Re: Re: Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[CuddleBeam]

>Please tone down the language a wee bit, we like to pretend to be
>genteel. (I'm not saying nichdel wasn't overly snarky emself; this is a
>de-escalation request all around).

Yeah I re-read my thing and found it to be more intense than it should be
lol.

Sorry about that.

Re: Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 29 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> But yeah. Don't fucking toss me an ad hominem. I'll gladly re-process 
> the ideas and re-present it again.

Please tone down the language a wee bit, we like to pretend to be genteel. 
(I'm not saying nichdel wasn't overly snarky emself; this is a de-escalation
request all around).

Re: Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[CuddleBeam]

>This response makes me think you didn't read or comprehend my response.

This is a really intense claim, but I'll restate my response again, but
breaking down your exact reply instead of making certain assumptions which
I thought were obvious from dialogue. I believe this is the "practical"
versus "platonic" approach again, or what "unwritten things" are
"obvious"/"axiomatic" or not. (Axiomatic lightly in a lingo sense that it
doesn't need to be explained, it's obvious or just "should be so, anything
else would be ridiculous/bad/improper")

"Why don't you have those axioms, you're crazy!" versus "How can those
things be axioms, that's crazy!"

The 'withdraw' extrapolation from ballots isn't obvious or "axiomatic" to
me. I don't believe there is a good reason to assume it as such.

There really isn't a solution to that, if that's the issue. I think you
thought that I "didn't understand it" because I'm not assuming your axioms,
but then again, I didn't state that I was continuing to argue from my point
of view instead of explicitly going "ayo, this is an axiom problem" like
I'm doing now.

But yeah. Don't fucking toss me an ad hominem. I'll gladly re-process the
ideas and re-present it again.

Onto it:

---[YOU]---

Note the definition of regulated, from R2125:


"An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or permit
its performance; (2) describe the circumstances under which the action
would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would, as part of its effect,
modify information for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor."
---[/YOU]---

There is no limitation, permission or enabling (unless 'unregulated'
actions are allowed by the Rules, in which case, they're regulated,
because they're allowed, and all actions in the universe are regulated
as per my other proof, but I'm assuming that isn't true for the sake
of argument) of withdrawing *objections*. It just explains that such a
phenomenon, if it happens, has a certain effect.


---[YOU]---

The rules allow withdrawing ballots and proposals explicitly, and explicitly
mention what happens, so under those conditions it's clearly regulated.

---[/YOU]---


Yes, and withdrawing ballots isn't the same thing as withdrawing
proposals. And withdrawing *objections*, which was what my scam
attempt was about, has no explicit conditions for success or failure.


Ballots certainly do. Proposals certainly do. Objections, don't.


---[YOU]---

For this, there's no explicit definition. However, the rules still
imply it's a thing players can do, and mention a situation where, if
it was performed, it would have an effect.

---[/YOU]---


I think THIS is our CENTRAL disagreement and make it seem why each of
us looks bonkers to the other.


You believe that these unwritten implications exist, I don't believe
they do. They're not obvious to me, nor do I see any reason for them
to be obvious or "axiomatic".


And you can disagree with that and we're back at the cards for cards,
decentralized justice problem again but with a different flavor.


We just disagree on these "axioms".


>And your recent behavior makes me think you don't attempt to comprehend the 
>rules before acting.


I do, but since I can't (and won't) be the final judge for my
attempts, and I'm not psychic to know what the would-be judgement from
others would be, so I just try stuff as an actual necessary part of
reaching that comprehension. I have a good idea, sure, but I won't
know for real until I actually try it.


Nobody will get to fully understand the rules alone, and if that's
what you're implying, I believe that's wrong, due to what I've said
above. Or you mean that you'd prefer for it to be posted in Discussion
rather than formal areas in which case, I can just shrug.


It was free and non-spammy. I had nothing to lose, so I did it.

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[Kerim Aydin]

Ok, here's the longer deal on unregulated actions.

The rules neither take from, nor add to, your ability to perform 
unregulated actions.

For this, CFJs 2149 and 2150 are instructive.  From those two cases:

"Celebrating" is unregulated.  Can you celebrate something by
announcement?  Sure!  By common definition, to celebrate something is to
acknowledge something good as part of an enjoyable activity, you can
certainly do that over email in a game forum.

"Landing on the moon" is also unregulated.  Can you land on the moon by 
announcement? Well, you can say you did, but unless you send me video, I'd
say you CANNOT.  It's just not something people can do, no matter how much
you just said you did.

So, what about support/object?

Well, if I were in a meeting, and the facilitator says "who supports this
idea?"  I could say something, or raise my hand, and the facilitator would
count me as a supporter.  So I CAN generally do that, in common terms, in
any conversation or in response to any intent, opinion, or idea.  So,
if someone asks me here, over email, if I support something, I can send
a message saying I do, and in common terms, I'm a supporter.  The Rules
specify this must be done publicly to have a game impact (so sitting at my
desk raising my hand wouldn't count), but that's a minor condition to a
common thing I can do naturally, without regulation.

What about withdrawing support?  If I listen to arguments in a meeting
(say, with my hand raised as a supporter), I can put my hand down and
say "I don't support this anymore."  Normal, natural.  By common
definition, I CAN withdraw my support.  In an email context, I can send
in something that says "I don't support this opinion any more" and people
would accept that I'm not a supporter.  So I don't need rules to be able
to do that.

Can I withdraw someone else's support?  Well, no!  If I tried to pull
my neighbor's hand down, security would be called, and even if I succeeded,
it would be under duress, and no one would count that as my neighbor 
actually withdrawing support.  In common terms, I CANNOT withdraw someone
else's support or objection.

So in *that* case, I CANNOT do it naturally (in an unregulated way), any
more than I could land on the moon, and since the rules don't otherwise
permit (regulate) it, so I can't do it
in the game by announcement.

Now, of course, the Rules *could* permit counterfactuals.  If the rules
explicitly said, "a person CAN land on the moon by announcement.", then
if someone announces it, we create the Legal Fiction that it happened. In
other words, whomever is the recordkeepor of Moon Landings notes it down,
and it's part of the Agoran gamestate (but no longer attached to reality,
of course).  This is what happened with the recent ballot issue that gave
ais523 eir Junta.

But for unregulated actions, you're stuck with reality - and in reality,
withdrawing someone else's objections is just NOT something that people
generally accept as possible, for any common uses of those terms.

The only remaining issues I think are:

(1) in the rules, the "and not withdrawn" is a bit detached from the
phrase "publicly", so there's a bit of a chance a person could object
publicly, and withdraw (eir own!) objection privately.  I think it's a
slight ambiguity in the text that would be resolved in favor of it being
public only.

(2) who tracks people who support and object (on behalf of themselves)?
I'm not sure that really causes an "issue", but I've thought of at least
one situation where it may lead to some interesting results... I'll save
that one for a bit.

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[Nicholas Evans]

This response makes me think you didn't read or comprehend my response. And
your recent behavior makes me think you don't attempt to comprehend the
rules before acting.

On May 29, 2017 10:35, "CuddleBeam"  wrote:

> >The rules allow withdrawing ballots and proposals explicitly, and explicitly
> mention what happens, so under those conditions it's clearly regulated.
>
> I disagree.
>
> An action is regulated if:
> * (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or permit its performance
> - There is no limitation, permission or enabling (unless 'unregulated'
> actions are allowed by the Rules, in which case, they're regulated, because
> they're allowed, and all actions in the universe are regulated as per my
> other proof, but I'm assuming that isn't true for the sake of argument)
>
> * (2) describe the circumstances under which the action would succeed or
> fail
> - There actually is no description about how a withdrawal of *objections*
> would succeed or not. Withdrawal of objections =/= withdrawal of ballots.
> Or it is, in which case, I should be able to expolate other terms out of
> their context and scam like that.
>
> * (3) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for
> which some player is required to be a recordkeepor."
> - This is the odd one, because it seems that I'm not required to track
> until I need to actually publish, so it seems to me that withdrawals before
> that event are unregulated, and after it, are regulated.
>

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[CuddleBeam]

>The rules allow withdrawing ballots and proposals explicitly, and explicitly
mention what happens, so under those conditions it's clearly regulated.

I disagree.

An action is regulated if:
* (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or permit its performance
- There is no limitation, permission or enabling (unless 'unregulated'
actions are allowed by the Rules, in which case, they're regulated, because
they're allowed, and all actions in the universe are regulated as per my
other proof, but I'm assuming that isn't true for the sake of argument)

* (2) describe the circumstances under which the action would succeed or
fail
- There actually is no description about how a withdrawal of *objections*
would succeed or not. Withdrawal of objections =/= withdrawal of ballots.
Or it is, in which case, I should be able to expolate other terms out of
their context and scam like that.

* (3) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for which
some player is required to be a recordkeepor."
- This is the odd one, because it seems that I'm not required to track
until I need to actually publish, so it seems to me that withdrawals before
that event are unregulated, and after it, are regulated.

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[CuddleBeam]

>Although I do think grok's "If I am still an objector, but my objection

>has been withdrawn [by someone else], can I withdraw my objection?" is
>a valid question.


We don't even have a mechanic to *withdraw* in the first place. If you
can pull out of the ether that you can "withdraw", I believe its
reasonable to pull out of the ether too that you can "withdraw
withdrawn" things.


Or withdraw my withdrawal. Then withdraw the objection (because its no
longer withdrawn).


>As far as I can tell, nothing prevents people withdrawing other

>people's objections, but doing so doesn't do anything (apart from
>possibly triggering the 24 hour lockout); objections only cease to be
>counted if they're withdrawn by the objector.


Gah, I was so close lol. Just one eensy teensy conjugation away.


>Um... You usually have  to prove you can do a thing that seems obvious

>wrong or people will ignore it.


Yes, I will do so next time.


> No one seems to understand what unregulated means. All it means is
> that the rules can't say that an action is impossible or prohibited.
> It doesn't magically make it possible, or convince the rules to care
> about it. All the unregulated/regulated distinction is intended to do
> is to prevent the rules from being interpreted so as to stop a player
> doing something ordinary, for instance walking down the street. It
> doesn't mean that you can suddenly do game actions that you couldn't
> before. See also CFJ 2151.


So... Nobody can actually withdraw anything? Because its unregulated,
and there is no mechanical way to actually do the action of
'withdraw'?

Re: Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[Josh T]

@Aris: Thank you for putting into words what I had been thinking while
reading over those of CuddleBeam's messages.

天火狐

On 28 May 2017 at 21:51, Aris Merchant 
wrote:

> On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:39 PM, CuddleBeam 
> wrote:
> > Arguably, you can paint your objection blue too. Or dress it as Superman.
> >
> > Unregulated actions are weird.
>
> No one seems to understand what unregulated means. All it means is
> that the rules can't say that an action is impossible or prohibited.
> It doesn't magically make it possible, or convince the rules to care
> about it. All the unregulated/regulated distinction is intended to do
> is to prevent the rules from being interpreted so as to stop a player
> doing something ordinary, for instance walking down the street. It
> doesn't mean that you can suddenly do game actions that you couldn't
> before. See also CFJ 2151.
>
> -Aris
>

Re: Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[Aris Merchant]

On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 6:39 PM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> Arguably, you can paint your objection blue too. Or dress it as Superman.
>
> Unregulated actions are weird.

No one seems to understand what unregulated means. All it means is
that the rules can't say that an action is impossible or prohibited.
It doesn't magically make it possible, or convince the rules to care
about it. All the unregulated/regulated distinction is intended to do
is to prevent the rules from being interpreted so as to stop a player
doing something ordinary, for instance walking down the street. It
doesn't mean that you can suddenly do game actions that you couldn't
before. See also CFJ 2151.

-Aris

Re: Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 29 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> >Interesting question: If am still an objector, but my objection has been 
> >withdrawn, can I withdraw my my objection?
> Arguably, you can paint your objection blue too. Or dress it as Superman.
> 
> Unregulated actions are weird.


It does concern me that no one is "required" to track objections, even 
if the argument doesn't hold up, it's a place where clarity would be
nice.

I suppose one could make the case that a dependent action, if
successful, requires a recordkeepor to modify a record;  therefore
the action of supporting/objecting "would modify a record" in
the aggregate.

Actually, I think the way it reads, what is tracked is the minimal
amount of support/objections to change the outcome.

It's an interesting possibility.

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 28 May 2017, grok (caleb vines) wrote:
> Interesting question: If am still an objector, but my objection
> has been withdrawn, can I withdraw my my objection?

FOO!

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 28 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On Mon, 29 May 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

Note that only withdrawals by the Objector emself count.

Greetings,
Ørjan.


snap!


I feel so redundant. Also, still waiting for you to snap and use the term 
ISIDTID.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 29 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:

> Cool. I think I'll just tell anyway. I'm not too overly interested in the 
> subterfuge of it all. I just care mostly about confirming that it *would* 
> work,
> that's good enough trophy for me.
> "Withdrawing" isn't a regulated action apparently (note that I, as the 
> initiator, am not required to track any Objections until I actually intend to 
> complete
> it, when I need to publish the list, I believe). Or it is, and since there is 
> no explicit way to do it, nobody can actually withdraw, ever.
> 
> So I can just do the unregulated action of "I withdraw your objection" (would 
> my proof of "all actions are regulation actions or not actions" not work)
>

>From R2124:

   A Supporter of a dependent action is an eligible entity who has
   publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for
   an announcement of intent to perform the action.   An Objector to
   a dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted
   (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent
   to perform the action.

The ("and not withdrawn") as a verb is clearly tied to the Objector.  In
other  words, if ANOTHER player "withdraws" your objections (whatever that
means), you're still an Objector because YOU haven't withdrawn your 
objections.

And it's #Objectors versus #Supporters, not #Objections versus #Supports,
that counts for the determination in R2124.

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[grok (caleb vines)]

On May 28, 2017 8:30 PM, "Kerim Aydin"  wrote:



On Mon, 29 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:

> Cool. I think I'll just tell anyway. I'm not too overly interested in the
subterfuge of it all. I just care mostly about confirming that it *would*
work,
> that's good enough trophy for me.
> "Withdrawing" isn't a regulated action apparently (note that I, as the
initiator, am not required to track any Objections until I actually intend
to complete
> it, when I need to publish the list, I believe). Or it is, and since
there is no explicit way to do it, nobody can actually withdraw, ever.
>
> So I can just do the unregulated action of "I withdraw your objection"
(would my proof of "all actions are regulation actions or not actions" not
work)
>

>From R2124:

   A Supporter of a dependent action is an eligible entity who has
   publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for
   an announcement of intent to perform the action.   An Objector to
   a dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted
   (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent
   to perform the action.

The ("and not withdrawn") as a verb is clearly tied to the Objector.  In
other  words, if ANOTHER player "withdraws" your objections (whatever that
means), you're still an Objector because YOU haven't withdrawn your
objections.

And it's #Objectors versus #Supporters, not #Objections versus #Supports,
that counts for the determination in R2124.



Interesting question: If am still an objector, but my objection has been
withdrawn, can I withdraw my my objection?

Re: Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[CuddleBeam]

>From rule 2124:

>  An Objector to
>  a dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted
>  (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent
>  to perform the action.

Ah, dangit, that verb conjugation. So subtle.


I guess it would've worked if it was "(and such an objection has not
been withdrawn)", instead.

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 29 May 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> Note that only withdrawals by the Objector emself count.
> 
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

snap!

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 29 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:


So I can just do the unregulated action of "I withdraw your objection"
(would my proof of "all actions are regulation actions or not actions" not
work)


From rule 2124:

An Objector to
  a dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted
  (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent
  to perform the action.

Note that only withdrawals by the Objector emself count.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is a humble agoran farmer

[CuddleBeam]

Cool. I think I'll just tell anyway. I'm not too overly interested in the
subterfuge of it all. I just care mostly about confirming that it *would*
work, that's good enough trophy for me.

"Withdrawing" isn't a regulated action apparently (note that I, as the
initiator, am not required to track any Objections until I actually intend
to complete it, when I need to publish the list, I believe). Or it is, and
since there is no explicit way to do it, nobody can actually withdraw, ever.

So I can just do the unregulated action of "I withdraw your objection"
(would my proof of "all actions are regulation actions or not actions" not
work)