DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Assessor's Voting Limits Report The Assessor no longer tracks voting limits; most of this document isn't part of the Assessor's report and should be ignored if this is ratified.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits
On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Assessor's Voting Limits Report The Assessor no longer tracks voting limits; most of this document isn't part of the Assessor's report and should be ignored if this is ratified. It doesn't matter, actually: the scope of a ratification gets put into the next report, but has no other effect. Instead, the gamestate is unilaterally modified so the document was completely true and accurate, regardless of whether it contains 'irerlevant' information.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits, Voting Credits, and Marks Report
On Dec 16, 2007 7:26 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Party First-class members Second-class members -- Red Murphy Green Levi, OscarMeyr, Peekee,Human Point Two Zefram Blue bd_, BobTHJ, Eris, Pineapple Partnership Goethe, pikhq, root, Wooble White avpx, hedgehogcull Gray comex, Pavitra AFO, Big Brother, Fookiemyartug I believe that I should be in the White party, unless I'm missing something. Also, I should have my votes up and what not. I plan on being more active than I am now, I'm just not used to playing something by e-mail that's this active, so all the e-mails are a little overwhelming. -- -Iammars www.jmcteague.com
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits, Voting Credits, and Marks Report
On Sunday 16 December 2007 21:09:09 Iammars wrote: On Dec 16, 2007 7:26 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Party First-class members Second-class members -- Red Murphy Green Levi, OscarMeyr, Peekee,Human Point Two Zefram Blue bd_, BobTHJ, Eris, Pineapple Partnership Goethe, pikhq, root, Wooble White avpx, hedgehogcull Gray comex, Pavitra AFO, Big Brother, Fookiemyartug I believe that I should be in the White party, unless I'm missing something. Also, I should have my votes up and what not. I plan on being more active than I am now, I'm just not used to playing something by e-mail that's this active, so all the e-mails are a little overwhelming. -- -Iammars www.jmcteague.com See B Nomic in emergency. Now *that's* overwhelming.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits, Voting Credits, and Marks Report
pikhq wrote: See B Nomic in emergency. Now *that's* overwhelming. Someone familiar with more nomics (BobTHJ?) might be able to get a thesis out of this. It was pointed out that Agoran culture tends toward creating single test cases with minimal knock-on results, while B culture tends toward wild experimentation (to the point that it has a standing rule for freezing and repairing the gamestate whenever enough players decide it's become broken). The FRC is an interesting hybrid. The fantasy rules are explicitly designed to be wiped whenever the players run out of steam for extending them, while the regular ordinances are largely static in practice.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits, Voting Credits, and Marks Report
On Sun, 16 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote: It was pointed out that Agoran culture tends toward creating single test cases with minimal knock-on results, while B culture tends toward wild experimentation I remember, when hatching the town fountain (mixed metaphor there), being told by my initial co-conspirators that they would refuse to participate if I did anything more than make a non-effective rule monument (I'd wanted to actually change a few things before giving up power). Watching B-nomic for the last month, I'm newly appreciative of Agora. -Goethe
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
On Sep 30, 2007, at 1:24 PM, Ian Kelly wrote: On 9/30/07, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe 23 Jan 96 - 24 Sep 07 would be most accurate. I think the 15 July 2000 - 24 Sep 2007 registration is ALSO correct, due to the Annabel project (scam? goof?). How is that? Annabel was Maud's creation, not Murphy's. -root That being the case, I have no idea where the multiple lines on Murphy's registration history came from. - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
On Sep 26, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: root wrote: By the way, Murphy, could you please clear up your registration history for me? The registrar's report currently lists the following entries for you: Murphy 28 Jan 96 97 v Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23 Jan 96 24 Sep 07 v Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]1 Feb 96 24 Sep 07 v Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] 15 Jul 00 24 Sep 07 Clearly those cannot all be correct. I believe 23 Jan 96 - 24 Sep 07 would be most accurate. I think the 15 July 2000 - 24 Sep 2007 registration is ALSO correct, due to the Annabel project (scam? goof?). - Benjamin Schultz KE3OM OscarMeyr, cleaning out old archives.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
On 9/30/07, Benjamin Schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I believe 23 Jan 96 - 24 Sep 07 would be most accurate. I think the 15 July 2000 - 24 Sep 2007 registration is ALSO correct, due to the Annabel project (scam? goof?). How is that? Annabel was Maud's creation, not Murphy's. -root
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
On 9/23/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My secondary reason for deregistering was to let First Speaker Michael keep the record for longest continuous registration. By the way, Murphy, could you please clear up your registration history for me? The registrar's report currently lists the following entries for you: Murphy 28 Jan 96 97 v Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23 Jan 96 24 Sep 07 v Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]1 Feb 96 24 Sep 07 v Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] 15 Jul 00 24 Sep 07 Clearly those cannot all be correct. -root
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
root wrote: On 9/23/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My secondary reason for deregistering was to let First Speaker Michael keep the record for longest continuous registration. By the way, Murphy, could you please clear up your registration history for me? The registrar's report currently lists the following entries for you: Murphy 28 Jan 96 97 v Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] 23 Jan 96 24 Sep 07 v Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED]1 Feb 96 24 Sep 07 v Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] 15 Jul 00 24 Sep 07 Clearly those cannot all be correct. I believe 23 Jan 96 - 24 Sep 07 would be most accurate. From Vanyel's CFJ archives, I was assigned to CFJ 839 (Tue 23 Jan 96 12:50 MET) CFJ 847 (Tue 23 Jan 96 12:55 MET) CFJ 847 was one of several CFJs hinging on whether Morendil was able to invoke the deregister rather than continue to play clause retroactively, hence whether e or Steve was Speaker). This issue, and specifically my being assigned to judge one of the CFJs on it, is my earliest clear memory of Agora. I think I was registered continuously throughout 1997. Multiple archives (Zefram's rules, Steve's [?] CFJs, the AWJ) support this. According to the AWJ, Oerjan registered on 15 July 2000 (the report mis-reports this as ~ Apr 96), while nothing relevant to registration happened to me. I suspect that a past Registrar got the two of us mixed up, somehow. The current players section should also include Zefram's registration from 1995. Blob's deregistration in 1997 can be narrowed down to some time before eir re-registration on 11/20/97. Similarly for Morendil, 1997, 11/3/97. Per the CFJ archive, Doug was eligible to judge on 12 Apr 96, so eir deregistration was 13 Apr 96 and not 25 Mar 96. Manu's deregistration is not listed in the Left in 2003 section. GreyKnight did not deregister on 2/7/07 (CFJ 1621). AC is a duplicate of (Alex) Coco. Gecko is a duplicate of Wes. A bunch of the old fuzzy dates can be narrowed down based on the CFJ archive (many of the messages include a full list of players and their eligibility status), but doing it correctly would take a lot of effort that probably isn't worth the bother.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
Eris wrote: On 9/23/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Goddess Eris 1 5 5 1R 2B I should have 1 black VC, no? You're right; your judgement on culpability was late, but your judgement on sentencing wasn't (the ASAP timer didn't start ticking until your judgement on culpability was delivered).
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
On 9/23/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eris wrote: On 9/23/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Goddess Eris 1 5 5 1R 2B I should have 1 black VC, no? You're right; your judgement on culpability was late, but your judgement on sentencing wasn't (the ASAP timer didn't start ticking until your judgement on culpability was delivered). My judgement on culpability was late? I though I had to wait out the pre-judgement period. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you. -- Unknown
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
Taral wrote: My judgement on culpability was late? I though I had to wait out the pre-judgement period. You are correct. You were not late. -zefram
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
On Sunday 23 September 2007 22:05:21 Ed Murphy wrote: I cause the AFO to publish the following. You can't do that, having both deregistered and left the AFO. . . Wait, never mind. You've not left the AFO, merely Human Point Two. Peekee and pikhq belonged to the Gray Party. Wrong. By Rule 2126, I gained one white VC upon becoming a player for the first time, which happened quite recently. Thus, by Rule 2155, I am of the White Party, not the Gray Party. Finally, why in the world did you deregister and leave Human Point Two? pikhq
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
Rule 1551 says, in part: When a document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or overlooked, or change the legality of any attempted action. The recently ratified Assessor's Report lists two dependencies on CFJ 1688 in the history (left untouched by the second sentence of the above excerpt), but not in the totals (which may or may not be affected by the first sentence): 1) My VCs. Totals are not in question, as I spent myself down to zero on May 31 either way. 2) Human Point Two's (V,E)VLOP. Total would be 10 if CFJ 1688 is judged TRUE, 8 if it is judged FALSE. If CFJ 1688 is judged FALSE, then I'll likely CFJ on the following: * Human Point Two's VLOP increased from 0 to 10 between May 30 and June 2. * Human Point Two's EVLOP is 10. I recommend a proposal to clarify this paragraph of Rule 1551 (which Proposal 5101 does not attempt to alter), and solicit suggestions for how it should be clarified.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
Ed Murphy wrote: The recently ratified Assessor's Report lists two dependencies on CFJ 1688 in the history (left untouched by the second sentence of the above excerpt), but not in the totals (which may or may not be affected by the first sentence): I have interpreted these notes in the history as qualifying the table as well as the history. I would have previously objected to the table if those notes did not exist. I think, therefore, that the totals are still conditional on CFJ 1688 after the ratification. I recommend a proposal to clarify this paragraph of Rule 1551 (which Proposal 5101 does not attempt to alter), P5101 makes the scope of ratification clearer. What aspect of R1551 do you think needs to be further clarified? -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: I recommend a proposal to clarify this paragraph of Rule 1551 (which Proposal 5101 does not attempt to alter), P5101 makes the scope of ratification clearer. What aspect of R1551 do you think needs to be further clarified? What happens if the ratified material, despite becoming completely true and accurate per R1551, is self-inconsistent? This arguably doesn't apply to the recent instance: I have interpreted these notes in the history as qualifying the table as well as the history. I would have previously objected to the table if those notes did not exist. I think, therefore, that the totals are still conditional on CFJ 1688 after the ratification. but consider a hypothetical case in which a typo led to a flat-out discrepancy between two sections, both of which were then ratified.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Limits and Credits Report
Ed Murphy wrote: Pineapple Partnership 1 Primo Corporation etc. It'd be a lot clearer if you used explicit 0 entries rather than blanks. -zefram
