Re: [attn: promotor again] BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
It’d be interesting to hear the H. Arbitor’s opinion on this. IMO, officers
should use this mechanism iff it’s a substantially new interpretation, so that
we have a log of what we’ve decided about how new rules work, instead of having
to find the threads where we figured it out last time.
Gaelan
> On Feb 12, 2020, at 10:32 PM, James Cook wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 07:34, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>> I submit this proposal: {
>> Title: Calls with Memoranda
>> AI: 2
>> Co-authors: Aris, G, Alexis
>>
>> Create a new Power-2 rule titled “Administrative Opinions”: {
>> An officer may publish an Administrative Opinion for a judicial case,
>> specifying a valid judgement for that case. Officers SHOULD only assign
>> Administrative Opinions to cases with which eir office is primarily
>> concerned. The Arbitor SHOULD record Administrative Opinions along with case
>> judgements. An officer who has published an Administrative Opinion for an
>> unassigned case may, without objection, Administratively Close a case,
>> causing em to become the judge for the case and eir Administrative Opinion
>> to become the judgment for the case. The Arbitor SHOULD NOT assign a judge
>> to a case while proceedings to Administratively Close it are ongoing.
>> }
>> }
>>
>> [This is intended to be used in two ways:
>> 1) As a mechanism for officers to record uncontroversial rulings as they
>> come up: If someone does something weird, the officer can call the CFJ,
>> issue an Opinion, and move to Administratively Close in the same message. In
>> this case, this basically is a memorandum that gets recorded in the CFJ log.
>
> When something weird happens that relates to my office, I normally
> just say what I think happened without calling a CFJ unless someone
> disagrees. Is it better to call a CFJs even if there's no controversy?
>
> I wonder if the CFJ logs could get cluttered if people get too
> enthusiastic about this mechanism.
>
>> 2) As a mechanism to uncontroversially resolve CFJs initiated by someone
>> else.
>
> I like the way your proposal accomplishes this.
>
> - Falsifian
Re: [attn: promotor again] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020 at 07:34, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
wrote:
> I submit this proposal: {
> Title: Calls with Memoranda
> AI: 2
> Co-authors: Aris, G, Alexis
>
> Create a new Power-2 rule titled “Administrative Opinions”: {
> An officer may publish an Administrative Opinion for a judicial case,
> specifying a valid judgement for that case. Officers SHOULD only assign
> Administrative Opinions to cases with which eir office is primarily
> concerned. The Arbitor SHOULD record Administrative Opinions along with case
> judgements. An officer who has published an Administrative Opinion for an
> unassigned case may, without objection, Administratively Close a case,
> causing em to become the judge for the case and eir Administrative Opinion to
> become the judgment for the case. The Arbitor SHOULD NOT assign a judge to a
> case while proceedings to Administratively Close it are ongoing.
> }
> }
>
> [This is intended to be used in two ways:
> 1) As a mechanism for officers to record uncontroversial rulings as they come
> up: If someone does something weird, the officer can call the CFJ, issue an
> Opinion, and move to Administratively Close in the same message. In this
> case, this basically is a memorandum that gets recorded in the CFJ log.
When something weird happens that relates to my office, I normally
just say what I think happened without calling a CFJ unless someone
disagrees. Is it better to call a CFJs even if there's no controversy?
I wonder if the CFJ logs could get cluttered if people get too
enthusiastic about this mechanism.
> 2) As a mechanism to uncontroversially resolve CFJs initiated by someone else.
I like the way your proposal accomplishes this.
- Falsifian
[attn: promotor again] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
I submit this proposal: {
Title: Calls with Memoranda
AI: 2
Co-authors: Aris, G, Alexis
Create a new Power-2 rule titled “Administrative Opinions”: {
An officer may publish an Administrative Opinion for a judicial case,
specifying a valid judgement for that case. Officers SHOULD only assign
Administrative Opinions to cases with which eir office is primarily concerned.
The Arbitor SHOULD record Administrative Opinions along with case judgements.
An officer who has published an Administrative Opinion for an unassigned case
may, without objection, Administratively Close a case, causing em to become the
judge for the case and eir Administrative Opinion to become the judgment for
the case. The Arbitor SHOULD NOT assign a judge to a case while proceedings to
Administratively Close it are ongoing.
}
}
[This is intended to be used in two ways:
1) As a mechanism for officers to record uncontroversial rulings as they come
up: If someone does something weird, the officer can call the CFJ, issue an
Opinion, and move to Administratively Close in the same message. In this case,
this basically is a memorandum that gets recorded in the CFJ log.
2) As a mechanism to uncontroversially resolve CFJs initiated by someone else.
Of course, if there’s any controversy, someone can object and we go through the
normal CFJ system.]
Gaelan
> On Feb 9, 2020, at 3:24 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
> Here’s another proto: {
> Title: Calls with Memoranda
> AI: 2
> Co-authors: Aris, G, Alexis
>
> Create a new Power-2 rule titled “Administrative Opinions”: {
> An officer may publish an Administrative Opinion for a judicial case,
> specifying a valid judgement for that case. Officers SHALL [SHOULD?] only
> assign Administrative Opinions to cases with which eir office is primarily
> concerned. An officer who has published an Administrative Opinion for an
> unassigned case may, without objection, Administratively Close a case,
> causing em to become the judge for the case and eir Administrative Opinion to
> become the judgment for the case. The Arbitor SHOULD NOT assign a judge to a
> case while proceedings to Administratively Close it are ongoing.
> }
> }
>
> Gaelan
>
>> On Feb 9, 2020, at 3:01 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 17:59, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
>> mailto:agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>>
>> wrote:
>>> I mean, didn’t we just do that, without any explicit rule at all? All we
>>> need is an informal policy that we go with the officer’s interpretation
>>> unless a CfJ decides otherwise.
>>>
>>> Alternatively, here’s a lightweight attempt to implement memoranda, either
>>> as an alternative to the above informal mechanism or because it becomes a
>>> dispute: I create the proposal {
>>> Title: Calls for Memoranda
>>> AI: 2
>>> Co-authors: Aris, G
>>>
>>> Amend rule 991 by appending “All other things being equal, the Arbitor
>>> SHOULD assign Calls for Judgement to the officer most concerned with its
>>> content.” after the sentence "The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time
>>> such that all interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to
>>> judge.”
>>> }
>>>
>>> Maybe if we wanted to get fancy, we could implement some way for the
>>> officer to assign themselves, so they could note their interpretation in
>>> the CfJ log simply by calling and resolving the CfJ in the same message.
>>>
>>> Gaelan
>>
>> I strongly oppose this. In my view, inquiry cases should generally
>> *not* be the officer making the initial interpretation, at least not
>> preferentially. Inquiry cases are effectively the fallback appeal
>> mechanism, and should remain a balanced system. I would rather see a
>> separate path for administrative interpretations.
>>
>> -Alexis
>
Re: [attn: promotor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 3:31 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 2/9/2020 3:01 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > > I strongly oppose this. In my view, inquiry cases should generally > > *not* be the officer making the initial interpretation, at least not > > preferentially. Inquiry cases are effectively the fallback appeal > > mechanism, and should remain a balanced system. I would rather see a > > separate path for administrative interpretations. > > Skeletal outline for simple memorandum: > > * A valid memorandum is considered "game custom" for the purposes of > interpreting law; > > * a memorandum is invalid only if a CFJ finds it is arbitrary and > capricious or reckless in its disregard for the rules text; > > * elected offices only; > > * a non-interim officeholder CAN issue a memorandum w/2 Agoran Consent; > > * valid memoranda are tracked with the officer's most frequent report; > > * when an new person is elected to an office, all previous memoranda for > that office become invalid; > > * during the nomination period of an election, a nominee can publish a > document listing memoranda for the office. If e is elected, those > memoranda become valid; They should really be regulations. -Aris > >
Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
Yep, https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Ruleset-Viewer > On Feb 9, 2020, at 4:01 PM, omd via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 1:11 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: >> FYI, for anyone in need of a more up-to-date ruleset, my online ruleset >> viewer (https://agora-ruleset.gaelan.me) is based on the Rulekeepor’s GitHub >> repository, so it may be (and is, at the moment) more up to date than the >> latest SLR. > > Cool. Is the source code for the generator available anywhere?
Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 1:11 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > FYI, for anyone in need of a more up-to-date ruleset, my online ruleset > viewer (https://agora-ruleset.gaelan.me) is based on the Rulekeepor’s GitHub > repository, so it may be (and is, at the moment) more up to date than the > latest SLR. Cool. Is the source code for the generator available anywhere?
Re: [attn: promotor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
On 2/9/2020 3:01 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > I strongly oppose this. In my view, inquiry cases should generally > *not* be the officer making the initial interpretation, at least not > preferentially. Inquiry cases are effectively the fallback appeal > mechanism, and should remain a balanced system. I would rather see a > separate path for administrative interpretations. Skeletal outline for simple memorandum: * A valid memorandum is considered "game custom" for the purposes of interpreting law; * a memorandum is invalid only if a CFJ finds it is arbitrary and capricious or reckless in its disregard for the rules text; * elected offices only; * a non-interim officeholder CAN issue a memorandum w/2 Agoran Consent; * valid memoranda are tracked with the officer's most frequent report; * when an new person is elected to an office, all previous memoranda for that office become invalid; * during the nomination period of an election, a nominee can publish a document listing memoranda for the office. If e is elected, those memoranda become valid;
Re: [attn: promotor] BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
Here’s another proto: {
Title: Calls with Memoranda
AI: 2
Co-authors: Aris, G, Alexis
Create a new Power-2 rule titled “Administrative Opinions”: {
An officer may publish an Administrative Opinion for a judicial case,
specifying a valid judgement for that case. Officers SHALL [SHOULD?] only
assign Administrative Opinions to cases with which eir office is primarily
concerned. An officer who has published an Administrative Opinion for an
unassigned case may, without objection, Administratively Close a case, causing
em to become the judge for the case and eir Administrative Opinion to become
the judgment for the case. The Arbitor SHOULD NOT assign a judge to a case
while proceedings to Administratively Close it are ongoing.
}
}
Gaelan
> On Feb 9, 2020, at 3:01 PM, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 17:59, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> mailto:agora-discussion@agoranomic.org>>
> wrote:
>> I mean, didn’t we just do that, without any explicit rule at all? All we
>> need is an informal policy that we go with the officer’s interpretation
>> unless a CfJ decides otherwise.
>>
>> Alternatively, here’s a lightweight attempt to implement memoranda, either
>> as an alternative to the above informal mechanism or because it becomes a
>> dispute: I create the proposal {
>> Title: Calls for Memoranda
>> AI: 2
>> Co-authors: Aris, G
>>
>> Amend rule 991 by appending “All other things being equal, the Arbitor
>> SHOULD assign Calls for Judgement to the officer most concerned with its
>> content.” after the sentence "The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such
>> that all interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.”
>> }
>>
>> Maybe if we wanted to get fancy, we could implement some way for the officer
>> to assign themselves, so they could note their interpretation in the CfJ log
>> simply by calling and resolving the CfJ in the same message.
>>
>> Gaelan
>
> I strongly oppose this. In my view, inquiry cases should generally
> *not* be the officer making the initial interpretation, at least not
> preferentially. Inquiry cases are effectively the fallback appeal
> mechanism, and should remain a balanced system. I would rather see a
> separate path for administrative interpretations.
>
> -Alexis
Re: [attn: promotor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 3:02 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 17:59, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
> wrote:
> > I mean, didn’t we just do that, without any explicit rule at all? All we
> > need is an informal policy that we go with the officer’s interpretation
> > unless a CfJ decides otherwise.
> >
> > Alternatively, here’s a lightweight attempt to implement memoranda, either
> > as an alternative to the above informal mechanism or because it becomes a
> > dispute: I create the proposal {
> > Title: Calls for Memoranda
> > AI: 2
> > Co-authors: Aris, G
> >
> > Amend rule 991 by appending “All other things being equal, the Arbitor
> > SHOULD assign Calls for Judgement to the officer most concerned with its
> > content.” after the sentence "The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time
> > such that all interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to
> > judge.”
> > }
> >
> > Maybe if we wanted to get fancy, we could implement some way for the
> > officer to assign themselves, so they could note their interpretation in
> > the CfJ log simply by calling and resolving the CfJ in the same message.
> >
> > Gaelan
>
> I strongly oppose this. In my view, inquiry cases should generally
> *not* be the officer making the initial interpretation, at least not
> preferentially. Inquiry cases are effectively the fallback appeal
> mechanism, and should remain a balanced system. I would rather see a
> separate path for administrative interpretations.
>
> -Alexis
Same here, except maybe "oppose" instead of "strongly oppose" for me.
-Aris
Re: [attn: promotor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
On 2/9/2020 2:59 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > Amend rule 991 by appending “All other things being equal, the Arbitor SHOULD > assign Calls for Judgement to the officer most concerned with its content.” > after the sentence "The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all > interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.” I'm not so keen on this for a couple reasons - in part because of needing to seek impartial judges and balancing judicial workload, but more importantly because the idea of a memorandum is it's not necessarily binding on the next holder of the same office, while a CFJ would be. -G.
Re: [attn: promotor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 17:59, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
wrote:
> I mean, didn’t we just do that, without any explicit rule at all? All we need
> is an informal policy that we go with the officer’s interpretation unless a
> CfJ decides otherwise.
>
> Alternatively, here’s a lightweight attempt to implement memoranda, either as
> an alternative to the above informal mechanism or because it becomes a
> dispute: I create the proposal {
> Title: Calls for Memoranda
> AI: 2
> Co-authors: Aris, G
>
> Amend rule 991 by appending “All other things being equal, the Arbitor SHOULD
> assign Calls for Judgement to the officer most concerned with its content.”
> after the sentence "The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all
> interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.”
> }
>
> Maybe if we wanted to get fancy, we could implement some way for the officer
> to assign themselves, so they could note their interpretation in the CfJ log
> simply by calling and resolving the CfJ in the same message.
>
> Gaelan
I strongly oppose this. In my view, inquiry cases should generally
*not* be the officer making the initial interpretation, at least not
preferentially. Inquiry cases are effectively the fallback appeal
mechanism, and should remain a balanced system. I would rather see a
separate path for administrative interpretations.
-Alexis
Re: [attn: promotor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
On Sun, 2020-02-09 at 14:59 -0800, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion
wrote:
> I mean, didn’t we just do that, without any explicit rule at all? All
> we need is an informal policy that we go with the officer’s
> interpretation unless a CfJ decides otherwise.
>
> Alternatively, here’s a lightweight attempt to implement memoranda,
> either as an alternative to the above informal mechanism or because
> it becomes a dispute: I create the proposal {
> Title: Calls for Memoranda
> AI: 2
> Co-authors: Aris, G
>
> Amend rule 991 by appending “All other things being equal, the
> Arbitor SHOULD assign Calls for Judgement to the officer most
> concerned with its content.” after the sentence "The Arbitor SHALL
> assign judges over time such that all interested players have
> reasonably equal opportunities to judge.”
> }
I actually really like this (as an alternative to memoranda). It gives
a new method of changing the way that CFJs are made, without confusing
any of the existing principles of how CFJs work.
--
ais523
[attn: promotor] Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
I mean, didn’t we just do that, without any explicit rule at all? All we need
is an informal policy that we go with the officer’s interpretation unless a CfJ
decides otherwise.
Alternatively, here’s a lightweight attempt to implement memoranda, either as
an alternative to the above informal mechanism or because it becomes a dispute:
I create the proposal {
Title: Calls for Memoranda
AI: 2
Co-authors: Aris, G
Amend rule 991 by appending “All other things being equal, the Arbitor SHOULD
assign Calls for Judgement to the officer most concerned with its content.”
after the sentence "The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all
interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.”
}
Maybe if we wanted to get fancy, we could implement some way for the officer to
assign themselves, so they could note their interpretation in the CfJ log
simply by calling and resolving the CfJ in the same message.
Gaelan
> On Feb 9, 2020, at 2:43 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>
>
> On 2/9/2020 2:22 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 17:19, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business
>> wrote:
>>> On Bernie's behalf, Notice of Honour:
>>> -1 Gaelan (applying the CSS for eir ruleset primarily via arbitrary
>>> emoji. I don't know why you would do this)
>>> +1 Jason (having to assess two consecutive large proposal distributions,
>>> including proposals that change voting strengths)
>>>
>>> -twg
>>
>> I will be treating this as invalid, per R2510:
>>
>>> A player CAN publish a Notice of Honour. ... When a Notice of Honour is
>>> published...
>>
>> Since publishing a document an out-of-game action with in-game effect,
>> I believe it cannot be done via acting on behalf.
>>
>> I'm happy to accept a CFJ on it if you disagree.
>
> This is the perfect example of where "officer's interpretation" (i.e.
> memorandum) would be great. After a little discussion a while back I'd
> come to the conclusion that a NoH was, in R2466 language, a "specific
> action within a message" rather than the message itself, thus doable. But
> I don't think(?) it was a cfj, nor will I personally dispute your conclusion.
>
> -G.
>
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
Alexis wrote: > I will be treating this as invalid, per R2510: > > > A player CAN publish a Notice of Honour. ... When a Notice of Honour is > > published... > > and R2466: > > > ... A person CANNOT act > > on behalf of another person to do anything except perform a game > > action; in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another > > person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that > > might be taken within a message. > > Since publishing a document an out-of-game action with in-game effect, > I believe it cannot be done via acting on behalf. > > I'm happy to accept a CFJ on it if you disagree. Hmm, interesting one! We've all been doing this for ages without ever questioning whether it was actually POSSIBLE. As far as I can tell, the earliest usage was by D. Margaux in 2018 (https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg32681.html), but nobody CFJed it because we got distracted by a related CFJ from Trigon (later withdrawn? can't find any record of it in G.'s archive) and an argument between Aris and G. Definitely worth a judgement. On balance, I'm not sure I agree with your interpretation. The effect of a Notice of Honour is "considered to be a 'transfer' of karma" (R2510), and asset transfers are undeniably a game action; it would be a bit of a stretch to argue that karma transfers are not. So although publication itself is excluded from acting-on-behalf, I would argue that karma transfers are perfectly kosher, and therefore that "[an] agent CAN perform the action in the same manner in which the principal CAN do so" (R2466) - i.e. by means of publishing a Notice of Honour. I CFJ, barring Alexis: "It is generally POSSIBLE to act on behalf of a zombie to transfer karma." -twg
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
On 2/9/2020 2:22 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 17:19, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business > wrote: >> On Bernie's behalf, Notice of Honour: >> -1 Gaelan (applying the CSS for eir ruleset primarily via arbitrary >>emoji. I don't know why you would do this) >> +1 Jason (having to assess two consecutive large proposal distributions, >> including proposals that change voting strengths) >> >> -twg > > I will be treating this as invalid, per R2510: > >> A player CAN publish a Notice of Honour. ... When a Notice of Honour is >> published... > > Since publishing a document an out-of-game action with in-game effect, > I believe it cannot be done via acting on behalf. > > I'm happy to accept a CFJ on it if you disagree. This is the perfect example of where "officer's interpretation" (i.e. memorandum) would be great. After a little discussion a while back I'd come to the conclusion that a NoH was, in R2466 language, a "specific action within a message" rather than the message itself, thus doable. But I don't think(?) it was a cfj, nor will I personally dispute your conclusion. -G.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
For the record, the CSS here is applied using CSS Modules [0], which randomizes class names in order to avoid conflicts between classes of the same name defined in different places. It normally uses an alphanumeric string, but it has an option for doing emoji instead, so why the hell not? Also, I’ll note that each class name contains its original name as well as the emoji, so it’s not like it’s obfuscated or anything. [0]: https://github.com/css-modules/css-modules Gaelan > On Feb 9, 2020, at 2:18 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business > wrote: > > -1 Gaelan (applying the CSS for eir ruleset primarily via arbitrary > emoji. I don't know why you would do this)
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
On Sun, 9 Feb 2020 at 17:19, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business wrote: > On Bernie's behalf, Notice of Honour: > -1 Gaelan (applying the CSS for eir ruleset primarily via arbitrary >emoji. I don't know why you would do this) > +1 Jason (having to assess two consecutive large proposal distributions, > including proposals that change voting strengths) > > -twg I will be treating this as invalid, per R2510: > A player CAN publish a Notice of Honour. ... When a Notice of Honour is > published... and R2466: > ... A person CANNOT act > on behalf of another person to do anything except perform a game > action; in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another > person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that > might be taken within a message. Since publishing a document an out-of-game action with in-game effect, I believe it cannot be done via acting on behalf. I'm happy to accept a CFJ on it if you disagree. -Alexis
DIS: PSA: Online ruleset viewer
FYI, for anyone in need of a more up-to-date ruleset, my online ruleset viewer (https://agora-ruleset.gaelan.me) is based on the Rulekeepor’s GitHub repository, so it may be (and is, at the moment) more up to date than the latest SLR. Gaelan
