Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[juan via agora-discussion]

Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2024-04-23 00:59]:
> On 4/23/24 00:55, mqyhlkahu via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Janet (randomnetcat) responded to our Declaration of Intent to Push the
> > Boulder[1] with the following[2]:
> >
> >> this is *very* close to accidentally being a tabled intent under R1728 
> >> rather
> >> than actually pushing the bolder.
> > To our understanding, our action is not a Tabled Action[3] because the 
> > Rules do
> > not "purport to authorise its performance"[4] by one of [5].  Is our
> > understanding correct?
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> >
> >[1]  
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2024-April/052927.html
> >
> >[2]  
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2024-April/064058.html
> >
> >[3]  Rule 1728/46 (Power=3)
> >
> >[4]  {{{
> >   >   An action is a Tabled Action if the Rules purport to 
> > authorize its
> >   >   performance via one of the following methods:
> >   >   [- snip [5] -]
> >   >   [- snip -]
> >   >   A person, acting as emself, CAN by announcement table an 
> > intent
> >   >   (syn.  "intend") to perform a tabled action, clearly,
> >   >   conspicuously, explicitly, and without obfuscation specifying 
> > the
> >   >   action, the method (including non-default parameter values), 
> > and,
> >   >   optionally, conditions.
> >}}} [3]
> >
> >[5]  {{{
> >   >   * With N Support, where N is a positive integer.
> >   >   * Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer.
> >   >   * With N Agoran Consent, where N is a positive integer 
> > multiple of
> >   > 0.1.
> >   >   * With T notice, where T is a time period.
> >}}} [3]
> >
> 
> Ah, yes, good point. I did forget that requirement. So it wouldn't be a
> successful tabled intent. However, to my mind, "We intend to push the
> boulder." would likely be held as failing to push the boulder, as the
> intent to do so "by sending the message" isn't clear and unambiguous
> (R478), since that's the normal form for setting up a tabled intent for
> later, even if that isn't actually possible.
> 
> (As usual, I'm merely guessing how a judge would rule, but that's
> certainly how I would rule.)
> 
> I still think your original message isn't quite that, but it's close.

I honestly don't consider the original message as a boulder push (and
do realize that I'm considerably leniant on that front). I won't record
it. On the plus side, it's a great chance for mqyhlkahu to interact with
the CFJ system.

-- 
juan
Absurdor

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 4/23/24 00:55, mqyhlkahu via agora-discussion wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Janet (randomnetcat) responded to our Declaration of Intent to Push the
> Boulder[1] with the following[2]:
>
>> this is *very* close to accidentally being a tabled intent under R1728 rather
>> than actually pushing the bolder.
> To our understanding, our action is not a Tabled Action[3] because the Rules 
> do
> not "purport to authorise its performance"[4] by one of [5].  Is our
> understanding correct?
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>[1]  
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2024-April/052927.html
>
>[2]  
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2024-April/064058.html
>
>[3]  Rule 1728/46 (Power=3)
>
>[4]  {{{
>   >   An action is a Tabled Action if the Rules purport to authorize 
> its
>   >   performance via one of the following methods:
>   >   [- snip [5] -]
>   >   [- snip -]
>   >   A person, acting as emself, CAN by announcement table an intent
>   >   (syn.  "intend") to perform a tabled action, clearly,
>   >   conspicuously, explicitly, and without obfuscation specifying 
> the
>   >   action, the method (including non-default parameter values), 
> and,
>   >   optionally, conditions.
>}}} [3]
>
>[5]  {{{
>   >   * With N Support, where N is a positive integer.
>   >   * Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer.
>   >   * With N Agoran Consent, where N is a positive integer multiple 
> of
>   > 0.1.
>   >   * With T notice, where T is a time period.
>}}} [3]
>

Ah, yes, good point. I did forget that requirement. So it wouldn't be a
successful tabled intent. However, to my mind, "We intend to push the
boulder." would likely be held as failing to push the boulder, as the
intent to do so "by sending the message" isn't clear and unambiguous
(R478), since that's the normal form for setting up a tabled intent for
later, even if that isn't actually possible.

(As usual, I'm merely guessing how a judge would rule, but that's
certainly how I would rule.)

I still think your original message isn't quite that, but it's close.

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[mqyhlkahu via agora-discussion]

Hello,

Janet (randomnetcat) responded to our Declaration of Intent to Push the
Boulder[1] with the following[2]:

> this is *very* close to accidentally being a tabled intent under R1728 rather
> than actually pushing the bolder.

To our understanding, our action is not a Tabled Action[3] because the Rules do
not "purport to authorise its performance"[4] by one of [5].  Is our
understanding correct?

Thank you.


   [1]  
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2024-April/052927.html

   [2]  
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2024-April/064058.html

   [3]  Rule 1728/46 (Power=3)

   [4]  {{{
  >   An action is a Tabled Action if the Rules purport to authorize its
  >   performance via one of the following methods:
  >   [- snip [5] -]
  >   [- snip -]
  >   A person, acting as emself, CAN by announcement table an intent
  >   (syn.  "intend") to perform a tabled action, clearly,
  >   conspicuously, explicitly, and without obfuscation specifying the
  >   action, the method (including non-default parameter values), and,
  >   optionally, conditions.
   }}} [3]

   [5]  {{{
  >   * With N Support, where N is a positive integer.
  >   * Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer.
  >   * With N Agoran Consent, where N is a positive integer multiple of
  > 0.1.
  >   * With T notice, where T is a time period.
   }}} [3]



After all, you can cut the flowers, but the weather is everywhere.

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 4/23/24 00:21, mqyhlkahu via agora-business wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We formally declare our intent to perform the following action(s):
> {{{
> In accordance with [1], we announce that we Push the Boulder, thereby
> increasing its Height by 1.
>
>[1]  Rule 2683/1 (Power=0.5)
> }}}
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> 
> After all, you can cut the flowers, but the weather is everywhere.


So I think this works, but this is *very* close to accidentally being a
tabled intent under R1728 rather than actually pushing the bolder. I
would generally avoid saying you "intend" to do something or declare
"intent" to do something unless you mean to table an intent.

For instance, in this case, "We push the boulder." would suffice and is
unambiguous.

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[nix via agora-discussion]

On 10/12/23 20:17, Ned Strange via agora-discussion wrote:
> This is not a working link if you aren't aware.;
> 
> Regards
> 
> On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 9:18 AM nix via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 
>> file:///tmp/Screenshot_2023-10-12_17-16-26.png
>>
> 
> 

Yea, we discussed this on discord; I copy and pasted the image, and
thunderbird displayed it as if it was attaching an image, and only
converted it to this link when I hit send.

-- 
nix

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Ned Strange via agora-discussion]

This is not a working link if you aren't aware.;

Regards

On Fri, Oct 13, 2023 at 9:18 AM nix via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> file:///tmp/Screenshot_2023-10-12_17-16-26.png
>


-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[secretsnail9 via agora-discussion]

> On Jul 25, 2023, at 3:14 PM, Battadia via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> I express my desire to register!
> Once the registration process is complete, I award myself a Welcome Package.
> 
>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 at 00:55, juan via agora-discussion <
>> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Battadia via agora-business [2023-07-25 20:08]:
>>> I award myself a Welcome Package.
>> 
>> I don't know if this is enough to register. Someone may know more, but
>> as far as I understand, you must clearly put forth intent to register.
>> 
>> --
>> juan
>> Registrar
>> 

Unfortunately this registration attempt didn't work since you sent the message 
to agora-discussion@agoranomic.org instead of agora-busin...@agoranomic.org.

The discussion list is for discussion so game actions don't work there.

The business list is where you should take almost all game actions except 
official reports, which go in report lists. We do have some backup lists that 
are also public (which means game actions work, there unlike discussion fora) 
but you don't need to worry about those.

Let's hope the next attempt works! Registration often has hiccups since new 
players don't know how the game works (and old players like messing around with 
ambiguous or weird registrations).

I also suggest the more concrete "I grant myself a welcome package." instead of 
tying it to a timing which is a bit weird since time doesn't really pass 
normally in a message and stuff like "in 1 second, I do X" doesn't work. 
Although you can do things like "If I have a snail stamp, I destroy it" since 
it's an instantaneous condition.

--
snail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[juan via agora-discussion]

Battadia via agora-discussion [2023-07-26 08:13]:
> I express my desire to register!
> Once the registration process is complete, I award myself a Welcome Package.

Welcome Battadia! You are registered.

-- 
juan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Battadia via agora-discussion]

I express my desire to register!
Once the registration process is complete, I award myself a Welcome Package.

On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 at 00:55, juan via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Battadia via agora-business [2023-07-25 20:08]:
> > I award myself a Welcome Package.
>
> I don't know if this is enough to register. Someone may know more, but
> as far as I understand, you must clearly put forth intent to register.
>
> --
> juan
> Registrar
>

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[juan via agora-discussion]

Battadia via agora-business [2023-07-25 20:08]:
> I award myself a Welcome Package.

I don't know if this is enough to register. Someone may know more, but
as far as I understand, you must clearly put forth intent to register.

-- 
juan
Registrar

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Aidan Anthony via agora-discussion]

Aenet

Thank you for the welcome package Trigon

On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 7:41 PM Reuben Staley via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 3/16/21 5:33 PM, Aidan Anthony via agora-business wrote:
> > I register
> >
>
> I cause the above player to gain a Welcome Package.
>
> What is your preferred name that you would like us to refer to you as?
>
> --
> Trigon
>
>   ¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST
>
> I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
> I LOVE SPAGHETTI
> transfer Jason one coin
> nch was here
> I hereby
> don't... trust... the dragon...
> don't... trust... the dragon...
> Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
>

DIS: Re: BUS: (No Subject)

[omd]

(...did this create a proposal?  It was sent to business but doesn't
say "proposal".)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (No Subject)

[nch]

Thank you for the package, whatever it may contain (I'm still working my 
way through the current game-state). I'm deciding to play again while 
starting both a new job and a graduate degree (after all, I'll need some 
sort of equally-stressful distraction when those things stress me out), 
so I might be more background than foreground for a while.


On 7/14/19 4:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


I award nch a Welcome Package.


On 7/14/2019 2:24 PM, nch wrote:
You're right, I'm rusty. And regrettably the Protonmail IMAP bridge 
doesn't have a Linux release yet, so I guess I'll revive this 
account. I register with the name nch.


On 7/14/19 3:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


If you were hoping that the cc would register you, it likely doesn't:
actions can only be taken "within" messages (within the bodies).
You can refer to other parts of the email in the body (e.g. "I do
what the subject line says") but you can't straight-out take actions
without some indication in the message body itself.

On 7/14/2019 12:09 PM, Nich wrote:

Empty Message

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (No Subject)

[Kerim Aydin]

I thought it might be you :)  Welcome back!!!

On 7/14/2019 2:24 PM, nch wrote:
You're right, I'm rusty. And regrettably the Protonmail IMAP bridge doesn't 
have a Linux release yet, so I guess I'll revive this account. I register 
with the name nch.


On 7/14/19 3:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


If you were hoping that the cc would register you, it likely doesn't:
actions can only be taken "within" messages (within the bodies).
You can refer to other parts of the email in the body (e.g. "I do
what the subject line says") but you can't straight-out take actions
without some indication in the message body itself.

On 7/14/2019 12:09 PM, Nich wrote:

Empty Message

DIS: Re: BUS: (No Subject)

[Kerim Aydin]

If you were hoping that the cc would register you, it likely doesn't:
actions can only be taken "within" messages (within the bodies).
You can refer to other parts of the email in the body (e.g. "I do
what the subject line says") but you can't straight-out take actions
without some indication in the message body itself.

On 7/14/2019 12:09 PM, Nich wrote:

Empty Message

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Aris Merchant]

Welcome to the game!

Just doing a reply works. The one thing to remember is that by default your
reply will go to agora-discussion. If you want to reply to the same list as
the previous email for some reason, make sure you change the address.
Failing to change the adress is in fact such a common mistake that we have
standard abbreviations for pointing out the mistake (“NttPF”, for Not to
the Public Forum) and for addressing it (“TTttPF”, for This Time to the
Public Forum; used accompanying a reply to the misdirected version, where
the reply is addressed to where the original should have been sent).

Just to make this clear, here’s an example of how the abbreviations work:
Player A sends an email to agora-business.
Player B sends an reply, but accidentally sends it to agora-discussion even
though the reply contains a game action.
Player C sends a reply, which says “NttPF”, to Player B’s message, in order
to point out the mistake.
Player B sends a reply, which says “TTttPF”, to Player C’s message, setting
the recipient to agora-business.

You’re likely to see these sooner or later, and it can be kind of confusing
if you don’t know what’s going on.

-Aris

On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 7:00 PM Bernie Brackett  wrote:

> Bernie is fine. Also, how do I reply to you? I just pressed the reply
> button on gmail, so I'm hoping that works.
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 9:12 AM Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
>
> > Welcome, again.
> >
> > What would you like others to refer to you as? Is "Bernie" okay?
> >
> > --
> > Trigon
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 6, 2019, 06:34 Bernie Brackett  wrote:
> >
> > > I register
> > >
> >
>

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Bernie Brackett]

Bernie is fine. Also, how do I reply to you? I just pressed the reply
button on gmail, so I'm hoping that works.

On Sat, Apr 6, 2019 at 9:12 AM Reuben Staley 
wrote:

> Welcome, again.
>
> What would you like others to refer to you as? Is "Bernie" okay?
>
> --
> Trigon
>
> On Sat, Apr 6, 2019, 06:34 Bernie Brackett  wrote:
>
> > I register
> >
>

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Ørjan Johansen]

Doesn't Rule 2240 imply the opposite of your argument?

  In a conflict between clauses of the same Rule, if exactly one
  claims precedence over the other, then it takes precedence;
  otherwise, the later clause takes precedence.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Tue, 21 Nov 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


I shiny-CFJ on the following statement:

   G. CAN assign this CFJ to emself by announcement.


ARGUMENTS

Rule 991 last paragraph paraphrases as following (full text in evidence).

- Sentence 1 unequivocally states that the Arbitor CAN assign any
 player to be its judge by announcement.

- Sentence 2 states that the Caller is not "eligible to be assigned".

- Sentence 3 is about "interested players having equal opportunity".

- Sentence 4 states that only eligible players CAN assign cases to
 themselves w/o 3 objections.

The question is whether sentence 2's "eligibility" limitation applies
backwards to the Arbitor's ability to assign judgement, or if it only
applies forward (and limits self-assignment, but still allows the
Arbitor to assign anyone).

My personal feeling is that sentence 2 applies forward, but does not
limit the Arbitor's ability to assign, literally, any player.  This
case occurred to me when I noticed that at least one player was not
getting "equal opportunity to judge" (sentence 3) because e also called
a lot of CFJs.  So in the case where I (as Arbitor) can't occasionally
(in rare circumstances) self-assign, I am at risk of breaking that SHALL.


EVIDENCE

Rule 991/23 (Power=2.0)
Calls for Judgement

 Any person (the initiator) can initiate a Call for Judgement (CFJ,
 syn. Judicial Case), specifying a statement to be inquired into:

 a) by announcement, and spending 1 Action Point, OR

 b) by announcement, and spending the current CFJ cost in shinies,
OR

 c) by announcement if e is not a player.

 When a person initiates a Call for Judgment, e CAN optionally bar
 one person from the case by announcement.

 At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or
 assigned exactly one judgement.

 The Arbitor is an office, responsible for the administration of
 justice in a manner that is fair for emself, if not for the rest
 of Agora.

 When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any
 player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so within a
 week. The players eligible to be assigned as judge are all players
 except the initiator and the person barred (if any). The Arbitor
 SHALL assign judges over time such that all interested players
 have reasonably equal opportunities to judge. If a CFJ has no
 judge assigned, then any player eligible to judge that CFJ CAN
 assign it to emself Without 3 Objections.

 The Arbitor's weekly report includes a summary of recent judicial
 case activity, including open and recently-judged cases, recent
 judicial assignments, and a list of players interested in judging.

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I agree with this intepretation, but I believe it is problematic and
should be fixed.

On 11/21/2017 01:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> I shiny-CFJ on the following statement:  
>
> G. CAN assign this CFJ to emself by announcement.
>
>
> ARGUMENTS
>
> Rule 991 last paragraph paraphrases as following (full text in evidence).
>
> - Sentence 1 unequivocally states that the Arbitor CAN assign any
>   player to be its judge by announcement.
>
> - Sentence 2 states that the Caller is not "eligible to be assigned".
>
> - Sentence 3 is about "interested players having equal opportunity".
>
> - Sentence 4 states that only eligible players CAN assign cases to
>   themselves w/o 3 objections.
>
> The question is whether sentence 2's "eligibility" limitation applies
> backwards to the Arbitor's ability to assign judgement, or if it only
> applies forward (and limits self-assignment, but still allows the
> Arbitor to assign anyone).
>
> My personal feeling is that sentence 2 applies forward, but does not
> limit the Arbitor's ability to assign, literally, any player.  This 
> case occurred to me when I noticed that at least one player was not 
> getting "equal opportunity to judge" (sentence 3) because e also called 
> a lot of CFJs.  So in the case where I (as Arbitor) can't occasionally 
> (in rare circumstances) self-assign, I am at risk of breaking that SHALL.
>
>
> EVIDENCE
>
> Rule 991/23 (Power=2.0)
> Calls for Judgement
>
>   Any person (the initiator) can initiate a Call for Judgement (CFJ,
>   syn. Judicial Case), specifying a statement to be inquired into:
>
>   a) by announcement, and spending 1 Action Point, OR
>
>   b) by announcement, and spending the current CFJ cost in shinies,
>  OR
>
>   c) by announcement if e is not a player.
>
>   When a person initiates a Call for Judgment, e CAN optionally bar
>   one person from the case by announcement.
>
>   At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or
>   assigned exactly one judgement.
>
>   The Arbitor is an office, responsible for the administration of
>   justice in a manner that is fair for emself, if not for the rest
>   of Agora.
>
>   When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any
>   player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so within a
>   week. The players eligible to be assigned as judge are all players
>   except the initiator and the person barred (if any). The Arbitor
>   SHALL assign judges over time such that all interested players
>   have reasonably equal opportunities to judge. If a CFJ has no
>   judge assigned, then any player eligible to judge that CFJ CAN
>   assign it to emself Without 3 Objections.
>
>   The Arbitor's weekly report includes a summary of recent judicial
>   case activity, including open and recently-judged cases, recent
>   judicial assignments, and a list of players interested in judging.
>
>
>

-- 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Aris Merchant]

True, I missed that. Thanks.

-Aris

On Sun, Nov 5, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 at 16:06 Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>> > Proposal: A Most Ingenious Paradox (AI=1.7)
>> > {{{
>> > Text in square brackets is not a part of this proposal and has no
>> > effect.
>> >
>> > Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Win by Paradox":
>> >
>> >   If a CFJ has been assigned a judgment of PARADOXICAL continuously
>> >   for at least 7 days, and e has not done so already in respect of
>> >   that CFJ, then that case's initiator CAN, by announcement, win the
>> >   game.
>>
>> This isn't long enough. A moot requires time to get support, up to a
>> week for the decision to be initiated, another week for it to run, and
>> up to another week for it to be resolved.
>>
>> -Aris
>
>
> Once a moot is initiated, the judgment is suspended and therefore no longer
> assigned.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, 5 Nov 2017 at 16:06 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> > Proposal: A Most Ingenious Paradox (AI=1.7)
> > {{{
> > Text in square brackets is not a part of this proposal and has no
> > effect.
> >
> > Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Win by Paradox":
> >
> >   If a CFJ has been assigned a judgment of PARADOXICAL continuously
> >   for at least 7 days, and e has not done so already in respect of
> >   that CFJ, then that case's initiator CAN, by announcement, win the
> >   game.
>
> This isn't long enough. A moot requires time to get support, up to a
> week for the decision to be initiated, another week for it to run, and
> up to another week for it to be resolved.
>
> -Aris
>

Once a moot is initiated, the judgment is suspended and therefore no longer
assigned.

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Aris Merchant]

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> Proposal: A Most Ingenious Paradox (AI=1.7)
> {{{
> Text in square brackets is not a part of this proposal and has no
> effect.
>
> Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Win by Paradox":
>
>   If a CFJ has been assigned a judgment of PARADOXICAL continuously
>   for at least 7 days, and e has not done so already in respect of
>   that CFJ, then that case's initiator CAN, by announcement, win the
>   game.

This isn't long enough. A moot requires time to get support, up to a
week for the decision to be initiated, another week for it to run, and
up to another week for it to be resolved.

-Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Aris Merchant]

On Sat, Oct 28, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> Proposal: A Most Ingenious Paradox (AI=1.7)

Do you want to pend this?

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Kerim Aydin]

"nor is it appropriate if the undecidability arises from the case itself."

On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:

> I suppose that's IRRELEVANT.
> 
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 1:09 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>   Doesn't this allow for making statements that include well-known 
> logical paradoxes that have no bearing on the game itself? (Eg: A barber who 
> must shave all who do not shave
>   themselves and nobody else, cannot shave emself)
> 
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>   Proposal: A Most Ingenious Paradox (AI=1.7)
> {{{
> Text in square brackets is not a part of this proposal and has no
> effect.
> 
> Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Win by Paradox":
> 
>       If a CFJ has been assigned a judgment of PARADOXICAL continuously
>       for at least 7 days, and e has not done so already in respect of
>       that CFJ, then that case's initiator CAN, by announcement, win the
>       game.
> 
>       A player who wins in this fashion SHOULD submit a proposal to
>       prevent the paradox from arising again.
> 
> Amend rule 591 by replacing:
> 
>       The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows, based on
>       the truth or falsity of the statement at the time the inquiry case
>       was initiated (if its truth value changed at that time, then its
>       initial truth value is used):
> 
> with:
> 
>       The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows, based on
>       the facts and legal situation at the time the inquiry case was
>       initiated, not taking into account any events since that time:
> 
> [This is to prevent changing facts not related to truth or falsity, e.g.
> availability of information, from affecting outcomes.]
> 
> and by replacing:
> 
>       * DISMISS, appropriate if the statement is malformed, undecidable,
>         if insufficient information exists to make a judgement with
>         reasonable effort, or the statement is otherwise not able to be
>         answered with another valid judgement.
> 
> with:
> 
>       * DISMISS, appropriate if the statement is malformed, undecidable,
>         if insufficient information exists to make a judgement with
>         reasonable effort, or the statement is otherwise not able to be
>         answered with another valid judgement. DISMISS is not
>         appropriate if PARADOXICAL is appropriate.
> 
> and by appending to the end:
> 
>       * PARADOXICAL, appropriate if the statement is logically
>         undecidable as a result of a paradox or or other irresovable
>         logical situation. PARADOXICAL is not appropriate if IRRELEVANT
>         is appropriate, nor is it appropriate if the undecidability
>         arises from the case itself.
> 
> [The reference to IRRELEVANT is to prevent multiple wins from the same
> paradox.]
> }}}
> 
> -Alexis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> From V.J. Rada
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> From V.J. Rada
> 
>

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[VJ Rada]

Doesn't this allow for making statements that include well-known logical
paradoxes that have no bearing on the game itself? (Eg: A barber who must
shave all who do not shave themselves and nobody else, cannot shave emself)

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> Proposal: A Most Ingenious Paradox (AI=1.7)
> {{{
> Text in square brackets is not a part of this proposal and has no
> effect.
>
> Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Win by Paradox":
>
>   If a CFJ has been assigned a judgment of PARADOXICAL continuously
>   for at least 7 days, and e has not done so already in respect of
>   that CFJ, then that case's initiator CAN, by announcement, win the
>   game.
>
>   A player who wins in this fashion SHOULD submit a proposal to
>   prevent the paradox from arising again.
>
> Amend rule 591 by replacing:
>
>   The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows, based on
>   the truth or falsity of the statement at the time the inquiry case
>   was initiated (if its truth value changed at that time, then its
>   initial truth value is used):
>
> with:
>
>   The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows, based on
>   the facts and legal situation at the time the inquiry case was
>   initiated, not taking into account any events since that time:
>
> [This is to prevent changing facts not related to truth or falsity, e.g.
> availability of information, from affecting outcomes.]
>
> and by replacing:
>
>   * DISMISS, appropriate if the statement is malformed, undecidable,
> if insufficient information exists to make a judgement with
> reasonable effort, or the statement is otherwise not able to be
> answered with another valid judgement.
>
> with:
>
>   * DISMISS, appropriate if the statement is malformed, undecidable,
> if insufficient information exists to make a judgement with
> reasonable effort, or the statement is otherwise not able to be
> answered with another valid judgement. DISMISS is not
> appropriate if PARADOXICAL is appropriate.
>
> and by appending to the end:
>
>   * PARADOXICAL, appropriate if the statement is logically
> undecidable as a result of a paradox or or other irresovable
> logical situation. PARADOXICAL is not appropriate if IRRELEVANT
> is appropriate, nor is it appropriate if the undecidability
> arises from the case itself.
>
> [The reference to IRRELEVANT is to prevent multiple wins from the same
> paradox.]
> }}}
>
> -Alexis
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[VJ Rada]

I suppose that's IRRELEVANT.

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 1:09 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

> Doesn't this allow for making statements that include well-known logical
> paradoxes that have no bearing on the game itself? (Eg: A barber who must
> shave all who do not shave themselves and nobody else, cannot shave emself)
>
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>
>> Proposal: A Most Ingenious Paradox (AI=1.7)
>> {{{
>> Text in square brackets is not a part of this proposal and has no
>> effect.
>>
>> Enact a new power-1 rule entitled "Win by Paradox":
>>
>>   If a CFJ has been assigned a judgment of PARADOXICAL continuously
>>   for at least 7 days, and e has not done so already in respect of
>>   that CFJ, then that case's initiator CAN, by announcement, win the
>>   game.
>>
>>   A player who wins in this fashion SHOULD submit a proposal to
>>   prevent the paradox from arising again.
>>
>> Amend rule 591 by replacing:
>>
>>   The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows, based on
>>   the truth or falsity of the statement at the time the inquiry case
>>   was initiated (if its truth value changed at that time, then its
>>   initial truth value is used):
>>
>> with:
>>
>>   The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows, based on
>>   the facts and legal situation at the time the inquiry case was
>>   initiated, not taking into account any events since that time:
>>
>> [This is to prevent changing facts not related to truth or falsity, e.g.
>> availability of information, from affecting outcomes.]
>>
>> and by replacing:
>>
>>   * DISMISS, appropriate if the statement is malformed, undecidable,
>> if insufficient information exists to make a judgement with
>> reasonable effort, or the statement is otherwise not able to be
>> answered with another valid judgement.
>>
>> with:
>>
>>   * DISMISS, appropriate if the statement is malformed, undecidable,
>> if insufficient information exists to make a judgement with
>> reasonable effort, or the statement is otherwise not able to be
>> answered with another valid judgement. DISMISS is not
>> appropriate if PARADOXICAL is appropriate.
>>
>> and by appending to the end:
>>
>>   * PARADOXICAL, appropriate if the statement is logically
>> undecidable as a result of a paradox or or other irresovable
>> logical situation. PARADOXICAL is not appropriate if IRRELEVANT
>> is appropriate, nor is it appropriate if the undecidability
>> arises from the case itself.
>>
>> [The reference to IRRELEVANT is to prevent multiple wins from the same
>> paradox.]
>> }}}
>>
>> -Alexis
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 22 Oct 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:


I submit the following proposal, and pend it for 1 AP.



 An entity's tax amount is, at any given time, (max(ceil(T% of (S - 10)), 0)),
 where max is the maximum of its inputs, ceil is the operation of rounding up
 to the nearest integer, T is the tax rate, and S is that entity's shiny
 abalance.


I think to reduce tax avoidance scams the 10 should be reduced for 
non-players, perhaps all the way to 0. (If not 0 it needs to be coupled 
with some limit on how many contracts e.g. can be created).


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[VJ Rada]

>entity's shiny abalance.

abalance should be balance?

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> Then, we need to rename the Tax Rate.
>
>
> On 10/22/2017 07:43 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> Not apart from deregistration and administrative fees, neither of
>> which would normally be considered taxes.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>  wrote:
>>> We already have taxes.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/22/2017 07:39 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
 I submit the following proposal, and pend it for 1 AP.

 -Aris
 ---
 Title: It's death _and_ taxes
 Adoption index: 1.0
 Author: Aris
 Co-author(s):


 Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
 have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any 
 rules
 created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
 have been removed before its resolution.

 [I have yet to hear a reason why we can't have both supply reform and
 spending reform. It's true that too much taxation will stop all 
 accumulation,
 but my proposal should hopefully just provide another incentive to spend.
 Frankly, while giving money meaning and giving people something to spend on
 are nice, it's also important that people get paid. I've dropped the 
 inactivity
 tax from this proposal.]

 Enact a rule, entitled "Taxes", power = 1.0, with the following text:

   The tax rate is a singleton switch, with possible values of integers 
 between
   0 and 25 (default 10). The tax rate can be set to any possible value in a
   regulation promulgated by the Treasuror.

   An entity's tax amount is, at any given time, (max(ceil(T% of (S - 10)), 
 0)),
   where max is the maximum of its inputs, ceil is the operation of 
 rounding up
   to the nearest integer, T is the tax rate, and S is that entity's shiny
   abalance.

   A taxable entity is any entity that possesses shinies, except for Agora
   and contracts exempt for sustenance payments.

   The Treasuror CAN, once per Agoran month, collect taxes by announcement.
   E SHALL do so in the first week of each Agoran month. When taxes are
   collected, for each taxable entity, that entity's tax amount in shinies 
 is
   transferred to Agora.
>>>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Then, we need to rename the Tax Rate.


On 10/22/2017 07:43 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Not apart from deregistration and administrative fees, neither of
> which would normally be considered taxes.
>
> -Aris
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>  wrote:
>> We already have taxes.
>>
>>
>> On 10/22/2017 07:39 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>> I submit the following proposal, and pend it for 1 AP.
>>>
>>> -Aris
>>> ---
>>> Title: It's death _and_ taxes
>>> Adoption index: 1.0
>>> Author: Aris
>>> Co-author(s):
>>>
>>>
>>> Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
>>> have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any 
>>> rules
>>> created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
>>> have been removed before its resolution.
>>>
>>> [I have yet to hear a reason why we can't have both supply reform and
>>> spending reform. It's true that too much taxation will stop all 
>>> accumulation,
>>> but my proposal should hopefully just provide another incentive to spend.
>>> Frankly, while giving money meaning and giving people something to spend on
>>> are nice, it's also important that people get paid. I've dropped the 
>>> inactivity
>>> tax from this proposal.]
>>>
>>> Enact a rule, entitled "Taxes", power = 1.0, with the following text:
>>>
>>>   The tax rate is a singleton switch, with possible values of integers 
>>> between
>>>   0 and 25 (default 10). The tax rate can be set to any possible value in a
>>>   regulation promulgated by the Treasuror.
>>>
>>>   An entity's tax amount is, at any given time, (max(ceil(T% of (S - 10)), 
>>> 0)),
>>>   where max is the maximum of its inputs, ceil is the operation of rounding 
>>> up
>>>   to the nearest integer, T is the tax rate, and S is that entity's shiny
>>>   abalance.
>>>
>>>   A taxable entity is any entity that possesses shinies, except for Agora
>>>   and contracts exempt for sustenance payments.
>>>
>>>   The Treasuror CAN, once per Agoran month, collect taxes by announcement.
>>>   E SHALL do so in the first week of each Agoran month. When taxes are
>>>   collected, for each taxable entity, that entity's tax amount in shinies is
>>>   transferred to Agora.
>>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Aris Merchant]

Not apart from deregistration and administrative fees, neither of
which would normally be considered taxes.

-Aris



On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 wrote:
> We already have taxes.
>
>
> On 10/22/2017 07:39 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> I submit the following proposal, and pend it for 1 AP.
>>
>> -Aris
>> ---
>> Title: It's death _and_ taxes
>> Adoption index: 1.0
>> Author: Aris
>> Co-author(s):
>>
>>
>> Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
>> have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any 
>> rules
>> created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
>> have been removed before its resolution.
>>
>> [I have yet to hear a reason why we can't have both supply reform and
>> spending reform. It's true that too much taxation will stop all accumulation,
>> but my proposal should hopefully just provide another incentive to spend.
>> Frankly, while giving money meaning and giving people something to spend on
>> are nice, it's also important that people get paid. I've dropped the 
>> inactivity
>> tax from this proposal.]
>>
>> Enact a rule, entitled "Taxes", power = 1.0, with the following text:
>>
>>   The tax rate is a singleton switch, with possible values of integers 
>> between
>>   0 and 25 (default 10). The tax rate can be set to any possible value in a
>>   regulation promulgated by the Treasuror.
>>
>>   An entity's tax amount is, at any given time, (max(ceil(T% of (S - 10)), 
>> 0)),
>>   where max is the maximum of its inputs, ceil is the operation of rounding 
>> up
>>   to the nearest integer, T is the tax rate, and S is that entity's shiny
>>   abalance.
>>
>>   A taxable entity is any entity that possesses shinies, except for Agora
>>   and contracts exempt for sustenance payments.
>>
>>   The Treasuror CAN, once per Agoran month, collect taxes by announcement.
>>   E SHALL do so in the first week of each Agoran month. When taxes are
>>   collected, for each taxable entity, that entity's tax amount in shinies is
>>   transferred to Agora.
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

We already have taxes.


On 10/22/2017 07:39 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I submit the following proposal, and pend it for 1 AP.
>
> -Aris
> ---
> Title: It's death _and_ taxes
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s):
>
>
> Lines beginning with hashmarks ("#") and comments in square brackets ("[]")
> have no effect on the behavior of this proposal. They are not part of any 
> rules
> created or amended herein, and may be considered for all game purposes to
> have been removed before its resolution.
>
> [I have yet to hear a reason why we can't have both supply reform and
> spending reform. It's true that too much taxation will stop all accumulation,
> but my proposal should hopefully just provide another incentive to spend.
> Frankly, while giving money meaning and giving people something to spend on
> are nice, it's also important that people get paid. I've dropped the 
> inactivity
> tax from this proposal.]
>
> Enact a rule, entitled "Taxes", power = 1.0, with the following text:
>
>   The tax rate is a singleton switch, with possible values of integers between
>   0 and 25 (default 10). The tax rate can be set to any possible value in a
>   regulation promulgated by the Treasuror.
>
>   An entity's tax amount is, at any given time, (max(ceil(T% of (S - 10)), 
> 0)),
>   where max is the maximum of its inputs, ceil is the operation of rounding up
>   to the nearest integer, T is the tax rate, and S is that entity's shiny
>   abalance.
>
>   A taxable entity is any entity that possesses shinies, except for Agora
>   and contracts exempt for sustenance payments.
>
>   The Treasuror CAN, once per Agoran month, collect taxes by announcement.
>   E SHALL do so in the first week of each Agoran month. When taxes are
>   collected, for each taxable entity, that entity's tax amount in shinies is
>   transferred to Agora.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Owen Jacobson]

On Nov 19, 2016, at 7:54 PM, Josh T  wrote:

> 皆さん、
> 
> I announce the formation of the Organization with name "蘭亭社" and the 
> following Charter:
> 
> 1. この憲章には、以下の同じ行に書かれている用語が同意義です。
> * Agora, アゴラ, 阿呉羅
> * Announcement, 公表
> * Appropriate, ふさわしい, 相応しい
> * The Budget Switch for the pair consisting of X and this Organization, 
> Xの株
> * CAN, 得る
> * Charter, 憲章
> * Duty, 義務
> * Expenditure, 支出
> * To flip (switch X　to Y), (XがYに)変わる
> * IMPOSSIBLE, 不可能
> * Organization, 社
> * Player,　アゴラプレイヤー
> * POSSIBLE, 可能
> * SHOULD, べし
> * Switch, スイッチ
> 2. 当社の正式名称は「蘭亭社」で、「ランテイシャ」と読みます。
> 3. 当社のメンバーならないアゴラプレイヤーは自分の株が１～５０に変わることによって弊社のメンバーになり得ます。
> 4. 当社はアゴラプレイヤーの一員です。当社が滅びずに登録を解除することが不可能です。
> 5. この憲章に記載されていない弊社に影響を及ぼす行為は全部相応しくないです。
> 6. 相応しい修正箇条とは他のメンバーが日本語に反対していないでメンバーが４～１４日前公表した憲章の修正箇条です。
> 7. すべてメンバーは自分の株が低い値に変わることがふさわしいです。
> 8. 当社はメンバーが公表で賛成することによってスタンスを発表し得ます。賛成者の株より反対者の株のほうか多ければスタンスが撤廃します。
> 9. メンバーの間で紛争はリーチ麻雀の東南戦によって解決されるべきであります。

As Secretary, I'm tracking this and I consider the organization properly 
formed, but I consider the charter effectively unintelligible. I will issue 
relevant CFJs as needed to clarify whether actions with regards to this 
Organization are Appropriate or not.

-o

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Pavitra]

On 03/05/2012 12:21 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
 Transfer half from each first-class person rounded down,
 and half from each golem rounded up?

I like this last one.

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 4 Mar 2012, FKA441344 wrote:
 I submit a proposal with title {Only Some Players} and text
 {
  Amend Rule 2362 by replacing the text
  {
      At the start of each week, half of each person's rubles (rounded
      down to the nearest integer) are destroyed, then two rubles are
      created in the possession of each player.
  }
  with
  {
      At the start of each week, half of each first-class person's
 rubles (rounded
      down to the nearest integer) are destroyed, then two rubles are
      created in the possession of each first-class player.
  }
 }

This fix allows golems to serve as a trivial haven against ruble
destruction.  Need to destroy rubles in every person's possession, then
only create in the possession of first class players.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2012, Kerim Aydin wrote:
 On Sun, 4 Mar 2012, FKA441344 wrote:
  I submit a proposal with title {Only Some Players} and text
  {
   Amend Rule 2362 by replacing the text
   {
       At the start of each week, half of each person's rubles (rounded
       down to the nearest integer) are destroyed, then two rubles are
       created in the possession of each player.
   }
   with
   {
       At the start of each week, half of each first-class person's
  rubles (rounded
       down to the nearest integer) are destroyed, then two rubles are
       created in the possession of each first-class player.
   }
  }
 
 This fix allows golems to serve as a trivial haven against ruble
 destruction.  Need to destroy rubles in every person's possession, then
 only create in the possession of first class players.

Oops, followup!  The rounded down mechanic means that you just need
to create a golem for each Ruble and they still couldn't be touched.

Thoughts on a fix?  Hmm.. sum up all Rubles in the possession of a
1st-class person and that person's golems?   Somehow restrict golem
creation?  Transfer half from each first-class person rounded down,
and half from each golem rounded up?

-G.

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[omd]

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
 I cash the promise titled {Anyone Can Mislead The Leader}.


 Note to H. Promotor omd:  if this was effective (I don't remember
 anyone causing the President to taunt the police), then it caused
 FKA441344 to submit two proposals.

441344 purportedly did it last month with Agoran Consent.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[FSX]

I don't recall reading any message that did that, though my memory is probably 
faulty.



On Feb 23, 24 Heisei, at 5:31 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
 I cash the promise titled {Anyone Can Mislead The Leader}.
 
 
 Note to H. Promotor omd:  if this was effective (I don't remember
 anyone causing the President to taunt the police), then it caused
 FKA441344 to submit two proposals.
 
 441344 purportedly did it last month with Agoran Consent.

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[omd]

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:28 PM, 441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
 I initiate a criminal case naming omd as the Accused, failing to
 publish the Promotor's report during the week Mon. 16 - Sun. 22 and
 distribute the proposals currently in the proposal pool that were in
 there at the beginning of Mon. 16 as the criminal inaction, and Rule
 2143 as the rule violated.

Guilty.  FYI, Murphy also has only one day to resolve the distribution
I made back then.

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Pavitra]

On 01/22/2012 03:28 PM, 441344 wrote:
 I intend to deputise for Horton to publish Horton's weekly report for
 the week Mon. 23 - Sun. 29.

 I intend to deputise for the Promotor to publish the Promotor's report
 for the week Mon. 16 - Sun. 22 and distribute the proposals currently
 in the proposal pool that were in there at the beginning of Mon. 16.

You *can* do it like that, but this is the situation that Assumption was
created for. (You would need deputisation if the office is filled but
the officer is late.)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[441344]

On 1/18/12, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 01/18/2012 04:14 PM, 441344 wrote:
 *Pavrita
 Probably effective anyway.

Oops, sorry about that.
   Golem by announcement, specifying it's Alarm.
 its Alarm.

Thanks for the correction.
 Decreasing the Alarm
 of a Clock Golem is
   secured.
 Can I increase the Alarm of someone else's Clock Golem, since it's not
 secured?

No, due to
Rule 2125/7 (Power=3)
Regulation Regulations

  A regulated action is an action satisfying any of the following:
[...]
  e) It would, as part of its effect, modify information for which
 some player is required to be a recordkeepor.  Such an action
 CANNOT modify that information except as allowed by the
 rules.

 The Golemkeepor's
 report includes the
   Alarm of every Clock Golem and the text, author, and owner of every
 promise owned by a
   Clock Golem.
 I see what you're trying to get at here -- it would be convenient to
 have the information all in one place like that -- but I'm not sure that
 such heavy duplication of information is the best solution.

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Pavitra]

On 01/18/2012 04:14 PM, 441344 wrote:
 *Pavrita
Probably effective anyway.

   Golem by announcement, specifying it's Alarm.
its Alarm.

 Decreasing the Alarm
 of a Clock Golem is
   secured.
Can I increase the Alarm of someone else's Clock Golem, since it's not
secured?

 The Golemkeepor's
 report includes the
   Alarm of every Clock Golem and the text, author, and owner of every
 promise owned by a
   Clock Golem.
I see what you're trying to get at here -- it would be convenient to
have the information all in one place like that -- but I'm not sure that
such heavy duplication of information is the best solution.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Arkady English]

On 15 January 2012 15:24, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
 On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 9:15 AM, 441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
  Amend Rule 1950 by replacing the text
  {
  Adoption index is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions, whose value is
  either none (default) or an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9.
  } with the text
  {
  Adoption index is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions, whose value is
  either none (default) or an integral multiple of 0.1 greater than
 or equal to 1.0.
  }.
 }.

 The reason there's an upper limit is that someone once submitted a
 proposal with an adoption index hundreds of digits long. The only
 reasonable solution, I think, is to limit adoption indices to exactly
 35.

 —Machiavelli

Shouldn't adoption indices be capped to the maximum number of votes
which may be cast on that proposal.

So, if there are N players, each with 1 vote to cast on a proposal
submitted, any adoption index greater or equal to N would require
unanimity to pass (because if 1 player votes against it there are only
(N-1) players to vote in favour, so it will never meet the adoption
index).

This becomes a problem if the number of votes available to cast does
not remain constant through the voting period - although that could be
fixed by allowing adoption indices to be a linear function of
MaxVotes, and setting any adoption index greater MaxVotes to
MaxVotes.

Arkady

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Pavitra]

On 01/17/2012 05:03 AM, Arkady English wrote:
 On 15 January 2012 15:24, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
 On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 9:15 AM, 441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
  Amend Rule 1950 by replacing the text
  {
  Adoption index is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions, whose value is
  either none (default) or an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9.
  } with the text
  {
  Adoption index is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions, whose value is
  either none (default) or an integral multiple of 0.1 greater than
 or equal to 1.0.
  }.
 }.

 The reason there's an upper limit is that someone once submitted a
 proposal with an adoption index hundreds of digits long. The only
 reasonable solution, I think, is to limit adoption indices to exactly
 35.

 —Machiavelli
 
 Shouldn't adoption indices be capped to the maximum number of votes
 which may be cast on that proposal.
 
 So, if there are N players, each with 1 vote to cast on a proposal
 submitted, any adoption index greater or equal to N would require
 unanimity to pass (because if 1 player votes against it there are only
 (N-1) players to vote in favour, so it will never meet the adoption
 index).
 
 This becomes a problem if the number of votes available to cast does
 not remain constant through the voting period - although that could be
 fixed by allowing adoption indices to be a linear function of
 MaxVotes, and setting any adoption index greater MaxVotes to
 MaxVotes.
 
 Arkady

Adoption indices are tied to fractions. A proposal with an adoption
index of N requires an N/(N+1) majority to pass. The total number of
voters is irrelevant.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Arkady English]

On 17 January 2012 23:39, Pavitra celestialcognit...@gmail.com wrote:
 On 01/17/2012 05:03 AM, Arkady English wrote:
 On 15 January 2012 15:24, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote:
 On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 9:15 AM, 441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
  Amend Rule 1950 by replacing the text
  {
  Adoption index is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions, whose value is
  either none (default) or an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9.
  } with the text
  {
  Adoption index is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions, whose value is
  either none (default) or an integral multiple of 0.1 greater than
 or equal to 1.0.
  }.
 }.

 The reason there's an upper limit is that someone once submitted a
 proposal with an adoption index hundreds of digits long. The only
 reasonable solution, I think, is to limit adoption indices to exactly
 35.

 —Machiavelli

 Shouldn't adoption indices be capped to the maximum number of votes
 which may be cast on that proposal.

 So, if there are N players, each with 1 vote to cast on a proposal
 submitted, any adoption index greater or equal to N would require
 unanimity to pass (because if 1 player votes against it there are only
 (N-1) players to vote in favour, so it will never meet the adoption
 index).

 This becomes a problem if the number of votes available to cast does
 not remain constant through the voting period - although that could be
 fixed by allowing adoption indices to be a linear function of
 MaxVotes, and setting any adoption index greater MaxVotes to
 MaxVotes.

 Arkady

 Adoption indices are tied to fractions. A proposal with an adoption
 index of N requires an N/(N+1) majority to pass. The total number of
 voters is irrelevant.

On the contrary.

When I wrote, my understanding of the adoption index was that it
worked as follows:

A proposal passes if:

Vf/Va  A, where Vf and Va are the number of votes for and against and
A is the Adoption Index.

If that is true, what I've written is true.

But, you say, the condition is actually:

Vf/(Vf+Va)  A/(A+1).

However, these two conditions are identical. If we take the second
condition and multiply each side by (Vf+Va)(A+1) the adoption
condition becomes:

Vf(A+1)  A(Vf+Va).

Multiply out brackets:

VfA + Vf  VfA + VaA.

Subtract VfA from each side:

Vf  VaA

And finally divide by Va:

Vf/Va  A.


And the thing here is that total votes DO matter. There are Tv = Vf+Va
voters, so if 1 person votes against (i.e. Va = 1) the highest
possible adoption index that could be reached is (T-1). Thus by
setting the adoption index greater than (T-1) a proposal can only pass
unanimously (even if T is unknown).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Pavitra]

On 01/17/2012 06:27 PM, Arkady English wrote:
 And the thing here is that total votes DO matter. There are Tv = Vf+Va
 voters, so if 1 person votes against (i.e. Va = 1) the highest
 possible adoption index that could be reached is (T-1). Thus by
 setting the adoption index greater than (T-1) a proposal can only pass
 unanimously (even if T is unknown).

Okay, yes, it matters for chunking. But we shouldn't be passing
high-powered proposals with such a thin quorum anyway, so I don't see it
as a problem.

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Tanner Swett]

On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 9:15 AM, 441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
  Amend Rule 1950 by replacing the text
  {
  Adoption index is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions, whose value is
  either none (default) or an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9.
  } with the text
  {
  Adoption index is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions, whose value is
  either none (default) or an integral multiple of 0.1 greater than
 or equal to 1.0.
  }.
 }.

The reason there's an upper limit is that someone once submitted a
proposal with an adoption index hundreds of digits long. The only
reasonable solution, I think, is to limit adoption indices to exactly
35.

—Machiavelli

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Ed Murphy]

teucer wrote:


I initiate an inquiry CFJ on the statement {No actions were performed
by announcement due to the first 6 lines of the above-quoted message}
with arguments {Any specification of an action in those lines is
unclear due to, if those lines are an encoded message rather than just
gibberish, the encoding that has been applied to those lines.} and
evidence {Rule 478, the above-quoted message}.


Gratuitous:  If the message in question had mentioned its encoding
method, then this would be FALSE by the precedent of CFJ 2062.  I
think it's still FALSE, as the encoding method is reasonably simple
to guess and decode.  Contrast CFJs 3040-41, where the encoding
method was mentioned but (as a one-way hash) was judged unreasonably
difficult to decode.

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Elliott Hird]

On 14 January 2012 21:30, 441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
  Any player CAN, with Agoran Consent, cause Agora to post a blog post
  (specifying its title, text, and list of categories) or comment
  (specifying its text) to BlogNomic.

Not really. If this was done, then Agora's gamestate would certainly
believe that Agora did such a thing, but the mere force of consent
cannot cause the spirit of Agora to submit a web form. You need
explicit delegation here.

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[FSX]

Maybe it would be better that Agora was not actually a person at all. I don't 
see why it has to be one.



On Jan 14, 24 Heisei, at 7:06 AM, 441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:

 I submit a promise with title {Anyone Can Mislead The Leader} and
 conditions {The president has taunted the police, and at least 30 days
 have passed since the president last taunted the police} and text
 {
 I submit a proposal with adoption index 2 and title {Anyone Can
 Mislead The Leader} and text {Amend Rule 2326 by replacing the text {A
 first-class Player CAN cause the President to take actions
  Without Objection, or with Agoran Consent.} with {A first-class
 Player CAN cause the President to take actions that are not otherwise
 IMPOSSIBLE, Without Objection, or with Agoran Consent. Causing the
 President to perform ILLEGAL actions in this manner is the Class-6
 crime of Misleading the Leader.}.}.
 I submit a proposal with title {Supporting Crime Is Criminal} and
 text {Enact a rule with title {Supporting Crime Is Criminal} and text
 {If an action performed with N Support or with Agoran Consent is a
 Class-M Crime, supporting that action is the Class-(M-1) Crime of
 Supporting Crime.}.}.
 }.
 
 I submit a proposal with adoption index 3 and title {The Person Agora,
 The Misguiding Therof, And Eir Security} and text
 {
 Retitle Rule 2339 to {The Person Agora}.
 Amend Rule 2339 to {Agora is a person.}.
 Enact a rule with title {Causing Agora To Act} and text {When Agora
 is a person, any player CAN cause em to take actions that are not
 otherwise IMPOSSIBLE Without Objection or with Agoran Consent. Causing
 Agora to perform ILLEGAL actions in this manner is the Class-7 Crime
 of Misguiding Agora.}.
 Amend Rule 2351 by appending the sentence {Causing Agora to act is
 secured.} to the end of it.
 }.

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Ed Murphy]

omd wrote:


This doesn't work because Rule 105 prevents persons from making Rule
Changes.  In general, what is this supposed to fix?


FYI for 441344:  the usual workaround is any player CAN by announcement
cause this rule to repeal itself.

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Ed Murphy]

omd wrote:


Proposal: The rule already says that N is 1 unless otherwise specified (AI=3)

Amend Rule 1728 by removing:

   (Without Objection is shorthand for this method with N = 1.)

and by removing:

   (With Support is shorthand for this method with N = 1.)


But then only Without 1 Objections / With 1 Supporters (or maybe
Without Objections / With Supporters) would work.  The old phrases
would likely still work via R754(2), but might draw CFJs from new
players along the lines of Michael is Speaker.

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[ais523]

On Fri, 2012-01-13 at 01:31 +, 441344 wrote:
 I hereby register.
 I declare an intent to sit without objection.
 I submit a proposal with title {fix to 1023/28} and text {Amend Rule
 1023/28 by replacing the text {Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on
 Monday.} with {Agoran weeks begin when Mondays begin.} and replacing
 the text {Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each
 Gregorian month.} with {Agoran months begin when Gregorian months
 begin.}}.

Having witnessed the Midnight Crisis firsthand at BlogNomic, I'm not
convinced this is a good idea. Agora's rule gets round such problems
quite neatly. (So does BlogNomic's current rule, although it had to go
through several iterations.)

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Elliott Hird]

On 13 January 2012 01:31, 441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
 I submit a proposal with title {fix to 1023/28} and text {Amend Rule
 1023/28 by replacing the text {Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on
 Monday.} with {Agoran weeks begin when Mondays begin.} and replacing
 the text {Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each
 Gregorian month.} with {Agoran months begin when Gregorian months
 begin.}}.

Welcome!

Note that the number after the slash is just the revision number of
the rule, and not part of the rule number itself.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 13 Jan 2012, Elliott Hird wrote:
 On 13 January 2012 01:31, 441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
  I submit a proposal with title {fix to 1023/28} and text {Amend Rule
  1023/28 by replacing the text {Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on
  Monday.} with {Agoran weeks begin when Mondays begin.} and replacing
  the text {Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each
  Gregorian month.} with {Agoran months begin when Gregorian months
  begin.}}.
 
 Welcome!
 
 Note that the number after the slash is just the revision number of
 the rule, and not part of the rule number itself.

At first I thought putting on the revision number means it breaks if
another proposal changes the revision number in the meantime but then
I thought is it even possible to amend a specific revision number of
a rule? so maybe it breaks regardless.  Rulekeepor opinion?  -G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[omd]

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 At first I thought putting on the revision number means it breaks if
 another proposal changes the revision number in the meantime but then
 I thought is it even possible to amend a specific revision number of
 a rule? so maybe it breaks regardless.  Rulekeepor opinion?  -G.

Dunno; I think it might be reasonable to interpret it as Amend Rule
x/y [into Rule x/y+1].

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Tanner Swett]

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 At first I thought putting on the revision number means it breaks if
 another proposal changes the revision number in the meantime but then
 I thought is it even possible to amend a specific revision number of
 a rule? so maybe it breaks regardless.  Rulekeepor opinion?  -G.

Amend Rule /yy would make a convenient shorthand for Amend Rule
, but only if its current revision number is yy. I suggest
interpreting it that way by default from now on.

—Machiavelli

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Pavitra]

On 01/13/2012 04:01 PM, Arkady English wrote:
 How about we put to the test:
 
 CFJ: {The statement Amend Rule /yy is equivalent to Amend Rule
  IFF its revision number is yy.}

Missing trailing quote.

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[omd]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:31 PM, 441344 441...@gmail.com wrote:
 I submit a proposal with title {fix to 1023/28} and text {Amend Rule
 1023/28 by replacing the text {Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on
 Monday.} with {Agoran weeks begin when Mondays begin.} and replacing
 the text {Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each
 Gregorian month.} with {Agoran months begin when Gregorian months
 begin.}}.

This would make the rule ambiguous about time zones.

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Charles Walker]

Welcome!

Charles Walker
Sent from my mobile.
On 30 Mar 2011 19:00, Tedd Williams wofi...@yahoo.com wrote:
 I wish to register. I am a first-class person, being composed mostly of
Carbon, Oxygen, and Hydrogen. I wish to be known as Wofi, or Woofie if
that is not available.

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Taral]

On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 9:04 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
 I was going to deregister,

 So I'll just twiddle a line of CotC's report.

Thank you.

-- 
Taral tar...@gmail.com
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
    -- Unknown

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Geoffrey Spear]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:52 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Zac Sipes zac0...@gmail.com wrote:
 zac0...@gmail.com

 Do you want to register as a player?  If so, you should say so--
 sorry, I think this is a bit too unclear.

What, no CFJ? :)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[ais523]

On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 08:34 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
 On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:52 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Zac Sipes zac0...@gmail.com wrote:
  zac0...@gmail.com
 
  Do you want to register as a player?  If so, you should say so--
  sorry, I think this is a bit too unclear.
 
 What, no CFJ? :)

Surely you don't need one unless someone actually thinks it succeeded?

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, ais523 wrote:
 On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 08:34 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
  On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:52 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
   On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Zac Sipes zac0...@gmail.com wrote:
   zac0...@gmail.com
  
   Do you want to register as a player?  If so, you should say so--
   sorry, I think this is a bit too unclear.
  
  What, no CFJ? :)
 
 Surely you don't need one unless someone actually thinks it succeeded?

I CFJ on:  Someone actually thinks it succeeded.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Jonathan Rouillard]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:


 On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, ais523 wrote:
 On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 08:34 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
  On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:52 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
   On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Zac Sipes zac0...@gmail.com wrote:
   zac0...@gmail.com
  
   Do you want to register as a player?  If so, you should say so--
   sorry, I think this is a bit too unclear.
 
  What, no CFJ? :)

 Surely you don't need one unless someone actually thinks it succeeded?

 I CFJ on:  Someone actually thinks it succeeded.





Wow. =P

Gratuitous: I just talked to my little brother about this, and he
thinks it succeeded. Granted, he's 16 and I'm not even playing, but he
is someone, so I think this works. =P

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Jonathan Rouillard]

On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:


 On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, ais523 wrote:
 On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 08:34 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
  On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:52 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
   On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Zac Sipes zac0...@gmail.com wrote:
   zac0...@gmail.com
  
   Do you want to register as a player?  If so, you should say so--
   sorry, I think this is a bit too unclear.
 
  What, no CFJ? :)

 Surely you don't need one unless someone actually thinks it succeeded?

 I CFJ on:  Someone actually thinks it succeeded.





 Wow. =P

 Gratuitous: I just talked to my little brother about this, and he
 thinks it succeeded. Granted, he's 16 and I'm not even playing, but he
 is someone, so I think this works. =P


*Looks at the mailing list name*
This isn't in the good list, now is it.

Oh well. Back to watching the game, I guess. =P

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[omd]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Zac Sipes zac0...@gmail.com wrote:
 zac0...@gmail.com

Do you want to register as a player?  If so, you should say so--
sorry, I think this is a bit too unclear.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Sean Hunt]

On 10-10-20 11:52 PM, omd wrote:

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Zac Sipeszac0...@gmail.com  wrote:

zac0...@gmail.com


Do you want to register as a player?  If so, you should say so--
sorry, I think this is a bit too unclear.


Yes, yes it is.

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Keba]

Am Donnerstag, den 16.09.2010, 20:07 -0400 schrieb comex:
 Proposal: individualism (AI=2, II=0, Distributable)
 
 Repeal Rule 2303 (Teams), Rule 2304 (The Referee), Rule 2305 (Fans),
 and Rule 2306 (Team Tactics).

II=0?

-- 
Keba

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Elliott Hird]

2009/5/19 thespyguy thespy...@gmail.com:
 I register

Your HTML email is no match for my client.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Quazie]

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 2:29 PM, ais523 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Thu, 2008-07-10 at 17:35 -0700, Quazie wrote:
 I post the following Sell Ticket:
 1 VP, I will object or support a change to the
 ??  pledge.  This ticket may be filled
 mutiple times, though only 1 time per change.  This ticket does not
 expire until I say it does.
 (Acting under instructions from tusho.)
 I fill this ticket twice, that is once for each of the two proposed
 changes to that pledge, choosing 'object' in each instance.
 --
 ais523


This is where the ticket was filled twice.

DIS: Re: BUS: This subject is only a subject if it is a subject

[Zefram]

Elliott Hird wrote:
If the above statement is false,

This condition cannot be evaluated by any reasonable effort, so the
attempted action is invalid due to unclarity.

-zefram

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: This subject is only a subject if it is a subject

[Elliott Hird]

2008/7/16 Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 Elliott Hird wrote:
If the above statement is false,

 This condition cannot be evaluated by any reasonable effort, so the
 attempted action is invalid due to unclarity.

 -zefram


It can be evaluated trivially - ask me.

DIS: Re: BUS: This subject is only a subject if it is a subject

[Ed Murphy]

tusho wrote:

 I am drinking coffee.
 
 If the above statement is false, I initiate a criminal CFJ against tusho
 for violating rule 2149 by making a false statement in the message that
 initiated this CFJ.

I'm treating this as not communicating intent with sufficient clarity to
be effective.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: This subject is only a subject if it is a subject

[Elliott Hird]

2008/7/16 Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 I'm treating this as not communicating intent with sufficient clarity to
 be effective.



Want to ask me whether I was drinking coffee?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: This subject is only a subject if it is a subject

[Ed Murphy]

tusho wrote:

 2008/7/16 Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 Elliott Hird wrote:
 If the above statement is false,
 This condition cannot be evaluated by any reasonable effort, so the
 attempted action is invalid due to unclarity.

 -zefram

 
 It can be evaluated trivially - ask me.

All right, I'll bite.  Were you, in fact, drinking coffee at the time
you claimed to be doing so?

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Sgeo]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I agree to the following, known as ??:
 {
 This is a public contract.

 This is a pledge iff it has one party.

 Any person may join or leave this contract by announcement.

 This contract can be amended with 1.0 Agoran Consent.
 }


This doesn't seem to require that the supporters or objectors of an
amendment to this contract be parties to this contract.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Elliott Hird]

2008/7/10 Sgeo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 This doesn't seem to require that the supporters or objectors of an
 amendment to this contract be parties to this contract.


Correct

DIS: Re: BUS: (no subject)

[Ian Kelly]

On 8/6/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: