Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
On 2/17/2019 9:59 PM, James Cook wrote: On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:52, Kerim Aydin wrote: Here are the others since then: > Amended(20) by R2430, 24 May 2017 I don't know what this is - lots of rules have this comment but I can't find the event. It's for cleaning rules. By design, I doubt the change could matter. E.g. this SLR has a version of it: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08000.html Sorry, was unclear there - I meant that a lot of rules in the FLR have a "cleaning event" recorded for 24 May 2017, but I couldn't find message that triggered it. Thanks though - I hadn't searched for "cleanup" specifically. It was a list label reformat: > Amend the following rules by replacing (1), (2), etc. with 1., 2., etc, > and removing one space before wrapped lines to preserve alignment: > “Common Definitions” > “Agoran Satisfaction” > “Determining the Will of Agora"
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
Would also add G as coauthor (thanks for help researching history of the rule) and use the proper handle for ais523 (will double-check with earlier email to make sure I have it right). On Mon., Feb. 18, 2019, 00:58 James Cook On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:08, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 2/17/2019 7:30 PM, James Cook wrote: > > > I'm not familiar with the History of R2124. Do you know which proposal > > > added #4, and whether there were any substantial changes to the rule > > > after that? > > > > This was the change that added it: > > > Amended(19) by P7815 'Agencies' (Alexis, aranea), 28 Oct 2016 > > > > the clause that added it was straightforward: > > > > > Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by adding: > > > (4) if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T > Notice. > > > after bullet (3). > > > > The changes since then are unrelated. > > Thanks for looking into it! > > Also, I just noticed that Rule 1551 (Ratification) talks about "the > gamestate", so now happy with D. Margaux's original approach. > > What would the AI of the proposal have to be? 3.05? > > Latest draft: > > Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 2 > Co-authors: ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk, D. Margaux > Adoption Index: 3.05 > Text: > The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken effect > immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had been > made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of Rule 2124 is now > as described in the amendment, since the Rules are changed by this > proposal as part of the gamestate.) > > The amendment is to replace the text of Rule 2124 with: > > A Supporter of an intent to perform an action is an eligible > entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. > "consent") for an announcement of that intent. An Objector to an > intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly > posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of > that intent. > > The entities eligible to support or object to an intent to perform > an action are, by default, all players, subject to modification by > the document authorizing the dependent action. However, the > previous sentence notwithstanding, the initiator of the intent is > not eligible to support it. > > Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action > unless at least one of the following is true: > > 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and there > are at least N Objectors to that intent. > > 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are > fewer than than N Supporters of that intent. > > 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the > number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N > times the number of Objectors to the intent. > > The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and > an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within > the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent. > > The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent > if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours. > > A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent > before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same > type of response. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:52, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Here are the others since then: > > > Amended(20) by R2430, 24 May 2017 > I don't know what this is - lots of rules have this comment but I can't find > the event. It's for cleaning rules. By design, I doubt the change could matter. E.g. this SLR has a version of it: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08000.html
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:08, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 2/17/2019 7:30 PM, James Cook wrote: > > I'm not familiar with the History of R2124. Do you know which proposal > > added #4, and whether there were any substantial changes to the rule > > after that? > > This was the change that added it: > > Amended(19) by P7815 'Agencies' (Alexis, aranea), 28 Oct 2016 > > the clause that added it was straightforward: > > > Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by adding: > > (4) if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. > > after bullet (3). > > The changes since then are unrelated. Thanks for looking into it! Also, I just noticed that Rule 1551 (Ratification) talks about "the gamestate", so now happy with D. Margaux's original approach. What would the AI of the proposal have to be? 3.05? Latest draft: Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 2 Co-authors: ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk, D. Margaux Adoption Index: 3.05 Text: The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken effect immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had been made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of Rule 2124 is now as described in the amendment, since the Rules are changed by this proposal as part of the gamestate.) The amendment is to replace the text of Rule 2124 with: A Supporter of an intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for an announcement of that intent. An Objector to an intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of that intent. The entities eligible to support or object to an intent to perform an action are, by default, all players, subject to modification by the document authorizing the dependent action. However, the previous sentence notwithstanding, the initiator of the intent is not eligible to support it. Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action unless at least one of the following is true: 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and there are at least N Objectors to that intent. 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are fewer than than N Supporters of that intent. 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N times the number of Objectors to the intent. The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent. The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours. A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same type of response.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
Here are the others since then: > Amended(20) by R2430, 24 May 2017 I don't know what this is - lots of rules have this comment but I can't find the event. > Amended(21) by P8017 'RTRW Cleanups' (Alexis), 06 Mar 2018 Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by replacing "the Executor of the announcement of intent is not eligible" with "the initiator of the intent is not eligible". [This deserves a note: we previously defined the Executor of a message to be the player who sent it, but that definition disappeared at some time. The effect was that if you were acting on behalf of someone else to intend something, you couldn't support the intent. But this wording accomplishes roughly the same effect, since under the old interpretation you could just have the player you acted on behalf of to intend the intent support it, seeing as there was no prohibition on it.] > Amended(22) by P8017 'RTRW Cleanups' (Alexis), 06 Mar 2018 Amend Rules 1728 (Dependent Actions) and 2124, in that order, by replacing each instance of "With N Supporters" (case-insensitive) with "With N Support". On 2/17/2019 9:37 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: This was the change that added it: Amended(19) by P7815 'Agencies' (Alexis, aranea), 28 Oct 2016 the clause that added it was straightforward: Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by adding: (4) if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. after bullet (3). The changes since then are unrelated. For the suggested retroactive "as if the rule had been all the time what we're currently amending it to", any changes in between could be problematic, even those unrelated to (4). Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: This was the change that added it: Amended(19) by P7815 'Agencies' (Alexis, aranea), 28 Oct 2016 the clause that added it was straightforward: Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by adding: (4) if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. after bullet (3). The changes since then are unrelated. For the suggested retroactive "as if the rule had been all the time what we're currently amending it to", any changes in between could be problematic, even those unrelated to (4). Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
On 2/17/2019 7:30 PM, James Cook wrote: I'm not familiar with the History of R2124. Do you know which proposal added #4, and whether there were any substantial changes to the rule after that? This was the change that added it: > Amended(19) by P7815 'Agencies' (Alexis, aranea), 28 Oct 2016 the clause that added it was straightforward: > Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by adding: > (4) if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. > after bullet (3). The changes since then are unrelated.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 01:00, D Margaux wrote: > > On Feb 17, 2019, at 5:11 PM, James Cook wrote: > > Is it easy to make that a separate proposal from my amendment > > proposal? Or is that complicated to do? > > I think it would make the most sense to do it in one proposal if we could, > right? I just thought it would be nice to keep the amendment proposal simple. But now that you mention it, if the retroactive part got delayed for some reason, it could be tricky to reason about the intervening time, which trumps my aesthetic concern. > I’m not sure what the right language would be. Maybe: “The gamestate is > changed as if the Rule amendments in this proposal had taken effect > immediately after the addition of the first paragraph in that Rule that has > the number 4, and as if no further changes had been made to that Rule since.” Thanks for drafting it. I have a few questions: I'm not familiar with the History of R2124. Do you know which proposal added #4, and whether there were any substantial changes to the rule after that? If there were later changes, I think we have to be more careful. If we know the proposal, it would be good to name it specifically. (I'm not sure what the best way to research these is --- e.g. http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/rules_text.txt doesn't seem up to date.) Is there precedent for doing this? Is it clear what "gamestate" is? The Rules refer to some physical entities that a proposal can't control (persons (Rule 869), Fora (Rule 478)) so I worry there's potential for ambiguity about what got changed and what didn't by the proposal. Here's another possible approach. It assuages my own concerns about "gamestate" being vague, but "are considered to have been" might be worse... Any dependent actions that were attempted after Proposal P took effect and before now, and that would have been effective if the amendment in this proposal had been applied immediately after Proposal P, are considered to have been effective for the purposes of the game, to the extent possible: for example, the value of switches, the existence of patent titles, etc, are now what they would have been in the amendment had been applied immediately after Proposal P. > Could we add that to the fix proposal? Happy to add something like that, but would like your thoughts and/or feedback from others. > Not sure if that could break something else though...? Alternative (not serious) proto-proposal: Title: Saving the Game Enact a new power-3 rule with the text: Any player CAN Save a Game Backup by announcement, specifying a set of facts. Any player CAN Load a Game Backup without objection, uniquely specifying a previous backup. Upon doing so, all the facts specified with the backup become true, to the extent possible.
DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: 5. FORCE GAELAN AND ATMUNN TO SUPPORT GROUP-FILED RECONSIDERATION // only works if intents are not broken I intend with 2 support to move to reconsider the above-called CFJ. I cause ATMunn and Gaelan to support that intent. I move to reconsider that CFJ. It may be a bit moot with all the other problems, but I distinctly recall discussing that support cannot be done on behalf because of the "consent" synonym (although was there ever a CFJ?) Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 5:11 PM, James Cook wrote: > > Is it easy to make that a separate proposal from my amendment > proposal? Or is that complicated to do? I think it would make the most sense to do it in one proposal if we could, right? I’m not sure what the right language would be. Maybe: “The gamestate is changed as if the Rule amendments in this proposal had taken effect immediately after the addition of the first paragraph in that Rule that has the number 4, and as if no further changes had been made to that Rule since.” Could we add that to the fix proposal? Not sure if that could break something else though...?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:31 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > I'm not clear how your win attempt relies on it though. I understand that > you've arranged matters so that you only win* if intents are broken (because > otherwise the CFJ is eventually judged DISMISS), but not _why_ you've done > that. If you judged it PARADOXICAL again instead of DISMISS it would be > protected from motions to reconsider (either because these can only be done > once per CFJ, or because intents were broken) and from Moots (either via > Arbitor delays, or because intents were broken), leaving you with an > unpreventable win*. Also, since that works whether or not intents are broken, > you could have done this any time you liked, surely? As that would make the > mousetrap contract the only truly necessary component. I think you’re right about this, but it relies on my abusing the office of Arbitor, and I’ve learned my lesson in that respect. My scam (would have) worked even if I act faithfully as Arbitor. But I messed it up.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 7:34 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:17 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > Yes you did: (1) the power to assign a judge to a CFJ in the same message > > it's initiated; and (2) the power to personally select who judges a CFJ. > > Nope. I didn’t use any Arbitor power. I used the Prime Minister’s cabinet > order of certiorari, which I obtained by getting ATMunn to fall through the > trap door in our contract, or, alternatively, by deputising this week. > > If someone else were Arbitor, I could still use certiorari in the same > message and the scheme would succeed or fail just the same. Ah, I see, I missed that bit. I think you may be splitting hairs though, as you don't _need_ to go through the rigmarole of executive orders - the same effect could easily be obtained just by assigning it to yourself as Arbitor. So a vulnerability exists, I think. > > If my attempt to announce intent for a Moot was successful - there seems to > > be some question about this? - you would also have needed to use (3) the > > power to delay a Moot for up to a week (and/or its resolution for a further > > week). > > Yes, the moot may or may not succeed—regardless of how quickly it is > distributed. The whole idea behind this scheme is that intents (other than > with Notice) might be completely broken. That’s the question in CFJ 3712, > assigned to Trigon. Ah ok, I haven't really been following the intents-being-broken thing. I'm not clear how your win attempt relies on it though. I understand that you've arranged matters so that you only win* if intents are broken (because otherwise the CFJ is eventually judged DISMISS), but not _why_ you've done that. If you judged it PARADOXICAL again instead of DISMISS it would be protected from motions to reconsider (either because these can only be done once per CFJ, or because intents were broken) and from Moots (either via Arbitor delays, or because intents were broken), leaving you with an unpreventable win*. Also, since that works whether or not intents are broken, you could have done this any time you liked, surely? As that would make the mousetrap contract the only truly necessary component. TL;DR: this topic is a source of eternal bafflement to me. -twg * Iff the CFJ weren't invalid for a Win by Paradox in the first place, per Telnaior.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
What about making a safety clause that the caller of a CFJ cannot judge it (all else notwithstanding)? On 2019-02-18 06:17, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: On Sunday, February 17, 2019 2:28 PM, D. Margaux wrote: I purposefully didn’t use any of the powers of the Arbitor for this scam. Yes you did: (1) the power to assign a judge to a CFJ in the same message it's initiated; and (2) the power to personally select who judges a CFJ. Both of these served to prevent anyone who might have given a fair judgement from having a chance to intervene. If my attempt to announce intent for a Moot was successful - there seems to be some question about this? - you would also have needed to use (3) the power to delay a Moot for up to a week (and/or its resolution for a further week). I'm not really expecting you to be impeached; like I said in the original message, I was just throwing out relevant intents to start the 4-day (or 2-day) timers. The point being that someone else who's been paying more attention than me to this topic can do whatever they believe necessary to counterscam without having to delay too long. But saying that the win attempt didn't rely on your position as Arbitor is just plain false - hence the proposal I submitted, which neatly prevents this and all related scams. (Though it may need to be adjusted if temporary deputisation makes it into the ruleset.) -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 15:56 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Ok, are we talking about self-ratifying the fact that a certain Judge > delivered a judgement of FALSE, or self-ratifying a document that > states that the CFJ statement was, in fact, FALSE going forward? (it > sounds like the above discussion is mixing the two). It looks like other people meant it as the first statement here, and I misinterpreted it as the second. I have no objection to ratifying the fact "player A judged CFJ B with the result C", given that that fact has, in general, very little impact on the gamestate. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
On 2/17/2019 3:49 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 15:43 -0800, Aris Merchant wrote: CFJ findings probably should self-ratify, although they doesn’t really do anything. Ruleset self-ratifications are incredibly dangerous (think of all the scares people would try) so we only do them occasionally. We’re about due for one now, as it happens. Patent titles are long term state that we try to keep platonic, so no self ratification. Finding long-term errors is part of the fun. So, basically, there are good reasons for not having them self-ratify for most of them. CFJ findings self-ratifying would be a very major shift in the way Agora has worked for years. I don't think it would necessarily be a bad thing – it'd be a change, or experiment – but it would be a rather fundamental change to one of the rather fundamental parts of Agora. Nomics which do have the equivalent of self-ratifying CFJs typically have some sort of voting process accompanying them. Ok, are we talking about self-ratifying the fact that a certain Judge delivered a judgement of FALSE, or self-ratifying a document that states that the CFJ statement was, in fact, FALSE going forward? (it sounds like the above discussion is mixing the two). The first seems harmless, the second far too dangerous. In my unfinished-project of filling in the missing 2013-2015 judgements in the database, I found (in 2017 I think?) one that had never been delivered, and assigned a very very late judgement of DISMISS.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 3:49 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 15:43 -0800, Aris Merchant wrote: > > CFJ findings probably should self-ratify, although they doesn’t really do > > anything. Ruleset self-ratifications are incredibly dangerous (think of > all > > the scares people would try) so we only do them occasionally. We’re about > > due for one now, as it happens. Patent titles are long term state that we > > try to keep platonic, so no self ratification. Finding long-term errors > is > > part of the fun. So, basically, there are good reasons for not having > them > > self-ratify for most of them. > > CFJ findings self-ratifying would be a very major shift in the way > Agora has worked for years. I don't think it would necessarily be a bad > thing – it'd be a change, or experiment – but it would be a rather > fundamental change to one of the rather fundamental parts of Agora. > Nomics which do have the equivalent of self-ratifying CFJs typically > have some sort of voting process accompanying them. > > It's also worth noting that commonly a CFJ will sometimes find that > something is broken, and suggest fixing it; ratifying the brokenness is > probably not ideal in that situation. > > FWIW, I've thought about this, and my preferred fix is to require CFJ > judges to submit proposals that would, if they had been adopted before > the situation the CFJ is asking about arose, have made the outcome of > the CFJ obvious. That would mean that all relevant precedents would be > in the Ruleset already, without requiring players to know all the > judicial precedent to apply rule 217 correctly. This is similar to > self-ratification but more flexible (you can use your mandated proposal > for a fix rather than for a clarification), less dangerous (as the > rules/gamestate changnes are still going through the normal proposal > process), and more general (it's hard to set up ongoing effects with a > ratification, but a proposal can do it just fine). > > -- > ais523 While what you’re saying is quite interesting, you’re not understanding me correctly. I was suggesting ratifying that the CFJ was judged TRUE, not the actual truth of the statement judged. It wouldn’t have any effect, it would just make sure the historical record of what the final judgement was is clear. The idea of giving CFJ findings binding status fills me with dread. -Aris > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
I'm against ratifying the Patent Titles automatically. It's our historical record and there's no harm in fixing using historical records when needed, and patent titles don't have follow-on effects. That said, it's been ratified about - I dunno - every other year manually. I think Aris's draft of winning reforms had that Notices of Victory self- ratify, that's a good idea, as uncertainty in winning leads to follow-up uncertainty for Speakership, win resets, etc. On 2/17/2019 3:38 PM, Madeline wrote: What if we set up these things to self-ratify after, say, a quarter? That way we know we don't have to dig up years of history if something does go wrong, but we don't run the risk of getting into trouble with something important that just gets missed for a couple of weeks? On 2019-02-18 10:28, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 2/17/2019 2:11 PM, James Cook wrote: Also, isn't most of the game state periodically ratified by official reports? I don't have a firm grasp of what exactly this messes up, and I haven't looked at the public messages much further back than than the date I registered*. The ruleset doesn't self-ratify, that has to be done manually (w/o objection). So if any past intents to clean rules or ratify the ruleset didn't work, the ruleset is different than we think. That's the main one. The "fact that someone won" doesn't ratify (though some of the conditions that determine the win would). Nor do Patent Titles. Since many of the Patent Title awards were made with Consent, and Champion awards fail automatically if someone didn't win, that could take some clean up. Those are the ones I got - any others?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 15:43 -0800, Aris Merchant wrote: > CFJ findings probably should self-ratify, although they doesn’t really do > anything. Ruleset self-ratifications are incredibly dangerous (think of all > the scares people would try) so we only do them occasionally. We’re about > due for one now, as it happens. Patent titles are long term state that we > try to keep platonic, so no self ratification. Finding long-term errors is > part of the fun. So, basically, there are good reasons for not having them > self-ratify for most of them. CFJ findings self-ratifying would be a very major shift in the way Agora has worked for years. I don't think it would necessarily be a bad thing – it'd be a change, or experiment – but it would be a rather fundamental change to one of the rather fundamental parts of Agora. Nomics which do have the equivalent of self-ratifying CFJs typically have some sort of voting process accompanying them. It's also worth noting that commonly a CFJ will sometimes find that something is broken, and suggest fixing it; ratifying the brokenness is probably not ideal in that situation. FWIW, I've thought about this, and my preferred fix is to require CFJ judges to submit proposals that would, if they had been adopted before the situation the CFJ is asking about arose, have made the outcome of the CFJ obvious. That would mean that all relevant precedents would be in the Ruleset already, without requiring players to know all the judicial precedent to apply rule 217 correctly. This is similar to self-ratification but more flexible (you can use your mandated proposal for a fix rather than for a clarification), less dangerous (as the rules/gamestate changnes are still going through the normal proposal process), and more general (it's hard to set up ongoing effects with a ratification, but a proposal can do it just fine). -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 10:38 +1100, Madeline wrote: > What if we set up these things to self-ratify after, say, a quarter? > That way we know we don't have to dig up years of history if > something does go wrong, but we don't run the risk of getting into > trouble with something important that just gets missed for a couple > of weeks? Things like "the published ruleset is ossified and nobody noticed" happen occasionally, I think. (IIRC it was a consequence of a Rulekeepor error, not a broken proposal.) Ruleset ratification is something we used to do every now and then, but it needs a /very/ careful scam/bug sweep, and sometimes a sweep to ensure that proposals were Rulekept correctly. It might be interesting to have an essential/inessential rules split, for which the essential rules were considered to be enough to "reboot" Agora, or fix it in case of emergency, and the inessential rules were everything else. Then we could have periodic ratifications of inessential rules, and apply a very high level of scrutiny to amendments to the essential rules. (Out of interest, would Agora with only power 3+ rules be ossified?) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
CFJ findings probably should self-ratify, although they doesn’t really do anything. Ruleset self-ratifications are incredibly dangerous (think of all the scares people would try) so we only do them occasionally. We’re about due for one now, as it happens. Patent titles are long term state that we try to keep platonic, so no self ratification. Finding long-term errors is part of the fun. So, basically, there are good reasons for not having them self-ratify for most of them. -Aris On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 3:38 PM Madeline wrote: > What if we set up these things to self-ratify after, say, a quarter? > That way we know we don't have to dig up years of history if something > does go wrong, but we don't run the risk of getting into trouble with > something important that just gets missed for a couple of weeks? > > On 2019-02-18 10:28, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On 2/17/2019 2:11 PM, James Cook wrote: > >> Also, isn't most of the game state periodically ratified by official > >> reports? I don't have a firm grasp of what exactly this messes up, and > >> I haven't looked at the public messages much further back than than > >> the date I registered*. > > > > The ruleset doesn't self-ratify, that has to be done manually (w/o > > objection). So if any past intents to clean rules or ratify the ruleset > > didn't work, the ruleset is different than we think. That's the main > > one. > > > > The "fact that someone won" doesn't ratify (though some of the conditions > > that determine the win would). Nor do Patent Titles. Since many of the > > Patent Title awards were made with Consent, and Champion awards fail > > automatically if someone didn't win, that could take some clean up. > > > > Those are the ones I got - any others? > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
What if we set up these things to self-ratify after, say, a quarter? That way we know we don't have to dig up years of history if something does go wrong, but we don't run the risk of getting into trouble with something important that just gets missed for a couple of weeks? On 2019-02-18 10:28, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 2/17/2019 2:11 PM, James Cook wrote: Also, isn't most of the game state periodically ratified by official reports? I don't have a firm grasp of what exactly this messes up, and I haven't looked at the public messages much further back than than the date I registered*. The ruleset doesn't self-ratify, that has to be done manually (w/o objection). So if any past intents to clean rules or ratify the ruleset didn't work, the ruleset is different than we think. That's the main one. The "fact that someone won" doesn't ratify (though some of the conditions that determine the win would). Nor do Patent Titles. Since many of the Patent Title awards were made with Consent, and Champion awards fail automatically if someone didn't win, that could take some clean up. Those are the ones I got - any others?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
Oh! How could I forget in the current scam - whether Moots or Motions for CFJs worked, which might mean original judgements were still in place. On 2/17/2019 3:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 2/17/2019 2:11 PM, James Cook wrote: Also, isn't most of the game state periodically ratified by official reports? I don't have a firm grasp of what exactly this messes up, and I haven't looked at the public messages much further back than than the date I registered*. The ruleset doesn't self-ratify, that has to be done manually (w/o objection). So if any past intents to clean rules or ratify the ruleset didn't work, the ruleset is different than we think. That's the main one. The "fact that someone won" doesn't ratify (though some of the conditions that determine the win would). Nor do Patent Titles. Since many of the Patent Title awards were made with Consent, and Champion awards fail automatically if someone didn't win, that could take some clean up. Those are the ones I got - any others?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
On 2/17/2019 2:11 PM, James Cook wrote: Also, isn't most of the game state periodically ratified by official reports? I don't have a firm grasp of what exactly this messes up, and I haven't looked at the public messages much further back than than the date I registered*. The ruleset doesn't self-ratify, that has to be done manually (w/o objection). So if any past intents to clean rules or ratify the ruleset didn't work, the ruleset is different than we think. That's the main one. The "fact that someone won" doesn't ratify (though some of the conditions that determine the win would). Nor do Patent Titles. Since many of the Patent Title awards were made with Consent, and Champion awards fail automatically if someone didn't win, that could take some clean up. Those are the ones I got - any others?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 14:08, D. Margaux wrote: > Also... if intents are truly broken, that could lead to a lot of havoc in the > gamestate. It would be potentially impossible to sort out. > > Maybe the fix legislation could say something like, “upon enactment of this > proposal, the gamestate is changed to be what it would have been if the list > had always been written the correct way.” Not sure how to make that language > work, but that would be the general idea. > > If it worked right, that would eliminate the below scam and also make sure > nothing else is broken because of this intent issue. Is it easy to make that a separate proposal from my amendment proposal? Or is that complicated to do? Also, isn't most of the game state periodically ratified by official reports? I don't have a firm grasp of what exactly this messes up, and I haven't looked at the public messages much further back than than the date I registered*. *Okay, I'll let it be known that my message with the birthday attempt was in fact the first time I registered. It seems so long ago already...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
On 2019-02-18 09:00, D. Margaux wrote: On Feb 17, 2019, at 4:54 PM, Madeline wrote: Yo, this doesn't get you a win regardless of what follows because the Win by Paradox rule only works for "a CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game action", which this is not. Arg. Well played, Ruleset, well played. The idea, of course, is that CFJs like "this CFJ is false" can just be judged PARADOXICAL and everyone can move on with their day with no problem.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 4:54 PM, Madeline wrote: > > Yo, this doesn't get you a win regardless of what follows because the Win by > Paradox rule only works for "a CFJ about the legality or possibility of a > game action", which this is not. Arg. Well played, Ruleset, well played.
DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
Yo, this doesn't get you a win regardless of what follows because the
Win by Paradox rule only works for "a CFJ about the legality or
possibility of a game action", which this is not.
On 2019-02-18 00:08, D. Margaux wrote:
Intents may be completely broken, and if they are, then that will
eliminate the apathy win I've been angling to get for a while. So, I
think it's only fair to try to run a new scam based on the broken
intents to get a win by paradox...
The CFJ called below will have the judgement PARADOXICAL if intents
(and therefore moots) are broken. If intents aren't broken, then it
will have the judgement DISMISS.
1. AMEND THE LIVING ZOMBIE CONTRACT TO MOUSETRAP GAELAN AND ATMUNN.
The parties to the Living Zombie contract are me, Gaelan and ATMunn.
I can mousetrap them without violating my pledge, because my pledge
has expired.
Pursuant to the Living Zombie contract and CFJ 3689, I amend the text
of the Living Zombie contract by deleting the text enclosed in
parentheses below:
//
The title of this contract is "Living Zombie."
This contract is EFFECTIVE only if D. Margaux and at least one other
player gave consent to it on 31 October 2018; otherwise it is
INEFFECTIVE.
Any party to this contract CAN use this contract to perform one or
more of the actions enclosed in brackets below:
{
(Any party to this contract CAN act on behalf of )D. Margaux( to take any
action on behalf of eir zombie permitted by the Rules,
Any party to this contract) CAN act on behalf of (D. Margaux to support
or object to a dependent action,
)Any party to this contract( CAN act on behalf of D. Margaux to withdraw
or change or cast a vote on an Agoran decision, which D. Margaux SHALL
NOT change).
}
Any party to this contract who attempts to publish a message that
exercises any power granted under this contract SHALL include in the
subject line of the message the word "SPOOKY," or else the attempt is
INEFFECTIVE.
On or after 7 November 2018, D. Margaux CAN terminate this contract by
announcement and CAN amend it by deleting any text enclosed within
brackets above, but not by the addition, substitution, or movement of
any text.
Any player CAN become a party to this contract by announcement.
//
As a result, the contract now reads:
//
The title of this contract is "Living Zombie."
This contract is EFFECTIVE only if D. Margaux and at least one other
player gave consent to it on 31 October 2018; otherwise it is
INEFFECTIVE.
Any party to this contract CAN use this contract to perform one or
more of the actions enclosed in brackets below:
{
D. Margaux CAN act on behalf of Any party to this contract.
}
Any party to this contract who attempts to publish a message that
exercises any power granted under this contract SHALL include in the
subject line of the message the word "SPOOKY," or else the attempt is
INEFFECTIVE.
On or after 7 November 2018, D. Margaux CAN terminate this contract by
announcement and CAN amend it by deleting any text enclosed within
brackets above, but not by the addition, substitution, or movement of
any text.
Any player CAN become a party to this contract by announcement.
//
2. CALL A CFJ
I call the following CFJ: "This CFJ is FALSE."
3. USE CERTIORARI TO ASSIGN IT TO THE PRIME MINISTER
If I am Prime Minister, I issue the cabinet order of certiorari to
assign this CFJ to myself.
If ATMunn is Prime Minister, I use the Living Zombie contract to cause
em to issue the cabinet order of certiorari to assign this CFJ to
emself.
4. JUDGE IT PARADOXICAL
Clearly the above-called CFJ is a paradox.
If I am the judge, I judge it PARADOXICAL, then self-file a motion for
reconsideration, then judge it PARADOXICAL again.
If ATMunn is the judge, I use the Living Zombie contract to cause em
to judge it PARADOXICAL, then cause em to self-file a motion for
reconsideration of that CFJ, then cause em to judge it PARADOXICAL
again.
5. FORCE GAELAN AND ATMUNN TO SUPPORT GROUP-FILED RECONSIDERATION
// only works if intents are not broken
I intend with 2 support to move to reconsider the above-called CFJ. I
cause ATMunn and Gaelan to support that intent. I move to reconsider
that CFJ.
I note that the CFJ is not relevant to the game. Therefore, if I am
the judge, I judge that CFJ DISMISS. If ATMunn is the judge, I use
the Living Zombie contract to cause em to judge that CFJ DISMISS.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
Ah - gotcha. That makes sense. I don't begrudge the win, but you're right, retroactive is pretty much needed here to prevent massive breakages if the whole intent thing has been broken for a while. Retroactive fixes have been used many times when things have turned out to be broken, not just for scams. We used to do them a lot more when self-ratification wasn't a thing. On 2/17/2019 12:09 PM, D. Margaux wrote: On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 2/17/2019 11:48 AM, D. Margaux wrote: Anyhow, I don’t really expect this PARADOXICAL win (if it becomes a win) to be permanent. Why wouldn't it be permanent? Nothing takes away the win once the judgement has been in place for 7 days, even if the judgement is overturned or overruled later. Here’s why: if intents are broken, we really need to fix them. And I _think_ we should fix them in a way that makes them _retroactively_ fixed—i.e., also change the gamestate by proposal so that it conforms to what it _would have been_ if intents had been fixed all along. If we do that, then the paradox win disappears, because the attempt I already made to change the judgement to DISMISS will be made EFFECTIVE retroactively. This idea occurred to me based on what you did, G., years ago when you deregistered everyone and then retroactively patched it. (Spent some time randomly going through the archives a few days ago.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > >> On 2/17/2019 11:48 AM, D. Margaux wrote: >> Anyhow, I don’t really expect this PARADOXICAL win (if it becomes a win) to >> be permanent. > > Why wouldn't it be permanent? Nothing takes away the win once the judgement > has been in place for 7 days, even if the judgement is overturned or > overruled later. Here’s why: if intents are broken, we really need to fix them. And I _think_ we should fix them in a way that makes them _retroactively_ fixed—i.e., also change the gamestate by proposal so that it conforms to what it _would have been_ if intents had been fixed all along. If we do that, then the paradox win disappears, because the attempt I already made to change the judgement to DISMISS will be made EFFECTIVE retroactively. This idea occurred to me based on what you did, G., years ago when you deregistered everyone and then retroactively patched it. (Spent some time randomly going through the archives a few days ago.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
On 2/17/2019 11:48 AM, D. Margaux wrote: Anyhow, I don’t really expect this PARADOXICAL win (if it becomes a win) to be permanent. Why wouldn't it be permanent? Nothing takes away the win once the judgement has been in place for 7 days, even if the judgement is overturned or overruled later.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
I think maybe there is some confusion about how this scheme is meant to operate. Hopefully this clarifies it: The idea here isn’t to abuse the Arbitor’s power to call or assess votes in moots. The idea is to take advantage of the fact that intents might be broken, so it might be _impossible_ to seek group-filed reconsideration or call a moot until intents are fixed by proposal. Indeed, the easy way to counter the scam (if intents _aren’t_ broken) is simply to file a group motion for reconsideration on Saturday, which would break up the 7 days, while also pursuing a moot. Which I’m happy to facilitate as best I can. But that’s basically unnecessary because (1) if it’s possible, then I already achieved that outcome in the original scam message by group-filing reconsideration and assigning the CFJ a judgement of DISMISS; and (2) if it’s impossible, then the scam can’t be countered except by proposal and the judgement will stay PARADOXICAL until a proposal passes to fix intents. Anyhow, I don’t really expect this PARADOXICAL win (if it becomes a win) to be permanent. Either Trigon will decide that intents aren’t broken (in which case, the PARADOXICAL verdict was already changed to DISMISS), or we will need to fix it by proposal, which I think _should_ include a provision to change the gamestate to what it would have been if intents had been fixed all along (so that the PARADOXICAL judgement would go away too). Hope that all makes sense. On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:34 PM, D. Margaux wrote: >> If my attempt to announce intent for a Moot was successful - there seems to >> be some question about this? - you would also have needed to use (3) the >> power to delay a Moot for up to a week (and/or its resolution for a further >> week). > > > Yes, the moot may or may not succeed—regardless of how quickly it is > distributed. The whole idea behind this scheme is that intents (other than > with Notice) might be completely broken. That’s the question in CFJ 3712, > assigned to Trigon. > > If intents _are_ broken, then the moot simply can’t be called by anyone until > it’s fixed (because it requires Agoran Consent). > > If intents _aren’t_ broken, then the last stage of the scam, where I used > reconsideration with 2 support, already changed the verdict to DISMISS—so > there’s no need to moot. > > But as I said, I’m happy to facilitate (and provide support for) any moot > that people want to try.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:17 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Yes you did: (1) the power to assign a judge to a CFJ in the same message > it's initiated; and (2) the power to personally select who judges a CFJ. Nope. I didn’t use any Arbitor power. I used the Prime Minister’s cabinet order of certiorari, which I obtained by getting ATMunn to fall through the trap door in our contract, or, alternatively, by deputising this week. If someone else were Arbitor, I could still use certiorari in the same message and the scheme would succeed or fail just the same. > If my attempt to announce intent for a Moot was successful - there seems to > be some question about this? - you would also have needed to use (3) the > power to delay a Moot for up to a week (and/or its resolution for a further > week). Yes, the moot may or may not succeed—regardless of how quickly it is distributed. The whole idea behind this scheme is that intents (other than with Notice) might be completely broken. That’s the question in CFJ 3712, assigned to Trigon. If intents _are_ broken, then the moot simply can’t be called by anyone until it’s fixed (because it requires Agoran Consent). If intents _aren’t_ broken, then the last stage of the scam, where I used reconsideration with 2 support, already changed the verdict to DISMISS—so there’s no need to moot. But as I said, I’m happy to facilitate (and provide support for) any moot that people want to try.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 2:28 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > I purposefully didn’t use any of the powers of the Arbitor for this scam. Yes you did: (1) the power to assign a judge to a CFJ in the same message it's initiated; and (2) the power to personally select who judges a CFJ. Both of these served to prevent anyone who might have given a fair judgement from having a chance to intervene. If my attempt to announce intent for a Moot was successful - there seems to be some question about this? - you would also have needed to use (3) the power to delay a Moot for up to a week (and/or its resolution for a further week). I'm not really expecting you to be impeached; like I said in the original message, I was just throwing out relevant intents to start the 4-day (or 2-day) timers. The point being that someone else who's been paying more attention than me to this topic can do whatever they believe necessary to counterscam without having to delay too long. But saying that the win attempt didn't rely on your position as Arbitor is just plain false - hence the proposal I submitted, which neatly prevents this and all related scams. (Though it may need to be adjusted if temporary deputisation makes it into the ruleset.) -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 1:08 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > I call the following CFJ: "This CFJ is FALSE." I intend, with 2 support, to enter the judgement of this CFJ into Moot. I intend to deputise for the Arbitor to initiate the Agoran decision to determine public confidence in the judgement of this CFJ. I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to impeach the Arbitor. (no idea how many, if any, of these will stick, or work, or even be a good idea in the first place, but I figure prompt announcements of intent keep our options open) I submit the following proposal: // Title: Forward Logic Preservation Act Adoption index: 1.0 Author: twg Co-authors: Amend Rule 2553, "Win by Paradox", by appending the following text immediately after the second comma: and the case's initiator has not held the office of Arbitor at any point within the last 7 days, and by changing the last occurrence of the phrase "the case's initiator" to the word "e". // -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
Also... if intents are truly broken, that could lead to a lot of havoc in the
gamestate. It would be potentially impossible to sort out.
Maybe the fix legislation could say something like, “upon enactment of this
proposal, the gamestate is changed to be what it would have been if the list
had always been written the correct way.” Not sure how to make that language
work, but that would be the general idea.
If it worked right, that would eliminate the below scam and also make sure
nothing else is broken because of this intent issue.
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 8:08 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> Intents may be completely broken, and if they are, then that will
> eliminate the apathy win I've been angling to get for a while. So, I
> think it's only fair to try to run a new scam based on the broken
> intents to get a win by paradox...
>
> The CFJ called below will have the judgement PARADOXICAL if intents
> (and therefore moots) are broken. If intents aren't broken, then it
> will have the judgement DISMISS.
>
> 1. AMEND THE LIVING ZOMBIE CONTRACT TO MOUSETRAP GAELAN AND ATMUNN.
>
> The parties to the Living Zombie contract are me, Gaelan and ATMunn.
> I can mousetrap them without violating my pledge, because my pledge
> has expired.
>
> Pursuant to the Living Zombie contract and CFJ 3689, I amend the text
> of the Living Zombie contract by deleting the text enclosed in
> parentheses below:
>
> //
>
> The title of this contract is "Living Zombie."
>
> This contract is EFFECTIVE only if D. Margaux and at least one other
> player gave consent to it on 31 October 2018; otherwise it is
> INEFFECTIVE.
>
> Any party to this contract CAN use this contract to perform one or
> more of the actions enclosed in brackets below:
>
> {
>
> (Any party to this contract CAN act on behalf of )D. Margaux( to take any
> action on behalf of eir zombie permitted by the Rules,
>
> Any party to this contract) CAN act on behalf of (D. Margaux to support
> or object to a dependent action,
>
> )Any party to this contract( CAN act on behalf of D. Margaux to withdraw
> or change or cast a vote on an Agoran decision, which D. Margaux SHALL
> NOT change).
>
> }
>
> Any party to this contract who attempts to publish a message that
> exercises any power granted under this contract SHALL include in the
> subject line of the message the word "SPOOKY," or else the attempt is
> INEFFECTIVE.
>
> On or after 7 November 2018, D. Margaux CAN terminate this contract by
> announcement and CAN amend it by deleting any text enclosed within
> brackets above, but not by the addition, substitution, or movement of
> any text.
>
> Any player CAN become a party to this contract by announcement.
>
> //
>
>
>
> As a result, the contract now reads:
>
>
> //
>
> The title of this contract is "Living Zombie."
>
> This contract is EFFECTIVE only if D. Margaux and at least one other
> player gave consent to it on 31 October 2018; otherwise it is
> INEFFECTIVE.
>
> Any party to this contract CAN use this contract to perform one or
> more of the actions enclosed in brackets below:
>
> {
>
> D. Margaux CAN act on behalf of Any party to this contract.
>
> }
>
> Any party to this contract who attempts to publish a message that
> exercises any power granted under this contract SHALL include in the
> subject line of the message the word "SPOOKY," or else the attempt is
> INEFFECTIVE.
>
> On or after 7 November 2018, D. Margaux CAN terminate this contract by
> announcement and CAN amend it by deleting any text enclosed within
> brackets above, but not by the addition, substitution, or movement of
> any text.
>
> Any player CAN become a party to this contract by announcement.
>
> //
>
> 2. CALL A CFJ
>
> I call the following CFJ: "This CFJ is FALSE."
>
> 3. USE CERTIORARI TO ASSIGN IT TO THE PRIME MINISTER
>
> If I am Prime Minister, I issue the cabinet order of certiorari to
> assign this CFJ to myself.
>
> If ATMunn is Prime Minister, I use the Living Zombie contract to cause
> em to issue the cabinet order of certiorari to assign this CFJ to
> emself.
>
> 4. JUDGE IT PARADOXICAL
>
> Clearly the above-called CFJ is a paradox.
>
> If I am the judge, I judge it PARADOXICAL, then self-file a motion for
> reconsideration, then judge it PARADOXICAL again.
>
> If ATMunn is the judge, I use the Living Zombie contract to cause em
> to judge it PARADOXICAL, then cause em to self-file a motion for
> reconsideration of that CFJ, then cause em to judge it PARADOXICAL
> again.
>
> 5. FORCE GAELAN AND ATMUNN TO SUPPORT GROUP-FILED RECONSIDERATION
> // only works if intents are not broken
>
> I intend with 2 support to move to reconsider the above-called CFJ. I
> cause ATMunn and Gaelan to support that intent. I move to reconsider
> that CFJ.
>
> I note that the CFJ is not relevant to the game. Therefore, if I am
> the judge, I judge that CFJ DISMISS. If ATMunn is the judge, I use
> the Living
