DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Register

[mqyhlkahu via agora-discussion]

Hello,

> Under what name do you wish to be known?

Any names listed in set [1] are acceptable.  Please note that the listed names
are _not_ case-insensitive — they are all fully lower-cased, even when they
appear in contexts which would typically require upper-casing or title-casing,
such as at the beginning of a sentence.

   [1]  {
kotnen
mqyhlkahu
truffle
}


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

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to register

[nix via agora-discussion]

On 1/28/24 17:24, Maria Carmela Del Gaudio via agora-business wrote:
> Hello,
> I would like to register, my preferred name is mcdg.
> Many thanks.

Welcome!

By the way, for all new players (or anyone that wants a refresher?),
I've been working on a new beginner's guide. You can see the rough draft
here: https://gist.github.com/nixnull/7926bf2363d9076af6605c10d3eced02

I hope it's useful, and I would love any feedback to make it better!

-- 
nix

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to register to Agora

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 2023-05-18 at 18:49 -0500, blob via agora-discussion wrote:
> I, being the new player, totally agree with this. I would be more than
> willing to put some sort of marker in front of my name, as others in the
> past have done. How should I go about changing my name--or how have others
> in the past done it?

Agora doesn't have an "official" concept of names of players: all
that's required of, e.g. the Registrar, is to track "information
sufficient to identify [...] each player". So a player's name is, in
effect, the sequence of letters that other players generally use when
referring to them, and to change it, you just need to persuade other
players to refer to you in a certain way.

Historically, formatting a name change as an action by announcement,
i.e. "I change my name to …", has normally been enough to cause other
players to start using the new name (except in cases where players
attempted to change their name so often that the other players lost
track), but there's no actual formal process. Typically Agorans are
willing to refer to other players in the way they'd like to be referred
to, within reason (which is why there's a tradition of asking new
players for their preferred name, even though that isn't required by
the rules), so they're generally happy to comply with reasonable
requests to use a different name.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to register to Agora

[blob via agora-discussion]

On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 10:36 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 4:44 AM juan via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
>
> Note that the "free choice" is qualified by the need to "pick em out
> in the full range of Agoran contexts".  The Scroll, in particular, is
> a living document, and the original Blob has several entries - it
> would be equally rude to the original Blob to change eir name notation
> in the Scroll and other historical documents, to disambiguate em from
> an entirely new player.  So we need to balance that, hopefully in a
> friendly way.  I'll also note that the original Blob turned up for
> Agora's 20th anniversary (and earned an Agora XX badge), and there's a
> slight change with the 30th coming up...
>
> Of course, the easiest way to come to consensus (and the nicest, least
> rude solution) is to go by what the person wants.  But in the case
> where it produces a confusing nickname, we can ask (very nicely) the
> new player to choose something that's unambiguous[0]. There's been
> several of those sorts of conversations with new players over the
> years, and in all cases so far the new player has voluntarily modified
> their nickname.  But if e fails to do that, each officer would need to
> come to their own conclusion which could get a little messy.
>

I, being the new player, totally agree with this. I would be more than
willing to put some sort of marker in front of my name, as others in the
past have done. How should I go about changing my name--or how have others
in the past done it?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to register to Agora

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 4:44 AM juan via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-05-17 23:21]:
> > On 5/17/23 20:13, nix via agora-business wrote:
> > > On 5/17/23 19:10, Christian Arguinzoni via agora-business wrote:
> > >> I would like to register for the nomic game Agora. My preferred name is
> > >> blob. Thank you!
> > > Welcome! I grant blob a Welcome Package. This is interesting because
> > > this might be the first time we have a new player with the same name as
> > > a previous player. I'm not sure how best to handle it in historical
> > > documents. Curious what people think?
> > >
> >
> > For more ephemeral reports, I don't think there's a problem. My concerns
> > are the ruleset and the Registrar's monthly, where I would strongly
> > object to using the same name to refer to distinct persons.
>
> I think this is kind of rude… People are free to choose their own names,
> at least in Agora, and I believe its an important principle.

Players are not wholly "free to choose their own" Agoran nicknames.
It comes down to ambiguity in reports - Officers need to note the
person in some way that passes a CFJ/COE test of unambiguity, which
means have something unique for every different person.  Outside of
the reports (like for by announcement actions) if a shortened version
of a nickname (a nickname nickname?) is the same as a former player,
the chance of ambiguity is low, so that might be useable.  A key
finding on nicknames:

CFJ 1361 finding by Judge Steve: "a nickname is a name that a Player
chooses for emself, that can be reliably used to pick em out in the
full range of Agoran contexts. "

Note that the "free choice" is qualified by the need to "pick em out
in the full range of Agoran contexts".  The Scroll, in particular, is
a living document, and the original Blob has several entries - it
would be equally rude to the original Blob to change eir name notation
in the Scroll and other historical documents, to disambiguate em from
an entirely new player.  So we need to balance that, hopefully in a
friendly way.  I'll also note that the original Blob turned up for
Agora's 20th anniversary (and earned an Agora XX badge), and there's a
slight change with the 30th coming up...

Of course, the easiest way to come to consensus (and the nicest, least
rude solution) is to go by what the person wants.  But in the case
where it produces a confusing nickname, we can ask (very nicely) the
new player to choose something that's unambiguous[0]. There's been
several of those sorts of conversations with new players over the
years, and in all cases so far the new player has voluntarily modified
their nickname.  But if e fails to do that, each officer would need to
come to their own conclusion which could get a little messy.

A couple other CFJs where free nickname-choosing was "blocked":

CFJ 1703, judge root: In spite of CFJ 1361, comex's attempt to change
eir nickname to "Murphy" failed (Murphy was a current player, not a
former player), because it did not allow for reliable disambiguation.

CFJ 3467, judge G.:  when a player selected 天火狐 as eir nickname, it
was reasonable/official to use the transliteration Tenhigitsune as the
name in report (note that during deliberations, the transliteration
was made with the player's consent).  For a while, officers varied in
whether they used 天火狐 or Tenhigitsune, and it was generally considered
that either worked.

[0] For a while, we actually had some tighter rules on it, including
"a player SHALL NOT choose a confusing nickname" and "a player SHALL
sign every public message with eir nickname".  This being Agora, this
was seen as thoughtcrime and caused a lot of CFJs as people
purposefully played the Bendyboot Crumpetpatch game of seeing how far
they could twist their nicknames without criming.  And of course, for
new players saying "you just committed a crime because you didn't know
about a player with your nickname ten years ago" was ... not really
welcoming.  Fun times!

Citations:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1361
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1703
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3467

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to register to Agora

[nix via agora-discussion]

On 5/18/23 06:44, juan via agora-discussion wrote:

I think this is kind of rude… People are free to choose their own names,
at least in Agora, and I believe its an important principle.

The problem seems to stem from the way the rules define persons regardless
of their interactions with game state. It's the same issue as when we
suspect two alleged players are actually the same person. I know we must
enforce the at-most-one-player-per-person mechanic, but I also wish
we had better ways of identifying players. Perhaps a combo of name and
email address? With possibilities of announcing changes or aliases?


I agree with this in principle. I suppose a notation could be added to 
registrar monthly and scroll that indicates something like blob{0} and 
blob{1} are different players. That seems like a fairly clean solution 
to that part.


But as ais523 mentioned, this could be more of an issue with just 
regular actions that could reasonably refer to either player. In this 
case that seems unlikely because of the timespan between the two 
players, but it could be an issue if there was a closer timeline, or 
overlap.


--
nix
Prime Minister, Herald

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to register to Agora

[ais523 via agora-discussion]

On Wed, 2023-05-17 at 19:13 -0500, nix via agora-business wrote:
> On 5/17/23 19:10, Christian Arguinzoni via agora-business wrote:
> > I would like to register for the nomic game Agora. My preferred name is
> > blob. Thank you!
> 
> Welcome! I grant blob a Welcome Package. This is interesting because
> this might be the first time we have a new player with the same name as
> a previous player. I'm not sure how best to handle it in historical
> documents. Curious what people think?

I vaguely remember that precedent is along the lines of "a player's
name in Agora is the name that other players use to refer to em". If a
player attempts to select an ambiguous nickname, the resulting name
can't be used to unambiguously refer to em, so it doesn't work as a
name.

If someone posted "Blob" to the mailing lists without clarification,
which person would we take it as referring to? I think it would depend
on context, being an unambiguous reference to the new player in some
contexts, and being ambiguous in others.

As such, I think that anyone who has a duty to identify a *player* can
just use "Blob" unambiguously, whereas anyone who has a duty to
identify a *person* must clarify which "Blob" e is talking about.
Historical documents like the Registrar's and Herald's reports thus
most likely need footnotes to disambiguate.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to register to Agora

[juan via agora-discussion]

Janet Cobb via agora-discussion [2023-05-17 23:21]:
> On 5/17/23 20:13, nix via agora-business wrote:
> > On 5/17/23 19:10, Christian Arguinzoni via agora-business wrote:
> >> I would like to register for the nomic game Agora. My preferred name is
> >> blob. Thank you!
> > Welcome! I grant blob a Welcome Package. This is interesting because
> > this might be the first time we have a new player with the same name as
> > a previous player. I'm not sure how best to handle it in historical
> > documents. Curious what people think?
> >
> 
> For more ephemeral reports, I don't think there's a problem. My concerns
> are the ruleset and the Registrar's monthly, where I would strongly
> object to using the same name to refer to distinct persons.

I think this is kind of rude… People are free to choose their own names,
at least in Agora, and I believe its an important principle.

The problem seems to stem from the way the rules define persons regardless
of their interactions with game state. It's the same issue as when we
suspect two alleged players are actually the same person. I know we must
enforce the at-most-one-player-per-person mechanic, but I also wish
we had better ways of identifying players. Perhaps a combo of name and
email address? With possibilities of announcing changes or aliases?

-- 
juan
Registrar

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to register to Agora

[Janet Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 5/17/23 20:13, nix via agora-business wrote:
> On 5/17/23 19:10, Christian Arguinzoni via agora-business wrote:
>> I would like to register for the nomic game Agora. My preferred name is
>> blob. Thank you!
> Welcome! I grant blob a Welcome Package. This is interesting because
> this might be the first time we have a new player with the same name as
> a previous player. I'm not sure how best to handle it in historical
> documents. Curious what people think?
>

For more ephemeral reports, I don't think there's a problem. My concerns
are the ruleset and the Registrar's monthly, where I would strongly
object to using the same name to refer to distinct persons.

-- 
Janet Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to initiate Registrar election

[Edward Murphy via agora-discussion]

ziproot wrote:


FALSE:  One section of "Performing Tabled Actions" says "A rule
purporting to allow a person to perform a tabled action allows em to do
so by announcement, if, considering only intents for that action/method
combination." Purporting is not defined anywhere, so a common sense
definition is "whose purpose is." The purpose of "The Election Cycle"


According to the Global Overmind, the primary definition of "purport" as
a verb is "appear or claim to be or do something, especially falsely;
profess". Due to Cretans, The Election Cycle does not purport to allow
starting a Registrar election while another one is still ongoing.

I think "purport" came into common Agoran usage in the context of "A
document purporting to be X constitutes a self-ratifying Y". An early
example was X = "'s report", which may self-ratify even if
it turns out that the author didn't hold that office at the time (which
I'm pretty actually happened at least once, prompting the legislation
of the general pre-emptive approach).

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to register

[Falsifian via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Jan 11, 2021 at 04:43:10PM +, unication Smith via agora-business 
wrote:
> I wish to register under the alias “Ubercrow”.

Welcome to Agora!

-- 
Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Begin Nomaoic

[Edward Murphy via agora-discussion]

Cuddlebeam wrote:


(once you have a totally reliable majority cabal, the game is under your
total control anyways, you just monopolize what proposals pass and what not)


Provided that it remains totally reliable, because backstabbing never
ever happens.

Maybe it would lead to less degenerate gameplay if only part of each new
proposal/rule was obfuscated?

  1) Each player submits some salt text (privately, non-functional, some
 reasonable limit on its length) and its hash (publically).

  2) Relevant sections of text are then presented like "[REDACTED, 14
 characters, hash of this text plus 's salt is _]".

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Begin Nomaoic

[Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion]

(once you have a totally reliable majority cabal, the game is under your
total control anyways, you just monopolize what proposals pass and what not)

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 6:18 PM Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> It's not guaranteed if another group does the random roll instead and the
> bonds of a majority cabal aren't strong enough. Although once you have a
> totally reliable cabal that is majority-sized, then yes, it's better to go
> for your option.
>
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 6:14 PM nix via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On 9/2/20 11:10 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> > Having a sole winner doesn't solve the problem imo, you could just
>> > make that one of the team players selected at random achieve a win
>> > (which is quicker than the 2-proposal one and if done, it's too fast
>> > for anything slower to work).
>>
>> Quicker in legal mechanics but sounds a lot more difficult to convince
>> people of. I don't think I'd join a 1 in 4 chance if I was also offered
>> a slightly slower but guaranteed win.
>>
>> --
>> nix
>> Prime Minister, Webmastor
>>
>>
>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Begin Nomaoic

[Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion]

It's not guaranteed if another group does the random roll instead and the
bonds of a majority cabal aren't strong enough. Although once you have a
totally reliable cabal that is majority-sized, then yes, it's better to go
for your option.

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 6:14 PM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 9/2/20 11:10 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > Having a sole winner doesn't solve the problem imo, you could just
> > make that one of the team players selected at random achieve a win
> > (which is quicker than the 2-proposal one and if done, it's too fast
> > for anything slower to work).
>
> Quicker in legal mechanics but sounds a lot more difficult to convince
> people of. I don't think I'd join a 1 in 4 chance if I was also offered
> a slightly slower but guaranteed win.
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Webmastor
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Begin Nomaoic

[nix via agora-discussion]

On 9/2/20 11:10 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Having a sole winner doesn't solve the problem imo, you could just 
> make that one of the team players selected at random achieve a win 
> (which is quicker than the 2-proposal one and if done, it's too fast 
> for anything slower to work).

Quicker in legal mechanics but sounds a lot more difficult to convince 
people of. I don't think I'd join a 1 in 4 chance if I was also offered 
a slightly slower but guaranteed win.

-- 
nix
Prime Minister, Webmastor

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Begin Nomaoic

[Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion]

Having a sole winner doesn't solve the problem imo, you could just make
that one of the team players selected at random achieve a win (which is
quicker than the 2-proposal one and if done, it's too fast for anything
slower to work).

On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 5:07 PM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 9/2/20 9:51 AM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
> >
> > OK, so here's what's going on: I received a proposal along the lines of
> "these players get 100 points. They all win." I won't reveal the names or
> number of these players for obvious reasons, but, at the point when it
> happened, it was exactly enough players to pass a proposal… as long as
> Cuddlebeam's NttPF registration didn't count. To be honest, I'm pretty
> disappointed—it's a very early and unsatisfying end, *and* it relies on
> someone accidentally sending a message NttPF, which IMO is rather
> unsportsmanlike. I have several options in front of me, and I'd like some
> advice on where to go.
> >
> > 1) I could end the game, declaring these players as winners and giving
> up on the tournament. This is the most "technically correct" option, but
> also the most disappointing for me and other people that actually wanted to
> try playing this. But perhaps the fact that this was the first proposal is
> a pretty good indication that the idea wasn't that workable in the first
> place.
> > 2) I could do that, then start another free tournament. If I did so, I'd
> probably add a rule that exactly one player could win—I think the ability
> to declare multiple winners makes a bit of a mess of the incentives in a
> nomic like this. This has the advantage of giving the players their
> (somewhat) deserved win, but gives us another opportunity at actually
> playing this. The disadvantage is that it might cheapen both the tournament
> victory and (through the proliferation of free tournaments) Agoran wins as
> a whole.
> > 3) As above, but with an entirely unofficial tournament, played on DIS
> or on another forum entirely.
> > 4) Find some way to wiggle out of the win, probably by ruling that
> CuddleBeam's registration succeeded. I have fairly large latitude over the
> adjudication of the rules, but even so, this might be a bit of a stretch; I
> think the two options would be to rule that "public" means something other
> than what it means in an Agoran context, or to use my ability to
> arbitrarily reconcile errors made in adjudication (I already recorded
> Cuddlebeam as a player upon eir first registration) to "ratify" the fact
> that Cuddlebeam registered. In some way, this feels like the "fairest"
> option (again, I strongly look down upon abuses of NttPF messages), but it
> is also a fairly significant judicial intervention.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > Gaelan
> >
>
> FWIW we would've just included 1 or 2 more players if we needed to. This
> was pitched as a cut-throat conspiratorial game, so it feels more
> unsportsmanlike to bend the rules to prevent a win than to take
> advantage of an issue in the ruleset to win immediately... I think
> giving the conspirators the win and restarting with a patched ruleset
> makes more sense.
>
> We debated several ways to do this last night, and I think the following
> changes would make a much more robust game:
>
> * A 24/48h delay before turns can begin, which means enough players can
> join to make this less likely.
>
> * Only one person can win, as an immutable rule. This would mean the
> cabal would have to pass 2 separate proposals sequentially to win
> together (a transmutation and then a change like ours), which ups the
> difficulty of coordination quite a lot.
>
> * Possibly delaying voting until the rule is numbered. This doesn't do
> much besides signal to other players that *something* is happening,
> which may encourage them to try to figure it out and counteract faster.
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Webmastor
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Begin Nomaoic

[nix via agora-discussion]

On 9/2/20 9:51 AM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
> 
> OK, so here's what's going on: I received a proposal along the lines of 
> "these players get 100 points. They all win." I won't reveal the names or 
> number of these players for obvious reasons, but, at the point when it 
> happened, it was exactly enough players to pass a proposal… as long as 
> Cuddlebeam's NttPF registration didn't count. To be honest, I'm pretty 
> disappointed—it's a very early and unsatisfying end, *and* it relies on 
> someone accidentally sending a message NttPF, which IMO is rather 
> unsportsmanlike. I have several options in front of me, and I'd like some 
> advice on where to go.
> 
> 1) I could end the game, declaring these players as winners and giving up on 
> the tournament. This is the most "technically correct" option, but also the 
> most disappointing for me and other people that actually wanted to try 
> playing this. But perhaps the fact that this was the first proposal is a 
> pretty good indication that the idea wasn't that workable in the first place.
> 2) I could do that, then start another free tournament. If I did so, I'd 
> probably add a rule that exactly one player could win—I think the ability to 
> declare multiple winners makes a bit of a mess of the incentives in a nomic 
> like this. This has the advantage of giving the players their (somewhat) 
> deserved win, but gives us another opportunity at actually playing this. The 
> disadvantage is that it might cheapen both the tournament victory and 
> (through the proliferation of free tournaments) Agoran wins as a whole.
> 3) As above, but with an entirely unofficial tournament, played on DIS or on 
> another forum entirely.
> 4) Find some way to wiggle out of the win, probably by ruling that 
> CuddleBeam's registration succeeded. I have fairly large latitude over the 
> adjudication of the rules, but even so, this might be a bit of a stretch; I 
> think the two options would be to rule that "public" means something other 
> than what it means in an Agoran context, or to use my ability to arbitrarily 
> reconcile errors made in adjudication (I already recorded Cuddlebeam as a 
> player upon eir first registration) to "ratify" the fact that Cuddlebeam 
> registered. In some way, this feels like the "fairest" option (again, I 
> strongly look down upon abuses of NttPF messages), but it is also a fairly 
> significant judicial intervention.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Gaelan
> 

FWIW we would've just included 1 or 2 more players if we needed to. This 
was pitched as a cut-throat conspiratorial game, so it feels more 
unsportsmanlike to bend the rules to prevent a win than to take 
advantage of an issue in the ruleset to win immediately... I think 
giving the conspirators the win and restarting with a patched ruleset 
makes more sense.

We debated several ways to do this last night, and I think the following 
changes would make a much more robust game:

* A 24/48h delay before turns can begin, which means enough players can 
join to make this less likely.

* Only one person can win, as an immutable rule. This would mean the 
cabal would have to pass 2 separate proposals sequentially to win 
together (a transmutation and then a change like ours), which ups the 
difficulty of coordination quite a lot.

* Possibly delaying voting until the rule is numbered. This doesn't do 
much besides signal to other players that *something* is happening, 
which may encourage them to try to figure it out and counteract faster.

-- 
nix
Prime Minister, Webmastor

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Begin Nomaoic

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Sep 2, 2020, at 3:51 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> OK, so here's what's going on: I received a proposal along the lines of 
> "these players get 100 points. They all win." I won't reveal the names or 
> number of these players for obvious reasons, but, at the point when it 
> happened, it was exactly enough players to pass a proposal… as long as 
> Cuddlebeam's NttPF registration didn't count. To be honest, I'm pretty 
> disappointed—it's a very early and unsatisfying end, *and* it relies on 
> someone accidentally sending a message NttPF, which IMO is rather 
> unsportsmanlike. I have several options in front of me, and I'd like some 
> advice on where to go.
> 
> 1) I could end the game, declaring these players as winners and giving up on 
> the tournament. This is the most "technically correct" option, but also the 
> most disappointing for me and other people that actually wanted to try 
> playing this. But perhaps the fact that this was the first proposal is a 
> pretty good indication that the idea wasn't that workable in the first place.
> 2) I could do that, then start another free tournament. If I did so, I'd 
> probably add a rule that exactly one player could win—I think the ability to 
> declare multiple winners makes a bit of a mess of the incentives in a nomic 
> like this. This has the advantage of giving the players their (somewhat) 
> deserved win, but gives us another opportunity at actually playing this. The 
> disadvantage is that it might cheapen both the tournament victory and 
> (through the proliferation of free tournaments) Agoran wins as a whole.
> 3) As above, but with an entirely unofficial tournament, played on DIS or on 
> another forum entirely.
> 4) Find some way to wiggle out of the win, probably by ruling that 
> CuddleBeam's registration succeeded. I have fairly large latitude over the 
> adjudication of the rules, but even so, this might be a bit of a stretch; I 
> think the two options would be to rule that "public" means something other 
> than what it means in an Agoran context, or to use my ability to arbitrarily 
> reconcile errors made in adjudication (I already recorded Cuddlebeam as a 
> player upon eir first registration) to "ratify" the fact that Cuddlebeam 
> registered. In some way, this feels like the "fairest" option (again, I 
> strongly look down upon abuses of NttPF messages), but it is also a fairly 
> significant judicial intervention.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Gaelan

I should add that this is normally more information about the gamestate than 
I'd reveal, but given that the game might be over anyway, it's kind of moot.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Begin Nomaoic

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

OK, so here's what's going on: I received a proposal along the lines of "these 
players get 100 points. They all win." I won't reveal the names or number of 
these players for obvious reasons, but, at the point when it happened, it was 
exactly enough players to pass a proposal… as long as Cuddlebeam's NttPF 
registration didn't count. To be honest, I'm pretty disappointed—it's a very 
early and unsatisfying end, *and* it relies on someone accidentally sending a 
message NttPF, which IMO is rather unsportsmanlike. I have several options in 
front of me, and I'd like some advice on where to go.

1) I could end the game, declaring these players as winners and giving up on 
the tournament. This is the most "technically correct" option, but also the 
most disappointing for me and other people that actually wanted to try playing 
this. But perhaps the fact that this was the first proposal is a pretty good 
indication that the idea wasn't that workable in the first place.
2) I could do that, then start another free tournament. If I did so, I'd 
probably add a rule that exactly one player could win—I think the ability to 
declare multiple winners makes a bit of a mess of the incentives in a nomic 
like this. This has the advantage of giving the players their (somewhat) 
deserved win, but gives us another opportunity at actually playing this. The 
disadvantage is that it might cheapen both the tournament victory and (through 
the proliferation of free tournaments) Agoran wins as a whole.
3) As above, but with an entirely unofficial tournament, played on DIS or on 
another forum entirely.
4) Find some way to wiggle out of the win, probably by ruling that CuddleBeam's 
registration succeeded. I have fairly large latitude over the adjudication of 
the rules, but even so, this might be a bit of a stretch; I think the two 
options would be to rule that "public" means something other than what it means 
in an Agoran context, or to use my ability to arbitrarily reconcile errors made 
in adjudication (I already recorded Cuddlebeam as a player upon eir first 
registration) to "ratify" the fact that Cuddlebeam registered. In some way, 
this feels like the "fairest" option (again, I strongly look down upon abuses 
of NttPF messages), but it is also a fairly significant judicial intervention.

Thoughts?

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Begin Nomaoic

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 9/1/20 2:51 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote:
> I become a player in Nomaoic. Noting that I'm very open to cabals, feel
> free to email me.


This was NttPF btw.

-- 
Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Begin Nomaoic

[grok via agora-discussion]

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020, 7:33 PM nix via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 9/1/20 7:26 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> >
> > On 9/1/20 2:17 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
> >> I do so.
> >>
> >> Players may register by a public message; after that, they take turns
> (making a proposal and gaining a random number of points) every 24-48 hours
> by privately messaging me. Proposals are Suber-style, so each proposal must
> create, amend, repeal, or transmute exactly one rule. Votes are also by
> private messages to me. (There is no AGAINST vote; proposals pass as soon
> as the required percentage of registered players vote for.) I'll publish
> the hashes of any proposals that I receive, and announce when proposals
> pass, but proposal text and the resulting ruleset are secret. When sending
> proposals, it would be nice if you could include its SHA256 hash, so I can
> ensure that I calculate it the same way you do. There is a mechanism for
> discovering rules; see rule 213. Good luck and have fun!
> >>
> >> Gaelan
> >>
> >
> > I become a player in Nomaoic.
> >
> > --
> > Jason Cobb
> >
>
> I also become a player in Nomaoic.
>
> --
> nix
> Prime Minister, Webmastor
>

i become a player in nomaoic

>

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Begin Nomaoic

[Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion]

I become a player in Nomaoic. Noting that I'm very open to cabals, feel
free to email me.

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 8:25 PM ATMunn via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 9/1/2020 2:17 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Aug 28, 2020, at 6:22 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> I intend, with 2 Consent, to initiate a free tournament with the
> following regulations.
> >>
> >> 1. Gaelan can not win the Tournament, nor become a player within the
> tournament. Gaelan is the Gamemaster and Judge of this Tournament.
> >>
> >> 2. This tournament shall be known as "Nomaoic."
> >>
> >> 3. This Tournament is governed by these regulations and by its rules,
> the initial set of which are included in these regulations; the rules may
> be amended from time to time as specified by the rules themselves. These
> regulations take precedence over the tournament rules; it is IMPOSSIBLE for
> the state of the tournament to change such that the rules claim precedence
> over these regulations. The Gamemaster SHALL abide the tournament rules.
> Tournament players SHOULD do so, but shall not be penalized for failure to
> do so through means external to the tournament.
> >>
> >> 4. The Judge has sole authority to interpret the rules, and shall do so
> in an equitable manner, with emphasis placed on the intent of the clauses
> and the fair treatment of all parties.
> >>
> >> 5. While the tournament is ongoing, any Agoran player may, in
> accordance with the rules of the tournament, become a player within the
> tournament. Any person may cease to be a player within the tournament by
> announcement, rules of the tournament notwithstanding; this does not
> preclude the rules from causing people to cease to be players of the
> tournament
> >>
> >> 6. The Gamemaster shall keep a record of any private information that e
> receives or is required to track through the course of this Tournament.
> Additionally, in any case where e believes the rules are ambiguous or eir
> interpretation of the rules may be controversial, e shall record eir
> interpretation and reasoning.
> >>
> >> 7. Upon the conclusion of the game of Nomaoic (as specified by the
> rules), the Gamemaster SHALL, in a timely fashion, announce this fact and
> publish all records e was required to keep under regulation 6. Provided
> that the identity of the winners(s) was not, directly or indirectly,
> affected by the Gamemaster acting with arbitrary or capricious disregard
> for these regulations or the Tournament rules, e CAN and SHALL, by
> announcement, cause any winners as specified by the rules of the tournament
> to win the tournament.
> >>
> >> 8. In the event that the Gamemaster discovers e has made an error in
> the adjudication of the tournament, e MAY resolve it in any reasonable
> fashion (making changes to the gamestate as necessary), and SHOULD
> (possibly privately) announce the error and resolution to any players
> affected. The Gamemaster MAY, if necessary, reveal small amounts of private
> information in this process.
> >>
> >> 9. The Gamemaster MAY and SHOULD inform players of decisions made while
> adjudicating the tournament, especially when e records an interpretation of
> the rules as required under section 5 or resolves an error under section 8.
> In doing so, the Gamemaster MAY, keeping in mind the best interest
> interests of the game, reveal private information.
> >>
> >> 10. The initial rules of Nomaoic are below: {
> >> Initial Set of Rules
> >> Immutable Rules
> >> 101. All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in
> the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are
> in effect when the tournament begins. The Initial Set consists of Rules
> 101-116 (immutable) and 201-215 (mutable).
> >>
> >> 102. Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's
> are mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted (that is, changed
> from immutable to mutable or vice versa) may be immutable or mutable
> regardless of their numbers, and rules in the Initial Set may be transmuted
> regardless of their numbers.
> >>
> >> 103. A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal,
> or amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of
> an amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable
> rule into a mutable rule or vice versa.
> >>
> >> 104. All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on.
> They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of
> votes.
> >>
> >> 105. Every player is an eligible voter.
> >>
> >> 106. All proposed rule-changes shall be sent to the Gamemaster before
> they are voted on. If they are adopted, they shall guide play in the form
> in which they were voted on.
> >>
> >> 107. No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the
> completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its 

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Begin Nomaoic

[Nathan S via agora-discussion]

On 8/28/2020 10:22 AM, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:

I intend, with 2 Consent, to initiate a free tournament with the following 
regulations.

1. Gaelan can not win the Tournament, nor become a player within the 
tournament. Gaelan is the Gamemaster and Judge of this Tournament.

2. This tournament shall be known as "Nomaoic."

3. This Tournament is governed by these regulations and by its rules, the 
initial set of which are included in these regulations; the rules may be 
amended from time to time as specified by the rules themselves. These 
regulations take precedence over the tournament rules; it is IMPOSSIBLE for the 
state of the tournament to change such that the rules claim precedence over 
these regulations. The Gamemaster SHALL abide the tournament rules. Tournament 
players SHOULD do so, but shall not be penalized for failure to do so through 
means external to the tournament.

4. The Judge has sole authority to interpret the rules, and shall do so in an 
equitable manner, with emphasis placed on the intent of the clauses and the 
fair treatment of all parties.

5. While the tournament is ongoing, any Agoran player may, in accordance with 
the rules of the tournament, become a player within the tournament. Any person 
may cease to be a player within the tournament by announcement, rules of the 
tournament notwithstanding; this does not preclude the rules from causing 
people to cease to be players of the tournament

6. The Gamemaster shall keep a record of any private information that e 
receives or is required to track through the course of this Tournament. 
Additionally, in any case where e believes the rules are ambiguous or eir 
interpretation of the rules may be controversial, e shall record eir 
interpretation and reasoning.

7. Upon the conclusion of the game of Nomaoic (as specified by the rules), the 
Gamemaster SHALL, in a timely fashion, announce this fact and publish all 
records e was required to keep under regulation 6. Provided that the identity 
of the winners(s) was not, directly or indirectly, affected by the Gamemaster 
acting with arbitrary or capricious disregard for these regulations or the 
Tournament rules, e CAN and SHALL, by announcement, cause any winners as 
specified by the rules of the tournament to win the tournament.

8. In the event that the Gamemaster discovers e has made an error in the 
adjudication of the tournament, e MAY resolve it in any reasonable fashion 
(making changes to the gamestate as necessary), and SHOULD (possibly privately) 
announce the error and resolution to any players affected. The Gamemaster MAY, 
if necessary, reveal small amounts of private information in this process.

9. The Gamemaster MAY and SHOULD inform players of decisions made while 
adjudicating the tournament, especially when e records an interpretation of the 
rules as required under section 5 or resolves an error under section 8. In 
doing so, the Gamemaster MAY, keeping in mind the best interest interests of 
the game, reveal private information.

10. The initial rules of Nomaoic are below: {
Initial Set of Rules
Immutable Rules
101. All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form 
in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect 
when the tournament begins. The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-116 
(immutable) and 201-215 (mutable).

102. Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's are 
mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted (that is, changed from 
immutable to mutable or vice versa) may be immutable or mutable regardless of 
their numbers, and rules in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of 
their numbers.

103. A rule-change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or 
amendment of a mutable rule; (2) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of an 
amendment of a mutable rule; or (3) the transmutation of an immutable rule into 
a mutable rule or vice versa.

104. All rule-changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will 
be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes.

105. Every player is an eligible voter.

106. All proposed rule-changes shall be sent to the Gamemaster before they are 
voted on. If they are adopted, they shall guide play in the form in which they 
were voted on.

107. No rule-change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion 
of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. 
No rule-change may have retroactive application.

108. Each proposed rule-change shall be given a number for reference. The 
numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule-change proposed in the proper way 
shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is 
adopted.

If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to 
reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the 
proposal to amend or transmute it. If an 

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Become a Player

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/2/20 7:19 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote:
> Happy birthday, Jason! You've contributed greatly to Agora and it's been
> wonderful to have you. There's a reason you're the current Shogun. :) I
> hope you'll be one of our players long into the future. I grant Jason 3
> coins.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 4:16 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> Think I'm just barely in time for the party?  Happy Agoran birthday Jason
>> and may there be more, I grant you 3 coins.
>>
>> On 6/1/2020 7:33 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>>> On 6/1/19 10:02 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
 I declare my intent to become a Player.

 Jason Cobb
>>>
>>> Well, I suppose it's been a year since I sent the above message. I may
>>> be one year closer to my death, but Agora clearly isn't, given that the
>>> game never ends.
>>>
>>> This has been a great year, and I've had an unreasonable amount of fun
>>> for sending and receiving messages to a mailing list. Thanks to everyone
>>> who has been a player for making this game what it is :).
>>>

Thanks, everyone! :)

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[Jason Cobb]

Well, we have some test cases right now, so someone could CFJ (if nobody 
else does, I will later).


Jason Cobb

On 7/11/19 10:18 AM, James Cook wrote:

On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 at 00:56, Rebecca  wrote:

Does the CHoJ work now btw?

It's unclear, since R2557 may not give a method for levying fines. See
my proposal "Police Power" with Jason Cobb.

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[James Cook]

On Wed, 10 Jul 2019 at 00:56, Rebecca  wrote:
> Does the CHoJ work now btw?

It's unclear, since R2557 may not give a method for levying fines. See
my proposal "Police Power" with Jason Cobb.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Become a Player

[Jason Cobb]

Thanks :)

Jason Cobb


On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 10:30 AM ATMunn  wrote:

> Welcome to Agora, Jason Cobb!
>
> On 6/1/2019 10:02 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > I declare my intent to become a Player.
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Become a Player

[ATMunn]

Welcome to Agora, Jason Cobb!

On 6/1/2019 10:02 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:

I declare my intent to become a Player.

Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent Proposal

[Aris Merchant]

Maybe try “does not appear to have known”? Otherwise, the gamestate depends
on someone’s actual mental state, which is impossible to determine given
the limits of current technology.

-Aris

On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 4:24 PM D. Margaux  wrote:

> Crap.
>
> I withdraw that proposal. I resubmit it with AI = 2 and author D. Margaux.
>
> > On May 26, 2019, at 7:23 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:
> >
> > I don’t think we should be fining people for actions unless they knew or
> should know they are violating the rules (what the criminal law calls a
> “guilty mind”).
> >
> > I submit a proposal:
> >
> > Title: Intent is Important
> >
> > In Rule 2531, in the list that follows this text:
> >
> > “Any attempt to levy a fine is INEFFECTIVE if:”
> >
> > Add the following text as paragraph 3:
> >
> > “(3) the perp did not know and reasonably should not be expected to have
> known that e violated the rules as a result of the action or inaction that
> is the reason for the levy;”
> >
> > And renumber the rest of the list accordingly.
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to clean rules

[Ørjan Johansen]

This needs to be done after the intent fixing proposal passes, anyway, 
since rule changes are explicitly _not_ fixed and this won't be in the 
ruleset that is being ratified.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, James Cook wrote:


On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 00:59, James Cook  wrote:

I intend to clean Rule 2422 by changing "theresult" to "the result",
without objection.
I intend to clean Rule 2532 by changing "Call fo Judgement" to "Call for
Judgement", without objection.


Oops, I let that expire.

I intend to clean Rule 2422 by changing "theresult" to "the result",
without objection.
I intend to clean Rule 2532 by changing "Call fo Judgement" to "Call
for Judgement", without objection.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent (+SPOOKY)

[Gaelan Steele]

I slightly mind, but I probably would have done the same thing so meh. Also, 
come to think of it, I also abused that contract to your detriment, so maybe 
this is just karma. 

Gaelan 

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 3:36 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:
> 
> Good point! Based on his recent hashes, he probably is. Therefore:
> 
> If Aris’s message initiates any Agoran Decisions, then I vote, and I cause L, 
> ATMunn, and Gaelan to vote, for the first of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, Gaelan} which 
> is a valid option.
> 
> Gaelan, I hope you don’t mind my changing your vote for you, but at least I 
> changed it to you...
> 
>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:32 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
>> 
>> Hold on, are we sure G. isn't in on it?
>> 
>> -twg
>> 
>> 
>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:31 PM, D. Margaux  
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Like Gaelan, I do the following, and I cause ATMunn to do the following:
>>> 
>>> -   object to any intents announced in the quoted message.
>>> -   if quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, vote for the first of 
>>> {AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
>>> -   if the quoted message contains an attempt to Ratify Without Objection 
>>> an incorrect document, point a thumb at Aris for the class-8 crime of 
>>> Endorsing Forgery.
>>> 
>>>   If the quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, I cause L to vote 
>>> for the first of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
>>> 
>>> 
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 10:31 PM, Aris Merchant 
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote:
> I give notice that I intend to activate The Protocol, according to the
> timetable specified for activations thereof. (If anyone remembers what 
> this
> means, please contact me rather than trying to block it; we may be able to
> work something out.)
> -Aris
>> 
>> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent (+SPOOKY)

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

I think you need to retract the previous ballots first (though "changing" a 
vote is accepted shorthand)

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:36 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

> Good point! Based on his recent hashes, he probably is. Therefore:
>
> If Aris’s message initiates any Agoran Decisions, then I vote, and I cause L, 
> ATMunn, and Gaelan to vote, for the first of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, Gaelan} which 
> is a valid option.
>
> Gaelan, I hope you don’t mind my changing your vote for you, but at least I 
> changed it to you...
>
> > On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:32 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> > Hold on, are we sure G. isn't in on it?
> > -twg
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> >
> > > On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:31 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com 
> > > wrote:
> > > Like Gaelan, I do the following, and I cause ATMunn to do the following:
> > >
> > > -   object to any intents announced in the quoted message.
> > > -   if quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, vote for the first 
> > > of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
> > > -   if the quoted message contains an attempt to Ratify Without Objection 
> > > an incorrect document, point a thumb at Aris for the class-8 crime of 
> > > Endorsing Forgery.
> > >
> > > If the quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, I cause L to vote 
> > > for the first of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
> > >
> > > > > On Feb 17, 2019, at 10:31 PM, Aris Merchant 
> > > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > I give notice that I intend to activate The Protocol, according to the
> > > > > timetable specified for activations thereof. (If anyone remembers 
> > > > > what this
> > > > > means, please contact me rather than trying to block it; we may be 
> > > > > able to
> > > > > work something out.)
> > > > > -Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent (+SPOOKY)

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

Hold on, are we sure G. isn't in on it?

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:31 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

> Like Gaelan, I do the following, and I cause ATMunn to do the following:
>
> -   object to any intents announced in the quoted message.
> -   if quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, vote for the first of 
> {AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
> -   if the quoted message contains an attempt to Ratify Without Objection an 
> incorrect document, point a thumb at Aris for the class-8 crime of Endorsing 
> Forgery.
>
> If the quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, I cause L to vote 
> for the first of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
>
>
> > > On Feb 17, 2019, at 10:31 PM, Aris Merchant 
> > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I give notice that I intend to activate The Protocol, according to the
> > > timetable specified for activations thereof. (If anyone remembers what 
> > > this
> > > means, please contact me rather than trying to block it; we may be able to
> > > work something out.)
> > > -Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[D. Margaux]

What if we approach this from the other direction—i.e., what kind of a thing 
could this “Protocol” action possibly be?

If this Protocol action isn’t somehow authorized (directly or indirectly) by 
the Rules, then it cannot be used to perform regulated actions and so there’s 
no reason for us to care. 

No Rule creates a Protocol action that can be invoked in this way. 

A proposal cannot continue to have effect after it is adopted, so a proposal 
can’t have created this Protocol action. 

Maybe this Protocol is defined in a contract, but it’s not clear why anyone who 
isn’t a party to that contract should care. As per a recent judgement, 
contracts can’t bind non-parties.

Where does that leave us?

What kind of a thing could this Protocol even be?

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 4:18 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> The closest thing I could find is this:
> 
> 
> 
> which relates to UNDEAD, but to the best of my knowledge Aris registered well 
> after UNDEAD was a major thing.
> 
> My default assumption whenever something like this happens is that whoever's 
> responsible is just trolling, although I concede that isn't very 
> characteristic for Aris.
> 
> ais523 mentioned something about the original definition being NttPF - we've 
> already checked the a-d archives, but maybe there was once something in the 
> IRC channel? Or does anyone know of any other discussion forums that have 
> been active since Aris registered? (Don't have time to look back through old 
> Registrar reports right now.)
> 
> If Aris remembers it but Gaelan doesn't, then the thing that needs 
> remembering must presumably have happened in late 2016 or early 2017, 
> assuming neither of them is being misleading.
> 
> -twg
> 
> 
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:41 AM, Cuddle Beam  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> The Protocol seems like something that could be interacted with but it’s
>> too obscure for uninformed people to properly react to (“if you remember”
>> and whatnot, implying it requires some kind of past knowledge, and there’s
>> nothing on the archives so I have no idea), I did the same lol.
>> 
>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 09:32, Gaelan Steele g...@canishe.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> This is incredibly frustrating. That being said:
>>> I object to any intents announced in the quoted message.
>>> If the quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, I vote for the first
>>> of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
>>> If the quoted message contains an attempt to Ratify Without Objection an
>>> incorrect document, I point my finger at Aris for the class-8 crime of
>>> Endorsing Forgery.
>>> (Honestly, I doubt that any of that did anything. But it was fun to think
>>> through)
>>> Notice of honor:
>>> An extremely begrudging +1 to Aris for this frustrating puzzle
>>> -1 to CuddleBeam for taking the “slang” thing way past when it was funny
>>> Gaelan
>>> 
 On Feb 17, 2019, at 10:31 PM, Aris Merchant <
 thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
 I give notice that I intend to activate The Protocol, according to the
 timetable specified for activations thereof. (If anyone remembers what
 this
 means, please contact me rather than trying to block it; we may be able
 to
 work something out.)
 -Aris
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[D. Margaux]

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 4:18 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> ais523 mentioned something about the original definition being NttPF - we've 
> already checked the a-d archives, but maybe there was once something in the 
> IRC channel? Or does anyone know of any other discussion forums that have 
> been active since Aris registered? (Don't have time to look back through old 
> Registrar reports right now.)

Maybe e meant that the original definition wasn’t even sent to a discussion 
forum, which would be consistent with some sort of UNDEAD-like scam. That would 
be NttPF too.  

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

The closest thing I could find is this:



which relates to UNDEAD, but to the best of my knowledge Aris registered well 
after UNDEAD was a major thing.

My default assumption whenever something like this happens is that whoever's 
responsible is just trolling, although I concede that isn't very characteristic 
for Aris.

ais523 mentioned something about the original definition being NttPF - we've 
already checked the a-d archives, but maybe there was once something in the IRC 
channel? Or does anyone know of any other discussion forums that have been 
active since Aris registered? (Don't have time to look back through old 
Registrar reports right now.)

If Aris remembers it but Gaelan doesn't, then the thing that needs remembering 
must presumably have happened in late 2016 or early 2017, assuming neither of 
them is being misleading.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:41 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> The Protocol seems like something that could be interacted with but it’s
> too obscure for uninformed people to properly react to (“if you remember”
> and whatnot, implying it requires some kind of past knowledge, and there’s
> nothing on the archives so I have no idea), I did the same lol.
>
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 09:32, Gaelan Steele g...@canishe.com wrote:
>
> > This is incredibly frustrating. That being said:
> > I object to any intents announced in the quoted message.
> > If the quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, I vote for the first
> > of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
> > If the quoted message contains an attempt to Ratify Without Objection an
> > incorrect document, I point my finger at Aris for the class-8 crime of
> > Endorsing Forgery.
> > (Honestly, I doubt that any of that did anything. But it was fun to think
> > through)
> > Notice of honor:
> > An extremely begrudging +1 to Aris for this frustrating puzzle
> > -1 to CuddleBeam for taking the “slang” thing way past when it was funny
> > Gaelan
> >
> > > On Feb 17, 2019, at 10:31 PM, Aris Merchant <
> > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I give notice that I intend to activate The Protocol, according to the
> > > timetable specified for activations thereof. (If anyone remembers what
> > > this
> > > means, please contact me rather than trying to block it; we may be able
> > > to
> > > work something out.)
> > > -Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[Cuddle Beam]

The Protocol seems like something that could be interacted with but it’s
too obscure for uninformed people to properly react to (“if you remember”
and whatnot, implying it requires some kind of past knowledge, and there’s
nothing on the archives so I have no idea), I did the same lol.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 09:32, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> This is incredibly frustrating. That being said:
>
> I object to any intents announced in the quoted message.
>
> If the quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, I vote for the first
> of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
>
> If the quoted message contains an attempt to Ratify Without Objection an
> incorrect document, I point my finger at Aris for the class-8 crime of
> Endorsing Forgery.
>
> (Honestly, I doubt that any of that did anything. But it was fun to think
> through)
>
> Notice of honor:
> An extremely begrudging +1 to Aris for this frustrating puzzle
> -1 to CuddleBeam for taking the “slang” thing way past when it was funny
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Feb 17, 2019, at 10:31 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I give notice that I intend to activate The Protocol, according to the
> > timetable specified for activations thereof. (If anyone remembers what
> this
> > means, please contact me rather than trying to block it; we may be able
> to
> > work something out.)
> >
> > -Aris
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:24 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> I hngah 50 coins for Aris Merchant

//
Title: 50 coins
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: CuddleBeam


Aris Merchant

//

-twg

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk]

On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 22:36 -0800, Aris Merchant wrote:
> To be honest, I can’t think of a way to block an activation of The
> Protocol after an intent has been announced. That said, the fact that
> I can’t think of a way to do something doesn’t mean it’s impossible.

Assuming that this is a dependent action, see the penultimate paragraph
of rule 2124. (Note that the Speaker can object repeatedly, as nothing 
prevents you double-objecting to an intent, although the double
objections don't count for any other purpose. I suspect that this was
intentional in the wording of the rule.)

If it isn't a dependent action, it's probably unblockable.

Note that the original definition of the Protocol was NTTPF; this may
have an effect on your plans.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[Aris Merchant]

I promise, I won’t preferentially delay any proposals. If they’re late,
they’ll be late for the sole reason that the entire report is late. That
shouldn’t happpen though, as I have some free time over the next few days.

-Aris

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 9:41 AM D. Margaux  wrote:

> I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposals in the
> proposal pool.
>
> I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposal that I
> submitted today and that was not withdrawn.
>
> (This is merely meant to ensure that I can force my scam proposal to be
> distributed this week, to reduce the chance that anyone could discover it
> or launch a counter-scam. This isn’t meant to be any kind of criticism of
> the commendable job done by our H. Promotor. If this inadvertently violates
> game norms, then I won’t execute either intent.)

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[Ørjan Johansen]

I think you technically cannot force it until just after the Week, because 
you need to wait until the Promotor is late (rule 2160 §3).


Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:

I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposals in the 
proposal pool.


I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposal that I 
submitted today and that was not withdrawn.


(This is merely meant to ensure that I can force my scam proposal to be 
distributed this week, to reduce the chance that anyone could discover 
it or launch a counter-scam. This isn’t meant to be any kind of 
criticism of the commendable job done by our H. Promotor. If this 
inadvertently violates game norms, then I won’t execute either intent.)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[Kerim Aydin]

Huh.  YMMV, but I personally wouldn't consider it rude, especially if you
explained why it was time-sensitive for you (unless you were doing it
every time they were a day late or something).  The whole purpose of
requiring Notice is to give a fair warning.

A specific purpose of deputisation, when started, was to make sure Officers
couldn't stop scams simply by delaying things a few days. The delay would be
a rules violation, but for stopping some scams, that's a minor punishment
that the anti-scammers would forgive easily.  If we expect "honorable" scams
to avoid rules violations, it's not really fair to let the officers on the
other side violate rules to simply run out the clock.

So in these cases, deputisation is a specific gameplay way to force the
issue (sometimes at the cost of revealing plans early of course!)

Of course, 95% of the time it's a way of quickly filling a missing officer's
job when they've been unresponsive for a while, but the 5% shouldn't be
considered verboten IMO.

On 2/5/2019 1:16 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Yikes.

I've been told in the past that forcibly ousting (non-corrupt) officers without 
their consent is considered rude, but if you're willing to wait until the 
weekend I can distribute it for you as a one-off, if Aris hasn't already by 
then.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 5:41 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:


I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposals in the proposal 
pool.

I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposal that I submitted 
today and that was not withdrawn.

(This is merely meant to ensure that I can force my scam proposal to be 
distributed this week, to reduce the chance that anyone could discover it or 
launch a counter-scam. This isn’t meant to be any kind of criticism of the 
commendable job done by our H. Promotor. If this inadvertently violates game 
norms, then I won’t execute either intent.)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[D. Margaux]

In that case I won’t do the deputising then. I guess I’m just overly excited to 
see how the scam plays out. :-)

> On Feb 5, 2019, at 4:16 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> Yikes.
> 
> I've been told in the past that forcibly ousting (non-corrupt) officers 
> without their consent is considered rude, but if you're willing to wait until 
> the weekend I can distribute it for you as a one-off, if Aris hasn't already 
> by then.
> 
> -twg
> 
> 
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 5:41 PM, D. Margaux  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposals in the 
>> proposal pool.
>> 
>> I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposal that I 
>> submitted today and that was not withdrawn.
>> 
>> (This is merely meant to ensure that I can force my scam proposal to be 
>> distributed this week, to reduce the chance that anyone could discover it or 
>> launch a counter-scam. This isn’t meant to be any kind of criticism of the 
>> commendable job done by our H. Promotor. If this inadvertently violates game 
>> norms, then I won’t execute either intent.)
> 
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

Yikes.

I've been told in the past that forcibly ousting (non-corrupt) officers without 
their consent is considered rude, but if you're willing to wait until the 
weekend I can distribute it for you as a one-off, if Aris hasn't already by 
then.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 5:41 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

> I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposals in the proposal 
> pool.
>
> I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposal that I submitted 
> today and that was not withdrawn.
>
> (This is merely meant to ensure that I can force my scam proposal to be 
> distributed this week, to reduce the chance that anyone could discover it or 
> launch a counter-scam. This isn’t meant to be any kind of criticism of the 
> commendable job done by our H. Promotor. If this inadvertently violates game 
> norms, then I won’t execute either intent.)

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[VJ Rada]

Attn ATMunn: Here's o initiating a Surveyor election, nobody has stood
against em.

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> > On Oct 22, 2017, at 12:46 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >
> > I intend, in between 2 and 14 days, to deputize for the positions of
> > Referee and Surveyor, for the purposes of publishing the weekly
> > reports of each of those positions.
>
> I object to the intent to deputize for Surveyor as well, and instead
> initiate an election for that office. I stand for election, and submit the
> following as a campaign proposal:
>
> Title: More Estates
> AI: 2
>
> Create the Estate of Florin and the Estate of Guilder.
>
> (I nearly called the latter Gilead.)
>
> -o
>
>


-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[VJ Rada]

Oh sorry you just thought you needed to pend it. Yeah, Alexis is right,
they're free.

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 1:40 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:

> Uh...players can unilaterally initiate elections for offices they hold.
> That election is initiated.
>
> On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>>
>> > On Oct 24, 2017, at 2:48 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Oct 22, 2017, at 12:46 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I intend, in between 2 and 14 days, to deputize for the positions of
>> >> Referee and Surveyor, for the purposes of publishing the weekly
>> >> reports of each of those positions.
>> >
>> > I object to the intent to deputize for Surveyor as well, and instead
>> initiate an election for that office. I stand for election, and submit the
>> following as a campaign proposal:
>> >
>> > Title: More Estates
>> > AI: 2
>> >
>> >   Create the Estate of Florin and the Estate of Guilder.
>> >
>> > (I nearly called the latter Gilead.)
>>
>> I pend this proposal by paying Agora 1 sh.
>>
>> -o
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[VJ Rada]

Uh...players can unilaterally initiate elections for offices they hold.
That election is initiated.

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> > On Oct 24, 2017, at 2:48 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Oct 22, 2017, at 12:46 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >>
> >> I intend, in between 2 and 14 days, to deputize for the positions of
> >> Referee and Surveyor, for the purposes of publishing the weekly
> >> reports of each of those positions.
> >
> > I object to the intent to deputize for Surveyor as well, and instead
> initiate an election for that office. I stand for election, and submit the
> following as a campaign proposal:
> >
> > Title: More Estates
> > AI: 2
> >
> >   Create the Estate of Florin and the Estate of Guilder.
> >
> > (I nearly called the latter Gilead.)
>
> I pend this proposal by paying Agora 1 sh.
>
> -o
>
>


-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[VJ Rada]

I won't stand for this. (this office! Not "I won't stand for this" as
in "this is unacceptable")

On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:48 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Oct 22, 2017, at 12:46 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> I intend, in between 2 and 14 days, to deputize for the positions of
>> Referee and Surveyor, for the purposes of publishing the weekly
>> reports of each of those positions.
>
> I object to the intent to deputize for Surveyor as well, and instead initiate 
> an election for that office. I stand for election, and submit the following 
> as a campaign proposal:
>
> Title: More Estates
> AI: 2
>
> Create the Estate of Florin and the Estate of Guilder.
>
> (I nearly called the latter Gilead.)
>
> -o
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I would be willing to do secretary.


On 10/22/2017 12:46 AM, VJ Rada wrote:
> I intend, in between 2 and 14 days, to deputize for the positions of
> Referee and Surveyor, for the purposes of publishing the weekly
> reports of each of those positions.
>
> I encourage someone with a stronger heart than me to do the same for 
> secretary.
>




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[Gaelan Steele]

Yeah, I just put out an intent to kill the agency. :)

> On Oct 4, 2017, at 7:14 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 01:13 Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> Get shinies for proposing (and passing) rules that are valid markdown so 
>> that the HLR works better.
> 
> Opposed to this. 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[Alexis Hunt]

On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 at 01:13 Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> Get shinies for proposing (and passing) rules that are valid markdown so
> that the HLR works better.
>

Opposed to this.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[VJ Rada]

"Any protest from anyone about proposing 1 weekly report that contains full
agency texts?  It's not all that long..."

As the superintendant, nope.  Go for it.

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> Get shinies for proposing (and passing) rules that are valid markdown so that 
> the HLR works better.
>
>> On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:05 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>> I intend with 24 Hours notice to destroy the agency MKD. Nobody's ever
>>> used it, and it doesn't seem worth keeping around.
>>
>> I think the Agency reports are out of whack.  A weekly list of names carries
>> very little useful information, and there's so long between full monthly
>> postings it's hard to remember what these Agencies do.
>>
>> Any protest from anyone about proposing 1 weekly report that contains full
>> agency texts?  It's not all that long...
>>
>> -G.
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[Gaelan Steele]

Get shinies for proposing (and passing) rules that are valid markdown so that 
the HLR works better.

> On Oct 3, 2017, at 10:05 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> I intend with 24 Hours notice to destroy the agency MKD. Nobody's ever
>> used it, and it doesn't seem worth keeping around.
> 
> I think the Agency reports are out of whack.  A weekly list of names carries
> very little useful information, and there's so long between full monthly 
> postings it's hard to remember what these Agencies do.
> 
> Any protest from anyone about proposing 1 weekly report that contains full
> agency texts?  It's not all that long...
> 
> -G.
> 
> 
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> I intend with 24 Hours notice to destroy the agency MKD. Nobody's ever
> used it, and it doesn't seem worth keeping around.

I think the Agency reports are out of whack.  A weekly list of names carries
very little useful information, and there's so long between full monthly 
postings it's hard to remember what these Agencies do.

Any protest from anyone about proposing 1 weekly report that contains full
agency texts?  It's not all that long...

-G.

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise

[Owen Jacobson]

On Nov 4, 2016, at 1:47 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> * It’ll take me about that long to get the reports together anyways, and I’d 
> rather not duplicate the effort if someone else is already doing it;

Apparently not.

I have DRAFTS of the two rules-required reports, as well as murphy’s “Bank 
Statement” report: 
https://gist.github.com/ojacobson/50ff89169bd10f0968ee6bf96d5da53c 


Feedback very much wanted.

-o

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Deputise for Promotor

[Eritivus]

I didn't think to actually echo your intent. However, I am ready to
distribute the proposals after ribbons; if you'd like me to do so,
resign.

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Deputise for Promotor

[Eritivus]

I had been planning to send a similar message. Happy to give the office
a shot if neither you nor aranea want it.

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[Benjamin Schultz]

On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I announce that it is my intent, assuming the absence of a trio (or
 greater) of objectors within the defined time period, to cause the
 Mutability Index to have a value of 10.


I will object for something greater than LOLZ.
(NttPF as I am not presently objecting.)
-- 
OscarMeyr

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise

[omd]

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Jonathan Rouillard
jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote:
 If I haven't already voted on these, I vote PRESENT on all of them.

 (I sent a message to the list, but it was down so it told me that it
 would retry automatically. I have no idea if it actually did, so eh.
 =P)

It did.

Incidentally, I forgot to explain that outage.  It was caused by some
dumb on my part:

 I knew about prgmr's long-pending IP address block change months ago, and at
 that time duly set up the server to respond to both IPs and ensured that all
 DNS was updated to point at the new IP.  Or so I thought: I somehow managed
 to pick the *old* IP to set everything to, and now agoranomic is down.

Shouldn't happen again :)

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[Jonatan Kilhamn]

On 31 July 2011 02:18, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
 On 30 July 2011 23:21, woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote:
 I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause the President to deregister.

 I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause the President to withdraw all
 previous support or objection to this intent, and to then support it.

 I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause the President to withdraw all
 previous support or objection to this intent, and to then object to
 it.

I object to both of these.

-Tiger

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[Charles Walker]

On 31 July 2011 01:18, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
 On 30 July 2011 23:21, woggle woggl...@gmail.com wrote:
 I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause the President to deregister.

 I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause the President to withdraw all
 previous support or objection to this intent, and to then support it.

 I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause the President to withdraw all
 previous support or objection to this intent, and to then object to
 it.

  The entities eligible to support or object to a dependent action
  are, by default, all first-class players,

-- 
Charles Walker

DIS: Re: BUS: intent to deputize

[omd]

On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
 I intend to deputize for the Registrar to publish eir weekly report.

Pseudo-CoE: This is too vague.  There are multiple documents that
would satisfy the Registrar's requirement to publish a weekly report.

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deregister

[Sgeo]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Schrodinger's Cat
schrodingers.kat...@gmail.com wrote:
 I object.

 On 12/16/09, Schrodinger's Cat schrodingers.kat...@gmail.com wrote:
 I intend, without objection, to deregister Schrodinger's Cat.

 --
 Sent from my mobile device

 -- Schrodinger's Cat


 --
 Sent from my mobile device

 -- Schrodinger's Cat

Not sure what the point of that was, but there's another
deregistration without objection attempt on you. Also, I could have
phrased that better, probably.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deregister

[Phoenix]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:59 PM, Sgeo sgeos...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Schrodinger's Cat
 schrodingers.kat...@gmail.com wrote:
 I object.

 On 12/16/09, Schrodinger's Cat schrodingers.kat...@gmail.com wrote:
 I intend, without objection, to deregister Schrodinger's Cat.

 --
 Sent from my mobile device

 -- Schrodinger's Cat


 --
 Sent from my mobile device

 -- Schrodinger's Cat

 Not sure what the point of that was, but there's another
 deregistration without objection attempt on you. Also, I could have
 phrased that better, probably.


I'm not sure why I sent the first one, but I know I sent the second
one to undo it.

-- 
-- Phoenix

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to amend FRContest

[Geoffrey Spear]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote:
 7) If this contract is a Champion's Contest, the contestmaster CAN and
    SHALL transfer a medal from the contract to any contestant who has
    won 3 rounds of the Committee since the contract came to possess that
    medal, as soon as possible after the contestant has won the 3rd such
    round.

 Having received no objections (AFAIR), I do so.

Was there ever an intent to actually create a Medal?

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to ditch the Points Party

[Alex Smith]

--- On Wed, 23/9/09, Elliott Hird penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
 You're a damn immoral liar, claiming that your mousetrap
 would only be
 used for that proposal to me.
 
 Shame.
I didn't; I also claimed that I would try to punish players who attempted to 
object by stealing/destroying assets, which is what I'm doing here. I think 
your misquote of me is bordering on illegal.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to ditch the Points Party

[Elliott Hird]

2009/9/23 Alex Smith callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk:
 I didn't; I also claimed that I would try to punish players who attempted to 
 object by stealing/destroying assets, which is what I'm doing here. I think 
 your misquote of me is bordering on illegal.

ais523 I said I'd only use the mousetrap for a dictatorship
proposal, and to punish objectors by stealing/destroying assets
ais523 which is what I did
ehird You did not say that to me.
ais523 I don't have my logs on this computer
ais523 but I'm relatively sure I told you that
ais523 I'll look it up later
ehird If you did I've forgotten. Regardless, such punishment is evil
and insane, and is very dangerous to the game.
ais523 would you prefer me to have been bluffing?
ehird Your position in Agora right now is a crazed dictator that we
have no option of fighting against: the very worst possible type of
scam.
ehird Steal all my assets if you want, I don't have any attachment to them.
ais523 otoh, people are busily trying to fight against it
ehird But I'm going to vote for that proposal (if anyone makes it
distributable).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to ditch the Points Party

[comex]

On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
 2009/9/23 Alex Smith callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk:
 I didn't; I also claimed that I would try to punish players who attempted to 
 object by stealing/destroying assets, which is what I'm doing here. I think 
 your misquote of me is bordering on illegal.

 ais523 I said I'd only use the mousetrap for a dictatorship
 proposal, and to punish objectors by stealing/destroying assets
 ais523 which is what I did
 ehird You did not say that to me.
 ais523 I don't have my logs on this computer
 ais523 but I'm relatively sure I told you that
 ais523 I'll look it up later

How about you actually look it up before accusing ais523 of lying?

You had warning, and ais523 made a clear distinction between Punished
and non-Punished players.  The terminology might be a little
excessive, but you could have avoided it by not objecting.  I'm saying
this as a Punished person-- or, a person who would be Punished if
ais523's scam worked-- if it did work, I got myself into it.  A
dictator stealing everyone's assets might not be in the best spirit of
the game, but it's not really against the spirit either as long as
it's temporary.  If you can poke a hole in eir scam (e.g. prosecute em
for more of eir false intents) do so, otherwise shut up, or don't have
objected.

-- 
-c.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to ditch the Points Party

[Kerim Aydin]

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009, comex wrote:
 On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Elliott Hird
 penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
 2009/9/23 Alex Smith callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk:
 I didn't; I also claimed that I would try to punish players who 
 attempted to object by stealing/destroying assets...

 ais523 I said I'd only use the mousetrap for a dictatorship
 proposal, and to punish objectors by stealing/destroying assets...

 I'm saying
 this as a Punished person-- or, a person who would be Punished if
 ais523's scam worked-- if it did work, I got myself into it.  A
 dictator stealing everyone's assets might not be in the best spirit of
 the game, but it's not really against the spirit either as long as
 it's temporary.  

Interesting tidbit:  when we implemented the modern contracts in 2007,
I remember thinking and perhaps commenting maybe we should make the 
gameplay such that the object of the game is to tie each other into
mutually contradicting contracts and thus force a bad outcome... maybe
make it a win condition.  Never materialized - I think I started a
contest draft - but speaking of spirit, maybe we got that win condition 
(and as an aside, maybe such a far-reaching win should close off the era 
of complex contracts in Agora).

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to ditch the Points Party

[comex]

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 23, 2009, at 1:54 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
(and as an aside, maybe such a far-reaching win should close off the  
era

of complex contracts in Agora).


Only if it works!

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to ditch the Points Party

[Roger Hicks]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 16:57, ais523 callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
 On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 07:04 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
 I retract my proposal Kill it with fire.

 I submit the following proposal, and intend (without objection) to
 make it distributable:

 Proposal:  Kill it with fire
 (AI = 2, II = 0, please)

 Terminate the contract that was known as Points Party at the time this
 proposal was submitted.

 I object.

 If possible (i.e. if one or more of my mousetraps so far have
 succeeded), I act on behalf of Murphy to cause em to destroy all eir
 Distrib-u-matic cards.

Proto: Criminalize Ambiguity
{
Create a new rule with the text:
{{
Knowingly compounding an ambiguous gamestate is the class 4 crime of
Muddying the Waters.
}}
}

BobTHJ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to ditch the Points Party

[Pavitra]

Roger Hicks wrote:
 Proto: Criminalize Ambiguity
 {
 Create a new rule with the text:
 {{
 Knowingly compounding an ambiguous gamestate is the class 4 crime of
 Muddying the Waters.
 }}
 }

Criminality dependent on intent is almost, but not quite, as bad as
gamestate ambiguity, and for not entirely unrelated reasons.

I suggest making compounding ambiguity the Class-2 crime of Muddying the
Waters, and deliberately compounding ambiguity the Class-6 crime of
Schroedinnanigans.

Then we have a non-intent based slap on the wrist to remind people to
behave or to be more careful, and a more serious punishment in reserve
for if someone flagrantly abuses ambiguity.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to ditch the Points Party

[Pavitra]

ais523 wrote:
 On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 07:04 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote: 
 I retract my proposal Kill it with fire.
 
 I submit the following proposal, and intend (without objection) to
 make it distributable:
 
 Proposal:  Kill it with fire
 (AI = 2, II = 0, please)
 
 Terminate the contract that was known as Points Party at the time this
 proposal was submitted.
 
 I object.
 
 If possible (i.e. if one or more of my mousetraps so far have
 succeeded), I act on behalf of Murphy to cause em to destroy all eir
 Distrib-u-matic cards.

Bad form. Even if objecting to the intent was necessary, conditionally
destroying the cards compounds gamestate ambiguity needlessly.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent, NoV

[Ed Murphy]

coppro wrote:

 I spend an Absolve-o-matic (sp) to destroy a Rest in my own possession.
 
 TTttPF

As a few of us have recently found out, Absolv-o-Matic is ineffective
because its rule has too low Power to satisfy securing of Rest changes.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent, NoV

[Sean Hunt]

Ed Murphy wrote:
 coppro wrote:
 
 I spend an Absolve-o-matic (sp) to destroy a Rest in my own possession.
 TTttPF
 
 As a few of us have recently found out, Absolv-o-Matic is ineffective
 because its rule has too low Power to satisfy securing of Rest changes.
Oh, wonderful :/

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent, NoV

[ais523]

On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 23:55 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote:
 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
  I intend to deputize for the IADoP to initiate an election for Rulekeepor.
  
  I publish an NoV alleging that coppro violated R2217, a Power 1 rule,
  by failing to initiate an election for Rulekeepor within 1 week of the
  office ceasing to have an active holder.
 I cause this NoV to become Closed.
 
 I spend an Absolve-o-matic (sp) to destroy a Rest in my own possession.

Fails, Absolve-o-matics are broken atm.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent, NoV

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote:
 Fails, Absolve-o-matics are broken atm.

 --
 ais523

I think quorum is such that you could fix it personally by voting FOR
6409 right now (and if you feel like it, 6407-6408 are also straightforward
fixes).  -G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent, NoV

[Geoffrey Spear]

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:

 On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote:
 Fails, Absolve-o-matics are broken atm.

 --
 ais523

 I think quorum is such that you could fix it personally by voting FOR
 6409 right now (and if you feel like it, 6407-6408 are also straightforward
 fixes).  -G.

I only count 17 eligible voters on these anyway: ais523, BobTHJ,
C-walker, coppro, ehird, G., Murphy, Pavitra, pikhq, Rodlen, Sgeo,
Siege, Taral, teucer, woggle, Wooble, zeckalpha.  Quorum was 6, and my
votes to the PF were never counted so it's possible the voting period
wasn't even extended.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent, NoV

[Ed Murphy]

Wooble wrote:

 On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Kerim Aydinke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
 On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, ais523 wrote:
 Fails, Absolve-o-matics are broken atm.

 --
 ais523
 I think quorum is such that you could fix it personally by voting FOR
 6409 right now (and if you feel like it, 6407-6408 are also straightforward
 fixes).  -G.
 
 I only count 17 eligible voters on these anyway: ais523, BobTHJ,
 C-walker, coppro, ehird, G., Murphy, Pavitra, pikhq, Rodlen, Sgeo,
 Siege, Taral, teucer, woggle, Wooble, zeckalpha.  Quorum was 6, and my
 votes to the PF were never counted so it's possible the voting period
 wasn't even extended.

The Assessor DB does not track past registration or activity history,
it estimates quorum based on current state (and warns that it may be
wrong); this is usually not an issue because quorum is usually exceeded
by a comfortable margin.  I may rewrite it properly as a Django exercise
if I ever get a new server.

DIS: Re: BUS: intent, NoV

[Sean Hunt]

Geoffrey Spear wrote:
 I intend to deputize for the IADoP to initiate an election for Rulekeepor.
 
 I publish an NoV alleging that coppro violated R2217, a Power 1 rule,
 by failing to initiate an election for Rulekeepor within 1 week of the
 office ceasing to have an active holder.
I cause this NoV to become Closed.

I spend an Absolve-o-matic (sp) to destroy a Rest in my own possession.

DIS: Re: BUS: intent

[Roger Hicks]

On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 09:02, Geoffrey Speargeoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
 I intend to deputise for the Insulator to make initial deals from the
 Deck of Justice.

That's what I get for not re-reading the adopted proposal. I forgot
this was my job. Deals coming up.

BobTHJ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent to deputise

[Benjamin Schultz]

On May 30, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:


Geoffrey Spear wrote:

I intend to deputise for the Herald to announce that OscarMeyr became
Speaker on 20 May 2009.

Oscar, or anyone deputizing if Oscar fails to do so: I believe the




Respectfully, my nickname is OscarMeyr, not Oscar.  Take a good look  
at my .sig file for a hint as to where this comes from.

-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent to deputise

[Sean Hunt]

Benjamin Schultz wrote:
 On May 30, 2009, at 1:48 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
 
 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
 I intend to deputise for the Herald to announce that OscarMeyr became
 Speaker on 20 May 2009.
 Oscar, or anyone deputizing if Oscar fails to do so: I believe the

 
 
 Respectfully, my nickname is OscarMeyr, not Oscar.  Take a good look at
 my .sig file for a hint as to where this comes from.

All right, I will refrain from abbreviating you as Oscar in the future.

Now, are you going to assign Prerogatives or let the rest of us fight
over it (not that it wouldn't be funny)?

DIS: Re: BUS: intent to deputise

[Sean Hunt]

Geoffrey Spear wrote:
 I intend to deputise for the Herald to announce that OscarMeyr became
 Speaker on 20 May 2009.
Oscar, or anyone deputizing if Oscar fails to do so: I believe the
current MWoPs are myself, ais523, root, yourself, and Wooble. Note that
Canada being awarded MWoP will not change this; it will subsequently
lose the title due to not being a player.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent to deputise

[Sean Hunt]

Sean Hunt wrote:
 Geoffrey Spear wrote:
 I intend to deputise for the Herald to announce that OscarMeyr became
 Speaker on 20 May 2009.
 Oscar, or anyone deputizing if Oscar fails to do so: I believe the
 current MWoPs are myself, ais523, root, yourself, and Wooble. Note that
 Canada being awarded MWoP will not change this; it will subsequently
 lose the title due to not being a player.
Correction: root will lose it, not Canada. OscarMeyr will still remain
Speaker.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent to deputise

[Aaron Goldfein]

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:

 at OscarMeyr became
  Speaker on 20 May 2009.


Canada is a player, and an active one at that.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: intent to deputise

[comex]

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Sean Hunt ride...@gmail.com wrote:

 at OscarMeyr became
  Speaker on 20 May 2009.

 Canada is a player, and an active one at that.

It is a person; I'm not aware of it ever becoming a player.

DIS: Re: BUS: intent to deputise

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 30 May 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
 I intend to deputise for the Herald to announce that OscarMeyr became
 Speaker on 20 May 2009.

Oh sorry is that a duty now?  Missed that.  I'll announce it tomorrow
when I catch up with records.  -G.

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to award patent titles

[Ed Murphy]

Wooble wrote:

 I award myself the patent title Champion for my win by Championship.
 I award myself the patent title Champion for my win by High Score.

In the interest of maintaining the Hall of Fame's historical
records (and my not having to hunt through the archives again),
what was the nature of the scam (if any) behind these wins?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to award patent titles

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2009-05-22 at 12:25 -0700, Ed Murphy wrote:
 Wooble wrote:
 
  I award myself the patent title Champion for my win by Championship.
  I award myself the patent title Champion for my win by High Score.
 
 In the interest of maintaining the Hall of Fame's historical
 records (and my not having to hunt through the archives again),
 what was the nature of the scam (if any) behind these wins?

High Score was legitimate. Championship was a joint scam between me,
Wooble, and BobTHJ; it was done via retracting objections after the time
delay on being able to resolve had expired to force through a
without-two-objections intent that everyone thought had already failed.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to award patent titles

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 21:52 -0400, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
 On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Geoffrey Spear geoffsp...@gmail.com wrote:
  I award myself the patent title Champion for my win by Championship.
  I award myself the patent title Champion for my win by High Score.
  I award myself the patent title Minister Without Portfolio.
  I award myself an Ultraviolet ribbon.
 
 In case the quoting wasn't sufficient, I do the above by deputising
 for the Herald to do so.

The Herald isn't obligated to give you an ultraviolet ribbon. You'll
have to do that bit yourself.

-- 
ais523

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to clean up contracts from November and early December

[Ed Murphy]

Sgeo wrote:
 On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I wrote:

 Wed  5 Nov 00:58:13  P1 and P2 amended; P3 through P100 come and go
 In case the previous message was ineffective:

 [snip the murders of partnerships P1-P100]
 
 I CFJ on the statement: P17 has the Patent Title of Left in a Huff
 Arguments: R649 talks about awarding persons patent titles, but then
 does seem to imply that non-person entities can hold patent titles.

Gratuituous:  CFJs 1862 and 2093.  Unless something relevant has
changed since then, FALSE.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to clean up contracts from November and early December

[Sgeo]

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Sgeo wrote:
 On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 9:12 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I wrote:

 Wed  5 Nov 00:58:13  P1 and P2 amended; P3 through P100 come and go
 In case the previous message was ineffective:

 [snip the murders of partnerships P1-P100]

 I CFJ on the statement: P17 has the Patent Title of Left in a Huff
 Arguments: R649 talks about awarding persons patent titles, but then
 does seem to imply that non-person entities can hold patent titles.

 Gratuituous:  CFJs 1862 and 2093.  Unless something relevant has
 changed since then, FALSE.

Gratuituous: Proposal 5412 changed a lot of instances of person with
entity, but not the instance referred to in CFJ 1862. Proposal 5437
did not change any part of the rule relevant to this discussion.

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to clean up contracts from November and early December

[Elliott Hird]

On 8 Dec 2008, at 02:09, Ed Murphy wrote:




Sun 16 Nov 00:52:20  Unnamed pledge created by ehird


I pledge not to redeem USD Vouchers specifying warrigal.


Having received no objection, I terminate this contract.


This pledge did not exist. It did not identify itself as
public.

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to clean up contracts from November and early December

[Warrigal]

 Tue  2 Dec 23:27:07  Unnamed pledge created by Warrigal
 I publicly pledge that if I get elected, I'll sort this out so that
 harblcat, Siege and Charles get an equal chance.

 Having received no objection, I terminate this contract.

This is also a Grand Poobah pledge, isn't it?

--Warrigal

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to register

[Benjamin Schultz]

On Nov 28, 2008, at 4:50 AM, Chris Blair wrote:


I, harblcat, hereby announce my registration.
---
I hope to have fun.



Welcome to the game, harblcat!
-
Benjamin Schultz KE3OM
OscarMeyr
{{welcome-tiny}}

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to appeal

[Elliott Hird]

On 28 Nov 2008, at 19:31, comex wrote:

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Geoffrey Spear  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I intend, with 2 support, to appeal the judgement on sentencing in  
CFJ

2273.  CHOKEY is far too lenient.


Support.


I support and appeal it.

If comex gets EXILED, cantus cygneus for me.

Agora hates scams.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise

[Taral]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I accept this nomination.  I also predict that Taral will decline (or
 at least not accept) eirs, as IIRC e ran away screaming the last time
 e was so nominated.

Eh, if Murphy wants it, e can have it. Murphy?

-- 
Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you.
-- Unknown

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise

[Ed Murphy]

Taral wrote:

 On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I accept this nomination.  I also predict that Taral will decline (or
 at least not accept) eirs, as IIRC e ran away screaming the last time
 e was so nominated.
 
 Eh, if Murphy wants it, e can have it. Murphy?

Sure.  CotC duties remain nowhere near as onerous as (say) high-velocity
asset recordkeeping, I just need to actually get around to it regularly.

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to deputise

[Ian Kelly]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Alex Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I intend to deputise for the CotC to:
  * Recuse the appeals panel on CFJ 2213a
  * Recuse the appeals panel on CFJ 2203a
  * Recuse the appeals panel on CFJ 2172a

 I note that the CotC is very nearly overdue on one of these recusals,
 and am getting the intent in for the other two in sufficient time to be
 able to deputise relatively soon; an appeals case being held up for 14
 days is not in the best interests of Agora.

In 2213a, the intended judgement seems rather uncontroversial.  It
would probably be better if the CotC would just support the intent in
lieu of Sir Toby.

-root