Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725
On Sun, 2019-03-17 at 13:15 -0700, Edward Murphy wrote: > twg wrote: > > > Notice of Honour: > > -1 D. Margaux (holding up an important ruleset fix with eir attempt > > at a win) > > +1 Murphy (inadvertently(?) preventing a paradox) > > What did /I/ do? You wrote a report which broke up the paradox when it self-ratified, and nobody noticed at the time. -- ais523
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725
twg wrote: Notice of Honour: -1 D. Margaux (holding up an important ruleset fix with eir attempt at a win) +1 Murphy (inadvertently(?) preventing a paradox) What did /I/ do?
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725
Yes, that is in fact exactly what I argue in the judgement to CFJ 3724. :P I expect D. Margaux meant something like "its outcome, _if resolved now_, would be ADOPTED". I imagine e would have resubmitted it with that wording, after realising that the initial wording was wrong, if it hadn't become apparent that the error in the ADoP report completely ruled out eir Win by Paradox anyway. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, March 9, 2019 3:36 PM, James Cook wrote: > On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 05:30, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote: > > > It was not published, twg is simply referring jokingly to emself, as e is > > the Assessor. > > Oh, that makes sense. But I'm confused by D. Margaux's CFJ that 8164's > outcome is ADOPTED, if there was no message attempting to resolve the > decision. > > Is "outcome" a well-defined property of a decision before it's > resolved? Rule 955 specifies some rules about computing the outcome, > and we could try to apply those rules before it's resolved to compute > a provisional "outcome" (even if the voting period hasn't ended, based > on the ballots cast so far). But Rule 955 also says "The outcome of a > decision is determined when it is resolved", which seems to imply that > the outcome is not determined before it's resolved. If that's true, > Proposal 8164's outcome could not have been ADOPTED, for the simple > reason that nobody had attempted to resolve the decision and so the > outcome must have been undetermined at that point.
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725
On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 05:30, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > It was not published, twg is simply referring jokingly to emself, as e is > the Assessor. Oh, that makes sense. But I'm confused by D. Margaux's CFJ that 8164's outcome is ADOPTED, if there was no message attempting to resolve the decision. Is "outcome" a well-defined property of a decision before it's resolved? Rule 955 specifies some rules about computing the outcome, and we could try to apply those rules before it's resolved to compute a provisional "outcome" (even if the voting period hasn't ended, based on the ballots cast so far). But Rule 955 also says "The outcome of a decision is determined when it is resolved", which seems to imply that the outcome is not determined before it's resolved. If that's true, Proposal 8164's outcome could not have been ADOPTED, for the simple reason that nobody had attempted to resolve the decision and so the outcome must have been undetermined at that point.
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725
It was not published, twg is simply referring jokingly to emself, as e is the Assessor. Greetings, Ørjan. On Sat, 9 Mar 2019, James Cook wrote: twg's message says the H. Assessor publish the below tally, but I didn't receive any emails containing it, and I can't find it in the public archives. When was that email sent, and to which list? I don't think it has any bearing on the CFJs. I'm just trying to figure out if I'm missing emails. ++-+ |AI | 3.1 | |Quorum | 5 | ++-+ |Corona Z 7b.| F | |D. MargauxPM| | |G. | FFF | |Falsifian | FFF | |L. Z 1b.|+FFF | |twg 4b.| FF | ++-+ |FOR | 16 | |AGAINST | 0 | |Ballots | 6 | |Resolved|ADOP.| ++-+ Key: #b. Possesses # blots [-floor(#/3) voting strength] PM Prime Minister [+1 voting strength] Z Zombie + Extricated conditional On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 02:30, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Attached as individual text files. Please have a look and let me know what you think... -twg
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725
twg's message says the H. Assessor publish the below tally, but I didn't receive any emails containing it, and I can't find it in the public archives. When was that email sent, and to which list? I don't think it has any bearing on the CFJs. I'm just trying to figure out if I'm missing emails. ++-+ |AI | 3.1 | |Quorum | 5 | ++-+ |Corona Z 7b.| F | |D. MargauxPM| | |G. | FFF | |Falsifian | FFF | |L. Z 1b.|+FFF | |twg 4b.| FF | ++-+ |FOR | 16 | |AGAINST | 0 | |Ballots | 6 | |Resolved|ADOP.| ++-+ Key: #b. Possesses # blots [-floor(#/3) voting strength] PM Prime Minister [+1 voting strength] Z Zombie + Extricated conditional On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 02:30, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Attached as individual text files. Please have a look and let me know what > you think... > > -twg
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725
On Friday, March 8, 2019 2:50 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > You don't have to worry about the Disclaimer in the ADoP's report - > disclaimers are used all the time to ratify false things, under the guidance > of R2202 you're supposed to use disclaimers when reporting false things > for the purpose of ratification, and this explicitly does not stop > ratification. Yeah, I agree, and the disclaimer is disclaiming something else anyway. I just thought I should mention it, since it seems like the sort of thing someone might try to use to cast doubt on the judgement. :P > Proposal 8164 will not undo the self-ratification. It will retroactively > determine that the ADoP's Report was wrong in a different way, but the > report will have still have self-ratified as it was written. Yes, exactly. So the SPOOKY distribution failed either way, and there is no paradox (and will not be even when P8164 is adopted normally). -twg
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725
Well that is a very, very annoying oversight on my part. Nice catch. > On Mar 7, 2019, at 9:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I was just writing a note to say I'd spotted the Feb 24th ADoP report's > ratification of D. Margaux as Prime Minister as well! > > You don't have to worry about the Disclaimer in the ADoP's report - > disclaimers are used all the time to ratify false things, under the guidance > of R2202 you're *supposed* to use disclaimers when reporting false things > for the purpose of ratification, and this explicitly does not stop > ratification. > > Proposal 8164 will not undo the self-ratification. It will retroactively > determine that the ADoP's Report was wrong in a different way, but the > report will have still have self-ratified as it was written. > > >> On 3/7/2019 6:30 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> Attached as individual text files. Please have a look and let me know what >> you think... >> -twg
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725
I was just writing a note to say I'd spotted the Feb 24th ADoP report's ratification of D. Margaux as Prime Minister as well! You don't have to worry about the Disclaimer in the ADoP's report - disclaimers are used all the time to ratify false things, under the guidance of R2202 you're *supposed* to use disclaimers when reporting false things for the purpose of ratification, and this explicitly does not stop ratification. Proposal 8164 will not undo the self-ratification. It will retroactively determine that the ADoP's Report was wrong in a different way, but the report will have still have self-ratified as it was written. On 3/7/2019 6:30 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Attached as individual text files. Please have a look and let me know what you think... -twg
DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725
Attached as individual text files. Please have a look and let me know what you think... -twg === CFJ 3724 === An Agoran Decision whether to adopt Proposal 8164 was initiated and its outcome is ADOPTED. -- This CFJ is the third of three that comprise an attempt by D. Margaux to Win by Paradox, the other two being CFJ 3722 and CFJ 3723. This third CFJ is extremely straightforward to resolve. Rule 955/26, "Determining the Will of Agora", states that: The outcome of a decision is determined when it is resolved, and cannot change thereafter. No Agoran decision about whether to adopt Proposal 8164 has been resolved, so although two have been initiated, neither of their outcomes can possibly have been determined, whether ADOPTED or otherwise. I judge CFJ 3724 FALSE. == === CFJ 3725 === Arisâs attempt to distribute Proposal 8164 in the message below was EFFECTIVE. -- As discussed in the judgement to CFJ 3723, a ratification event on 2019-03-03 changed the gamestate to whatever it would have been had Proposal 8164 not been distributed on 2019-02-28. This, of course, includes the presence of Proposal 8164 in the Proposal Pool. As Proposal 8164 was in the Proposal Pool at the time the H. Promotor attempted to distribute it on 2019-03-07, this attempt was EFFECTIVE. I judge CFJ 3725 TRUE. == === CFJ 3723 === The Assessor currently CAN and MAY resolve an Agoran Decision whether to adopt Proposal 8164 to be ADOPTED. -- This CFJ is the second of three that comprise an attempt by D. Margaux to Win by Paradox, the other two being CFJ 3722 and CFJ 3724. As background information, Agora is currently experiencing a minor crisis: new player Falsifian discovered on 2019-02-14 that Rule 2124/23, "Agoran Satisfaction", contains text that has unintended effects, with the result that: Agora is not Satisfied with an intent to perform an action unless it is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. In particular, Gaelan's recent attempt to Declare Apathy on February 7, 2019 was ineffective, and D. Margaux's dependent actions in their recent message that starts 'I thought for sure people would object...' were ineffective. This interpretation was confirmed by the H. Judge Trigon in CFJ 3712. As a result, it is now known that all attempts to perform dependent actions other than With Notice or With T Notice since the erroneous text was introduced in Proposal 7815 on 2016-10-28 were INEFFECTIVE. Proposal 8164 seeks to solve the problem retroactively: The gamestate, excluding the rules, is changed to what it would have been if the text of the following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined whether Agora was Satisfied with any intents attempted after Proposal 7815, rather than the text of what Rule 2124 was at that time. To the extent allowed by the rules, this change is designated as a convergence. Rule 2124 is amended [such that it works as intended.] Unfortunately, it has transpired that the method by which Proposal 8164 was distributed relies upon the failure of dependent actions. D. Margaux asserts that this means Proposal 8164, upon taking effect, changes the gamestate to whatever the gamestate would be had it not taken effect, creating a paradox. In CFJ 3722, we established that on 2019-02-28, then-Prime Minister ATMunn issued a Cabinet Order of Manifesto, distributing Proposal 8164 and initiating an Agoran decision about whether to adopt it. The voting period for Agoran decisions is currently 7 days, as specified by Rule 107/20, and indeed during the 7 days following the distribution of Proposal 8164, several players attempted to vote on the decision. The H. Assessor recorded these attempted votes as they were announced, producing a preliminary tally of votes as follows: ++-+ |AI | 3.1 | |Quorum | 5 | ++-+ |Corona Z 7b.| F | |D. MargauxPM| | |G. | FFF | |Falsifian | FFF | |L. Z 1b.|+FFF | |twg 4b.| FF | ++-+ |FOR | 16 | |AGAINST | 0 | |Ballots | 6 | |Resolved|ADOP.| ++-+ Key: #b. Possesses # blots [-floor(#/3) voting strength] PM Prime Minister [+1 voting strength] Z Zombie + Extricated
