Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: High-Power Deference
Ian Kelly wrote: On 9/9/06, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Proposal: High-Power Deference (AI = 3, please) Amend Rule 1482 (Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power) by appending this text: If the Rule with the higher Power explicitly says of itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule), then such provisions shall supercede the Power method for determining precedence. If a rule would defer to rules of potentially lower power, would there still be any reason for making that rule so high-powered in the first place? Consider: Rule 5000 (Power=2) Foo is a number. Foo is 5. This rule defers to other rules assigning Foo a different value. Rule 5001 (Power=1) Foo is 6. Rule 5002 (Power=1) Foo is a word. So far, the deference is useful. But this breaks it: Rule 5003 (Power=1) Foo is 5. Foo is a character. To defer to R5001 alone, R5000 would have to be written something like Rule 5000 (Power=2) Foo is a number. Foo is 5. This rule's assignment of a value to Foo defers to other rules assigning a different value to Foo. but at that point, you may as well just write Rule 5000 (Power=2) Foo is a number. Foo is 5. Other rules may modify the value of Foo. or Rule 5000 (Power=2) Foo is a number. Foo is 5. Other rules may modify the value of Foo without conflicting with this rule. (Which of these last two versions successfully avoid a conflict? Which of them attempt to defer?)
DIS: Officer shuffle?
Would anyone like to be CotC for a while? I can continue to maintain the database, since it's non-trivial to relocate. It'd also be nice to get a Speakership out of this win (R402), which would require my giving up the Clerkship (R1450). H. Promotor OscarMeyr, are you still out there? There are a number of proposals waiting to be distributed. I promise to clear through my CotC backlog in a few days, after the dust settles a bit.
DIS: FYI: Claustronomic status
http://www.geocities.com/koljag/cn/indexcn.htm Would there be an interest in having Agora explicitly recognize these as subgames? Also, http://www.itsyourturn.com/ supports non-real-time chess and a number of other board games, if we feel like putting up a points-based framework around that or something.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Ecumenical Proposals
Michael Slone wrote: (I would MTFO for Garden Nomic III.) There's a Garden Nomic III? Not that I can find, hence would.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ
OscarMeyr wrote: As I understand R1789, the CotC commands the deregistration as part of posting the WoF; the command is not directed AT the Registrar. Only the order to note the method of deregistration is directed at the Registrar. Correct, but CFJ 1594 hinges on the argument that this is enough to disqualify the message from being a WoF. Under my reading, Goethe was still a player while CFJ 1594 was being judged; the WoF wasn't posted until after the judgment was submitted and published. The order of events was as follows: 1) I assigned CFJ 1594 to Goethe. Goethe was definitely still a player at this point, because no purported WoF had been published yet. 2) I published the purported WoF and reassignment. This split the gamestate into two possible interpretations: 1594F - 1594 false, Goethe deregistered, Sherlock assigned 1594T - 1594 true, Goethe not deregistered, Goethe still assigned 3) Goethe published eir purported Judgement of FALSE. This was effective only in 1594T, and paradoxed it. 4) Sherlock published eir purported Judgement of TRUE. This was effective only in 1594F, and paradoxed it. I am therefore holding off on awarding a Win By Paradox to Murphy until this situation is resolved. Speaker Sherlock awards it, you just record that e's done so.
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ
Sherlock wrote: R2110 (Win by Paradox) limits the number of wins to one person, but does not limit the number of wins that individual may achieve for noting a paradox. Murphy therefore was eligible to receive any number of wins that the Speaker decided to award. Rule 2110/0 (Power=3) Win by Paradox If the legality of an action cannot be determined with finality, or if by a Judge's best reasoning, not appealed within a week of eir Judgement, an action appears equally legal and illegal, then the Speaker shall award the Patent Title of Champion to the first Player to publicly note that condition. The Herald shall record that this Title was achieved by paradox in eir report. My interpretation is that X shall perform action Y is equivalent to X is required and allowed to perform Y exactly once, unless clearly indicated otherwise.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Rook Promotes to Dragon King
Eris wrote:
That's ridiculous. Standard usage is that A, B, C are mutually
exclusive X for {A, B, C} \subset X. Doesn't makes sense otherwise.
Rules that don't make sense are nothing new. :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto-assessing of Proposal 4876
OscarMeyr wrote: On Dec 16, 2006, at 6:50 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: H. Speaker Sherlock, can you please confirm the following? Proposal 4876 FOR: Murphy, Goethe, OscarMeyr PRESENT: Eris Decision: FAILED QUORUM Did this ever get finalized? Sherlock confirmed it on December 18, albeit in a-d.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs
Goethe wrote: ps. if you like the new rule 101, want to try to gut the judicial system... I ran out of steam on that one and we still need judicial reform (reform the mechanics to match R101 and the rest). Something along the lines of this outline? i. Every person has the right to CFJ ii. Every player has the right to Judge, unless explicitly disqualified by a rule iii. Every player has the right not to be punished worse than a formal apology, unless evidence beyond reasonable doubt iv. Every player has the right to file motions v. Every set of 2+ players has the right to submit a concurring or dissenting opinion
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 4877-4892
Sherlock wrote: 4879 | Dishonor Rolls, redux | Murphy| 1 | 16Dec06 | O I love this... FOR I feel obligated to remind folks that I didn't write this rule, just proposed to patch it in from a previously adopted proposal that accidentally didn't have its full intended effect. 4882 | The Lady, or the Tiger? | Murphy| 1 | 22Dec06 | O I don't know how to vote on this. I hate proposals to retcon the game state. Given that the relevant portion of the game state has been deliberately twisted into self-contradiction, there seems little alternative.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: registration and CFJs
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: YAFI, YGI. What does that expand to? You asked for it, you got it. The Clerk of the Courts may, without objection, unlink one or more of the linked CFJs from the others by announcement. If e unlinks more than one as a set, then those CFJs remain linked to each other. There are interacting time limits here. Taking an action Without Objection takes at least four days, and the Judge has to be assigned within a week. What if the CotC is away for three days? In theory, the CotC may be prosecuted for violating ASAP. In practice, no one bothers to prosecute much of anything these days, but of course it only takes one vigilant player to change that. Without Objection and Linked CFJs should be capitalised. Things have been drifting away from Wes's old practice of Capitalizing Words deemed to be Important. If the restriction on Barring passes -- it's the obvious fix -- then there's no need for preemptive unlinking. Unlinking is a matter to be decided on the content of the CFJs, so I think that's better left to a Judge rather than the CotC. Point. Even with ineligibility by request repealed, we still allow judges to do this. Actually, I see a couple more things to improve in that rule. Proto-Proposal: Clean up CFJ linkage Amend Rule 2024 (Linked Statements) to read: Linked CFJs are multiple Calls for Judgement deemed to be sufficiently similar that they should be have a single judge. Linkage is transitive. When a set of one or more linked CFJs change jurisdiction, they remain linked to each other, but become unlinked from any other CFJs; they may become linked to one or more CFJs within the new jurisdiction. Multiple CFJs, submitted in a single message and clearly labelled as Linked CFJs, become linked. The players (if any) barred by the caller from judging the first CFJ are the only players e may bar from judging the others. The Clerk of the Courts shall assign a judge to a set of Linked CFJs, as if they were a single CFJ. The judge must be eligible to judge each of the Linked CFJs, and is simultaneously assigned as judge of each of the Linked CFJs. The judge of a set of Linked CFJs shall submit eir judgement of each of those CFJs in a single message. A trial judge may remand one or more linked CFJs to the Clerk of the Courts by announcement. E ceases to be their judge. A trial judge may transfer one or more of eir CFJs to a second trial judge by announcement (identifying one of the second judge's CFJs), provided that the second judge consents, and is eligible to judge all of them. The transferred CFJs become linked to the second judge's CFJ (and any others to which it is already linked). Create a rule titled Excess CFJs with this text: A CFJ made by a person who has previously made five or more CFJs during the same Agoran Week is an Excess CFJ. The Clerk of the Courts may dismiss an Excess CFJ by announcement.
Re: DIS: proto: broaden annotations
Zefram wrote: The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that a Rule should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE or FALSE, may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule in question accordingly. If the CFJ was judged TRUE then the annotation shall be the Statement of the CFJ, and if the CFJ was judged FALSE then the annotation shall be the contrary of the Statement of the CFJ. Such an annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of that Rule. Expressing the contrary of a given statement is not always trivial, unless you resort to the form The statement 'foo bar' is false. Just require the rule to be annotated with the Statement and Judgement.
DIS: Re: BUS: two proposals relating to low AIs
Zefram wrote: H. Promotor, I hereby submit the following Proposal, entitled hoopy: --- Be it therefore resolved that a Rule be created with title Sass That Hoopy and text: When the Clerk of the Courts publishes a Judgement as required by Rule 591, e must accompany the publication with the statement Zefram is a frood.. Any publication of a Judgement that is not so accompanied does not satisfy the Clerk of the Courts' obligation to publish the Judgement. This Rule takes precedence over Rule 591. --- I hereby set the Adoption Index of the above Proposal to 0.01. Rule 955 still requires it to get more votes FOR than AGAINST, and even if it didn't, Rule 1482 would overrule its claim of precedence. I hereby submit the following Proposal, entitled fix Power and Rule Changes: --- Be it therefore resolved that one second after the adoption of this Proposal Rule 105 Rule Changes be modified by replacing the text Enact a rule with Enact a Rule with Power no greater than its own, and by replacing the text Repeal a rule with Repeal a Rule with Power no greater than its own. --- I hereby set the Adoption Index of the above Proposal to 3. I noticed this bug four days ago (while answering a question from Peter about how voting credits work), and was planning to fix it with more style. Can't surprise people with it any more, may as well present it right away...
DIS: Unanimity issue
With the definition of Unanimity in question, would someone like to cast AGAINST votes as needed to prevent any of the proposals currently in their voting period from passing unanimously? I'd propose a fix to the definition, but I need to head offline now (and it's time someone else had a chance at some fix proposals, anyway).
DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: fix proposal efficacy
Zefram wrote: Even after the fixes proposed for Rule Changes, it's still possible for a Proposal to be adopted with AI 1 and take effect with Power=0. That allows anything *except* Rule Changes to be done by an unpopular Proposal. Nope, Rule 955 prevents it: If the voting index exceeds one and meets or exceeds the adoption index of the decision, and if further quorum was achieved, then the option selected by Agora is ADOPTED. Otherwise, the option selected by Agora is REJECTED.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Eris wrote: On 1/12/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: # If the Rules defining some entity are repealed or amended such that # they no longer define that entity, then that entity along with all # its properties shall cease to exist. So, specifically, the numerical comparison properties of Unanimity have ceased to exist. Protoproposal: Poof! Create a rule with the following text: Zefram is a Player. Repeal the Rule just created. This rule does not define Zefram. It does define Zefram's playerhood, but so do some other rules.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Eris wrote: On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This rule does not define Zefram. It does define Zefram's playerhood, but so do some other rules. If a rule says X is a Y., under what circumstances does it then define X? When X does not exist independently of the rules.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Eris wrote: On 1/12/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When X does not exist independently of the rules. What if it says This Rule defines X. X is a Y.? If X exists independently of the rules, then this rule is either lying, or using This Rule defines X as a gloss for This Rule defines a property of X. In either case, repealing the rule does not cause X to cease to exist.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Unanimity
Eris wrote: On 1/13/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If X exists independently of the rules, then this rule is either lying, or using This Rule defines X as a gloss for This Rule defines a property of X. In either case, repealing the rule does not cause X to cease to exist. How exactly does a Rule lie? By erecting a legal fiction for the duration of its effect. If such a Rule were to be enacted and then subsequently repealed, a Judge could quite reasonably conclude that X no longer exists, since the Rules say so. And so on... Possibly. You could register and test it for real.
Re: DIS: a bigger bug -- no gamestate changes?
Goethe wrote: proto-CFJ Proposal 4882 (The Lady, or the Tiger?) can have no effect on Goethe's registration status. Arguments R594/8, no longer in effect, contained the following text: For the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties. R594/9, enacted 20-June-2005, contained no such text (and R594 has since been repealed). It was replaced with the following in R1483 and later moved to R106: A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora, including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making other explicit changes to the gamestate. However, this in itself does not, as the old text did, legally authorize the adjustment of specific properties (regulated qantities). Additional legal authority is required for Proposals to function. For example, while this R106 text states a proposal's purpose is to enact rules, other rules are still required to explicitly enable the enaction. R106 also states that a proposal takes effect when adopted. This can be reasonably interpreted - especially in the light of this potential crisis - as allowing a proposal to do anything not explicitly prohibited. For example, if R105 did not exist, then proposals could create, amend, and repeal rules without restriction; R105 explicitly points out Agora's nomic-ness, and also prohibits proposals from doing certain things, e.g. amending higher-Power rules.
DIS: Upcoming events
In addition to the Rule 1450 issue, it occurred to me that Rule 2110's awarding of the Patent Title of Champion might be interpreted as not synonymous with winning the game (despite the rule's title), hence failing to activate Rule 402. Fortunately, I have a Plan (tm) to sidestep this mess: 1) Wait till Sunday evening, then use Rule 2117 to replace myself as vote collector for Proposals 4877 through 4892. 2) Assess the Proposals. Briefly, all except 4881, 4883, and 4888 will be adopted. This will legislate Goethe as deregistered, me as Speaker, and GreyKnight as Clerk of the Courts. 3) Enter the judicial backlog into the database. (I've been holding off because the last mass unturning depended on Goethe being removed as judge of CFJ 1594.) Briefly, arkestra, Quazie, and Sherlock need to judge some stuff, GreyKnight needs to assign judges to lots more stuff, and someone (Eris? Maud? root?) needs to register so that Zefram's linked CFJs can be assigned to em.
Re: DIS: Rule 1868 Paradox
Jacob Sutton wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Jacob Sutton wrote: Rule 1868 states that a CFJ is open if it has not been judged and closed if it is not open So, if a case has been judged, there is no rule keeping it from still being considered open. Correct. So it's not open. (Assuming it also doesn't have any outstanding motions.) Just because it is open before it's judged doesn't mean that's the only time it's open. The implicit pattern is that X becomes Y when Z causes X to remain Y until something explicitly makes it become not-Y, while X is Y if Z causes X to cease being Y as soon as Z stops being true. (X is Y while Z or X is Y if and only if Z would be clearer.)
DIS: Re: BUS: Appeal of CFJ 1594
Eris wrote: On 1/31/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hereby appeal Sherlock's judgement of CFJ 1594. I also appeal this Judgement, because I've always wanted to try this. This is explicitly allowed by Rule 101, but contributes nothing toward Rule 1564's prerequisites for initiating an appeal. I am reminded of the Inalienable Rights scene from _Life of Brian_.
Re: DIS: OFF: Judgement of CFJ 1597
Michael Norrish wrote: Kerim Aydin wrote: Let's say, in this case, the decision is OVERTURN AND REVERSE. Did that OVERTURN AND REVERSE apply to Goethe's FALSE or Sherlock's TRUE? There's no legal distinction the appeals court can make to distinguish them. I don't imagine the Appeals Court will make that decision then. I suspect instead they'll suggest that the case be re-assigned. I envisioned conditional responses like I move to sustain X's judgement of CFJ 5000. I move to overturn and reverse Y's judgement of CFJ 5000. but reassignment is unquestionably more elegant. If you like, I think my argument is in the best interests of the game: do you really want an unresolvable CFJ paralysing the system for evermore? (You might call the same CFJ again I suppose.) Which, in fact, e did.
Re: DIS: Proto: Revise Rotation
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: What's this supposed to mean? Sounds like a barbecuing procedure. cause a player to become turned, then. It's the whole thing that I have a problem with, not the verb turn. I really can't make head or tail of it. What's it for? Shortly after you last deregistered, we repealed the requirement for judges to be selected randomly. Turns for All was a response to that, to ensure that players would still be assigned to roughly equal numbers of cases over time. Turned is a subtly amusing gloss for had eir turn. Listing all outstanding CFJs is a tricky requirement. Not if the database is up to date, A new CFJ can always be called while the Notice is being prepared or in transit. So you do one more download before sending it. Big deal. CFJ 1607 is assigned to Quazie. This is a Notice of Rotation, pointing out CFJ 1600. CFJ 1608 is assigned to Quazie. This is a Notice of Rotation, pointing out CFJ 1600. CFJ 1609 is assigned to Quazie. Hmm. In that case we'd want to require a Judge to be assigned to CFJ 1600 before any others. Perhaps that should be part of a Notice of Rotation: a newly unturned Player must be assigned to the cited CFJ. That would enormously reduce the scope for abuse. If my conditions are in place, then only newly unturned players would be eligible anyway. Another way to express it: assigning a turned player has the side effect of unturning everyone else. That could even be made implicit. I have a bad feeling that that would eventually lead to some sort of Platonic mess.
DIS: Bribery
I will increase by 5 the VLOP of the next player who is installed as CotC according to the Agoran Consent procedure in Rule 1006.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 4904-4909
Michael wrote: 4904 | some deeming| AGAINST 4905 | Cleaning up after myself| FOR 4906 | Deem deemed harmful | FOR 4907 | Timing without Orders | FOR 4908 | No Silly Orders | FOR 4909 | broaden annotations | FOR Not to the PF.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Initialize Activity
Quazie wrote: Is anyone else defiantly inactive? ^ Is this typo intentional or merely serendipitous? Anyway, some players may reasonably fit the English definition of inactive. There are five things that depend on activity: 1) Requirement to receive PFs 2) Ability to win 3) Ability to become holder of an Office by Agoran Consent 4) Ability to vote 5) Eligibility to judge Prior to the adoption of Proposal 4893, at least #2 through #4 were non-issues, because any player doing these things would become active when e attempted the actions (consenting to hold office for #3).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Paragraphs and pineapples
Goethe wrote: How about something more radical and simple? Leave persons as referring to all types of persons (not just natural), but insert a single sentence persons consisting of the same set of natural persons are the same person. This would limit the arbitrary issue, and puts partnerships nicely in line with our ideas on person (no avatars, a person is who e is, likewise, a partnership is who e is.) In fact, if the PP is upheld to be a person, even the current ruleset might allow that a later partnership made up of Zefram and myself was the same partnership on theses principles. While leaving both contracts in effect. If you think about it, it's not too much of an abuse to allow any set of M people to form a single partnership with personhood rights... getting M people to agree partnership with rules for doing things is Not Easy. Even given that those M people might agree to create additional partnerships out of proper subsets, thus forming a bloc of 2^M-1 voters (including the natural persons)? Granted, this is Not Easy, either. Groups were basically an intermediate case in which each natural person could belong to at most one partnership at a time.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: conflict of interest
Quazie wrote: This is exactly the type of change I was talking about, I just have never understood the CFJ system enough to write it myself. Eris, may I publish that short list of bullet points you sent me about a conceptual revamping of the judiciary?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: conflict of interest
Eris wrote: On 3/9/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Quazie wrote: This is exactly the type of change I was talking about, I just have never understood the CFJ system enough to write it myself. Eris, may I publish that short list of bullet points you sent me about a conceptual revamping of the judiciary? Err... it's just a summary of a larger list of items. Sure, you can publish it, and if someone is interested in implementing it, please get a hold of me so we can discuss the full list. * standing court * issue joinder * requirement for clear and concise pleading * judicial discretion * reasonable appeals * motion to reconsider * precedent * declaratory judgement
DIS: Re: BUS: Dear, damn'd distracting town, farewell!
Michael wrote: I hereby deregister. Well, crap. Would anyone else (preferably already familiar with CVS) like to be Rulekeepor?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Re-divide some offices
Goethe wrote: as for bringing back the Assessor, ADoP, and the Registrar, do we really need that sheer weight of offices when we don't care enough to contest the ones we've got? We already have the weight of their duties, and under the current regime they're locked together in twos and threes. The Speaker's duties are light, being the Assessor has power, shouldn't that stay together? I suppose so. I think the final version will re-use that mechanism from a while back where you could effectively cast sub-votes for or against severable portions of the proposal.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Rulekeepor's notes for Proposals 4893-4903
Goethe wrote: I'd suggest the following record for R105: History: Initial Immutable Rule 105, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1072, Oct. 4 1994 Amended by Proposal 1275, Oct. 24 1994 Renumbered from 1072 to 105 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial Amended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Renumbered after Repeal from to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy) Amended(3) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy) This is just a suggestion, not so much from the database as from the historical angle... in the name of concisely presevering the history of R105 in the full Ruleset, I'd hate for that history going back to an initial rule to be lost. I reckon it's the renumbering that does that. I suggest that any historical database of the rules be keyed on the rules' *original* number, rather than current number. There is no duplication or change there. I'm concerned with linking whatever is the current ruleset to its history. From that perspective, the history of R105 is a line back to its original, broken by a scam. This follows the substantive history of that rule even through its instantaneous repeal. Following that as the brief history of R is not so illuminating (and certainly doesn't document the scam). There is precedence for this... note in the history above it was already renumbered once! Proto: Upon the adoption of this proposal, the Rulekeepor shall annotate Rule 105 with history of the previous Rule 105.
DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: reorientation
Zefram wrote: H. Promotor, I hereby submit the following proposal, entitled reorientation: --- Amend rule 889 (The Clerk of the Courts) by deleting the text The CotC's Bi-Weekly Report shall include the following: (i) Each Player's Orientation. --- (Orientation isn't defined anywhere in the rules. The paragraph being deleted is obsolete.) But the concept (whether a player is turned or unturned) does still exist, so the paragraph should be amended to refer to it properly.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Voting Limits
Zefram wrote: Benjamin Schultz wrote: Zefram 1 1 0 I should have a VC for delivering judgement, and I expect several other players should too. Since 2007-01-22, R2126 includes: A player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period gains one VC. A player whose judgement is overturned loses one VC, if e has any. I believe this is a complete list of all such changes so far: 1589 -1 GreyKnight 1598 +1 GreyKnight 1599 +1 OscarMeyr 1605 +1 Murphy 1614 +1 OscarMeyr 1618 +1 Zefram 1619 +1 Zefram 1620 +1 Zefram 1600 +1 Murphy 1601 +1 Murphy 1603 +1 Murphy 1604 +1 Murphy 1613 +1 Peter 1622 +1 Goethe Now that the Ruleset is up to date again, I should resume work on Two-Tone Economics and some other protos.
Re: DIS: eligibility question
Goethe wrote: It is not clear to me if eligibility in terms of Appeals judges includes turning: As soon as possible after an Appellate Judge is recused, the Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to replace em. clause (iv) of R911: iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection. seems to include turning. But it is my belief and memory that the Speaker or CotC was never left of the Board of Appeals solely due to being turned. Thoughts? Rule 1871 only makes players ineligible to be Trial Judges, not Judges in general.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1608 assigned to Maud
Maud wrote: On 3/23/07, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I assign CFJ 1608 to Maud. Text is here: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2007-January/002784.html I (proto-)judge the statement of CFJ 1608 to be TRUE. Actually, this may be trivially true due to Rule 2034.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 1608 assigned to Maud
Maud wrote: On 3/28/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, this may be trivially true due to Rule 2034. If I understand the argument you intend, this would depend on Agorans agreeing not to challenge the vote collector's announcement of results. Yes, that's what I had in mind.
Re: DIS: Proto-proposal: Excess CFJs
Levi wrote: Attempt at cleaning up the Excess CFJ rule. I've used the following as a basis for this change 1. The use of 'dismiss' is unclear, due to DISMISS being a valid judgement for a CFJ, but dismissal through a CFJ being an Excess CFJ should be different to dismissal under rule 1565 2. My guess that the Excess CFJ rule is to avoid overloading the judicial system, so if there are the resources to judge the Excess CFJs, then they should be judged. Comments welcome. I'm sure some wording could be improved :) Replace the entire text of rule 2132 with the following text: A CFJ submitted by a person who has previously submitted five or more CFJs during the same Agoran Week as that CFJ is an Excess CFJ. So far, so good. An Excess CFJ may be Refused, Deferred or Accepted at The Clerk of the Courts discretion. If Refused the Excess CFJ shall be treated as if it had never been submitted. Agora has been trending away from deemed, considered, treated as if. I suggest If refused, the Excess CFJ ceases to be a CFJ. If Deferred the Excess CFJ shall be treated as if it had been submitted, by the same person, at the beginning of the following Agoran week. The week following the submission, or the week following the deferral? If a player submits more than ten CFJs within the same Agoran week, should the CotC be able to defer #11 twice, etc.? If Accepted the Excess CFJ shall no longer be considered an Excess CFJ. If accepted, the Excess CFJ ceases to be Excess. The Clerk of the Courts Refuses or Defers the Excess CFJ by announcement. The Clerk of the Courts indicates acceptance of an Excess CFJ by assigning a judge to that CFJ. Agora has been trending away from detailed rules and toward simpler rules with the same net effect (e.g. the third and fourth paragraphs of Rule 1006, which replaced several Election rules that explicitly described nominations and votes). In this vein, everything after the first paragraph of this proposal could be replaced with: The time limit for assigning a judge to an Excess CFJ is extended by 106 years.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Changing officers
Maud wrote: On 4/3/07, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I intend to make Maud Herald by Agoran Consent. You're doing this for the pun, aren't you? What pun? Now if your nickname was Lloyd...
Re: DIS: web pages
Zefram wrote: as I do only structural markup and not visual design, if someone wants to produce a CSS stylesheet that might be a useful addition. http://www.oswd.org/
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Agoran Chromodynamics
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Repeal Rule 2126 (Voting Credits). Not going to turn pre-existing VCs into beads? Hey, you're the one who was complaining about VC inflation. :) * One Green Bead to bar a player from judging a CFJ. This would be a nightmare in a crisis. It is best for the CFJ system to operate pretty independently of scores, currency holdings, and such things. This is the sort of thing that Rule 2133 is meant to deal with. On the whole, I'm not convinced that the extra complexity here (over VCs) is worthwhile. I'd like to play under the VC system for a while longer. The combining-beads idea dates back to Steve's Separation of Money era, at which time there were more units of currency coming and going. We could go back to charging for proposing and/or voting; the tricky part is to charge enough to make it interesting, but not so much that people get miserly and stop submitting proposals.
Re: DIS: BUS: Proposal: Return of the Contests
Goethe wrote: Rule 2128 allows you to specify a contest to determine the next winner. It doesn't say you have to run the contest. If I come up with a good contest and offer to run it, would you be willing to invite players to enter to win as per R2128? I don't see why not. In any case, your proposal should amend 2128 so as not to have two definitions of contest... Will do.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Agoran Chromodynamics
Goethe wrote: The second point, though, is plain old critical mass. At the time I joined, the game peaked at perhaps 15 players who were actively participating plus another 10 who were semi-active. That's a vastly different dynamic the current ~10 players. When we dismantled the currency system, the main broken thing (in my mind) was just too much machinery for too few players. For the number of players we have now, the simpler VC concept is probably the complexity level we want to work with. If less than 23 players are registered, then players may spend any two beads to create an Orange, Purple, or Green Bead.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto-Proposal: Omnibus Judicial Reform Act of 2007
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: you're standing, then you must wait till you're assigned something (switching you to sitting) before opting out of further judicial work. Sounds unwise. I think one should be able to opt out at any time. The concept of a standing court suggests an explicitly opt-in system, hence it's not quite so easy to opt out. It's also new, and I would consider it interesting without being crippling. Under normal circumstances, there are reasonable time windows in which to opt out. If the CFJs are flying fast and furious, or the CotC keeps picking you last and then immediately publishing a Notice of Rotation (should rename that to Notice of Musical Chairs or something), then you can negotiate with the CotC, or attempt to replace em, or simply let your Deliberation Period run out, or become inactive until things change, or deregister until next month (in a Writ of FAGE if it's that big a deal to you).
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 4930-4940
Maud wrote: 4932 AGAINST -- (I've missed some discussion. Aren't these 4933 AGAINST -- attempting to do basically the same thing?) The difference is whether an Excess CFJ that gets assigned may still be refused. 4935 FOR (Why ``contentiousness''? I mean, I know why, but why?) 4936 FOR (But you should have Red + Yellow = Mellow.) Octarine + Red = Infrared Octarine + Blue = Ultraviolet Octarine + Yellow = Mellow but we need enough complexity to justify a fourth primary bead color. 4939 PRESENT (IADoP should be promoted to ``Director of Personnel''.) No it shouldn't. (Let's see ... drunk ... drunk ... I don't know what the technical term is, but whipping it out in an elevator ... drunk ... drunk ... whipping it out in an office. I was telling the elevator story at another job.)
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 4930-4940
quazie wrote: 4930 | Simple VC win | Goethe| 1* | 02Apr07 | D FOR Not to the PF.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protection Racket
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: An Oligarch may refuse a proposal by announcement. A refused proposal ceases to be a proposal. Nice try, but I don't think this will work at Power=1. Rule 106 at Power=3 calls for a proposal to be adopted if the vote on it is favourable, which I think your ceases to be a proposal provision would conflict with. If it's not a proposal any more, then R106 falls silent, yes? We expect to get some entertaining CFJs out of this one. There are, to be sure, several other ways that a Power=1 rule can grant emperorhood. Move on half a sentence in R106 and you find unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, so you could win with A refused proposal cannot take effect even if adopted.. You could also have had The voting period of a refused proposal is 106 years.. That would be Terrible. I was just thinking (a few hours ago) that a good legislative project at this point would be to restructure and upmutate parts of the proposal system to prevent such abuses. The objective would be that all the machinery for adopting Democratic proposals would be at Power=3, Why not Power=2? with strictly limited scope for interference by Power=1 rules. This sounds like an entertaining challenge.
DIS: Re: BUS: Set of CFJs (a paradox found)?
quazie wrote: I'm not sure if the rules allow me to do this or not. I request to not judge the above linked CFJs. You're allowed to make the request, but it doesn't actually make you ineligible. Eris, now that you're back (well come!), can you comment on the [bracketed] portions of my Standing Court proto?
Re: DIS: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 1638-1645 assigned to Goethe
Goethe wrote: Fair enough. But the point was, when Zefram and I were looking at if we could block Murphy et al.'s proposal, we noticed that a CotC could legally mint an unbounded number of VCs, by an as-long-as-you-want list of linked, trivial CFJs. Instant, overpowering voting, worse than the Oligarch proposal itself. In this case, we used it to: They don't even need to be linked - the CotC merely needs to not do anything about the excess ones. 2. point out the issue (I have a draft bug fix, capping linked CFJ VCs the same way linked CFJ card draws were capped); Should apply to excess CFJs instead, or in addition.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protection Racket
Zefram wrote: Eep, here's another message with datestamps crossing midnight. (I just CFJed about this concerning Quazie's VC spending.) Headers: I think the normal domain of technical control argument should continue to hold. I remove Proposal Racket from the pool. It was titled Protection Racket, the same title that you used for the new version. This probably wasn't effective in removing the old one. Oops, things like that happen when you're in a hurry. (I caught up on a few weeks' CotC DB backlog earlier, and have been entering subsequent updates as soon as they come in.) The second one should still be effective, though. An Oligarch may refuse a CFJ by announcement. A refused CFJ ceases to be a CFJ. There is particular concern about this provision, so I'm disappointed to see you retaining it in the second iteration. Swann's Mousetrap Thesis, worth rereading at times like this, points out that the conspirators there could have reserved judging duties for themselves, but refrained from doing so because it would have greatly inflamed the crisis. The theoretical threat of breaking the judiciary was what got me to think of this scam in the first place. (Wait a minute, if the Excess CFJ rule can use the 'ceases to be a X' mechanism...) The similar ceases to be a proposal mechanism was added as a secondary measure, allowing the Oligarchy to shoot down repeal attempts prior to their own we give ourselves a token reward and then repeal the Oligarchy proposal. (I didn't anticipate a repeal attempt being launched before the rule to be repealed was created.) I would strongly encourage that the power over the judiciary not be actually used except to set up a test case (call a trivial CFJ, refuse it, call another CFJ on whether the refusal had its intended effect), and that the power over proposals not be actually used except to shoot down reward-less repeals (and preferably not even then; hopefully both factions can agree on a suitable token instead).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Protection Racket
OscarMeyr wrote: On Apr 29, 2007, at 9:12 PM, Zefram wrote: Oh, this seems a good time to point out: the would-be Oligarchs could have avoided the whole VC race by simply distributing the Oligarch proposal last week, so that it would be contested under that week's unchangeable VLOPs. We certainly couldn't have voted it down under those circumstances. What was the intent? In short, because I had other things to do late last week. I did suggest this to OscarMeyr as soon as I realized you two were boosting your VLOPs (about 15 minutes before the end of the week).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration request
Roger Hicks wrote: Well...let's see. I'm off to a good start. Triggering a CFJ while joining the game is a fine Agoran tradition. How about: I hereby register for Agora Nomic. Alas, this is ineffective because it wasn't sent to a Public Forum. You had the right idea the first time with agora-business. (Replies to a-o and a-b messages are directed to a-d by default, because that's generally appropriate more often than not.)
Re: DIS: BUS: Registration request
Goethe wrote: Murphy wrote: I could swear that some variation or other of this issue has been judged in the past, but darned if I can find it. It was the opposite. The rules required that new players request registration. I tried to register by announcing I register. The CFJ was around Feb, 2001. Thanks, it was CFJ 1266 (and was dismissed because it consisted of multiple statements).
Re: DIS: Call for Appeal
Goethe wrote: CFJ 1630: We're all mad, here. Levi judged: I issue a judgement of DISMISSED as irrelevant to the rules. I call for appeal of CFJ 1630. The truth of CFJ 1630 tells us everything we need to know about the rules. Not to the PF, but it's not clear that Rule 1564 cares.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No free votes
Maud wrote: On 5/4/07, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I struggled with making it sufficiently generic and yet clear. The intent is that at any point, the voting limit is one less than it would be if the voter was not a natural person. I have a better idea: restrict playerhood to actual persons. Ahem. Annabel? Also, http://www.theonion.com/content/cartoon/apr-20-2007
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 4947 - 4957
The validity of BobTHJ's votes only affects the outcome of Proposal 4953, which has null effect anyway since Proposal 4952 failed. Additional note: The validity of my 8th and 9th votes per proposal did not affect any of the outcomes.
DIS: Proto: Return of switches
Proto-Proposal: Return of switches (AI = 3, please) Create a rule titled Switches with this text: A switch is a property that the rules define as being a switch, pertaining to a type of entity, and having one or more possible values. Each switch has exactly one value. If a switch comes to have a value, it ceases to have any other value. If a switch would otherwise fail to have a value defined by the rules as possible, then it comes to have its default value. If a switch's default value is not otherwise defined, then it is the first possible value listed. Loose switches may be changed by announcement. Stuck switches may only be changed as defined by the rules. All switches are stuck unless defined as loose. Amend Rule 2130 (Inactivity) to read: Activity is a player switch with values Active and Inactive. A player may flip eir activity by announcement. A player may flip another player's activity to Inactive without objection. Amend Rule 478 (Fora) by replacing this text: A Forum's Publicity may be either null, Discussion, or Public (default null). A forum's publicity may not be changed except as described in this rule. with this text: Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and Null (default). If Murphy's proposal The Standing Court was adopted, then amend Rule 1871 (The Standing Court) by replacing this text: Each player is either standing, sitting, or lying down. A player may change emself from sitting to lying down, or vice versa, by announcement. When a player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e changes to sitting. A player is ineligible to be Trial Judge of a CFJ if e was not standing when it was called. When a player registers, e is lying down. with this text: Orientation is a player switch with values Standing, Sitting, and Lying Down (default). A player may flip eir Orientation from sitting to lying down, or vice versa, by announcement. When a player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e becomes sitting. A player is ineligible to become Trial Judge of a CFJ while e is not standing. Otherwise, amend Rule 1871 (Turns for All) by replacing this text: When a player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e becomes turned. A player is ineligible to be Trial Judge of a CFJ if e was turned when it was called. When a player registers, e becomes turned. with this text: Orientation is a player switch with values Unturned and Turned (default). When a player is selected as Trial Judge of a CFJ, e becomes turned. A player is ineligible to become Trial Judge of a CFJ while e is turned.
DIS: Proto: Beads and Wins
Proto-Proposal: Beads and Wins Rename Rule 2126 (Voting Credits) to Beads, change its Power to 2, and amend it to read: Beads are property, but cannot be traded. The Jewelor is an office. The Jewelor's report shall include each player's beads. Create a rule titled Earning Beads with Power 2 and this text: Players may only earn beads as follows: 1) 2 beads for authoring an ordinary proposal that is adopted. 2) 1 bead for co-authoring an ordinary proposal that is adopted. 3) 1 bead for holding an office for the majority of a quarter. 4) 1 bead for judging a CFJ during the Deliberation Period. 5) Up to 5 beads per month as specified by contests. Create a rule titled Forfeiting Beads with Power 2 and this text: Players may only forfeit beads as follows: 1) All beads when one or more players win the game. 2) 1 bead for having one's judgement overturned. Create a rule titled Spending Beads with Power 2 and this text: Players may only spend beads as follows: 1) 2 beads to increase eir voting limit on ordinary proposals by one. 2) 1 bead to increase another player's voting limit on ordinary proposals by one. 3) 2 beads to decrease another player's voting limit on ordinary proposals by one, to a minimum of zero. 4) 2 beads to increase a proposal's adoption index by 0.1. 5) 2 beads to ban a player from judging a CFJ to which e is not already assigned. Amend Rule 2137 (The Assessor) by replacing this text: The Assessor's report shall include the following: a) Each player's voting limit on ordinary proposals. b) Each player's voting credits. with this text: The Assessor's report shall include each player's voting limit on ordinary proposals. Create a rule titled Win by Beads with this text: A player with 42 or more beads is eligible to win. Amend Rule 2134 (Win by Voting Power) to read: A player satisfies a win condition if eir voting power on ordinary proposals is greater than or equal to the total voting power on ordinary proposals of all other players. Amend Rule 1922 (Defined Regular Patent Titles) by removing the first instance of this text: (d) Champion, to be awarded to players who win the game. Repeal Rule 2128 (Winning). Amend Rule 2136 (Contests) by replacing this text: A contest is a contract that identifies itself as such, and identifies exactly one party as its contestmaster; all other parties are its contestants. Create a rule titled Win Conditions with this text: When one or more players satisfy at least one win condition, and this is correctly announced with a list of all such players, then those players win the game.
Re: DIS: Proto: Return of switches
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Loose switches may be changed by announcement. So anyone can change a loose switch at will? Why would you ever want one of these? I think we used to have some, though I forget what they were. Activity is a player switch with values Active and Inactive. The construction player switch hasn't been adequately defined. You could have A player's activity is a switch X is a type of entity switch was a common construction in the original version. Orientation is a player switch with values Standing, Sitting, and Lying Down (default). Should be posture, not orientation, to maintain the analogy. Yes, it should, thanks.
Re: DIS: Proto: Beads and Wins
Zefram wrote: 5) 2 beads to ban a player from judging a CFJ to which e is not already assigned. Does banning make em ineligible for assignment, or only oblige em to not return a judgement? This should be bar (R897) rather than ban. A player with 42 or more beads is eligible to win. Should be Having 42 or more beads is a win condition., to match the format of the Win Conditions rule. Yes, this was a missed edit. Amend Rule 2136 (Contests) by replacing this text: Replacing it with what? Should have been Amend Rule 2136 (Contests) to read:. (The rest of the rule talked about points, which get rolled into beads.)
DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Switches reborn
Maud wrote: Each switch has a collection of possible states, is attached to a specific host entity, and has the power to modify a specific property of the host, called its feature. An entity is a switch only if the rules say it is. The default state of a switch is, unless otherwise specified, the first state of the switch mentioned in its defining rule. If a switch would otherwise not have a default state, its default state is null. This takes care of what if no state is mentioned first? (e.g. the values are the players), but you should also state that null is a possible state of any switch in this situation. Whenever a person registers, e becomes a player, and any switches attached to em due to eir being a player are automatically flipped to their default states. This is already covered by When a switch is created, except for switches that were already attached before eir registration - so due to eir being a player should be removed. Amend rule 1871 (Turns for All) to read: What are your thoughts on The Standing Court? A player who is turned when a Call for Judgement (CFJ) is called is ineligible to be Trial Judge of that CFJ. Whenever a player becomes a Trial Judge, e becomes turned. This was/is broken (see Zefram's recent discussion). A Notice of Rotation is a announcement which (a) identifies itself as a Notice of Rotation; (b) identifies an open CFJ to which no Trial Judge has been assigned, and to which no player is eligible to be assigned; and has been assigned should be is assigned, in case a previous judgement was overturned and the reassignment is pending. (c) identifies by name or nickname at least one turned player who is ineligible to judge the above CFJ solely because e is turned. When the Clerk of the Courts publishes a Notice of Rotation, all players become unturned. This is clearer than the current mono-block of text, but I would prefer the following requirement to be retained: * correctly states that there is no open CFJ to which no Trial Judge is assigned, and to which at least one player is eligible to be assigned
Re: DIS: Proto: Agora shall make no law...
Zefram wrote: Kerim Aydin wrote: If it costs something tangible to get a proposal distributed, Proposal distribution is not a scarce resource. I'm opposed to creating artificial scarcity here. Your support concept wouldn't offend in that way, but it sounds like quite a lot of extra work for very little benefit. What about only charging for proposals with AI 2?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Switches reborn
Eris wrote: On 5/7/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In an earlier draft, I limited the capacity to flip certain switches to certain entities. I decided that people would complain about that, so I changed it to the current version, where people can but may not flip certain switches. Create a Rule that defines a player switch with states god and mortal. If a player is god, allow em to do something atrocious. State that only gods may flip the god switch. Make all players mortal by default. Timing havoc! We need something akin to RFC 2119.
DIS: Proto: Mother, May I?
Proto-Proposal: Mother, May I? (AI = 3, please) Create a rule titled Mother, May I? with Power 3 and this text: The following terms are defined: 1. CANNOT (syn. IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID) Attempts to perform the described action are unsuccessful. 2. MUST NOT (syn. MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED) Attempts to perform the described action are successful, but violate the rules. 3. SHOULD NOT (syn. DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED) Attempts to perform the described action are successful, but the full implications should be understood and carefully weighed before doing so. 4. CAN X ONLY IF Y Equivalent to CANNOT X UNLESS Y. Similarly for the other terms. This takes precedence over the following cases. 5. MUST (syn. SHALL, REQUIRED) Failure to perform the described action violates the rules. 6. SHOULD The full implications should be understood and carefully weighed before failing to perform the action. [And let the scams begin!]
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 4958-4969
BobTHJ wrote: I vote as follows: Not to the Public Forum, hence ineffective (Rule 683 requires votes to be published, Rule 478 defines publishing). This also seems like a good opportunity to clarify TTttPF = this time to the Public Forum.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Bring Back Executors
Zefram wrote: Michael Slone wrote: *An* action, just as I wrote. Any action? This is such a strange reading that I'm still not convinced I've understood you correctly. You're placing a restriction on which executors have the power to perform actions on behalf of their executees. The restriction is that they have the power to perform some, any, unspecified, action? You can't be referring to the power to perform (on their own behalf) the action that they are to perform on the executee's behalf, I presume, because different entities generally have different capabilities, so executorship would be pretty pointless if it couldn't take advantage of that. I interpreted it as equivalent to a given action. Assuming that that was Maud's intended meaning, that phrase should probably be substituted into the proposal for clarity.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Bring Back Executors
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: I interpreted it as equivalent to a given action. Still not specifying which action. Nor does it need to. Okay, here's a third re-phrasing which is hopefully unambiguous: (original) If an executee is prohibiting from performing an action, each of its executors is prohibited from performing the action on behalf of that executee. (Okay, prohibiting should be prohibited.) (paraphrased) For any action, if an executee is prohibited from performing that action, then each of its executors is prohibited from performing that action on behalf of that executee.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Bring Back Executors
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: If an executee is prohibiting from performing an action, each of its executors is prohibited from performing the action on behalf of that executee. That's not the sentence I have trouble with. I was talking about Holding executorship of another entity does not in itself grant the power to perform actions, but an executor with the power to perform an action also has the power to perform on behalf of any of its executees any action that that executee has the power to perform. and wondering how an executor with the power to perform an action differs from an executor. Ah, I see. Well, if the rules defined Bender B. Rodriguez as existing and being my executor, but did not define any mechanism for him to act on his own behalf, then his executorship alone would not constitute a mechanism for him to act on my behalf, either. Then again, Bender would act on my behalf anyway (I'll make my own rules! With blackjack! And hookers!), so this is scant protection.
Re: DIS: Proto: Ecumenical Proposals
Maud wrote: For the Agoran decision of whether to adopt and ecumenical ^^^ an proposal, the eligible voters are all legislators, the quorum is what it would be if only active players of Agora were eligible voters, the adoption index is the minimum of two and the adoption index of the proposal, and the vote collector is the ^^^ requested by the submitter Herald.
Re: DIS: proto idea - Role call
quazie wrote: Create a rule entitled Roll Call with the folowing text Cambot! Gypsy! Tom Servo! Croow!
DIS: Credit where credit is due
I should point out that the multi-level partnership scam was originally Quazie's idea; I launched it solely because I was available to do so just before the end of the Agoran week.
Re: DIS: Proto: Clarify actions
Maud wrote: Persons have certain rights and privileges. Those rights which are enumerated in the rules or recognized by the Agoran courts may not be abridged, reduced, limited, or remove by Agoran law, ^^ removed and any provision of an otherwise binding agreement which would do so is unenforceable. Those privileges which are enumerated in the rules or recognized by the Agoran courts are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over all other rules. Merely possessing a right does not by itself provide a mechanism by which the right can be exercised. However, the rules must provide mechanisms by which the following rights can be exercised. I suggest adding R1698-style protection against the rules coming to lack such mechanisms. (f) Each person who is a player has the right to perform unregulated actions. Why not just player? Ends and their Means shall be considered equivalent in the following technical sense. Whenever a person performs an action which is a Means to some End, e shall be considered to have performed the End, even if the End could not naturally be performed. If a person somehow would simultaneously peform perform ^^ multiple Means with the same End, e shall be considered to have thereby performed the End only once. A person cannot perform an End unless there is at least one Means to that End which e can naturally perform. A player publishes or announces something by sending an appropriate message to a public forum. A player performs an action by announcement by announcing that e performs it. A player performs an action by private message to some player by sending an appropriate private message to the specified player. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stampted on that message. stamped Enact a rule, titled The Orderly Comparison of Threats, reading: The Order of the Evil Eye, or more briefly the Order, is a total order consisting of all nonnegative real numbers in their standard mathematical order together with a special element called Unanimity, which is strictly greater than any other element of the Order. Whenever the rules indicate that two indices are to be compared, they shall be compared as though they were members of the Order. Nice re-use of name. But why not define the Order as being a Threat?
Re: DIS: Proto: Economy
BobTHJ wrote:
Create a rule called Certification with Power 1 that reads:
{
A Player must be certified to perform any of the following actions:
* Submitting a ballot for distributed proposals
* Supporting or opposing a dependent action
* Submitting a proposal for distribution
If a player who performs one of the above actions and is not certified
to perform that action then that action is void and is treated as if the
Player never attempted to perform that action.
Charging for proposals has historically led to stagnation.
Each License has an initial cost to purchase, and in addition each
License requires a monthly renewal fee to be paid to the Agoran
Treasury. Unless otherwise specified, the cost to purchase a License
shall be $2,500, and the renewal fee for a license shall be $500. The
Secretary of the Treasury shall collect renewal fees from each Licensee
as soon as possible after the first of each month.
If this and the other proposals were adopted today, there would be 19
players (not counting HP3-14 who are going away soon) and 8 offices, and
we would need a minimum of two licenses (proposing and voting). Let's
look at how quickly the total money supply would shrink:
Initial funds = (19 * $1,000) - (2 * $2,500) = $14,000
Monthly change = (8 * $500) - (19 * $200) - (2 * $500) = -$800
This would bankrupt all players in about a year and a half, plus
about one month per new registration. Do you intend for the players
to have to vote themselves more money every few months?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Army of Ghosts
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Human Point Two and I have made a R1742 binding agreement, the text of which is: I believe this doesn't work. Obligations on HP3 are translated, by that agreement, into obligations on HP2 and Murphy, and then by HP2's agreement into obligations on Quazie and Murphy. Obligations on HPn all amount to obligations on Quazie and Murphy. The subject of obligations is the same in all cases, so they're all the same legal person. But the things that the natural persons are obligated to do are different. A bit trivially in this particular case, but consider the following hypothetical situation: Five players create and register a Pineapple-type partnership (whose charter merely obliges them to cause it to obey the Agoran rules). They happen to be the five natural-person members of Primo Corporation (whose charter obliges them to do various things internal to Primo, e.g. maintain records). Are these counted as a single partnership, and the charters counted as a single charter? One of the five then claims to leave the Pineapple-type partnership, but remain part of Primo. Now what happens?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Doomsday
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: If a partnership contains exactly the same members as another registered partnership, then it is prohibited from registering. You haven't constructed such a situation, so this limitation is insufficient. You need to determine the ultimate subject of obligations, which is a set of natural players. In combination with the explicit definition of person as excluding multi-tier arrangements, it should be sufficient. While I find it interesting to have other partnerships participate in Primo, there are limits to the number of levels that I wish to untangle. I also want to avoid boring repeats of the HPn scam, which No Free Votes II would also accomplish.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Registration Prohibits Silent Partners
Goethe wrote: Murphy wrote: If such an agreement is registered, then as soon as possible after its membership changes, it shall announce which players have joined and which have left. This requirement is satisfied if the information is published by a member of the agreement, or a person who was a member immediately before the change. It's interesting to watch the pull for regulation vs. privacy (silent partnerships always being an obsession of mine, this is third time I've tried to allow one). We ask for more regulation of these unfamiliar relationships than of personhood (e.g. we don't require an ID check of players to prevent Annabel-like issues). Also, rules like the above ignore the fact that they are trivial to get around at need. For example, the Registered Agreement could defer to a second, non-registered agreement as its governing council... anyone recall the UNDEAD? Zefram's interpretation in CFJ 1623 was that a partnership must assign rights and obligations to the partners. This could be extended by interpreting that anyone assigned rights and obligations, even indirectly, is a partner. In general Agorans seem to dislike, and feel the need to regulate, substructure (e.g. subgroups) rather than allowing functions of them to be privitized, and therefore subject to some degree of confidentiality (which would be breakable only if squabbles between members came to light). I'm not sure what drives that, it tends to make subgroups more unregulated, not less, as it relegates them to true scams and the like. In this case, at least, I think it's because the functions in question (i.e. how many partners does Pineapple have left?) directly impact the rule-defined gamestate (i.e. does Pineapple still exist as a player?). Second-System Effect will address this issue from a different angle.
DIS: Re: BUS: break time
Goethe wrote: I can't keep up right now. Need to enforce a break in myself, otherwise RL will suffer more (already is, can never seem to not get sucked in). Sincere apologies for leaving the CotC office so far behind. I'll continue to watch the (encouraging) developments with interest. I deregister. Due to Rules 1006 and 1450, the office of CotC is currently vacant. Or, under a different interpretation, I am being continuously assigned by 1006 and removed by 1450, which is no better. In either case, do we have any volunteers? As usual, I can continue to maintain the database, as that's easier than relocating it. The office-holder would generally need to do the following: * Publish CFJs (R897) * Assign judges (R1868) * Publish decisions (R591) * Recuse late judges (R408) * Issue Notices of Rotation (R1871) * Process appeals (R1564, R911, R1447, R1805) * Process judicial and sentencing orders (R1803, R1804) * Forward motions (R1826) * Publish concurring and dissenting opinions (R1365) * Publish the Stare Decisis monthly (R889) * Keep track of Agoran Contracts (R2109) * Participate in degree committee selection if the Speaker can't (R1370) There used to be a weekly report, including a list of pending assignments and decisions, each player's eligibility to judge, and a history of recent relevant events. When did we lose that? We should reinstate it. (Back when Eris was CotC, e provided the first two items via the web, but didn't publish reports because e wasn't required to; I proposed the weekly report as a convenient audit trail.) The most recent version of this report was my unofficial one of March 16. There is one Agoran Contract, pertaining to the Envoy. The March 16 non-report includes it.
DIS: Re: BUS: Inhuman rights campaign
I wrote: I intend, with Agoran consent, to make the Pineapple Partnership the holder of the Office of Registrar. I intend, with Agoran consent, to make Human Point Two the holder of the Office of International Associate Director of Personnel. I'm holding off on these until we come to a consensus on whether the existence of the Pineapple Partnership as a player is attached to the agreement or the set of members. I suggest legislation along the following lines: Define the existence of partnership players as being attached to the agreement, along the lines of Rule 1586. Allow partnerships with the same members but different agreements, allow partnerships to be members of other partnerships, but include No Free Votes. Allow silent partners, but require the members of a registered partnership to speak up promptly if a player (member or not) falsely purports to act on its behalf, and require the former members to speak up promptly if it dissolves. All such requirements are satisfied when any one of the players speaks up.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: break time
comex wrote: I intend, with Agoran Consent, to make Primo Corporation the holder of the office of Clerk of the Courts. I object. IMO partnerships aren't stable enough to hold office yet.
Re: DIS: Proto: Currency, take 2
BobTHJ wrote: A Property Owning Entity (hereafter POE) is a type of entity. POEs may Why not just Owner?
DIS: Regarding Primo as a CotC candidate
To point out the potential problem more explicitly: If CFJ 1668 is judged true, then Primo-the-player ceased to exist when comex became a Shareholder. I strongly urge that we install a natural person as Clerk of the Courts until the statement of CFJ 1668 is confirmed false, either by judgement or by explicit legislation.
DIS: Re: BUS: timing orders
comex wrote: I execute a Timing Order directing the Clerk of the Courts to select a Trial Judge for CFJ 1659. I assume you intend to activate the last paragraph of Rule 1006, but I'm not sure whether it works when the office in question is vacant.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: break time
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Due to Rules 1006 and 1450, the office of CotC is currently vacant. Or, under a different interpretation, I am being continuously assigned by 1006 and removed by 1450, which is no better. R1006 says that an office that would otherwise be vacant is held by the Speaker. Unless the Speaker cannot hold that office. There are a few different ways to interpret this; since none of them lead to a stable holder of CotC, I didn't bother to dig into the details.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: break time
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: Unless the Speaker cannot hold that office. Which R1450 doesn't prevent. R1450 only triggers when the Speaker is already CotC. It depends whether you interpret mutually exclusive as a prohibition (with the next clause amounting to if someone pushes me, I push back), and/or whether you interpret allowed to hold office as including allowed to occupy for an infinitesimal duration or requiring allowed to occupy for a non-infinitesimal duration (i.e. whether you interpret hold as become or retain).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 4970-4975
quazie wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: 4970 FOR 4971 FOR 4972 FOR 4973 PRESENT 4974 PRESENT 4975 FOR I vote in the following manner: If Murphy has voted on a proposal as of 5/16/07 @ 9:50pm (PST), I vote in the same manner as e has. Alas, not to the PF.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: HPn votes
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: On behalf of Human Point Two: On behalf of Human Point Four: HP2 isn't a partner in HP4, is it? It purports to be, at least. From the announcement in which HP4 was allegedly registered: Human Point Two, Human Point Three, and I have made a R1742 binding agreement...
DIS: Re: BUS: Win by Paradox?
comex wrote: On Sunday 13 May 2007 7:09 pm, Ed Murphy wrote: Second-System Effect registers. I call for judgement on the following statement: Second-System Effect registered on or about Sun, 13 May 2007 16:09:28 -0700 Arguments: Without knowledge of the agreement that defines SSE, this action should to any reasonable judge appear equally legal and illegal. Unknown != equal. Without that knowledge, Rule 1565 clause ii) might apply. Alternately, the judge could choose to trust that I wasn't deliberately lying.
Re: DIS: Bounty
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: e) A player may, with Agoran consent with a consent index of H/L, perform an action and cause a rule with Power L to take precedence over a rule with Power H with regard to that action. E must be otherwise permitted to perform that action, taking the altered precedence into account. Sounds dangerous. We have relied on the power-based precedence relationships in drafting high-power rules. Which is why allowing e.g. a Power=1 rule to temporarily trump a Power=3 rule would require = 3/4 support on a case-by-case basis.
DIS: Re: OFF: IADoP - Letting you know Who's Who in Agora
quazie wrote: his is a mostly complete report from the IADoP. Because we have more than enough CFJs as it is, you should probably state explicitly that you're publishing the report on behalf of IADoP Human Point Two. While I'm at it, I state under penalty of perjury that the membership of the HP2 agreement has not changed since its registration, thus HP2's existence as a registered player is not contingent on the outcome of CFJ 1668.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: IADoP - Letting you know Who's Who in Agora
comex wrote: On Thursday 17 May 2007 11:41 pm, Ed Murphy wrote: While I'm at it, I state under penalty of perjury that the membership of the HP2 agreement has not changed since its registration, thus HP2's existence as a registered player is not contingent on the outcome of CFJ 1668. I state under penalty of perjury that the membership of the HP2 agreement *has* changed since its registration. Well, it's a good thing for one of us that perjury is no longer defined by the rules, isn't it? :) Someone could probably get a decent thesis out of analyzing the potential legal and social consequences of willful lies (largely dependent on whether other players have reasonable cause to suspect them as being lies).
Re: DIS: Proto: Generalize Dependent Actions
Maud wrote: In this proto, I attempt to average dependent actions and actions with Agoran consent. I can't help but feel that a proto to adopt proposals with Agoran consent is right around the corner.
Re: DIS: Proto: The New Office Plan
Zefram wrote: You use the term Speakership in several places where strictly you should say Speaker. (Speakership is not defined; in your terminology Speaker refers to the office.) You also speak of a player *being* the Speaker, where you should apply the strict distinction that a player *holds* the Speaker. I have the conch!
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: yin yang
Zefram wrote: That's all the yin/yang activity we have planned. For the record, all changes of membership of both partnerships have taken place in the public forum. The present membership is: * of Yin Corp: Yin Corp, Yang Corp * of Yang Corp: Yin Corp, Yang Corp Or at least, that's the membership under the corporation-style identity mechanism that we've been assuming for this sequence. For convenience, here's a short list of the sequence of purported events leading to this state of affairs. Yin = Q+Z registers Yang = Z+Yin registers Yang joins Yin (Yin = Q+Z+Yang) Yin joins Yin (Yin = Q+Z+Yin+Yang) Yang joins Yang (Yang = Z+Yin+Yang) Z leaves Yin (Yin = Q+Yin+Yang) Z leaves Yang (Yang = Yin+Yang) Q leaves Yin (Yin = Yin+Yang)
DIS: Re: BUS: The Hanging Judge
comex wrote: I assign CFJs 1666-8 to The Hanging Judge. E is still turned. Text at: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2007-May/006418.html I encourage Zefram and Murphy to submit psuedojudgements. I interpret a partnership's identity, not merely as the set of its members, but as the agreement defining that set. I pseudo-judge CFJs 1666 and 1667 false, as direct consequences of the above interpretation. I interpret the status of a partnership in the face of changes to the agreement's membership (and/or text, for that matter) as covered by Rule 1586 (Definition and Continuity of Entities), and thus pseudo-judge CFJ 1668 false. I have maintained these interpretations since before Quazie and I came up with the HPn scam, and continue to maintain them in the face of Yin and Yang's attempted proof of concept. I would support the adoption of legislation explicitly supporting these interpretations, but removing legal personhood to partnerships with less than two natural persons underlying them (after recursing through as many levels as necessary).
DIS: More crisis management foo
Ambiguous eligibility can be resolved by making the relevant players turned (lying down) without 2 objections, and/or inactive without objection. (This does nothing for the bug pointed out by fix judicial turns, though.)
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 4958 - 4969
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: 4965 | The Standing Court | Murphy| 1 | 06May07 | O 4969 | fix judicial turns | Zefram| 1 | 08May07 | O Aside from failing quorum, both of these passed by a large margin. I presume you'll repropose The Standing Court; if so, you may as well merge fix judicial turns into it. I'll be reproposing most of my proposals from this batch. I'll do that later when I have some time. We're interpreting quorum as calculated when the Assessor resolves the Agoran decision, right?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 4958 - 4969
Zefram wrote: Ed Murphy wrote: I'll do that later when I have some time. We're interpreting quorum as calculated when the Assessor resolves the Agoran decision, right? Nearly. It's when the Assessor performs the calculations to determine the results, which appears to be a distinct step that occurs finitely before the posting of the results message that actually resolves the decisions. I performed the calculations after Maud's deregistration and before Yin Corp's registration, so I believe quorum was ceiling(25/3) = 9. I'm not entirely clear on whether you've legally resolved proposals 4958-4969 yet, as the voting results that you published don't show the true quorum. They're not required to, but they are required by R208(d) to specify the outcome of the Agoran decision. I'll publish a clarification after the Hanging Judge formally settles CFJs 1666-8.
Re: DIS: Proto: Nomic Protectorates
Maud wrote: I'm not convinced any nomic would agree to such a ``deal''. It might if you scammed it. Didn't we once plan to saddle Rishonomic with a Governor General or something?
