Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
I mean, I’m inclined to agree with G.’s interpretation there. It would do something, but it’s IMPOSSIBLE to determine the result, making the whole thing ambiguous. But anyways, the sword of “the majority” doesn’t really matter to me. My opinion is my own. On Monday, March 2, 2020, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 08:23 Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > But yeah, even if it is tradition, I'm not against just going contrary to > > it since all we need to do that is enough people agreeing to do so, and > I'd > > agree to it (although, probably not right now while my Agora being is > still > > being rented out lmao). > > > > You'd agree to declaring Coin holdings to be fundamentally ambiguous as a > result of an ambiguous rule? I certainly wouldn't, and I'd be surprised if > many people would. > > —Warrigal > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 08:23 Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > But yeah, even if it is tradition, I'm not against just going contrary to > it since all we need to do that is enough people agreeing to do so, and I'd > agree to it (although, probably not right now while my Agora being is still > being rented out lmao). > You'd agree to declaring Coin holdings to be fundamentally ambiguous as a result of an ambiguous rule? I certainly wouldn't, and I'd be surprised if many people would. —Warrigal >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
On 3/2/2020 3:45 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 12:39 PM Tanner Swett wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 04:41 Cuddle Beam wrote: >> >>> I think this would cause: >>> - A big and spreading fog of war of CfJ DISMISS, because its >> "undecidable" >>> and "insufficient information exists" to know what's going on with coins >>> >> >> My proposal would just create an ambiguity in the rules, and we never judge >> DISMISS due to an ambiguity in the rules; we pick an interpretation >> instead. >> > Why is this? (Is it just culture? A CfJ-rule? A rule?) We used to have a category called UNDETERMINED for this kind of thing, and at the time it had an explicit clause in the end that said "can't just throw up your hands if the rules are unclear": > > * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or >too vague, or if the information available to the judge is >insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and >UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as >to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute >insufficiency of information for this purpose > When we turned this (back) into DISMISS we deleted the clause, but just kept up the habit I guess? However, note that this says "don't judge UNDETERMINED based on uncertainty in *interpretation* of the rule". I think it's a different situation to say "This rule's interpretation is completely clear - it sets a quantity to something that's literally IMPOSSIBLE to determine but it's really clear that it's doing that" and maybe DISMISS is ok for that. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
CuddleBeam wrote: > But "a player" is just one player, no? At least that's my understanding of it. Compare, for example: > A player whose master is not emself is a zombie (syn. inactive); > all other players are active. I don't think any reasonable interpretation of the rules would conclude that exactly one player (we just don't know which one!) is be a zombie at any given time. "A player" must surely be interpretable as "each player". ...At least I hope so. Quite a lot of rules use this formulation. The scariest one I can find is "A registered person is a Player." -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 04:41 Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I think this would cause: > - A big and spreading fog of war of CfJ DISMISS, because its "undecidable" > and "insufficient information exists" to know what's going on with coins > My proposal would just create an ambiguity in the rules, and we never judge DISMISS due to an ambiguity in the rules; we pick an interpretation instead. —Warrigal >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
> My proposal would just create an ambiguity in the rules, and we never judge DISMISS due to an ambiguity in the rules; we pick an interpretation instead. Why is this? (Is it just culture? A CfJ-rule? A rule?) On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 12:39 PM Tanner Swett via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 04:41 Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I think this would cause: > > - A big and spreading fog of war of CfJ DISMISS, because its > "undecidable" > > and "insufficient information exists" to know what's going on with coins > > > > My proposal would just create an ambiguity in the rules, and we never judge > DISMISS due to an ambiguity in the rules; we pick an interpretation > instead. > > —Warrigal > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
...or
- Some CfJ-rule already exists to let us ignore its effects.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:41 AM Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I think this would cause:
> - A big and spreading fog of war of CfJ DISMISS, because its "undecidable"
> and "insufficient information exists" to know what's going on with coins
> - Or the Judge would make a new CfJ-rule that would allow us to ignore its
> effects altogether because it can't be "reasonably" computed.
>
> On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 11:47 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On Sun., Mar. 1, 2020, 17:05 Tanner Swett via agora-business, <
>> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>
>> > I submit a proposal with AI = 1, titled "Somebody gets a coin":
>> > {
>> > Enact a power-1 rule titled "A Coin Award":
>> > {
>> > When this rule is enacted, a player other than the
>> > author of the proposal which enacted this rule earns 1
>> > coin. Then, if a player earned a coin this way, this
>> > rule repeals itself.
>> > }
>> > }
>> >
>> > According to Rule 217, "When interpreting and applying the rules, the
>> > text of the rules takes precedence", which presumably means that this
>> > rule does, in fact, award a player a coin.
>> >
>> > It would be awfully interesting to see whether or not this rule really
>> > does award a coin, and if so, who the coin is awarded to.
>> >
>> > —Warrigal
>> >
>>
>> I think I know what outcome I'll argue for, at least initially, but I want
>> to see if pass first.
>>
>> >
>>
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
I think this would cause:
- A big and spreading fog of war of CfJ DISMISS, because its "undecidable"
and "insufficient information exists" to know what's going on with coins
- Or the Judge would make a new CfJ-rule that would allow us to ignore its
effects altogether because it can't be "reasonably" computed.
On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 11:47 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Sun., Mar. 1, 2020, 17:05 Tanner Swett via agora-business, <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I submit a proposal with AI = 1, titled "Somebody gets a coin":
> > {
> > Enact a power-1 rule titled "A Coin Award":
> > {
> > When this rule is enacted, a player other than the
> > author of the proposal which enacted this rule earns 1
> > coin. Then, if a player earned a coin this way, this
> > rule repeals itself.
> > }
> > }
> >
> > According to Rule 217, "When interpreting and applying the rules, the
> > text of the rules takes precedence", which presumably means that this
> > rule does, in fact, award a player a coin.
> >
> > It would be awfully interesting to see whether or not this rule really
> > does award a coin, and if so, who the coin is awarded to.
> >
> > —Warrigal
> >
>
> I think I know what outcome I'll argue for, at least initially, but I want
> to see if pass first.
>
> >
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 06:45 Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > My proposal would just create an ambiguity in the rules, and we never > judge DISMISS due to an ambiguity in the rules; we pick an interpretation > instead. > > Why is this? (Is it just culture? A CfJ-rule? A rule?) > Well, Rule 217 "Interpreting the Rules" says that "Where the text [of the rules] is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game." I think that game custom, common sense, past judgements and consideration of the best interests *all* demand that, if the rules are ambiguous, we pick one interpretation and go with that one. Judging a case DISMISS because the rules are ambiguous, and considering the gamestate to be fundamentally ambiguous as a result, would be unprecedented (I think) and extremely unconventional. —Warrigal >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
Yes but I believe there is a difference, it's the same word "a", but with different meaning. And what matters is the meaning of the word, not just the word used. You see, that's what matters, in this matter. Also, unrelated, liquids are a state of matter. If I tell you "you can take a cupcake", that doesn't mean you can take ALL the cookies. It means you can take one. And if I say "a cupcake is a pastry", that doesn't mean that only ONE cupcake is a pastry. It means that all cupcakes are pastries. On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 12:00 PM Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > CuddleBeam wrote: > > But "a player" is just one player, no? At least that's my understanding > of it. > > Compare, for example: > > > A player whose master is not emself is a zombie (syn. inactive); > > all other players are active. > > I don't think any reasonable interpretation of the rules would conclude > that exactly one player (we just don't know which one!) is be a zombie > at any given time. "A player" must surely be interpretable as "each > player". > > ...At least I hope so. Quite a lot of rules use this formulation. The > scariest one I can find is "A registered person is a Player." > > -twg >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
Ah, alright. I wasn't familiar with that. I've been here for so long and I still don't know that stuff lmao. But yeah, even if it is tradition, I'm not against just going contrary to it since all we need to do that is enough people agreeing to do so, and I'd agree to it (although, probably not right now while my Agora being is still being rented out lmao). On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 1:37 PM Tanner Swett via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 06:45 Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > My proposal would just create an ambiguity in the rules, and we never > > judge DISMISS due to an ambiguity in the rules; we pick an interpretation > > instead. > > > > Why is this? (Is it just culture? A CfJ-rule? A rule?) > > > > Well, Rule 217 "Interpreting the Rules" says that "Where the text [of the > rules] is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game > custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best > interests of the game." > > I think that game custom, common sense, past judgements and consideration > of the best interests *all* demand that, if the rules are ambiguous, we > pick one interpretation and go with that one. Judging a case DISMISS > because the rules are ambiguous, and considering the gamestate to be > fundamentally ambiguous as a result, would be unprecedented (I think) and > extremely unconventional. > > —Warrigal > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: [attn ADoP] humble agoran farmer buys into high office
On 3/1/20 3:11 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > Oh, apparently I can be bought. I change my vote in the ongoing ADoP > election to ENDORSE twg. > > I cause Rance to change eir vote in the ongoing ADoP election to [Aris]. > > -- Jason Cobb Well, apparently I don't know what the acronym for "Prime Minister" is. Oh well :P. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
On Sunday, March 1, 2020 10:46 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Sun., Mar. 1, 2020, 17:05 Tanner Swett via agora-business, <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > I submit a proposal with AI = 1, titled "Somebody gets a coin":
> > {
> > Enact a power-1 rule titled "A Coin Award":
> > {
> > When this rule is enacted, a player other than the
> > author of the proposal which enacted this rule earns 1
> > coin. Then, if a player earned a coin this way, this
> > rule repeals itself.
> > }
> > }
> >
> > According to Rule 217, "When interpreting and applying the rules, the
> > text of the rules takes precedence", which presumably means that this
> > rule does, in fact, award a player a coin.
> >
> > It would be awfully interesting to see whether or not this rule really
> > does award a coin, and if so, who the coin is awarded to.
> >
> > —Warrigal
> >
>
> I think I know what outcome I'll argue for, at least initially, but I want
> to see if pass first.
>
> >
I'm in the "one coin for each player except Warrigal" camp, personally...
-twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
On Monday, March 2, 2020, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > G. wrote: > > Well, we purposefully error-trapped switches, which suggests that we > allow > > that sort of thing if the rules are explicit about it happening: > > > > > If a type of switch is not explicitly designated as > > > possibly-indeterminate by the rule that defines it, and if an > action > > > or set of actions would cause the value of an instance of that type > > > of switch to become indeterminate, that instance instead takes on > > > its last determinate and possible value, if any, otherwise it takes > > > on its default value. > > > > I'm pretty sure that error-trapping was added after a switch ended up in > > an ambiguous condition. > > What would y'all say to making ownership an asset switch? It would > necessitate a bit of rewriting to the current asset rules, but it gives > us all the anti-ambiguity safeguards that already exist for switches. > > A "pure" safeguard for the asset rules might look something like this: > > If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, or if its owner would > otherwise be indeterminate or logically undecidable, it is owned > by the Lost and Found Department. > > ...but that seems inelegant compared to reusing the switch rules. > It would take a bit of writing to turn addition and subtraction into “set the switch of n units of currency from person A to person B” and would come out pretty messy IMO? It’s how we do zombie master switches now, and it’s been causing enough difficulties even without worrying about math that we.were talking last week about going the opposite direction and making that currency based...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
CuddleBeam wrote: > If I tell you "you can take a cupcake", that doesn't mean you can take > ALL the cookies. It means you can take one. > > And if I say "a cupcake is a pastry", that doesn't mean that only ONE > cupcake is a pastry. It means that all cupcakes are pastries. Sure, I'm with you that both meanings are valid definitions for the word "a". It's just that I think the second one makes more sense in this context. Certainly it wins on "best interests of the game" if it prevents everyone's (except Warrigal's) coin balances from being indeterminate. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
G. wrote: > Well, we purposefully error-trapped switches, which suggests that we allow > that sort of thing if the rules are explicit about it happening: > > > If a type of switch is not explicitly designated as > > possibly-indeterminate by the rule that defines it, and if an action > > or set of actions would cause the value of an instance of that type > > of switch to become indeterminate, that instance instead takes on > > its last determinate and possible value, if any, otherwise it takes > > on its default value. > > I'm pretty sure that error-trapping was added after a switch ended up in > an ambiguous condition. What would y'all say to making ownership an asset switch? It would necessitate a bit of rewriting to the current asset rules, but it gives us all the anti-ambiguity safeguards that already exist for switches. A "pure" safeguard for the asset rules might look something like this: If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, or if its owner would otherwise be indeterminate or logically undecidable, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department. ...but that seems inelegant compared to reusing the switch rules. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
On 3/2/2020 8:11 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion wrote: > On Monday, March 2, 2020, Tanner Swett via agora-discussion wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 08:23 Cuddle Beam wrote: >> >>> But yeah, even if it is tradition, I'm not against just going contrary to >>> it since all we need to do that is enough people agreeing to do so, and >> I'd >>> agree to it (although, probably not right now while my Agora being is >> still >>> being rented out lmao). >>> >> >> You'd agree to declaring Coin holdings to be fundamentally ambiguous as a >> result of an ambiguous rule? I certainly wouldn't, and I'd be surprised if >> many people would. Well, we purposefully error-trapped switches, which suggests that we allow that sort of thing if the rules are explicit about it happening: > If a type of switch is not explicitly designated as > possibly-indeterminate by the rule that defines it, and if an action > or set of actions would cause the value of an instance of that type > of switch to become indeterminate, that instance instead takes on > its last determinate and possible value, if any, otherwise it takes > on its default value. I'm pretty sure that error-trapping was added after a switch ended up in an ambiguous condition. And there are midway measures anyway. E.g. It will be certain everyone has at least as many coins as they did before the rule took effect. That uncertainty can be tracked and error propagation may be limited - only having effect whenever a transaction would put eir known balance at exactly -1. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
But "a player" is just one player, no? At least that's my understanding of
it.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:50 AM Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Sunday, March 1, 2020 10:46 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sun., Mar. 1, 2020, 17:05 Tanner Swett via agora-business, <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I submit a proposal with AI = 1, titled "Somebody gets a coin":
> > > {
> > > Enact a power-1 rule titled "A Coin Award":
> > > {
> > > When this rule is enacted, a player other than the
> > > author of the proposal which enacted this rule earns 1
> > > coin. Then, if a player earned a coin this way, this
> > > rule repeals itself.
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > According to Rule 217, "When interpreting and applying the rules, the
> > > text of the rules takes precedence", which presumably means that this
> > > rule does, in fact, award a player a coin.
> > >
> > > It would be awfully interesting to see whether or not this rule really
> > > does award a coin, and if so, who the coin is awarded to.
> > >
> > > —Warrigal
> > >
> >
> > I think I know what outcome I'll argue for, at least initially, but I
> want
> > to see if pass first.
> >
> > >
>
> I'm in the "one coin for each player except Warrigal" camp, personally...
>
> -twg
>
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer pledges loyalty to the deal
CuddleBeam wrote: > So, twg was cool to not weasel out when they had the chance to, so I will > as well. I don’t know how to best do this aside from a Pledge, and I dont > want to make the N too high in case he wants to use the blot availability I > have during rental for something and this Pledge ends up being flawed > somehow (since I could be deregged for too many blots, and I dont want to > be deregged), so here goes: > > The following is a Pledge: > > “I pledge to not perform actions (while acting as myself, this doesn’t > affect me when twg is acting on my behalf) which have a clear intent to be > part of the usual gameplay of Agora nomic, without twg’s approval to do > them, as long as they are my Supermaster. This does not include > participating in commentary of the game, I can still communicate opinion > and such freely. This has a time window equal to the remaining time twg has > as my Supermaster. The N for this Pledge’s Oathbreaking Crime is 10.” I appreciate your trust! I promise (informally, because I'm not sure how or even if this sort of thing can be governed by the rules) to play the game in both our best interests, and to leave you at the end of the period with as good a game standing as possible. Relatedly, H. Arbitor, would you be willing to consider CuddleBeam as an interested judge? Or is that too suspicious a move for your tastes? (Or alternatively, swap em for me if you object on the basis that I shouldn't have twice as much precedent-setting power as everyone else.) -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer pledges loyalty to the deal
On 3/2/2020 3:50 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion wrote: > CuddleBeam wrote: >> So, twg was cool to not weasel out when they had the chance to, so I will >> as well. I don’t know how to best do this aside from a Pledge, and I dont >> want to make the N too high in case he wants to use the blot availability I >> have during rental for something and this Pledge ends up being flawed >> somehow (since I could be deregged for too many blots, and I dont want to >> be deregged), so here goes: >> >> The following is a Pledge: >> >> “I pledge to not perform actions (while acting as myself, this doesn’t >> affect me when twg is acting on my behalf) which have a clear intent to be >> part of the usual gameplay of Agora nomic, without twg’s approval to do >> them, as long as they are my Supermaster. This does not include >> participating in commentary of the game, I can still communicate opinion >> and such freely. This has a time window equal to the remaining time twg has >> as my Supermaster. The N for this Pledge’s Oathbreaking Crime is 10.” > > I appreciate your trust! > > I promise (informally, because I'm not sure how or even if this sort of > thing can be governed by the rules) to play the game in both our best > interests, and to leave you at the end of the period with as good a game > standing as possible. > > Relatedly, H. Arbitor, would you be willing to consider CuddleBeam as an > interested judge? Or is that too suspicious a move for your tastes? > (Or alternatively, swap em for me if you object on the basis that I > shouldn't have twice as much precedent-setting power as everyone else.) I'm considering eir pledge to "not perform actions" that are part of "usual gameplay" as lack of interest in judging. I'm keeping em on the "occasional" list (where e last requested to be) while this plays out. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 11:34 Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Well, we purposefully error-trapped switches, which suggests that we allow > that sort of thing if the rules are explicit about it happening: > But an indeterminate value is merely one that "cannot be reasonably determined" (paraphrasing slightly). That's not an acknowledgement that a value can be fundamentally and intrinsically ambiguous; it's just an acknowledgement of the fact that we Agorans may be actually unable to figure out what the value is. —Warrigal >
Re: DIS: CFJ 3813 proto-judged FALSE
On 3/2/2020 2:40 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > Not yet. Think I have till tomorrow? > I'm showing it as assigned Feb 19th, due Feb 26th: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-February/013456.html (but I'm not going to recuse you for another few days, lmk if I got the dates wrong somehow...) -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Clean r2493 (Regulations)
G. wrote: > On 3/2/2020 12:54 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > >> On Mar 2, 2020, at 12:46 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > >> wrote: > >> > >> Please, put some effort in though. After a request/discussion a couple > >> months ago people stopped doing it and threads became easier to read > >> again. Now it's becoming hard to read threads again. Some courtesy on > >> this would go a ways. thx for considering. > >> > >> -G. > > > > Alright, happy to. Quite frankly, I think about it occasionally, but that > > usually ends up just being “which end am I supposed to never post on > > again?” and I go with what my mail client does. I’ll try to do better. > > > > Gaelan > > > > Notice of Honour > +1 Gaelan showing willingness to work with the geezers. > -1 nch (sitting at +1 for no particular reason). > > Srsly, mail clients (esp. mobile) are making it harder and harder and I > get lazy about this too for short replies, but since we sorta started > making the effort again, it makes things (like Caller's Arguments) so much > easier to figure out esp. when there's a long conversation I want to stick > in the Gratuitous section. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. -twg Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. ~~ Top-Posting and Bottom-Posting: A Q ~~ Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Clean r2493 (Regulations)
us young whippersnappers and our fancy email clients, that’s who Gaelan P.S. Chapter 3 of Gretchen McCulloch’s book Because Internet, about “generational” differences in internet communication styles, is quite interesting in an Agoran context. > On Mar 2, 2020, at 12:19 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > On 3/2/2020 12:01 PM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: >> alright WHO brought back regulations goddamnit > > who brought back top-posting is what I want to know > >
Re: DIS: CFJ 3813 proto-judged FALSE
Not yet. Think I have till tomorrow? Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 2, 2020, at 1:52 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > >> On 2/20/2020 3:08 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: >> CFJ 3813 asks us whether Agora is a contract... > > Gaelan did you ever deliver this judgement I can't find anything on BUS or > OFF that has it just not sure if I'm missing it. -G. > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Let's toss us a coin, shall we?
On 3/2/2020 2:25 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: > On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 11:34 Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> Well, we purposefully error-trapped switches, which suggests that we allow >> that sort of thing if the rules are explicit about it happening: >> > > But an indeterminate value is merely one that "cannot be reasonably > determined" (paraphrasing slightly). That's not an acknowledgement that a > value can be fundamentally and intrinsically ambiguous; it's just an > acknowledgement of the fact that we Agorans may be actually unable to > figure out what the value is. The CFJ 1460 standard includes "fundamentally unknowable" stuff as fitting into the "cannot be reasonably determined" category. Judge Maud wrote: (https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1460) > a purported communication such as > > I announce my intent to remove the first n listed proposals from the > proposal pool, where n is the minimum of 5 and the number of > counterexamples to the Riemann hypothesis, > > accompanied by a list of 5 or more proposals, would require unreasonably > excessive effort.
DIS: Re: BUS: The Dragon Corporation
On 3/1/20 6:13 PM, Tanner Swett via agora-business wrote:
> ## Bylaw 7: IPO
>
> Within 90 days after this contract is created, any entity CAN buy a
> share by announcement; in the same message, the entity must transfer 10
> coins and/or banknotes to the Dragon Corporation as a cost for this
> action. When e does this, e is awarded 1 share.
>
> Within 90 days after this contract is created, any entity who owns at
> least 1 share may sell the share by announcement. When e does this, the
> share is destroyed and e is awarded 5 banknotes.
>
> }}}
>
> I buy 3 shares of DRGN. I satisfy the costs for this action by
> transferring 30 coins to the Dragon Corporation.
>
> —Warrigal, who fully expects to get taken advantage of somehow
I'm interested, but I'm slightly concerned about the IPO language. There
might be a reading where a transfer of 30 coins does not fulfill the
requirement for 3 transfers of 10 coins. Sorry for not raising this
during the drafts.
I think the following would work better:
{
Within 90 days after this contract is created, any entity CAN pay a fee
of 10 coins to buy a share. When e does this, e is awarded 1 share.
}
Since you're the only party, you could amend it by yourself. If you do
that, I plan to buy in.
--
Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3818 Assigned to Jason
On 3/2/20 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > The below CFJ is 3818. I assign it to Jason. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3818 > > === CFJ 3818 === > > Rance's master switch is set to Agora. > > == > > Caller:Falsifian > > Judge: Jason > > == Immediate thoughts: FALSE per caller. However, I can also see an argument that Rance's Master was indeterminate because I performed a conditional action based on whether there was a zombie auction. At the time, it was not widely known whether there was a zombie auction; is that enough to make the value of the switch indeterminate? Or is it enough that the rules and messages were "reasonably available", which would (theoretically, at least) allow determining whether the zombie auction existed, to prevent Rance's Master being indeterminate. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3818 Assigned to Jason
I always prefer an interpretation that the rules and game state are fixed clearly and intractably at all times, and it is only our failure that prevents us from having knowledge of them. Anyway, these conditionals, I think, are the most strongly supported by game custom. The "if this exists, I do it" conditional is frankly necessary for us to play this game, mostly. On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:45 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 3/2/20 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > > The below CFJ is 3818. I assign it to Jason. > > > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3818 > > > > === CFJ 3818 > === > > > > Rance's master switch is set to Agora. > > > > > == > > > > Caller:Falsifian > > > > Judge: Jason > > > > > == > > > Immediate thoughts: > > FALSE per caller. However, I can also see an argument that Rance's > Master was indeterminate because I performed a conditional action based > on whether there was a zombie auction. At the time, it was not widely > known whether there was a zombie auction; is that enough to make the > value of the switch indeterminate? Or is it enough that the rules and > messages were "reasonably available", which would (theoretically, at > least) allow determining whether the zombie auction existed, to prevent > Rance's Master being indeterminate. > > -- > Jason Cobb > > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3820 Assigned to Murphy
I vividly remember arguing that the "unless the pledge explicitly states
otherwise" didn't actually say would would happen if the pledge DID happen
to explicitly state otherwise.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:28 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> The below CFJ is 3820. I assign it to Murphy.
>
> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3820
>
> === CFJ 3820 ===
>
> If Cuddlebeam does not win the game in the next 90 days, there
> exists a combination of actions by players that would allow a
> player to levy the Cold Hand of Justice on twg for violation of
> the pledge below, without changing the rules or ratifying a
> document.
>
> ==
>
> Caller:Gaelan
>
> Judge: Murphy
>
> ==
>
> History:
>
> Called by Gaelan: 01 Mar 2020 05:33:40
> Assigned to Murphy: [now]
>
> ==
>
> Caller's Evidence:
>
> On Feb 29, 2020, at 1:33 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> >
> > I cause myself to become CuddleBeam's Active Supermaster by pledging the
> > following:
> >
> > I Pledge that I will cause Cuddlebeam to Win Agora within 90 days. The
> > "N" of this Pledge, for the purpose of its Class N Crime of Oathbreaking
> > is a googleplex.
> >
> > -twg
>
>
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> 2450/7 reads, in part: {
> If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or refrain
> from performing) certain actions, then breaking the pledge within the
> pledge's time window is the Class N crime of Oathbreaking, where N is 2
> unless the pledge explicitly states otherwise. The time window of a pledge
> is 60 days, unless the pledge explicitly states otherwise. A pledge ceases
> to exist at the end of its time window.
> }
>
> I’m not sure if the quoted pledge “explicitly” states that its time window
> is 90 days. It certainly discusses a 90-day time window, but I’m not sure
> if that qualifies as “explicitly” stating that the pledge itself has a
> time window of 90 days.
>
> If the time window is 60 days, there’s no way to violate the pledge within
> its time window, and this is FALSE.
>
> If the time window is 90 days, it still might not work. When was the
> pledge violated? There’s an argument to be made that the violation occurs
> at the moment the 90-day window expires. If so, would that count as
> "breaking the pledge within the pledge's time window”?
>
> ==
>
>
--
>From R. Lee
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3821 Assigned to Alexis
On Mon, 2 Mar 2020 at 19:28, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > > The below CFJ is 3821. I assign it to Alexis. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3821 > > === CFJ 3821 === > > twg is both Speaker and Prime Minister. > > == Any more arguments on this one? It seems to me that Deputisation doesn't work here because it does not allow someone to do by deputisation what they could not do as a normal officer, in line with my arguments. -Alexis
DIS: Re: BUS: The Dragon Corporation
I become a party to the Dragon Corporation.
I transfer 10 coins to DRGN to buy a share.
I transfer 10 coins to DRGN to buy a share.
I transfer 10 coins to DRGN to buy a share.
I transfer 10 coins to DRGN to buy a share.
I will neither confirm nor deny that I performed this hostile takeover entirely
as a bureaucratic convenience, so that I can track all contract-related state
in one place.
(I think the current ruling is that we can’t make reports by announcement, but
if that gets rectified I would be interested in contractual arrangements to
allow me to publish other contract state in the Notary’s report on behalf of
the actual recordkeepor.)
Gaelan
> On Mar 1, 2020, at 3:13 PM, Tanner Swett via agora-business
> wrote:
>
> Without further ado...
>
> I agree to the following.
>
> {{{
>
> ## Bylaw 1: Definition
>
> This contract is named "the Dragon Corporation". The purpose of the
> Dragon Corporation is to earn as much money as possible for its
> shareholders.
>
> All other provisions of this contract notwithstanding, this contract
> does not permit any entity to act on behalf of any other entity.
>
> Shares of Dragon stock (also known as "shares of DRGN", or, in this
> contract, "shares") are a currency whose purpose is to represent
> ownership of the Dragon Corporation. An entity which owns at least one
> share is known as a shareholder.
>
> If, at any time, the Dragon Corporation or the Lost and Found Department
> owns any shares, then those shares are destroyed.
>
> Any person CAN, by announcement, become a party to this contract or
> cease to be a party to this contract. A shareholder who is a party to
> this contract is known as a member.
>
> Wherever this contract states that an entity becomes a party to this
> contract or ceases to be a party to this contract, all parties to this
> contract are considered to consent to this change.
>
> ## Bylaw 2: Proposals
>
> Any member CAN, by announcement, submit a Corporate Proposal. A
> Corporate Proposal must have exactly one of the types defined by this
> contract. Thereafter, any member CAN vote FOR or AGAINST that proposal
> by announcement, or retract such a vote, which causes the vote to become
> null and void. Whenever a member votes, all of eir previous votes on the
> same proposal are implicitly retracted.
>
> If a Corporate Proposal was submitted more than 7 but fewer than 21 days
> ago, and the proposal has approval (as defined in other bylaws), and the
> proposal has not been applied, then any member CAN, by announcement,
> apply the proposal, which has effects as defined in other bylaws.
>
> Members SHALL NOT submit, vote for, or apply proposals that are
> egregiously unfair to other shareholders (such as a proposal which takes
> or revokes shares from minority shareholders without just compensation).
>
> ## Bylaw 3: Amendment Proposals
>
> An Amendment Proposal is a type of Corporate Proposal. An Amendment
> Proposal has approval if at least one member has voted FOR it, and the
> number of shares owned by members who have voted FOR it is at least 2
> times the number of shares owned by members who have voted AGAINST it.
>
> When an Amendment Proposal is applied, the following occur:
>
> 1. Each party to this contract who has not consented to the application
> of the proposal ceases to be a party to this contract. A party who has
> voted FOR a proposal consents to the application of that proposal,
> unless e has publicly stated otherwise at or after the time at which e
> voted FOR it.
>
> 2. This contract is modified as described in the proposal.
>
> However, the application of an Amendment Proposal is INEFFECTIVE unless,
> in the same message, the entity who applies the proposal also publishes
> a text which is labeled as being the text of this contract after the
> application. E SHOULD, at that point, publish intent to ratify that text
> without objection.
>
> ## Bylaw 4: Ordinary Proposals
>
> An Ordinary Proposal is a type of Corporate Proposal. An Ordinary
> Proposal has approval if the number of shares owned by members voting
> FOR it is greater than the number of shares owned by members voting
> AGAINST it.
>
> When an Ordinary Proposal is applied, assets are created, destroyed,
> and/or transferred as described in the proposal; and entities may
> create, destroy, and/or transfer assets as permitted in the proposal.
> Such permission expires 30 days after the proposal is applied.
>
> After an Ordinary Proposal is applied, the person who applied it SHOULD
> publish a description of its effects in a timely fashion, including all
> balances of assets defined by this contract which were affected by the
> proposal.
>
> ## Bylaw 5: Bonds and Banknotes
>
> Perpetual Dragon bonds (hereinafter "bonds") are a currency. Banknotes
> are a currency.
>
> At the beginning of each Agoran quarter, each entity is awarded a number
> of banknotes equal to the number of bonds that e owns.
>
> If an entity owns a
Re: DIS: [Notary] Draft Report
> On Mar 2, 2020, at 6:46 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: > > NOTARY'S REPORT OF MARCH 03 2020 Oops, I omitted the notes for Chattelbeam. Fixed draft: NOTARY'S REPORT OF MARCH 03 2020 An up-to-date version of this report is available online at https://agoranomic.org/Notary/. There are 3 non-invisible contracts. === CONTRACT === |Gaelan's Really Bad At Sending Things To The Public Forum rev. 0| |PARTIES: Gaelan, twg, Warrigal, Falsifian | Any person may become a party of this contract to act on Gaelan’s behalf as described below. Any person may act on Gaelan’s behalf to perform a series of actions, subject to the following conditions: * Gaelan attempted to perform those exact actions (verbatim) in a message to a discussion forum * The message to the discussion forum occurred within the past 24 hours * Gaelan's message was clearly an attempt to perform actions by sending a message to a public forum (and, specifically, it was not labelled as a draft of a later public action, such as a “proto” proposal) * No actions have been performed by Gaelan, or on eir behalf, after the message to the discussion forum Gaelan may terminate this contract at any time, by announcement. History: Jan 08 2020 16:38: twg created (see CFJ 3791) Jan 24 2020 01:58: Warrigal joined Mar 01 2020 06:11: Falsifian joined === CONTRACT === |The Dragon Corporation rev. 1| |PARTIES: Warrigal | ## Bylaw 1: Definition This contract is named "the Dragon Corporation". The purpose of the Dragon Corporation is to earn as much money as possible for its shareholders. All other provisions of this contract notwithstanding, this contract does not permit any entity to act on behalf of any other entity. Shares of Dragon stock (also known as "shares of DRGN", or, in this contract, "shares") are a currency whose purpose is to represent ownership of the Dragon Corporation. An entity which owns at least one share is known as a shareholder. If, at any time, the Dragon Corporation or the Lost and Found Department owns any shares, then those shares are destroyed. Any person CAN, by announcement, become a party to this contract or cease to be a party to this contract. A shareholder who is a party to this contract is known as a member. Wherever this contract states that an entity becomes a party to this contract or ceases to be a party to this contract, all parties to this contract are considered to consent to this change. ## Bylaw 2: Proposals Any member CAN, by announcement, submit a Corporate Proposal. A Corporate Proposal must have exactly one of the types defined by this contract. Thereafter, any member CAN vote FOR or AGAINST that proposal by announcement, or retract such a vote, which causes the vote to become null and void. Whenever a member votes, all of eir previous votes on the same proposal are implicitly retracted. If a Corporate Proposal was submitted more than 7 but fewer than 21 days ago, and the proposal has approval (as defined in other bylaws), and the proposal has not been applied, then any member CAN, by announcement, apply the proposal, which has effects as defined in other bylaws. Members SHALL NOT submit, vote for, or apply proposals that are egregiously unfair to other shareholders (such as a proposal which takes or revokes shares from minority shareholders without just compensation). ## Bylaw 3: Amendment Proposals An Amendment Proposal is a type of Corporate Proposal. An Amendment Proposal has approval if at least one member has voted FOR it, and the number of shares owned by members who have voted FOR it is at least 2 times the number of shares owned by members who have voted AGAINST it. When an Amendment Proposal is applied, the following occur: 1. Each party to this contract who has not consented to the application of the proposal ceases to be a party to this contract. A party who has voted FOR a proposal consents to the application of that proposal, unless e has publicly stated otherwise at or after the time at which e voted FOR it. 2. This contract is modified as described in the proposal. However, the application of an Amendment Proposal is INEFFECTIVE unless, in the same message, the entity who applies the proposal also publishes a text which is labeled as being the text of this contract after the application. E SHOULD, at that point, publish intent to ratify that text without objection. ## Bylaw 4: Ordinary Proposals An Ordinary Proposal is a type of
Re: DIS: [Notary] Draft Report
> Mar 03 2020 01:50: > Gaelan joined, purchased 3 shares and became president CoE: You purchased 4 shares, not 3, and you did so via my t4pf a couple of minutes ago. —Warrigal
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3818 Assigned to Jason
Oh okay, there is no zombie auction per CFJ 1817, so yes, false per caller On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:58 AM Rebecca wrote: > I always prefer an interpretation that the rules and game state are fixed > clearly and intractably at all times, and it is only our failure that > prevents us from having knowledge of them. Anyway, these conditionals, I > think, are the most strongly supported by game custom. The "if this exists, > I do it" conditional is frankly necessary for us to play this game, mostly. > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:45 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 3/2/20 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: >> > The below CFJ is 3818. I assign it to Jason. >> > >> > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3818 >> > >> > === CFJ 3818 >> === >> > >> > Rance's master switch is set to Agora. >> > >> > >> == >> > >> > Caller:Falsifian >> > >> > Judge: Jason >> > >> > >> == >> >> >> Immediate thoughts: >> >> FALSE per caller. However, I can also see an argument that Rance's >> Master was indeterminate because I performed a conditional action based >> on whether there was a zombie auction. At the time, it was not widely >> known whether there was a zombie auction; is that enough to make the >> value of the switch indeterminate? Or is it enough that the rules and >> messages were "reasonably available", which would (theoretically, at >> least) allow determining whether the zombie auction existed, to prevent >> Rance's Master being indeterminate. >> >> -- >> Jason Cobb >> >> > > -- > From R. Lee > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: [Notary] Draft Report
There were a lot of contract/pledge changes in the past few days. Just to make sure we’re all on the same page, here’s my current report. If you don’t mind, please take a look at contracts/pledges you care about make sure we agree. Gaelan NOTARY'S REPORT OF MARCH 03 2020 An up-to-date version of this report is available online at https://agoranomic.org/Notary/. There are 3 non-invisible contracts. === CONTRACT === |Gaelan's Really Bad At Sending Things To The Public Forum rev. 0| |PARTIES: Gaelan, twg, Warrigal, Falsifian | Any person may become a party of this contract to act on Gaelan’s behalf as described below. Any person may act on Gaelan’s behalf to perform a series of actions, subject to the following conditions: * Gaelan attempted to perform those exact actions (verbatim) in a message to a discussion forum * The message to the discussion forum occurred within the past 24 hours * Gaelan's message was clearly an attempt to perform actions by sending a message to a public forum (and, specifically, it was not labelled as a draft of a later public action, such as a “proto” proposal) * No actions have been performed by Gaelan, or on eir behalf, after the message to the discussion forum Gaelan may terminate this contract at any time, by announcement. History: Jan 08 2020 16:38: twg created (see CFJ 3791) Jan 24 2020 01:58: Warrigal joined Mar 01 2020 06:11: Falsifian joined === CONTRACT === |The Dragon Corporation rev. 1| |PARTIES: Warrigal | ## Bylaw 1: Definition This contract is named "the Dragon Corporation". The purpose of the Dragon Corporation is to earn as much money as possible for its shareholders. All other provisions of this contract notwithstanding, this contract does not permit any entity to act on behalf of any other entity. Shares of Dragon stock (also known as "shares of DRGN", or, in this contract, "shares") are a currency whose purpose is to represent ownership of the Dragon Corporation. An entity which owns at least one share is known as a shareholder. If, at any time, the Dragon Corporation or the Lost and Found Department owns any shares, then those shares are destroyed. Any person CAN, by announcement, become a party to this contract or cease to be a party to this contract. A shareholder who is a party to this contract is known as a member. Wherever this contract states that an entity becomes a party to this contract or ceases to be a party to this contract, all parties to this contract are considered to consent to this change. ## Bylaw 2: Proposals Any member CAN, by announcement, submit a Corporate Proposal. A Corporate Proposal must have exactly one of the types defined by this contract. Thereafter, any member CAN vote FOR or AGAINST that proposal by announcement, or retract such a vote, which causes the vote to become null and void. Whenever a member votes, all of eir previous votes on the same proposal are implicitly retracted. If a Corporate Proposal was submitted more than 7 but fewer than 21 days ago, and the proposal has approval (as defined in other bylaws), and the proposal has not been applied, then any member CAN, by announcement, apply the proposal, which has effects as defined in other bylaws. Members SHALL NOT submit, vote for, or apply proposals that are egregiously unfair to other shareholders (such as a proposal which takes or revokes shares from minority shareholders without just compensation). ## Bylaw 3: Amendment Proposals An Amendment Proposal is a type of Corporate Proposal. An Amendment Proposal has approval if at least one member has voted FOR it, and the number of shares owned by members who have voted FOR it is at least 2 times the number of shares owned by members who have voted AGAINST it. When an Amendment Proposal is applied, the following occur: 1. Each party to this contract who has not consented to the application of the proposal ceases to be a party to this contract. A party who has voted FOR a proposal consents to the application of that proposal, unless e has publicly stated otherwise at or after the time at which e voted FOR it. 2. This contract is modified as described in the proposal. However, the application of an Amendment Proposal is INEFFECTIVE unless, in the same message, the entity who applies the proposal also publishes a text which is labeled as being the text of this contract after the application. E SHOULD, at that point, publish intent to ratify that text without objection.
Re: DIS: CFJ 3813 proto-judged FALSE
> On Mar 2, 2020, at 2:50 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > On 3/2/2020 2:40 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: >> Not yet. Think I have till tomorrow? >> > > I'm showing it as assigned Feb 19th, due Feb 26th: > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2020-February/013456.html > > (but I'm not going to recuse you for another few days, lmk if I got the > dates wrong somehow...) > > -G. > Could’ve sworn the deadline was two weeks. I’ll get a judgement in today or tomorrow. Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Dragon Corporation
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2020, 20:50 Gaelan Steele wrote: > >> I become a party to the Dragon Corporation. On 3/2/2020 7:11 PM, Tanner Swett via agora-business wrote: > As per the contract known as "Gaelan's Really Bad At Sending Things To > The Public Forum", I act on Gaelan's behalf to perform the actions > described in the message quoted below. > > Gaelan, I am now required to inform you that you have become the > President of the Dragon Corporation. > > —Warrigal Joining contracts (consent) is one of those things you can't act-on-behalf to do (R2519), though you might decide to CFJ on clause 2.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Clean r2493 (Regulations)
On 3/2/2020 12:38 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > us young whippersnappers and our fancy email clients, that’s who > > Gaelan > > P.S. Chapter 3 of Gretchen McCulloch’s book Because Internet, about > “generational” differences in internet communication styles, is quite > interesting in an Agoran context. > >> On Mar 2, 2020, at 12:19 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion >> wrote: >> >> >> On 3/2/2020 12:01 PM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: >>> alright WHO brought back regulations goddamnit >> >> who brought back top-posting is what I want to know >> >> > Please, put some effort in though. After a request/discussion a couple months ago people stopped doing it and threads became easier to read again. Now it's becoming hard to read threads again. Some courtesy on this would go a ways. thx for considering. -G.
Re: DIS: CFJ 3813 proto-judged FALSE
On 2/20/2020 3:08 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > CFJ 3813 asks us whether Agora is a contract... Gaelan did you ever deliver this judgement I can't find anything on BUS or OFF that has it just not sure if I'm missing it. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Clean r2493 (Regulations)
> On Mar 2, 2020, at 12:46 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Please, put some effort in though. After a request/discussion a couple > months ago people stopped doing it and threads became easier to read > again. Now it's becoming hard to read threads again. Some courtesy on > this would go a ways. thx for considering. > > -G. Alright, happy to. Quite frankly, I think about it occasionally, but that usually ends up just being “which end am I supposed to never post on again?” and I go with what my mail client does. I’ll try to do better. Gaelan
DIS: Re: BUS: Clean r2493 (Regulations)
alright WHO brought back regulations goddamnit On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 12:12 AM sukil via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > El 01/03/2020 a las 5:53, James Cook via agora-business escribió: > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 15:14, sukil via agora-business > > wrote: > >> I intend to clean, as stated by r2221, the rule pertaining to > >> regulations (2493), replacing every instance of "an" with "a" (as every > >> instance of it is incorrect), if there is no objection. > >> > >> (I don't think this requires a proposal, right?) > > I object. "an" appears in "and" and "Agoran" and maybe "CAN" :-) To > > avoid confusion of what this cleaning does, I think it would be better > > to say 'every instance of the word "an"'. > > > > - Falsifian > > > Right, fine. > > Now the cleanup's text is "I intend to clean, as stated by r2221, the > rule pertaining to regulations (2493), replacing every instance of the > word "an" with "a" (as every instance of it is incorrect), if there is > no objection. > > > P. S.: You've killed Paul Grice . > > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Clean r2493 (Regulations)
On 3/2/2020 12:01 PM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > alright WHO brought back regulations goddamnit who brought back top-posting is what I want to know
