permit a proposal to take effect.

made sense in 2005, but now it's just confusing.

This bit also:

  When creating proposals, the person who creates them SHOULD
  ensure that the proposal outlines changes to be made to Agora,
  such as enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making other
  explicit changes to the gamestate. When a proposal that includes
  such explicit changes takes effect, it applies those changes to
  the gamestate. If the proposal cannot make some such changes,
  this does not preclude the other changes from taking place.

It's nice to give some examples of what proposals should look like,
and the it applies those changes to the gamestate clause is
refreshingly explicit, but the presentation is strange-- the bit about
applying changes should go with taking effect, and the SHOULD clause
is a little bizarre considering that it's a no-op yet is located
between formalities and uses formal language.  The original clause may
have been buggy but it was more logical:

  A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora,
  including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making
  other explicit changes to the gamestate.

It was downgraded to a SHOULD due to some ontological issue, and then
the SHOULD was changed to players SHOULD, and then another band-aid
was added and now it's a mess.

In my opinion, the two separate fix proposals by G. and Murphy are
also band-aids that will add complexity without clearly accomplishing
all that much.  On the other hand, the idea of an instrument, and the
generalization of Power to all entities, looks like (but isn't) a
generalized framework for entities causing gamestate changes, and, in
my opinion, changing it to actually be one is a better fix that will
prevent these kind of issues in the future.

This text is rough: in particular, the definition of an instrument
might be better as an explicit list rather than any entity generally
capable, although it would be cool if someone scammed the rules to
increase eir personal power :p]


Retitle Rule 1688 to Gamestate and Instruments, and amend it to read:

  The game of Agora defines a gamestate, which consists of all
  entities, values, and properties defined by the Rules, including
  the Rules themselves.  The gamestate changes only as specified
  by the Rules.

  An instrument is any entity that is generally capable of
  communicating, at every point in time, a (usually empty) ordered
  list of changes it intends to apply to the gamestate.  Power is
  an instrument switch whose values are the non-negative rational
  numbers (default 0), tracked by the Rulekeepor.  Instruments
  with positive Power are said to be in effect.  At every point in
  time, each instrument attempts to make each of the changes it is
  communicating; each such change is then made if and only if it
  is not forbidden by the Rules.

Amend Rule 2141 (Role and Attributes of Rules) by replacing the first
paragraph with:

  A rule is a type of instrument which has content in the form of
  a text, and continuously communicates changes as defined by its
  text.  Rules also have the capacity to govern the game
  generally, and are unlimited in scope.  In particular, a rule
  may define in-game entities and regulate their behaviour,
  prescribe or proscribe certain player behaviour, modify the
  rules or the application thereof, or do any of these things in a
  conditional manner.

Amend Rule 106 (Adopting Proposals) by replacing the first two paragraphs with:

  A player CAN create a proposal by publishing (submitting) a
  body of text and an associated title with a clear indication
  that it is intended to form a proposal, which creates a new
  proposal with that text and title and places it in the Proposal
   

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: OK Go

[comex]

On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 On Sun, 15 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
       To avoid spam scams, a proposal CANNOT be created except in a
       message with exactly one Subject header, which must contain with
       the exact text [Proposal] with no more than ten characters
       preceding it.

 Regardless of the merits of the rest of this, I really dislike legislating
 form to this level and will vote against on these grounds.  -G.

Hmm... I suppose one alternative (that remains within this framework;
I suppose Urgent Proposals might be a better way to go, although I
would prefer a shorter deadline for the Promotor) is using the
judicial result that spam scams are no longer effective anyway due to
being unclear.  But considering that this relaxes a lot of the other
rules for distribution, I didn't think mandating a particular form was
too harmful.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Last-day proposals

[comex]

On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Keba ag...@kebay.org wrote:
 Sean Hunt wrote:
 Proposal: Super Robot Powers (AI=1, II=1, Distributable via fee)
 {{{
        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

 I assume it would be better to put this into the Rules?

I hereby request that someone transfer a prop from me to Keba.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Opinion on 2830a

[comex]

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Warrigal ihope12...@gmail.com wrote:
 This, this.

G., if you're going to AFFIRM as well, can you please specify a
substantive set of arguments?  In particular, it would help if you
made some reference to my arguments for appeal, especially the cited
CFJs.

Thanks.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy

[comex]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:


 On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
 On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
  So what I'm saying is: if you allow those administrative conveniences
  to create legal fictions of individual cast ballots

 So, you're saying, the situation is as if I said For each decision in
 the list of decisions which a reasonable person would think currently
 exist, (and I do hereby quasi-incorporate that list), I vote FOR on
 it...

 Naw, I think the legal fiction can be platonic.  It's a weird state where
 practically there can be a proposal you don't know about, but legally
 you can be deemed to have acknowledged it by specifying the full set.

Well, I disagree with that.  It is unreasonable to allow X as an
administrative convenience shorthand for Y if nobody, not even the
administrators, know what Y is.

...How do fungible assets fit into this scheme?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A History of Agoran Wins, 2009-Present

[comex]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 16:58, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote:

 I publish the following thesis, intending to qualify for a degree
 (perhaps D.N.Hist?):
 {
 A History of Agoran Wins, 2009-present
 by ais52

 First, I thought comex's win by Clout didn't succeed. I thought I blocked it
 successfully.

Me too.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2828 assigned to G.

[comex]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 Since the publishing is done by this technical (actual) act, terms like
 I hereby announce or I hereby publish or I state are simply handy
 delimiters/framing devices or color for focusing relevant content.  In
 other words, syntactic sugar that is generally without legal effect.
 It also means that saying I hereby publish [external reference] is not
 the same thing as publishing the content of the external reference.

This is one of those precedents I know will come in handy some day.  I
had better catch up with those annotations...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: NoV: the ATC should take duties more seriously

[comex]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:18 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
 something which many Agorans seem reluctant
 to do for some reason.

 Current total number of rules: 139

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy

[comex]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 None of these are ideal.  I think #2 is cleaner as (when one of these is
 discovered) it probably involves recalculating for everyone, anyway.  I
 generally dislike going doing the who knew about what when path.  But I
 admit this is all personal preference and after browsing I can't find any
 relevant court cases.  I note that for your actual votes in this situation,
 it doesn't apply because it wasn't undiscovered and it's reasonable to say
 that everyone voting should have known about it.

Well... I don't think #2 is a valid option; or rather, if we use #2
(which we always have), it's not fair to call it purely an
administrative convenience; we have to accept that the transformation
of all proposals into P7000, P7001, P7002 is happening at a deeper
level than language or dialect transformations.

Assuming a legalistic point of view (not reasonable observer), for me
to acknowledge something's existence is to state that it exists; thus,
a person who did not previously know that it existed, if I did
acknowledge it, would find out after reading my message.  In fact,
that is the case, assuming that e looked up relevant distributions of
proposals to find out what I was voting on.  However, the set of
proposals e would find (and so the set of proposals I acknowledged)
might differ from the set of proposals that the message is effective
in voting for, if common opinion were wrong about some relevant
fact.

Does this make sense?

 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.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy

[comex]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
 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.

Sure.  But that directly contradicts the precedent I just mentioned.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: a

[comex]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:05 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
 On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 15:32 -0400, comex wrote:
 I intend, with 3 support, to start a new journey.

 Why is that not 3 support and notice?

I was wondering if anyone would support and let me start a new journey
before y'all's notice timeouts expired. :p

DIS: Re: BUS: Opinion on 2830a

[comex]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:

 Also, I think the disclaimer was general enough to render the whole
 list ineffective.

If the effective statement is vague enough to be ineffective, surely
it's too vague to violate Truthiness.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy

[comex]

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 So, the Assessor's announcement was not a win announcement.  Where does
 that leave us?  According to the voting record, comex voted for proposal
 6740, and this is a clear public acknowledgment of its existence.
 Therefore, comex was not a member of this set (why does everyone think
 that e was?  By the Assessor's report it's pretty clear e wasn't):

It was a blanket vote for.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy

[comex]

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 Specifically, anything that is interpreted as a valid ballot must be 
 interpreted
 as satisfying clause R683(b).  And to clearly identify something you must
 acknowledge it.  And I'll further say, lest you use the one level of
 indirection argument, that one identifies the decision by identifying the
 proposal, as that's the only referent (proposal numbers) that we generally use
 for decisions to adopt proposals.

Not the one that I used:

I vote FOR on all Agoran Decisions in their voting period.

But my main argument is that, however Agora decides to interpret the
message within the context of existing gamestate (in this case, as
referring to the decision to adopt the unacknowledgeable proposal), my
message could have been sent, and had a reasonable effect, at any time
in the last few years-- so how was sending it at that particular time
acknowledging the existence of anything?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy

[comex]

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 If the ballot wasn't accepted, by the facts of the time of sending, as clearly
 identifying the specific decision in question (among others), it shouldn't 
 have
 been accepted as a valid ballot for that decision.  R683 is one of those 
 places
 that by using clearly identifying we require that level of specificity.  
 It's
 a straight-up requirement of being a ballot.

I could have voted FOR through blanket vote without even knowing the
proposal existed.  Indeed, before this message, I never actually
stated that I /did/ know it existed, although you might have guessed
it from my behavior.  Making whether a specific message is a public
acknowledgement depend on my state of mind at the time I sent it is
rather dangerous.

The difference is that, while, for Agoran purposes, my message-- every
message-- is parsed platonically with perfect knowledge of the
gamestate, acknowledgement only makes sense in the context of
incomplete knowledge-- in this case, basic knowledge of Agoran
terminology to parse the message, but not specific information on
proposals.

 You can't identify without
 acknowledging, and additionally, the only way to identify/acknowledge the
 decision is to identify/acknowledge the proposal (the decision has no other
 unique characteristics for identification purposes).

I can give you all my chits even if they have /no/ unique
characteristics for identification purposes.

Re: DIS: legalistic versus reasonable Agora

[comex]

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 I'm really torn, here.  Agora seems to veer between Sir Humphrey and
 Reasonable Observer points of view (in fact, the Town Fountain required
 some nearly identical Sir Humphrey thinking - issues of speech and
 acknowledgement are particularly vulnerable, because you can say just
 about anything while not formally saying it).

Hmm... the Town Fountain?  What past judgements are you referring to?

The only real parallel I can remember (aside from this one-off
proposal) is Truthfulness, but there we've always clearly
distinguished false versus misleading statements.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Prop

[comex]

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
       Any first-class player (the controller) CAN in a public message
       and for a fee of N ergs, clearly designate a portion of that
       message to be a public message sent by The Robot. This is
       INEFFECTIVE if The Robot's message consists of more than N
       words, or if The Robot's message refers to another message or
       uses a contrived shorthand in an attempt to reduce the word
       count. In the latter case, the controller is also guilty of the
       Class-4 Crime of Backquoting, and the judge of a criminal case for
       that crime SHALL issue a judicial declaration as to the
       effectiveness of the message.
 }}}

 Cool idea, but contrived shorthand gives far too much room for debate
 considering we generally find such things perfectly legal.  -G.

Indeed... might be more interesting if Fans were only gained for
unspent ergs, so you'd have to choose between getting more Fans and
having The Robot send messages.  But in any case, better to make
Backquoting POSSIBLE but ILLEGAL.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: OK Go

[comex]

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
 comex wrote:

 [I've complained repeatedly about the length of time currently
 required to adopt proposals, which can have a significant negative
 effect on the game.  Since the current proposal volume really isn't
 all that high, I think that BlogNomic-style immediate distribution is
 not only feasible, but a significant improvement over what we have
 now, and not much extra work for the Assessor or voters.]

 It most certainly /would/ dump a lot of extra work on the Assessor,
 if only because lots of votes would be sent in response to the authors'
 individual ID-number-less distribution messages.

Well.  The lack of ID numbers would basically force people to vote in
replies, rather than the current situation where vote formats are
everywhere on the map; and in most email clients, collecting all the
replies to a given message is very easy.  So to me it seems
essentially easier...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy

[comex]

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 In other words, if you merely allude to something that may or may
 not exist (rather than acknowledging something that does exist),
 you may be referring to it, but you're not clearly identifying it,
 therefore not voting.

This implies that blanket votes are generally ineffective. *shrug*

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy

[comex]

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:


 On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
 On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
  In other words, if you merely allude to something that may or may
  not exist (rather than acknowledging something that does exist),
  you may be referring to it, but you're not clearly identifying it,
  therefore not voting.

 This implies that blanket votes are generally ineffective. *shrug*

 Well, the current jurisprudence is that they're effective as an
 administrative convenience, as long as they can be mapped onto a clear and
 unambiguous set of individual votes (and therefore, in a strict legal sense,
 that they identify every member of that set).  I know I used this sort of
 logic in CFJ 2316 (that's the first CFJ that comes to mind).  -G.

But the statement I vote on all decisions etc implies only that at
least one such decision exists; it certainly does not acknowledge that
P7000 exists, so by your logic, it couldn't be a valid vote on P7000.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy

[comex]

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 So what I'm saying is: if you allow those administrative conveniences
 to create legal fictions of individual cast ballots

So, you're saying, the situation is as if I said For each decision in
the list of decisions which a reasonable person would think currently
exist, (and I do hereby quasi-incorporate that list), I vote FOR on
it...

Have we ever had a CFJ about a conditional or mass action where the
recordkeepors were mistaken about the gamestate, so that everyone
thought it had effect X, but platonically it would have effect Y?

DIS: Re: BUS: Capacitors

[comex]

Fails.

On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
 I create 3 capacitors in my possession.

DIS: Re: BUS: Uncharted space

[comex]

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
 I take it you can actually afford all those threats? I will calculate
 their costs and your initial supply of TPs, but it seems unlikely.

I calculated that the journey's level is 18*6=108, and the costs of
the threats (including the asteroid) were 22, 21, 23, 23, 21, leaving
me with 0 Threat Points.

DIS: Re: BUS: Finishing this buggy journey

[comex]

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
 I press the Turbo button.

Not quite over, since the Shuttle can't disappear!

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6751 - 6762

[comex]

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
 Proposal 6761 (Purple, AI=2.0, Interest=None) by coppro
 Admitted.  It's listed correctly at the top, this part was just
 copy+pasted from the Promotor's initiation message.

I was wondering if Python was used to template it. :)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6751 - 6762

[comex]

On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
 comex wrote:

 On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
 Proposal 6761 (Purple, AI=2.0, Interest=None) by coppro
 Admitted.  It's listed correctly at the top, this part was just
 copy+pasted from the Promotor's initiation message.

 I was wondering if Python was used to template it. :)

 Hmm?

'None' :)

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821a,22a assigned to ais523, Wooble, Murphy

[comex]

On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
 Finally, comex's original This is a win announcement: can reasonably
 be argued as applying to the entire message (e did not specify a more
 limited scope), thus including eir parenthetical comment that ...the
 proposal also awarded a win to other players.

Gratuitous: If I had intended it to apply to the entire message, I
would have put This is a win announcement: on its own line.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821a,22a assigned to ais523, Wooble, Murphy

[comex]

On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
        c) It causes at least one Winning Condition to be satisfied, as
           defined by other rules.

For it to be a win announcement it must cause a Winning Condition to
be satisfied, but the Winning Condition can only be satisfied by a win
announcement...

Circularity is great.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821a,22a assigned to ais523, Wooble, Murphy

[comex]

On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
 Circularity is easily resolved if you stop thinking of it that way:

 IF NOT (IF this is a win announcement THEN someone satisfies a winning
 condition) THEN this is not a win announcement.

The proposed rule says causes, not would cause [if it were a win
announcement].

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6763-6765

[comex]

On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
 ENDORSEx12 the player with a valid vote with the highest number of props,
 myself excluded; in case of a tie then the first of those players
 alphabetically

i change my name to a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJS 2821-2822 Judgements

[comex]

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 This clearly wins by Legislation if it's taken as deferring to (being
 intercepted by?) the power-1 Rule 2188.  But does it (power-3 instrument)
 override the power-2 clause in R2186:  The game CANNOT be won in any other
 way, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. and also directly award a win by
 Sheer Willpower?

Isn't there a precedent that the rules override the instantaneous
effect of proposals, even at lower power?

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJS 2821-2822 Judgements

[comex]

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 The difficulty in ALL win conditions, that 2186 specifies one set
 of conditions for calling something a win announcement, and that other
 rules say that it has to be a winning announcement with different
 (not additional) information (a win announcement that Proposal X has
 been adopted in R2188) is one worth addressing, I'm happy to take an
 appeals directive to address this.  I generally consider it additive,
 though I think it's more of a gratuitous clarification and wouldn't
 affect the actual judgement.

I don't see the issue here.  A win announcement has to either be
labelled as one or state that one or more players win the game in
order to be a win announcement; and has to contain other required
elements in order to have any effect.

DIS: Re: BUS: ?

[comex]

On Wednesday, July 28, 2010, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
 On Tue, 2010-07-27 at 12:53 -0700, Kerim
 Gratuitous: Proposal 6740 is a proposal awarding a win to one or more
 persons, so all those persons satisfy the Winning Condition.

Gratuitous: Would win announcement: Proposal 6740 was adopted
suffice?  If not (as I read it), awarding a win to one or more
persons is part of the format of the announcement, so whatever is
specified in place of 'one or more persons' (as long as the
announcement is actually a win announcement, i.e., correct) is used
for the following text.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: computer, locate the first officer please

[comex]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 01:18, Jonatan Kilhamn
 jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
 Really? I'm not a native speaker

 You're not? You fooled me.

 Also, I was under the impression that Lower Deck was the one adjacent
 to the others. It's defintely ambiguous. Speaking of which, I CFJ on
 the following sentence. Lower Deck is adjacent to Bridge.

Gratuitous: I thought the wording was a little confusing, but
unambiguous: which refers to the nearer object, Engine Room.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6763-6765

[comex]

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
 6765 P 1 3.0 comex               Adoption Without Objection
 AGAINST

Why?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6763-6765

[comex]

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 Proposal: More ID numbers (AI=2, Distributable via fee)

 Does this mean you just paid the fee?  That looks like CFJ-worthy
 ambiguity there...

Yeah, by the letter of it I'm not sure it's possible to make a
proposal Distributable before submitting it (and writing out its text
in full), so I initially included my fee-paying at the end of the
proposal.  But after other players adopted this shorthand and nobody
objected, I adopted it as well.

 Amend Rule 1607 by replacing Distributed proposals have ID numbers
 with Proposals have ID numbers.

 Do you think this over-inflates proposal ID numbers with ones that are
 submitted than retracted?  If I submit one to the pool, then 10 minutes
 later notice a flaw and retract and re-submit, does the promotor still
 (after the fact) have to assign number to the old one?  This is a fairly
 common occurrence.

 Maybe a middle ground is proposals that are distributed or a player
 announces intent to adopt get ID numbers.

I don't think it's common enough to make a significant difference, and
it's rather unusual IMO that proposals in the Proposal Pool have to be
referred to by title when just about every other tracked body of text
has an ID number.
 -G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6763-6765

[comex]

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 I think we've always been ok with I submit the following proposal and pay a
 fee to make it distributable: and there was some court case a long time
 ago that it was ok.  Maybe not.  It was the fact that your sentence no verb:
 are you saying this statement could be made distributable via fee, that you
 intend to do so, or that you are doing so?  This is the first time I've
 noticed the shorthand being this ambiguous (to me).

/me searches Agora label

The same text (Distributable via fee in parentheses) has occurred in
many previous proposals, mostly mine actually, but also some of
coppro's.  The Promotor hasn't seemed to mind.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ATC] Flight Schedule

[comex]

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 10:03 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
 Yally wrote:

 Pilots require at least 23 props.

       Players with at least 23 props are Pilots; the Pilot with the
       most props (if any) is the Captain. Players with less than 9
       props are Marines.

 Both these numbers were changed (23, 5 - 19, 9) by Proposal 6677
 in March 2010.  CoE on the latest SLR and FLR:  both still say 23
 instead of 19.

Fixed.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Journey

[comex]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 2:44 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 Proto:  Contests Yet Again - Very Simple, in one rule.

    A player CAN make a document into a Contest without 3 objections.
    The player doing so becomes the Contestmaster.  The Contest SHOULD
    be a list of instructions for playing a type of game.  The

Capitalization of Contest shouldn't change here; also, the
contestmaster of that contest perhaps.

    contest SHOULD be fair and generally allow all players to join
    and participate on an equal footing as governed by the instructions
    of the contest.  A player CAN join a contest by announcement; this
    is the only way a player CAN join a contest.

    The contest SHOULD include instructions for determining winner(s)
    of the contest.  When a player fulfills said conditions, the
    contestmaster SHALL announce the winners asap; such an announcement,
    if factually correct, causes the names players to fulfill the
    Winning Condition of Game Club.

No need for the contestmaster here.  Alternative: The contest CAN and
SHOULD define a Winning Condition as if it were a rule, except that
the Cleanup Procedure occurs with the authority of the contest.  ...I
think I like yours better, actually.

    The contestmaster is the recordkeepor of all matters containing
    to the contest, and SHALL publish a weekly report of the contest
    listing all members and relevant activities and other records for
    the contest.

pertaining; alt. The contestmaster's weekly report contains all
matters defined by the instructions to be part of eir weekly report,
as well as the instructions.

    The contestmaster is, prima facie, the adjudicator of contest
    instructions and disputes.  Disputes SHOULD, in general, be resolved
    with the spirit of the instructions in mind.  The contestmaster CAN
    change the instructions without 3 objections, but SHOULD only do so
    to improve gameplay or resolve disputes within the spirit of the
    original contest.

+1 for bringing back equity.

    If a court case arises with respect to the conduct of the contest
    or the application and interpretation of its instructions, the
    courts SHOULD give primacy of interpretation to the contestmaster's
    interpretations, SHOULD judge UNDETERMINED if the contestmaster
    has not been given a fair chance to suggest a resolution, and
    SHOULD only find against the contestmaster if e is found to be
    acting with arbitrary and capricious disregard for the Contest's
    instructions and/or spirit.

I bet ais523 will complain that this only affects how judges SHOULD
judge and not the interpretation of the rules under normal
circumstances.

    Anyone CAN cause a contest to cease to be a contest provided
    e does so both with Notice and with 3 supporters.  [is this the
    right phrasology for a combined with Notice/support requirement?]

With 3 Support and With Notice is sufficient.

DIS: Re: BUS: A wild asteroid appeared!

[comex]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 5:52 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
 This should be pretty easy to defeat, but there are only two hours
 before the Shuttle rams into it...

Note, however, that arguably the start-of-week action happens first,
so pressing buttons won't take effect until after the Shuttle is
destroyed.

...Which, per CFJ 2819, is impossible, so it doesn't matter in any
case; I'm facing an invincible shuttle.

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: It was a good try

[comex]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 6:02 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
 Proposal: It was a good try (AI = 1, II = 1)

 Repeal Rules 2297-2302.

 End Proposal

 I pay a fee to make the above Distributable.

AGAINST.  Please propose instead to fix the gameplay, there's nothing
intrinsically wrong with it.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Journey

[comex]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 Good catch. A rule that encourages incorrect judgements is a rather bad
 thing.

 How about something like To be appropriate, such a judgement (as long as it
 involves interpretation of contest instructions and does not conflict with
 the rules) must take into account a contestmaster's interpretations...

How about Contest instructions should be interpreted... (referring
to all players, ala Rule 217)?

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Grammar fix

[comex]

On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
 Proposal:  Grammar fix
 (AI = 1, II = 0, please)

 Amend Rule 2143 (Official Reports and Duties) by replacing where N in
 the Interest Index with where N is the Interest Index.

 I make the above proposal distributable.

Can't you just clean it?

DIS: Re: BUS: Journey

[comex]

On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:13, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 1:00 PM, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
 I CFJ on the statement: comex has a Leadership Token.

 I disfavor this case.

 Me too. Also, comex, no. Don't do it. The whole Space Alert ruleset is
 riddled with these kind of errors. We all implicitly understand how it
 works, but I'm sure there are at least a dozen technical errors that
 will cause all kinds of things to break, scams to be created, and so
 on.

I'm interested in playing this game fairly, but there are lots of
things that I can't even decide whether are scams.  For example, make
a large map and the ship will run out of energy, then be useless at
the end; is that intended?

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] A series of unfortunately-formatted reports

[comex]

On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 2:31 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
 On Sat, 2010-07-17 at 00:21 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
                          LEFT IN A HUFF
         Waggie, Gecko, Kelly (x3!), Swann, KoJen, Zefram,
                 Vlad, Andre, G., BobTHJ, P1-P100
                                Warrigal*

 I CFJ on the statement P1 has a Patent Title.
 Arguments: P1 was a contract designed for a scam, and does not really
 model any sort of agreement. Is it, therefore, still an entity, given
 that contracts have been repealed?

Why would it not being an agreement make it not an entity?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2811 judged TRUE by Yally

[comex]

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 7:30 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
 I CFJ on the statement In the above-quoted message, coppro purported a
 document to be part of an official report.
 Arguments: This is ISIDTID again. Saying that you purport something does
 not actually mean that you necessarily purport it. In the above message,
 coppro purported to purport a document to be part of an official report,
 but did not actually purport it to be part of an official report (in
 fact, e purported the document in question /not/ to be part of an
 official report).

Gratuitous: CFJ 2292

DIS: jumbled thoughts

[comex]

Agora badly needs more players, but the current barrier to entry is
much higher than it should be.  Not only do you have to sign up for
three mailing lists (if you don't, you can't even look at the archives
to get a sense of how the game is played), you have to understand a
long ruleset without any real guide.

To address the first issue:
- I was thinking of installing a webmail client for an account signed
up to the lists with no login; you could play at the beginning just by
sending mail through it.
- make the archives public?

To address the second issue:
- ais523's thesis isn't very good for really new players; rather, we
need a short guide on how to actually sign up and start playing the
game.  Something like this: http://a.qoid.us/join.html (an old
document from one of Zefram's archives), or a similar document I can't
find but I remember reading, which contains, for example, instructions
on what to do if you're assigned as judge.

Re: DIS: jumbled thoughts

[comex]

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
 Yally wrote:

 Perhaps we should have a contest. Each player can submit a new player's
 guide. Thereafter, Agora votes on which guide is the best and that
 player is awarded a win. Then we can combine the best parts of each
 guide to create one truly excellent guide.

 Fragment:

*Nice*.

Also, ais523 and I briefly discussed some things in IRC:
- A ruleset ordered so that the rules important to new players come
first.  draft: http://a.qoid.us/alr.txt (but it needs to lose some of
the annotations and such, and the categorization is preliminary)
- A mouseover glossary for the ruleset (for terms like by
announcement, which are a big chunk of the FAQ and probably a big
source of confusion).

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: One-to-one Cancellation

[comex]

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
 I submit the following proposal and pay a fee to make it distributable:

 Proposal: One-to-one Cancellation

Needs AI=2

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: One-to-one Cancellation

[comex]

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Aaron Goldfein
aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
 Oops. I withdraw my proposal entitled One-to-one Cancellation and
 submit an identical proposal with the exception that its adoption
 index is 2. I pay a fee to make that proposal distributable.

CFJ: In the above-quoted message, Yally submitted a proposal.
Arguments: E attempted to submit an identical proposal to a proposal
that was Distributable, but proposals start off Undistributable and it
is not possible to make a proposal Distributable until after
submitting it.

Okay, not really.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Writ of FAGE

[comex]

There is plenty of precedent (see: pigs are delicious) that this is not a valid 
Cantus Cygneus and Warrigal is not deregistered.

Just sayin'.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 14, 2010, at 4:15 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:

 I hereby publish the following Cantus Cygneus submitted by Warrigal
 via the IRC discussion forum:
 
 Warrigal Wooble: This is a Cantus Cygneus.  I detail my grievances and
   express my reproach for those who I feel have treated me so badly.
 
 I issue a Writ of Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding
 that Warrigal be deregistered.
 
 --Registrar Wooble

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: failure notice

[comex]

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 5, 2010, at 11:18 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

 On Mon, 2010-07-05 at 23:11 +0200, comex wrote:
 On Jul 5, 2010, at 10:32 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
 Allegiance is a player switch, tracked by the Referee, whose values are
 none and all Teams, defaulting to none. Players whose Allegiance is
 none are said to be Independent; otherwise, players are said to be
 in the team, and a member of the team, which their Allegiance is set
 miscomma.
 No it isn't, unless you're using different grammar rules to me.

I think you mean the team which their Allegiance is set to.  Otherwise, what 
team are you referring to?

 If there is ever simultaneously one or more empty Teams, and two or more
 are
 That one could go either way, I think; I won't object to you Cleaning
 it.

No, it couldn't.

 Your reasoning is off here; a higher or lower number would not make
 actions to directly increase erg count any more or less useful (unless
 such actions are, say, only possible to do once ever, rather than
 recurring every week), because in each case how quickly you reach the
 target depends on how quickly you gain ergs.

Such as redeeming Leadership Tokens, judging cases for farads (sort of-- we 
don't have that many cases), etc...

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: failure notice

[comex]

On Jul 5, 2010, at 10:32 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

 Allegiance is a player switch, tracked by the Referee, whose values are
 none and all Teams, defaulting to none. Players whose Allegiance is
 none are said to be Independent; otherwise, players are said to be
 in the team, and a member of the team, which their Allegiance is set

miscomma.

 assigned to. (In other words, calculation of which player is going to
 which team can take positive time, but the final flipping of teams must
 be simultaneous and instant.)

This is ugly.  Why allow it to take time?

 
 If there is ever simultaneously one or more empty Teams, and two or more

are

 Whenever a non-Independent player gains an erg, that player's Allegiance
 gains a Fan. Whenever a Team owns at least 300 Fans,

This number strikes me as sufficiently large that actions to directly increase 
erg count are not worth taking: it's more who has the highest salary.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: G G A G C B

[comex]

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 11:47 PM, Aaron Goldfein
aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 16:27, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:

 Happy 17th birthday, Agora!

 I wonder if Agora is older than any of its players.

ehird, apparently.

DIS: Re: BUS: [CotC] 2805a overtime

[comex]

On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:51 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
 CFJ 2805a entered its four-day overtime period about two hours
 ago.  See Rule 911 for details; H. Justiciar Yally, take note.

 I opine REMAND, requesting that H. Judge coppro explicitly address the
 pros/cons of accepting or rejecting implicit delimiters in light of

You need to specify with or without prejudice.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2807 assigned to ais523

[comex]

On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 2:17 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
 Silly complex
 energy rules...

Just as long as you don't allow imaginary ergs...

DIS: Re: BUS: Assumption of IADoP

[comex]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 9:33 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:
 I assume the office of IADoP.

You know what happens when you assume?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Teams proposal

[comex]

On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
 If there is ever simultaneously one or more empty Teams, and one or more
 Independent players, then the any player CAN by announcement, and the
 Referee SHALL as soon as possible unless someone else does first,
 distribute all Independent players among all empty teams.

 This would cause a single Independent player to win immediately upon
 the distribution.

The any player accidentally huh?

 report; doing so does not violate rule 2166 or 2143, and this rule takes
 precedence over rule 2166.

 Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Referee's requirement to
 report a list of all instances of Fans and their owners is satisfied
 by publishing such a list as of the time of the last PSM's report.

Yeah, mentioning rule numbers is ugly.

 Also, where are the vuvuzelas?

Re: DIS: Proto: Teams

[comex]

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 twist to avoid that.  Maybe the metaphor can be the Federation of
 International Federated Associations with leagues, trades, captains, etc.

The Association of Federated Organizations?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Space Alert (D-Proposal)

[comex]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:51 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
 You're right about the biggest danger being the Enemy winning too
 easy, I believe any setup example could be circumvented provided the
 crew has time to react, so the danger here is that the journey starts
 immediately and not at the start of a day. Can one edit proposals
 nowadays?

Not yet; you'll have to retract and re-submit.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6734 - 6738

[comex]

On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
 ID: 6738
 TITLE: Fix proposal amendment
 If Proposal 6728 passed, amend Rule 106 by replacing:

It didn't, so no amendment is made.

DIS: Re: BUS: Space Alert (D-Proposal)

[comex]

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 6:02 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
 I submit the following proposal:

 Space Alert
 II: 3
 AI: 1
General comment: The wording is not very precise, which makes the
proposal more wordy and confusing than it needs to be.  It seems like
some good simple gameplay though.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2805 judged TRUE by coppro

[comex]

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 2:30 PM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
 On Sun, 2010-06-13 at 15:54 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
 Judge coppro's Arguments:

 Tiger's message clearly and unambiguously specifying that he was
 submitting a fragment with the following text, immediately followed by
 three lines of text. Per Rules 217 and 478, he did submit a Fragment
 containing those three lines of text; tradition is irrelevant given the
 explicitness of the action. TRUE.

 I (attempt to) submit the headers of this email as a Fragment.

 I call for judgement on the statement In this message, I submitted a
 Fragment.

 Arguments: I don't know the exact text of the Fragment until the email
 arrives. Does this mean that my action fails for lack of specificity?

Gratuitous: Until I saw your arguments, I thought you were clearly
referring to the headers of the *quoted* email.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Space Alert (D-Proposal)

[comex]

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Jonatan Kilhamn
jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 14 June 2010 19:35, comex com...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 6:02 AM, Jonatan Kilhamn
 jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote:
 I submit the following proposal:

 Space Alert
 II: 3
 AI: 1
 General comment: The wording is not very precise, which makes the
 proposal more wordy and confusing than it needs to be. It seems like
 some good simple gameplay though.

 I know, but I really feel like I tried my best. I just hope it's not broken.

Well, I think it's possible to initiate a journey right before the
start of a week, define a map where there is an object right in front
of the shuttle with one more hit point than it, and get a Leadership
Token for no work...

DIS: Re: BUS: Fragment

[comex]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 12:48 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 On Fri, 11 Jun 2010, ais523 wrote:
 On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 22:10 +0200, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote:
 I create a Fragment with the following text:
 [[[
 @@
 ]]]

 CFJ: Tiger created a Fragment in the above-quoted message.

 Gratuitous:  As granulator it was pretty clear to me that the actual
 fragment was @@ due to line breaks and the common use of [[[]]]
 to denote framing.  -G.

Gratuitous: Me too.  Was anyone actually confused about the intended
content of the fragment?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6731 - 6733

[comex]

On Monday, June 7, 2010, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
   coppro violated R2201 by not responding to a claim of error concerning
   a proposal being distributed with an incorrect chamber.

Grat: It is not a claim of error because it does not explain the scope
(but only the nature) of the perceived error.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Clarify inconsequentiality mk. 2

[comex]

On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
 comex wrote:

       (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, capitalization, or
           dialect, or the use of a synonym or abbreviation in place of
           a word or phrase is inconsequential in all forms of
           communication, except for the the purpose of reporting on or
                                      ^^^
           quoting the text of a legal document.  A difference between
           two nonempty spans of whitespace is inconsequential in all
           forms of communication for all purposes.

 Doubling up.

Not a mistake.

       Any player CAN, without objection, clean a rule without
                        ^               ^^^
       objection by specifying one or more corrections to spelling,
        ^
 And again.

Oops, fix coming up.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Clarify inconsequentiality mk. 2

[comex]

On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
 Doubling up.

 Not a mistake.

 Intentional irony?

What?

Spelling is inconsequential in all forms of communication, such as
taking game actions, except for quoting legal documents etc., because
that's a mess.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Clarify inconsequentiality mk. 2

[comex]

On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
 You had the the in there.  (Are you using a proportional font?  The
 ^^^ generally wouldn't have lined up properly, if so.)

Oh, heh.  Of course: my brain skipped that step, possibly because your
^^^s seem (on my proportional font) exactly to line up with the word
except.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Inactivations

[comex]

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 7:12 AM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Sam Benner benner...@gmail.com wrote:
 I object to my own inactivation.

 Too late; the dependent action was already resolved.

However, you can become active again by announcement.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!

[comex]

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 Do you (that is, you Agorans) want the quick fix (just make the timing tied
 to the Herald making champion awards again so it's pragmatic and therefore
 not simultaneous) or the complicated fix (make List of Succession dynamics
 more like a new game, possibly merged with coups and Tokens)?

The complicated fix, because Government is currently very boring. :

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!

[comex]

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
 The Speaker is now woggle! All hail Speaker woggle!

 I hail Speaker woggle.

 I intend, without objection, to make Speaker woggle inactive (eir last
 message to a forum was a month ago).

H. Herald coppro: If woggle were inactive, who would be Speaker?

(It would be nice if you included a list of who won the game most recently.)

Re: DIS: Get the reference, win an answer to a trivia question!

[comex]

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 2:30 AM, Sgeo sgeos...@gmail.com wrote:
 Fragment: Filomusks are a currency. Filomusks will become unused
 (extinct) in 3008 days

n.b. if you want to submit a fragment, you'll need to use the Public Forum.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Effect cleanup

[comex]

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 6:46 AM, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
 So proposals can take effect before people start voting on them, if a
 low-power rule says they can?

That would violate Power Controls Mutability.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6724 - 6727

[comex]

On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 I've been waiting for this one to come up.  Regardless of the judgement
 this is prime place for a legislative clarification.  -G.

Rule 2127 only applies to the option selected by a particular ballot,
so to allow for an indefinite increase in voting limit in the future
you'd have to cast an infinite number of conditional ballots; since
that's impossible, I think a much more plausible interpretation is
that it's the voting limit at the time.  (When I wrote the rule text,
I considered specifying that it equals 1,000 votes or something like
that, but decided that was too ugly and left it as is; I suppose a
better solution would be allowing conditional votes to specify a
conditional number, although that has the side-effect of allowing
votes of the form AGAINST if it would reach quorum even without this
vote, no vote otherwise, which probably aren't possible right now..)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6724-6727

[comex]

On Friday, May 21, 2010, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk
 I retract my votes on distributed proposals 6724-6727, and vote FOR
 (times my voting limit) on them.

Me too.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [pseudo-Granulator] Report

[comex]

On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 4:18 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 Arguments:

 comex submitted a fragment indicating, in words and by envelope
 information, that it should be translated as an image (a .png image).  But
 it appeared in the archives as a body of text.

Gratuitous: Almost all email clients support this format; the archive,
which does not, is not mentioned in the ruleset.  True, it is encoded
as a body of text, but bodies of text are encoded as series of numeric
bytes, and bytes are encoded with bits, and so on... and without an
actual requirement in the ruleset that messages be plain text, I don't
see why my image is not acceptable.  In fact, I'd say that I have the
R101 right to post any type of content I want to the fora, within
reasonable limits such as size.

 and there is (arguably?)
 sufficient information in the report to display it in multiple ways,
 including as text.  Has G. represented the fragment adequately to have it
 be considered an accurate report of the fragment?

FWIW, I believe that it would be represented adequately (albeit
inconveniently) if you indicated that the message should be decoded as
a PNG in the same way that the original message did, whether or not
the actual fragment is text or an image.  However, your report seemed
to imply that the fragment was gibberish.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [pseudo-Granulator] Report

[comex]

On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 Yes, I'll admit to be purposefully vague on publishing translation
 technology details (not required to be tracked!) versus content to
 question how far the very long tradition of relying on text-only should
 be pushed.

More gratuitous: Compare Rule 2291:

  A Fragment SHOULD be a short
  (possibly as small as a sentence) body of text intended to
  become a portion of a Rule.

with Rule 106:

  When creating proposals, the person who creates them SHOULD
  ensure that the proposal outlines[...]
...
  A player CAN create a proposal by publishing (submitting) a
  body of text[...]

or Rule 2141:

  A rule's content
  takes the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope.

In each of the latter cases, the entity is explicitly required to be
text, and in Rule 106, there is then a SHOULD regarding its content;
Rule 2291, however, only mentions text within the SHOULD.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [pseudo-Granulator] Report

[comex]

On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 To publish something it must be part of the
 message.

Says who?

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2796-98 assigned to coppro

[comex]

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
 ===  CFJ 2797 (Interest Index = 0)  

     If the proposal entitled Reassign the name passed, it would
     successfully null-amend a Rule with Power  1.7.

 

 Trivially FALSE; the proposal lacks the Power to amend a Rule of greater
 Power.

Wouldn't this be trivially TRUE per your statement that null-amendment
is not actually any change?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2796-98 assigned to coppro

[comex]

On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:05 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
 I interpreted it 'null-amend' as 'an amendment with no substantiative
 change', which would still be prohibited if it could exist.

Ah, I disagree with you on this point.   Power Controls Mutability
explicitly does not prohibit an unsubstantive change.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2793 assigned to G.

[comex]

On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 Hrm, I totally don't know here.  I personally saw the message when it
 was first sent, didn't catch the typo at all, and assumed it worked,
 so there's evidence it was clear enough to someone, and the typo was
 trivial, and that's how it was intended by coppro.  However, several
 people thought it was in error.  This is like coin flip territory.

Again, I thought it was an intentional error, as coppro, among others,
has been known in the past to perform ambiguous actions (see the
copproh incident), and 'i' is quite far from 'e' on a QWERTY
keyboard.  But maybe that's because I'm American and very rarely see
the word 'shilling', so am more likely to notice it?

DIS: Re: BUS: Ruleset COE

[comex]

On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:

 COE:  the comma in Rule 2275 last sentence is incorrect in the latest SLR
 and FLR:
    A Minister is any member of the Government,

 vs Proposal 6714:

    Amend Rule 2275 (Government) by appending A Minister is any member of
    the Government.

Thanks, fixed online.

DIS: Re: BUS: moar gameplay plox

[comex]

On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
      The Machine is a second-class person and a player. Its basis
      is the set of all players.

Changes to citizenship are secured.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: (WARNING! Proposal 6716 may pass if you don't vote against/democratise it!) OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 6713-6720

[comex]

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Charles Reiss woggl...@gmail.com wrote:
 6716  1   3.0  coppro     Purple   Dictatorship Scam
 AGAINST. I intend, with 2 support, to make the decision on whether to
 adopt this proposal Democratic; and if there are any other intents to do
 the same, I support them, and do so if sufficient support has been
 reached. I hereby warn everyone reading this message that the proposal
 may quite possibly pass if not democratised, due to the existence of
 mechanisms to increase a player's vote limit on a particular proposal,
 and thus strongly urge people to support.

 I support.

The proposal in question has already been resolved.

DIS: Re: BUS: Legal Term

[comex]

On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 8:48 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
 Proposal: Reassign the name (AI=1.7, II=1, Distributable)
 {{{
 Amend each rule in numerical order by replacing each instance of REASSIGN
 (case-sensitive) with REMIT.
 }}}

The only rule where this would have an effect is Rule 911.  However,
Rule 2277 (which contains reassigned, lowercase) should probably be
amended too.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: nothing to see here

[comex]

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
 Care to provide a message-ID?

 http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2010-April/025537.html

I'm still curious: what were you announcing about the Palace's official coin?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: nothing to see here

[comex]

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:
 I'm still curious: what were you announcing about the Palace's official
 coin?

 Oops, typo. Not fatal.

Wait, really?  I thought you were being intentionally ambiguous.