DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 3467

[Josh T]

もう一つの問題をご検討願います。「天火狐」には、不可欠な言葉遊びがあります。「あまつ」＋（「か＋ぎつね」）で、火を統御する天狐の意味であるが、「てんか」＋「ご」と異分析され、落雷を統御する霊狐になります。さらに、「てんか」の読みは「天下」まだは「天花」と書けることがあり、洒落が入り込ませます。「天火狐」の字訳は意味を置き去りにするから、お勧めしません。

しかし、あれこれ考えてみると「あまつかぎつね」と読みのほうが好まれています。別の解決策が見つかないならば、「あまつかぎつね」の字訳まだは翻訳を使てくれます。

天火狐

On 6 January 2017 at 14:08, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
>
> > 
> ===
> > 3467, called by ais523, 07 Nov 2016
> >
> >   天火狐 is a player.
>
> Judge's Evidence:
>
> Message sent to PF by Josh T :
>   皆様、
>
>   このゲームのプレイヤの一名になると思うために、以下のあだ名を使って登録してみます。
>
>   天火狐
>
>
> Judgement in CFJ 3467:
>
> There are two separate questions here.  The first is whether the
> person that sent a message from Josh T's email address is registered
> as a player, and the second is whether that player's Agoran nickname
> is 天火狐.  (note: the CFJ is timed so that the judgement does not
> consider self-ratification of the Registrar's report).
>
> By the excellently-written precedent set by Judge Maud in CFJ 1460
> (https://cfj.qoid.us/1460), by-announcement actions taken in non-
> English languages generally fail.  The relevant part of the judgement
> is clear and subsequent rule changes have not altered its
> applicability:
>
>  "...submitting a purported communication to an officer in a
>   language one has no reason to believe that officer understands,
>   and which, as it turns out, the officer does not understand,
>   violates the Gricean maxims
>
>   (4) Avoid obscurity of expression.  and
>   (5) Avoid ambiguity.
>
>   Such a purported communication does not communicate, and so it
>   would not be unreasonable to hold that the purported
>   communication is no communication at all.
>
>   I therefore hold that an Agoran player need not regard, nor be
>   required to act upon, a message written in a language e does not
>   understand, whether or not it is sent to a public forum."
>
> However, registration is a special case for communication.  An intent
> to register must be "reasonably" clear (R869). CFJ 1263 explored this
> issue (https://cfj.qoid.us/1263).  At the time of CFJ 1263, the rules
> required a potential new player to publicly "request" registration
> (though the request was automatically successful upon publication).
> CFJ 1263 found that saying "I hereby register" was close enough to a
> request, even though, by all grammatical considerations, it wasn't a
> request.  For standard by-announcement actions, "requesting" to do
> something would be very different than saying "I do something", but
> the difference was considered worth overlooking with the specific aim
> of not alienating new players.
>
> Interpretations of the registration clause over time (there have been
> many CFJs) have very much kept this "less nit-picky" tradition alive.
> In the context of modern translation engines, grammatical or other
> translation quirks are likely to be less confusing than the very real
> difference between a "request" and an "action" in English, and that
> was allowed by CFJ 1263.
>
> The translation given by Google Translate, as of the time of this
> judgement, is as follows:  "ladies and gentlemen, In order to think
> that it will be one of the players of this game, I try to register
> using the following nickname.  The sky fox".  This, I find, is
> "reasonably clear" for registration standards, so the person with the
> email address name Josh T did in fact register.
>
> However, does this mean eir appropriate Agoran nickname is 天火狐?
> Maybe not.  The important question for the English-dominated Agora is
> clarity; as a non-Japanese speaker, I'm likely, at a glance, to assume
> any three Japanese characters probably refer to that person, even if
> substitutions are made, therefore an Latin alphabet character set is
> necessary, I believe, for clarity.
>
> Also, by sending a message to this board, e would likely expect us to
> translate it.  It seems strange to translate the content, but not the
> signature.  Therefore, "the sky fox" is a more likely claim for a
> nickname than 天火狐.  On the other hand "天" may have other
> connotations ("heaven" is one given), therefore 天火狐 will always be
> the most accurate rendition of eir signature.  Also, there is a
> problem with 天火狐; these characters on their own, when plugged into a
> translator, detect as Chinese, and are apparently the symbols used for
> the software package Firefox.
>
> In choosing between these when interpreting the registration mess

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: イエローカード発表

[Josh T]

I figured it was fair game given that you had been posting recently, and I
wanted to test out the system. It works indeed.

天火狐

On 21 April 2017 at 23:04, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:

> On Apr 21, 2017, at 1:56 PM, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I attempt to issue a yellow card to the holder of the Office of
> Secretary for failing to publish eir monthly report in a timely manner. The
> following words shall be included in a formal apology, if any, to restore
> voting strength before 30 days after the yellow card has been issued:
> >
> > * agora
> > * flow
> > * melancholy
> > * o ("oh" is acceptable)
> > * only
> > * orchid
> > * regret
> > * smell
> > * sparrow
> > * spring
> >
> > 天火狐
>
> O sparrow,
> Light not upon my melancholy.
> In Agora, smell only orchids this spring
> as the rivers of regret flow,
> Coldly, thawing.
>
> Of course, I formally apologize for my tardiness with the Secretary’s
> reports, and beg your forbearance. I’ve got the weekly reports written up,
> to be sent Sunday night, and the monthly reports to be sent at the start of
> May. Agora is in bloom again, and the office of Secretary deserves a more
> attentive gardener than I have been.
>
> It’s difficult to remain motivated to keep the reports up, when the game
> is otherwise silent and cold. That’s no excuse, but it may be worth
> considering. As Secretary, I have quite a few reports; the Office has
> accumulated responsibilities for various sub-legislative systems, one of
> which evolves slowly even without ongoing player input. I’ve also taken on,
> perhaps unwisely, the accounting for the Agoran Credit Union, and created
> an additional Organization (with its own unofficial reports). When things
> are in motion this doesn’t seem to be a burden, but in lulls, it drags.
>
> It fills me both with chagrin and with joy that you would issue me a Card
> so soon after I threw the metaphorical book at another maybe-player, as
> well. The system works!
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not dead

[Josh T]

Here is a proposed word list:

* Antegrian
* Borduria
* Catharsis
* Deteriorate
* Exemplify
* Fastidious
* Garner
* Heron
* Incorrigible
* Jambalaya

天火狐

On 16 August 2017 at 20:00, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:

>
> > On Aug 16, 2017, at 7:55 PM, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Can I come up with a wordlist to card you for tardiness?
>
> I pledge that, if I give myself a Yellow Card within the next 72 hours,
> and if Josh T publishes a proposed word list before I do so, I will use
> Josh T’s word list as the required word list for the apology condition on
> the Yellow Card, exactly once.
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Josh T]

I like coming up with interesting wordlists. They're fun to compile and
evidently the result is reasonably well-received, although I think o is the
only person whose been on the receiving end of my lists.

天火狐

On 14 July 2017 at 00:58, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> On Jul 9, 2017, at 9:53 PM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violation of Rule 2471. I argue
> > that air actions were so implausible that e could not reasonably have
> > believed them, and that at the very least e is absurdly negligent.
> > Given that this is having a huge impact on the players and the game
> > (look at the deregistrations), I recommend a sentence of a Red Card.
>
>
> I find this finger-pointing to be Shenanigans, based on the testimony of
> the accused:
>
> > I wouldn't have written that wall of text if I didn't believe it had at
> least a slither of chance of working.
>
>
> Quite a number of scams in Agora’s past have relied on creative
> interpretations of the rules, and while I personally believe there’s no way
> this scam could work, I believe carding Cuddlebeam would unjustifiably
> punish em for a bona fide attempt.
>
> Had I found otherwise, I would have issued a Yellow Card, not a Red Card.
> In spite of the colour theme of the Cards, I find that a Yellow Card is
> considerably more severe than a Red Card, especially if paired with a
> challenging word list. It’s also easier to justify a Yellow Card in the
> face of the accusations against Cuddlebeam in this finger-pointing. (This
> is, perhaps, not working as intended.)
>
> Instead, I’ll reinforce ais523’s advice to find a co-conspirator for
> future scams, and 天火狐’s observation that such tactics have very much worn
> out their welcome.
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ judgement

[Josh T]

I kind of prefer
fact x = foldl (*) 1 [1..x]
myself.

天火狐

On 16 July 2017 at 11:16, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

> On Sun, 16 Jul 2017, V.J Rada wrote:
>
> fun fact: i'm dumb
>>
>
> fun fact 0 = 1 | fact n = n * fact (n - 1)
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer attempts a stick-up.

[Josh T]

While I haven't been paying attention to your scams of late due to real
life drama and bad timing (family issues; I'm flying to go be with them for
a month starting Thursday), I feel that your welcome with such tactics has
worn thin.

天火狐

On 10 July 2017 at 12:17, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> Yes, they are definitely contradictory at times. I've mentioned before
> that I don't have any objective measure to decide what interpretation is
> best, so I just use one which does the most interesting thing for me in
> hopes that a enough audience agrees with it or a CFJ about it is judged in
> my favor, because I don't know which among the myriad of perfectly
> reasonable interpretations I will be judged by.
>
> If you, nichdel and PSS, had opposite (and contradictory) interpretations
> on something, I would believe that both are equally valid. Now, I have many
> interpretations just like those in mind at any given time (and many
> contradictory), and I have no tiebreaker. And even then, my own opinion
> about what interpretation is best matters very little when it comes to
> resolving my own actions, because in the end, its the audience who is my
> judge - it's all of you who have the final word.
>
> And you all don't unanimously agree with each other. So of course that the
> interpretations I use won't agree with each other either.
>
> So I just shrug and use the ones that are more convenient for me in hopes
> that the audience would agree to it (whether I personally agree to it or
> not matters little, just my judgement of whether others might be convinced
> of it or not. Which in this case was woefully inaccurate, most likely due
> to that I just winged it).
>
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> They also seem to contradict each other at times.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 09:55 Nicholas Evans  wrote:
>>
>>> The argument 'I wouldn't do all that work in order to fake' is
>>> fallacious. Of course you would if you thought you could get away with it.
>>>
>>> I think you constantly violate no faking by purposely misconstruing the
>>> rules to have meanings favorable to you, even when those meanings are
>>> nonesense. Then you plead ignorance when someone calls it out, or you stop
>>> responding and move onto the next bad faith attempt.
>>>
>>> I'd accept one or two peculiar interpretations from a single player as
>>> good faith, but you've purported many unlikely beliefs, and somehow they
>>> all favor your goals.
>>>
>>> Cut the bullshit out.
>>>
>>> On Jul 10, 2017 03:43, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:
>>>
 ...I totally understand why it could be be appropriate to card me for
 trying the stick-up, but @grok, I don't understand the card part of if I
 *fail* to deputize for Surveyor just yet. If the argument is that using a
 loophole to try to get the office is "bad", shouldn't I be carded
 *regardless* of if I fail or succeed? How does succeeding to get the office
 somehow spare me of getting a card? (Either way, I'll accept the carding,
 but I just want to understand that part better)

 All that aside, well, yeah. I accept all charges (except for the no
 faking part, I wouldn't have written that wall of text if I didn't believe
 it had at least a slither of chance of working. Or, on the flip side, I
 wouldn't have written a huge wall of text with the aim to get a card when
 just writing something way shorter is way easier. I totally get that it
 feels heinous to try to pull off a stick-up like this though, but then
 again, if it worked, it could all just pass quickly if people simply vote
 FOR lol. But yeah, pretty evil.)

 On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:09 AM, grok (caleb vines) <
 grokag...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > I point my finger at CuddleBeam for violation of Rule 2471. I argue
> > that air actions were so implausible that e could not reasonably have
> > believed them, and that at the very least e is absurdly negligent.
> > Given that this is having a huge impact on the players and the game
> > (look at the deregistrations), I recommend a sentence of a Red Card.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 6:50 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> >> I would support, with a fair implementation.
> >>
> >> I point my finger at CB for failure to treat Agora Right Good
> Forever.
> >>
> >> I previously deregistered because I thought my explosive response
> to CB
> >> was my own issue, that e needed time to adjust, and I needed time to
> >> cool off. But I'm now convinced that's not the case. Everything CB
> does
> >> disrespects the time, effort, and feelings of every other player.
> >>
> >> I challenge people who 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Payment

[Josh T]

I mean if I can buy the entire estate of Antegria for 50 cents, I think 10
cents a month is a lot.

天火狐

On 17 July 2017 at 22:50, Quazie  wrote:

> If this CFJ is true then all officers work for a very low rate of ~10
> cents a month - which to me is bonkers.
>
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 19:03 Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Jul 16, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>>
>> > I pay nichdel a nickel's worth of shinies for taking over as Assessor.
>>
>> I CFJ on the statement “A nickle’s worth of shinies is exactly 5 shinies.”
>>
>> -o
>>
>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Payment

[Josh T]

I'm pretty sure the "without warning" part can be easily fixed.

天火狐

On 17 July 2017 at 23:12, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:

> I am extremely tempted to offer you a shiny for it, but I think my partner
> might be a bit miffed if bread showed up in the post without warning.
>
> -o
>
> On Jul 17, 2017, at 11:10 PM, grok (caleb vines) <grokag...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> The theoretical answer is probably a function of known values, like the
> price of an estate.
>
> For a practical answer, I have an extra loaf in my pantry I'd be willing
> to mail out...
>
>
> -grok
>
> On Jul 17, 2017 9:55 PM, "Owen Jacobson" <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:
>
> Indeed. What’s the price of bread?
>
> -o
>
> On Jul 17, 2017, at 10:54 PM, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I mean if I can buy the entire estate of Antegria for 50 cents, I think 10
> cents a month is a lot.
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 17 July 2017 at 22:50, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If this CFJ is true then all officers work for a very low rate of ~10
>> cents a month - which to me is bonkers.
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 19:03 Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 16, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I pay nichdel a nickel's worth of shinies for taking over as Assessor.
>>>
>>> I CFJ on the statement “A nickle’s worth of shinies is exactly 5
>>> shinies.”
>>>
>>> -o
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Payment

[Josh T]

Well. I suppose a nickel's worth of Shiny rounds to zero at that exchange
rate.

天火狐

On 18 July 2017 at 06:15, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> Bam. Paid.
>
> [image: Inline image 1]
>
> (I don't think I should reveal any more, given that there's quite a bit of
> private data here, but this should do. 20 bucks sent.)
>
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> I pay Cuddlebeam 1 Shiny. (Cuddlebeam: contact me off-list if your pledge
>> follows the most obvious interpretation. This isn’t the email associated
>> with my Paypal account.)
>>
>> -o
>>
>> On Jul 18, 2017, at 2:15 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>>
>> I present the following as gratuitous argument to that CFJ (which is also
>> a pledge):
>>
>> - I pledge to pay 20 USD (to be transferred by Paypal) for a shiny.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:03 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 16, 2017, at 6:58 PM, Quazie  wrote:
>>>
>>> > I pay nichdel a nickel's worth of shinies for taking over as Assessor.
>>>
>>> I CFJ on the statement “A nickle’s worth of shinies is exactly 5
>>> shinies.”
>>>
>>> -o
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: [Registrar] Weekly Report

[Josh T]

CoE: Bayushi is a player (e owns Shinies)

天火狐

On 23 July 2017 at 16:10, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Accepted.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 2017, at 3:20 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> >
> > CoE: I, nichdel, am a player.
> >
> > On 07/23/2017 01:31 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> >> 
> 
> >>Registrar's Weekly Report
> >> 
> 
> >>
> >> (all times UTC)
> >>
> >> Date of last report: 02 Jul 2017
> >> Date of this report:
> >>
> >> Recent events:
> >>
> >>
> >> Players (16) (Rule 869, self-ratifying)
> >>
> >> Player   Contact
>  Registered
> >> --   ---
>  --
> >> ais523   callforjudgement at yahoo.co.uk [1] 20
> Mar 11
> >> Aris thoughtsoflifeandlight17 at gmail.com   13
> Sep 16
> >> Murphy   emurphy42 at zoho.com   27
> Oct 07
> >> oowen at grimoire.ca 12
> Jul 16
> >> Sprocklemsprocklem at gmail.com  19
> Oct 13
> >> 天火狐draconicdarkness at gmail.com   06 Nov
> 16
> >> Zachary Watterson [2]tannerswett at gmail.com26
> Mar 17
> >> Quazie   quazienomic at gmail.com15
> Apr 17
> >> P. Scholasticus [3]  pscriboniusscholasticus at gmail.com[4] 16
> Apr 17
> >> tmanthe2nd   trstnbrdwg0 at gmail.com13
> May 17
> >> Gaelan   gbs at canishe.com  15
> May 17
> >> Ienpw IIIjames.m.beirne at gmail.com 21
> May 17
> >> Veggiekeks   martinjroensch at gmail.com 25
> May 17
> >> omd  comexk at gmail.com [5] 03
> Feb 11
> >> V.J. Radavijar...@gmail.com  07
> Jun 17
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] also ais523 at alumni.bham.ac.uk
> >> [2] also known as Gumball
> >> [3] In full, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >> [4] officially, but technically equivalent p.scribonius.scholasticus at
> googlemail.com
> >> [5] officially, but technically equivalent c.ome.xk at gmail.com
> >>
> >> Fora (Rule 478, self-ratifying)
> >>
> >> Type Location  Typical use
> >>   ---
> >> Public   agora-official at agoranomic.org  official reports
> >> Public   agora-business at agoranomic.org  other business
> >> Discussion   agora-discussion at agoranomic.orgdiscussion
> >> Discussion   irc://irc.freenode.net:6667/##nomic   discussion
> >> Public   agora at listserver.tue.nlbackup
> >>
> >> Subscribe or unsubscribe from main lists:
> >> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
> >>
> >> Subscribe or unsubscribe from tue.nl backup list:
> >> http://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
> >>
> >> The IRC channel does not require subscription; set your IRC client
> to
> >> server irc.freenode.net, port 6667, channel ##nomic, and whatever
> >> nickname you like.
> >>
> >> Other rules pertaining to this office
> >> -
> >> Rule 2139 (The Registrar)
> >> Rule 1789 (Cantus Cygneus)
> >>
> >> Watchers (4)
> >>
> >> The list of Watchers is not governed by the rules, but is
> >> traditionally maintained in the Registrar's Report.  If you'd like
> to
> >> be listed as a Watcher or removed from the list, feel free to email
> >> the fora or the Registrar directly.
> >>
> >> Watchers confirmed as of May 2017:
> >>
> >> Nickname  Contact
> >>   ---
> >> Ørjan oerjan at nvg.ntnu.no
> >>
> >> Watchers confirmed as of May 2013:
> >>
> >> Nickname  Contact
> >>   ---
> >> Dave  davidnicol at gmail.com
> >> Phlogistique  noe.rubinstein at gmail.com
> >> Steve zardoz37 at gmail.com
> >>
> >> 
> >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Josh T]

I'm on vacation and only have mobile internet at the moment so I can't
check, but does the rule specify that the trust tokens needed to win are to
be issued by other players explicitly or that players can issue trust
tokens and one needs such tokens from multiple players? In the event of the
latter case it might be worth looking into because I think there is real
ambiguity with how it interacts with Agencies and this is a good excuse to
look into it.

天火狐

On Jul 20, 2017 13:38, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

> Sure, all yours.
>
> And Ais523: We have serious CFJs about... a joke. Sending a nickle. I
> don't know what's the standard for CFJs right now, but people seem to be
> grasping at straws at what could be turned to become interesting. I'm
> alright with sending my CFJ at a period of relative lull like this (which I
> believe will be solved soon once the economy proposal gets settled).
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:36 PM, grok (caleb vines) 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Alex Smith 
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 15:24 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> >> I'd prefer to spend a CFJ slot be spent but it's not an urgent CFJ at
>> all.
>> >> I'm be up for retracting it if you pledge that you'll resubmit it when
>> the
>> >> CFJ queue is empty enough (and if the economy eventually makes CFJs
>> have a
>> >> price, I'll refund you).
>> >
>> > Why would I do something like that? I was hoping to avoid a CFJ
>> > altogether in order to avoid a judge having to waste eir time on
>> > explaining yet a gain why such a ridiculously implausible scam doesn't
>> > work. Delaying it wouldn't really help at all; there isn't a judge
>> > shortage, just a shortage of tolerance for that sort of nonsense.
>> >
>> > However, if you won't take it from me, I can find an uninvolved judge
>> > who will, I'm pretty sure, just reiterate the point that everyone else
>> > has been making. I was just hoping to avoid the effort for everyone
>> > (and the permanent embarrassment it'll create in the CFJ records).
>> >
>> > --
>> > ais523
>>
>> I'd be happy to knock it out today, assuming Cuddlebeam doesn't bar me
>> as soon as e sees this message.
>>
>>
>> -grok
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Josh T]

I'd just like to mention I haven't actually succeeded in making a
non-registration action in Japanese, and I think all my attempts at voting
in such were thrown out, which I believe is the correct way to interpret
the rules. (While there are technical and cryptographic differences, using
another language is basically a form of encryption if not everyone can read
it IMO.)

天火狐

On Jul 20, 2017 15:40, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

> >First, you've *nearly* found ONE INTERNAL SCAM
>
> humble agoran bloodhoun...-puppy at your service.
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:30 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> > I disagree with that Public is explicitly defined. "Public message",
>> yes. "Public X" in general?
>> > I don't believe so. "Public challenge" isn't explicitly defined to need
>> to be a public message,
>> > just a challenge which is "Public" (which, via your trick, if it works,
>> could be encrypted).
>> > So "Public" itself isn't defined in general.
>>
>> First, you've *nearly* found ONE INTERNAL SCAM I was hoping to try, but
>> didn't get around to.
>> So I'll give it to you.  If you look at the possible *responses* to a
>> Claim of Error, "publish
>> a revision" and "Initiating an inquiry case"[*] are explicitly public,
>> but DENY a CLAIM is
>> *not* explicitly  public.  (and since the other elements on the list are
>> *explicitly* public,
>> the implication is that Denial doesn't need to be public).
>>
>> When I published the fake Report the other week, I'd intended to
>> privately Deny the claim,
>> putting it secretly back on the self-ratification clock.
>>
>>
>> Anyway,on the "public challenge" side:
>>
>> The full phrase is "public challenge via one of the following methods".
>> So the methods define
>> what the challenge is.  So a public challenge is something that is
>> "identifying a document"
>> (likely needs to identify the document publicly) and uses (1) an inquiry
>> case (CFJ) which has
>> it's own defined process that starts "by announcement" in R991[*], or (2)
>> a CoE.  BUT... I
>> notice you're right, there's nothing that explicitly says a CoE must be
>> public.
>>
>> Though if you CFJd on CoEs, my guess is the Judge would say something
>> like "a challenge is one
>> of the following two things, so a public challenge is one of those
>> things, done publicly."
>> But sure, try saying:  "I CoE on on the error specified in this hash..."
>> Or maybe wait for
>> some discussion on this point first, in case I missed something.
>>
>> Of course, it's a trivial result, as the document-keeper could just say
>> "nope, I don't find
>> that hash-hidden error, because I don't know what it is, so I'm going to
>> deny it".
>>
>>
>> [*] "Inquiry Case" used to be the term for a CFJ.  This is archaic
>> language.  R991 talks
>> about a "Case... specifying a matter to be inquired into" as the
>> definition of a CFJ, which
>> is close enough.  Whether by precedent or merely custom, I don't remember.
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer gives a win to everyone and then hopes to be given one too.

[Josh T]

That seems pretty open and shut then. Appending an adjective is a mention
of that property which is no substitute of actually having that property.
(i.e. calling a car which isn't red a "red car" doesn't magically change
its colour) [consider this a gratuitous argument if it does go to a CFJ]

天火狐

On Jul 20, 2017 16:43, "grok (caleb vines)" <grokag...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 3:41 PM, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I'm on vacation and only have mobile internet at the moment so I can't
> > check, but does the rule specify that the trust tokens needed to win are
> to
> > be issued by other players explicitly or that players can issue trust
> tokens
> > and one needs such tokens from multiple players? In the event of the
> latter
> > case it might be worth looking into because I think there is real
> ambiguity
> > with how it interacts with Agencies and this is a good excuse to look
> into
> > it.
> >
> > 天火狐
>
>
> The last paragraph of the rule, for your reading pleasure:
>
> "A person can win the game by announcement if e has been issued a
> Trust Token by each player except emself; if no person has won via
> this mechanism in the past; and if in the same message, e quotes, for
> each of those players, a public message in which that player issued em
> a Trust Token."
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: public private contracts

[Josh T]

Re: Japanese pledge: Given that I don't recall having made a pledge in
Japanese, I haven't the foggiest what it might refer to.

Re: Japanese Organization: Yeah, no, that's what I expected of it. I have a
long philosophical experiment, I swear.

天火狐

On 20 July 2017 at 23:58, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> On Jul 20, 2017, at 2:25 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
> > o, you seem to have accepted that a pledge in Japanese, of very limited
> > comprehension to me, and with limited enforceability due to translation
> issues
> > (even with the translator) is still some kind of publicly-made pledge.
> Why does
> > this case differ to you?
>
> Can you point out where I did so? I’m having difficulty finding it. It
> does sound like a thing I’d do, but I had not fully understood the
> implications of CFJ 1460 until after your Cygneus Cantus, so if it was
> prior to that, I plead ignorance by default.
>
> -o
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3530 assigned to o

[Josh T]

The only thing I have to remark about this is the self-demonstrating
statement: "šumma našpartam rāqtam ašpur, mimma epēšū?"

天火狐

On 28 June 2017 at 02:54, Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 22:05 +0100, V.J Rada wrote:
> > I CFJ on the statement
> > "The Japanese message filed by 天火狐 on 27 June deputized him as the
> > Reportor"
>
> Should be "em" not "him", surely?
>
> Anyway, this is CFJ 3530. I assign it to o.
>
> The CFJ statement is probably intended to refer to this message:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28694.html
>
> --
> ais523
> Arbitor
>

Re: DIS: Decoding attempt

[Josh T]

The set of languages which I speak fluently is smaller than what people
might expect, but I am willing to curl up with a grammar book of many
languages to dabble, of which I have done so with many.

天火狐

On 29 June 2017 at 10:31, V.J Rada  wrote:

> I am purely English speaking rip.
>
>
> On Friday, June 30, 2017, CuddleBeam  wrote:
>
>> >More generally for everyone, what languages do you speak?
>>
>> In order of fluidity:
>>
>> Spanish (native), English (native), Swedish (native but I haven't
>> practiced in forever so jag minnas inte mycket av det), Japanese (unhealthy
>> amounts of anime lol), German (very basic), French (very basic), Lojban (if
>> I have a dictionary with me).
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Either way you look at it... [also contains a CFJ ID number assignment]

[Josh T]

I'm going to be honest, I am pretty surprised that you all let me get away
with most of what I've done in Japanese.

天火狐

On 29 June 2017 at 12:07, omd  wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> > I register.
> >
> > H. Registrar, the following is a Cantus Cygneus:
>
> Oof :/
>
> > Fine, it's just a nickname.  Then, I argued against interpretation of
> > contracts in other languages.  Ignored.  I gave in a bit, thinking
> > "hey, maybe changing technology means this should be re-evaluated",
> > and delivered judgements allowing some minimal use of characters for
> > obvious simple actions.  This though went further for the rest of you,
> > not only do you bend over backwards to interpret long and nonsensical
> > Japanese posts, but now you try to interpret goddamn Neo Akkadian with
> > seriousness.
>
> For the record, I 'bent over backwards' to interpret the long Japanese
> post because I'm learning Japanese, therefore it was a fun exercise.
> Not because I thought any announcements in it would be legally
> effective; I don't think there's any reason to overturn CFJ 1460 (btw,
> it's unfortunate that your CFJ database is now down :/).
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Either way you look at it... [also contains a CFJ ID number assignment]

[Josh T]

I do apologize that it has come to this. For what it's worth, I sympathize
with your point of view and I do think that your CFJ was brilliant, even if
I didn't exactly have time to submit a gratuitous argument to support you.

天火狐
(Apparently, that Japanese character guy)

On 29 June 2017 at 10:09, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> > The word in question is a real Arabic word, translating to "I invite" /
> > "I call" / "I appeal". If we reverse the order of the letters, to get
> > «دعوأ», this is no longer a real Arabic word, strongly implying that
> > the message was meant to be in logical order; if the message were meant
> > to be in visual order, the Arabic text would therefore have been
> > written backwards (i.e. left to right, when right to left is the
> > language's normal writing order).
>
> I register.
>
> H. Registrar, the following is a Cantus Cygneus:
>
> For years, Agora has been governed by principles of interpretation,
> including a strong judgment on non-English languages.  That judgement
> was the result of me, years ago, attempting to take a simple and clear
> action in Turkish.  It was rejected wholly.  It was sensible, though
> hard line, and at times others have attempted other languages, I've
> happily referred others to that judgement, and people have accepted it
> and moved on.
>
> Recently, another player registered and began to use Japanese in the
> forum.  I was against it from the beginning, not due to dislike of a
> particular language, but due to those past Agoran customs and the fact
> that we have enough problems with ambiguities in English.  I delivered
> a judgement stating eir nickname wasn't the Japanese characters e was
> using, intending it again to reinforce that old precedent.
>
> It was completely ignored.
>
> Fine, it's just a nickname.  Then, I argued against interpretation of
> contracts in other languages.  Ignored.  I gave in a bit, thinking
> "hey, maybe changing technology means this should be re-evaluated",
> and delivered judgements allowing some minimal use of characters for
> obvious simple actions.  This though went further for the rest of you,
> not only do you bend over backwards to interpret long and nonsensical
> Japanese posts, but now you try to interpret goddamn Neo Akkadian with
> seriousness.
>
> Now, this presents many interpretation problems (of mixing languages),
> so I try to demonstrate some of the issues by mixing two languages in
> an odd way. Ambiguous as per P.S.S.'s arguments?  Maybe, and fine.
> But: ambiguous using language and the written word, say imagining it
> written on paper.  The SAME RESPECT we've given to other languages in
> the last few months.
>
> But I guess we don't extend that respect to Arabic (or in the past,
> Turkish). This result?  It decides to completely ignore the clear and
> simple known precepts of the Arabic language, and decide on some kind
> of byte order.  Why stop there??  Why not say "hey, all this English
> stuff?  It's just ASCII and we can't read numbers!"  No? I guess not.
>
> But hey - this Arabic stuff??  Well, it's not some important language,
> like say Japanese.  Let's just translate it to bytes and ignore the
> meaning, eh?  Completely re-arrange the word order like no native
> speaker, and not even a translation machine, would do, eh?  I guess
> that's fine.  Basic principles of reading with good faith don't apply
> to a language like *that*.  Let's talk about byte order, instead.
>
> Well, 46 75 63 6b 2c 20 66 75 63 6b 20 74 68 69 73 2e.
>
> I consider you folks my friends, and, intended or not, I want you to
> know how this is coming across. I know this is mainly an intellectual
> exercise for us - we like the puzzles of wrestling with translations in
> ancient languages, and figuring out odd logic (like byte stuff) to get
> out of ambiguous or paradoxical situations.  That's all fun, well, and
> good.
>
> So I've really tried to understand the Japanese, but even the signature
> characters just come across to me gibberish - due to the low resolution
> of the characters on the display, I just can't learn it from reading it
> here.  I transliterate that nickname in my head as "Japanese Character
> Guy" every time I see the characters.  It feels exclusionary to me
> (especially as there's others who understand better), and I feel left
> out.
>
> Though I've generally ignored that feeling - not a big deal.  I've even
> spent more time trying to program the CFJ database to accept those
> characters than I have on any other aspect of programming and updating.
>
> And now, here - double exclusion.  There's no similar respect for a
> language I can (to a very slight measure) cope with.
>
> Now, I'm pretty sure you didn't intend to come across this way, and
> thought of this as just another clever logic solution.  And I'm VERY
> sure my sensitivity is in a large part due to current World events. I
> come here to escape, I've never brought 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: 蘭亭社簿記

[Josh T]

This is outside the scope of the pledge since I only said I would answer
questions to a-b, but since you can just TTttPF it, I'll answer them
anyway.

> Are you able to provide a complete translation of this to English?

Yes, I am able to.

> Is this a deputisation? If so, for what office? If this is for the office
of Reportor, what is the newspaper relating to?

I have reason to believe that even if the message was written
conventionally this would not be a deputisation.

天火狐

On 29 June 2017 at 09:50, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Are you able to provide a complete translation of this to English?
>
> Is this a deputisation? If so, for what office?
>
> If this is for the office of Reportor, what is the newspaper relating to?
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 2017, at 11:39 PM, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > In the interest of watching everyone figure out what is going on, I
> acknowledge all of those concerns, and pledge to answer questions published
> in a-b before July 5th, 2017 about my message to a-b originally published
> June 27, 2017 truthfully and to the best of my ability.
> >
> > 天火狐
> >
> > On 27 June 2017 at 15:08, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I object to anything in the below message I can.
> >
> > As this might be a report I issue a COE on it, specially that the report
> isn't clear.
> >
> > I also vote for myself in any agoran decision initiated by the below
> message.
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 10:50 Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There is like no good quiet time where I am free to do this, so here it
> is.
> >
> > 在職の福德公が怠慢なので、私は以下の記事を公表して、福德公の紳士を獲得されます。
> >
> > 公報時間：水無月朔日子の四つ
> > 蘭亭社のア宝や地所：なし
> > 以上
> >
> > 天火狐
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Either way you look at it... [also contains a CFJ ID number assignment]

[Josh T]

While I am not a programmer that has needed to deal with
internationalization, it is to my understanding from friends in the field
that most implementations get it wrong, and thus how any one program
renders it should not be taken as evidence one way or another. For example,
I don't know for certain if the text viewers of each right honourable
Agoran supports the correct CJK flags that forces the font to render the
correct Unihan variant. While I am not familiar with Arabic encoding (I
don't speak Arabic, although if I tried really hard maybe I can use my
knowledge of Akkadian to decipher text?), it is my understanding that
Unicode encodes text by order of input and not "logically" as a concession
for backwards compatibility, and thus feel that stating that the text
should be interpreted as English because it is left-aligned is like having
a chef that doesn't know how to prepare lobster but tries his best anyway,
but eir customers conclude that lobster isn't good because of
unintentionally ill-suited decisions the chef made.

天火狐

On 29 June 2017 at 10:55, Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-06-29 at 07:09 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > But hey - this Arabic stuff??  Well, it's not some important language,
> > like say Japanese.  Let's just translate it to bytes and ignore the
> > meaning, eh?  Completely re-arrange the word order like no native
> > speaker, and not even a translation machine, would do, eh?  I guess
> > that's fine.  Basic principles of reading with good faith don't apply
> > to a language like *that*.  Let's talk about byte order, instead.
>
> Sorry for harping on about this, I'm just really annoyed myself at what
> you've written.
>
> It feels like all the effort I've gone to to do things like understand
> and work with languages like Arabic have been wasted. A lot of people
> have put in a lot of effort in order to create communication standards
> that allow text in all languages, not just English, to be understood
> unambiguously when communicated from one person to another. And now I'm
> finding out that that all that work is irrelevant, because when people
> actually write in Arabic, I'm expected to ignore what what they say
> actually means, and assume that I should take the primitive
> understanding that it's all just left-to-right, left-margin-justified
> text?
>
> Arabic has its own rules for writing it, whether on paper or on
> computer. (The very simplest is that, whether on paper or computer, you
> start at the right hand side of the page.) If you don't follow those
> rules, it shouldn't be surprising that the meaning that people ascribe
> to the message you send isn't the same as the one you intended. In
> particular, following the same rules as for English is going to produce
> a result that's meaningless in Arabic; text's going to wrap in the
> wrong places, embedded quotations in left-to-right languages will be in
> the wrong places, and so on. It can, however, sometimes produce a
> result that's meaningful in English, especially when there's English
> text in the same sentence.
>
> (To be honest, I was expecting that you'd follow up your CFJ by
> submitting the same thing as an image, which can't be reflowed or
> parsed and which is therefore missing the context you'd need to be able
> to unambiguously determine the direction it was written in. I was
> surprised by the apparent lack of understanding of encoding standards
> for writing various different languages. Perhaps this is the fault of
> computer software generally still being rather English-centric, and
> making entering text in other languages more error-prone than it should
> be; I know I've seen my email client produce incorrect or suboptimal
> results both with your Arabic, and with 天火狐's Japanese. This is
> something I'm working on at the moment – I'm trying to write a
> rendering library which handles all these languages correctly.)
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Complete Shiny Economy Overhaul

[Josh T]

I just wanted to mention that I have an alternate stamp proposal which I
haven't quite had the time to flesh out, but it should be reasonably easy
to change to if I write things carefully.

天火狐

On 30 June 2017 at 09:45, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> If you increase AP to 5 per week, I will pend it.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Jun 30, 2017, at 6:46 AM, Nic Evans  wrote:
> >
> > Oops, I forgot to change everyone's balance.
> >
> > Also if there's no substantial problems noticed, I'd really appreciate
> > having this pended before the next proposal pool (I don't have any
> > shinies).
> >
> > I withdraw Economics Overhaul.
> >
> > I submit the following proposal:
> >
> > -
> >
> > Title: Economics Overhaul v2
> > AI: 2.0
> > Author: nichdel
> > Co-authors: o, grok, Aris
> >
> > Repeal R2484 "Payday".
> >
> > Amend the rule titled "Assets" by, after the paragraph that starts with
> > "An asset generally CAN be transferred", adding:
> >
> >   When a rule indicates transfering an amount that is not a natural
> >   number, the specified amount is rounded up to the nearest natural
> >   number.
> >
> > And by, after the paragraph that starts "The "x balance of an entity"",
> > adding:
> >
> >   When a player causes one or more balances to change, e is ENCOURAGED
> >   to specify the resulting balance(s). Players SHOULD NOT specify
> >   inaccurate balances.
> >
> > {Just intended to make balance tracking easier inbetween Secretary
> > reports}
> >
> > Enact a Power 1 rule titled "Rewards" with the following text:
> >
> >   A Reward is a specified amount of shinies associated with a Reward
> >   Condition. For each time a player meets a Reward Condition, e MAY
> >   claim the specified award exactly once within 24 hours of meeting the
> >   Reward Condition.
> >
> >   When a player 'claims' a Reward, Agora transfers the specified number
> >   of shinies to the player.
> >
> >   Below is an exhaustive list of Reward Conditions and eir rewards:
> >
> >  * The following two only apply to proposals that were pended via
> >  spending shinies:
> >
> > - Being the author of an adopted proposal: 1/40th the current
> > Floating Value.
> >
> > - Being the pender of an adopted proposal: 1/40th the current
> > Floating Value.
> >
> >  * Judging a CFJ, that was created via spending shinies, that e was
> >  assigned to: 1/20th the current Floating Value.
> >
> >  * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 shinies.
> >
> >  * Resolving an Agoran Decision for the first time this week: 5
> >  shinies.
> >
> > Enact a Power 1 rule titled "Floating Value" with the following text:
> >
> >   Floating Value is a natural switch. When e publishes eir Weekly
> >   Report, the Secretary SHALL flip the Floating Value to Agora's shiny
> >   balance.
> >
> > Set every players's shiny balance to 0.
> >
> > Set Agora's shiny balance to 1000.
> >
> > Set the Floating Value to 200.
> >
> > Enact a Power 1 rule titled "Economic Wins" with the following text:
> >
> >   Stamps are an asset, identified by eir creator and tracked by the
> >   Secretary.
> >
> >   The Stamp Value is always 1/5th the current Floating Value.
> >
> >   Once per month, a player MAY, by announcement, transfer to Agora the
> >   Stamp Value, in shinies, to create a Stamp.
> >
> >   Players MAY, by announcement, destroy a Stamp and cause Agora to
> >   transfer the Stamp Value, in shinies, to em.
> >
> >   While a player has Stamps made by at least 10 different players e MAY
> >   destroy 10 stamps made by 10 different players by announcement to win
> >   the game.
> >
> > Enact a Power 1 rule titled "Welcome Packages" with the following text:
> >
> >   If a player has not received a Welcome Package since e most recently
> >   registered, any player MAY cause em to receive one by announcement.
> >
> >   When a player receives a Welcome Package, Agora transfers 50 shinies
> >   to em.
> >
> > Enact a Power 1 rule titled "Action Points" with the following text:
> >
> >   At the beginning of every Agoran Week, every player has 2 Action
> >   Points. When a player 'spends' an Action Point, e has one less
> >   Action Point. If a player has 0 Action Points, e may not spend any
> >   more Action Points, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
> >
> > Amend R2445 "How to Pend a Proposal" to read, in full:
> >
> >   Imminence is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by
> >   proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either "pending" or
> >   "not pending" (default).
> >
> >   Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending" by
> >   announcement by:
> >
> >  a) spending 1 Action Point, OR
> >
> >  b) spending 1/20th the Floating Value in shinies.
> >
> > Amend R991 "Calls for Judgment" by replacing the first paragaraph 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Appeal of CFJ 3534; go vote!

[Josh T]

>  And finally, I learned about the difference between traditional
(tategaki)
and modern (yokogaki) ordering in Japanese today!  I'd always wondered
why
I was confused about that (looking at Japanese text from different
sources)
but never got around to looking it up.  So thanks for that :).

Your Arabic thing also solves my problem of trying to write a piece of text
in Japanese that makes sense when read in both directions the language can
be read.

天火狐

On 2 July 2017 at 15:12, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, omd wrote:
> > First of all, I'd like to note that Gmail displays the message
> > differently from ais523's images.  I see
> > {
> > [arabic text] : I call for judgement on the following statement
> > }
>
> Some evidence, and some commentary:
>
> First the gratuitous evidence for the record:
>
> I composed the message in a fixed-width font.  It appears for me, both in
> composition and in the message as received from the lists, the way it
> appears
> in the archives (using a reasonably-wide window), a single line with
>   [Latin] : [Arabic]
>
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/
> agora-business/2017-June/035191.html
>
> As "evidence", a note on my intent:  I had intended it to be
> center-justified,
> with the center as close to the colon as possible.  I thought about
> indenting it slightly on the left side to show that the intent to center
> it,
> but since the line was already beyond 80 characters, I wanted to minimize
> the
> chance across others' displays that it would wrap, so I didn't add the
> extra
> space. My editor and reader don't wrap until >120.
>
>
> Now some commentary (not official gratuitous arguments):
>
>   - We have a tradition of fixed-width displays, to the extent that we make
> our reports and other legal documents (tables) that way.  If tables
> don't
> display correctly, we tend to say "switch to a fixed width browser"
> not "we
> have to go by the quirks of individuals' mail clients".
>
>   - Not sure we've had a set standard on line length (differs by report),
> out
> of politeness definitely under 80.  That's the acknowledged weakness
> of my
> single line.
>
>   - Still, within the Rules we respect the authors' intent with ASCII art
> (and
> would frown at a rulekeepor who squeezed out the linespace in the Town
> Fountain as "inconsequential").  Of course, we've never used such
> positioning to make a legal distinction.
>
>   - In questions where it matters, it might be great to use this case to
> set
> a precedent.  The one I would suggest is "the way it displays in the
> archives is the canonical form" (without getting into whether the
> Distributor could mess with that one day :) ).
>
>   - And yes, I also acknowledge that narrowing the window when looking at
> the
> archives causes a line wrap - but the same is true for report tables.
> It's not an unreasonable hardship (IMO) to say "in doubt, view it in
> the
> archives with a window width sufficient to respect the author's fairly
> clear intent."
>
> That's all commentary on display, bytes, etc.  Now, assuming others are
> willing to judge it linguistically, as displayed on the archives with a
> sufficient window width (~90 characters are more):
>
>   - A main point for me is interpretation of the word "following".  I
> believe
> that a native Arabic-speaker would read "following" in the Arabic
> sentence as the thing past the colon (the Latin text), but I don't have
> a native-speaker on hand to ask.
>
>   - I think that CFJ 1267 and its two(!) appeals are the best discussion of
> using fixed-width "ASCII" art uncertainty to look at timing of actions.
> Definitely worth a look, including the controversy caused shown in the
> appeals:  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1267
>
>   - Finally, since I kind of amped-up the emotion on this one, let me say I
> wouldn't be insulted if the whole thing was thrown out as ambiguous, or
> any particular interpretation (even favoring the Latin over the
> Arabic),
> as long as it's done on linguistic grounds and hopefully in a way that
> can apply to other/all languages similarly, or cover the mixing of
> multiple languages.
>
>   - And finally, I learned about the difference between traditional
> (tategaki)
> and modern (yokogaki) ordering in Japanese today!  I'd always wondered
> why
> I was confused about that (looking at Japanese text from different
> sources)
> but never got around to looking it up.  So thanks for that :).
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Decoding attempt

[Josh T]

That's pretty good, actually. It's transliterated Neo-Akkadian for "If I
were to send meaningless messages, would it do anything?"

I have an interpretation of the rules. Instead of debating about it, I
think it is much more interesting to do things that test it and see what
Agora decides. I feel my stance on the issue as worded is quite clear given
the translation of the moon language, although I would like to see what o
comes up with.

天火狐

On 29 June 2017 at 02:47, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

> After googling a bit, here's my attempt using
> http://www.assyrianlanguages.org/akkadian/search.php and
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadian:
>
> Orig. transcription
> Dictionary lookup
> Suggested translation
>
> šumma  našpartamrāqtam
> szumma naszparturaqu
> If message-acc  void,meaningless-fem-acc
>
> ašpur, mimma epēšū?
> szaparumimma epeszu
> i sent/wrote,  anything  do/act?
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: 蘭亭社簿記

[Josh T]

I'd like to point out that the charter of 蘭亭社 was updated last month, which
includes additional definitions.

天火狐

On 27 June 2017 at 17:48, omd  wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 8:53 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I knew CFJ 3492 was a slippery slope.  Silly judge.
> >
> > This, though, pretty clearly fails the "sufficiently clear" test of
> > CFJs 3471-3472 (and ultimately 1460).
>
> For reference: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1460
>
> FWIW, as a Japanese learner, I'm pretty sure the message is mostly
> gibberish.
>
> First line: The Google translation seems reasonable, but Japanese
> doesn't distinguish present and future so it was probably intended in
> the present.  'Fukudokko' is Google's translation of '福德公', which is
> not in the dictionary as either a word or a name (the three kanji mean
> 'luck', 'virtue', and 'public', but you can't combine arbitrary kanji
> to make a word).  Note that unlike Chinese, Japanese doesn't generally
> represent foreign words with kanji picked phonetically - it uses
> katakana for foreign words instead - so it couldn't really be that.
> The last bit combines an object marker with a passive verb (to be
> acquired/won), so it would have to be the so-called 'suffering
> passive', where the object (gentleman of 福德公) is the one hurt by the
> action being done, not necessarily its direct subject or object.  But
> then, *what* is being acquired?  Are you acquiring the gentleman who
> is also suffering from it?
>
> Second line: "Official bulletin time: " … I think the rest is an
> attempt to specify a date and maybe time, but it's way off.
> ('Mizukazuki' is really 'minazuki' and it's an archaic name for June,
> but it doesn't seem to be an archaic date either).
>
> Third line: "'A' treasure of 蘭亭社 [another non-word] and estate: none".
> 'A' is actually the katakana for the vowel sound 'a', which is not
> generally found by itself; theoretically it could be okurigana, meant
> to spell a word together with 宝 (treasure), but that would be a weird
> combination and definitely isn't in the dictionary.
>
> Fourth line: "The above"
>
> Fifth line: [his signature]
>

DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly report

[Josh T]

I would like to point out that I am not an office (in the recent events
section of the report).

天火狐

On 25 April 2017 at 23:05, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> Secretary's Weekly Report
>
> Date of this report: Sun, 23 Apr 2017
> Date of last report: Sun, 29 Jan 2017
>
>
> Recent events (all times UTC)
>
> Wed, 11 Jan 2017 05:16:45  Aris paid 3 Shinies (o)
> Sat, 14 Jan 2017 20:49:15  o paid 5 Shinies (Aris)
> Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:47:26  Agora paid 6 Shinies (nichdel)
> Sun, 15 Jan 2017 15:59:00  Agora paid 6 Shinies (nichdel)
> Sun, 15 Jan 2017 18:37:23  Agora paid 5 Shinies (nichdel)
> Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:00:37  nichdel leaves Organization "ABM"
> Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:00:37  nichdel joins Organization "ACU"
> Sun, 15 Jan 2017 23:00:37  nichdel joins Organization "AVM"
> Mon, 16 Jan 2017 16:50:02  Aris paid 5 Shinies (nichdel)
> - previous report -
> - time of last report -
> Wed,  1 Feb 2017 00:00:00  Payday
> Tue, 14 Feb 2017 03:47:00  o Paid 20 Shinies (Aris)
> Wed,  1 Mar 2017 00:00:00  Payday
> Wed,  1 Apr 2017 00:00:00  Payday
> Sun, 16 Apr 2017 21:04:27 !Quazie joins Organizations "ABM", "ACU",
> "AVM", and 天火狐
> Wed, 19 Apr 2017 23:29:03 !Quazie declared Bankrupt
>
> Events marked with a ! are provisional until the status of Quazie as a
> player is resolved.
>
>
> Personal Lockouts:
>
> Player Until
> 
> !Quazie July 18, 2017
>
> Records marked with a ! are provisional until the status of Quazie as a
> player is resolved.
>
>
> Global Lockout: No
>
>
> Balances:
>
>9 Shinies  Agora
>5 Shinies  Organization:AVM
>  986 Shinies  Player
>   53 ShiniesAris
>   40 ShiniesCharles
>  130 ShiniesG.
>   40 ShiniesHenri
>   40 ShiniesMurphy
>   40 ShiniesRoujo
>   40 ShiniesSci_Guy12
>   40 ShiniesSprocklem
>   40 ShiniesTekneek
>   40 ShiniesWarrigal, the
>   40 ShiniesYally
>   10 ShiniesZachary Watterson
>   70 Shiniesais523
>  100 Shiniesaranea
>  108 Shiniesnichdel
>   75 Shinieso
>   40 Shiniesomd
>   40 Shinies天火狐
>
>
> Budgets:
>
> Player ABM  ACU  AVM  蘭亭社 Expenditure
> ---
> ais523  25   30   55
> aranea  25   50   75
> Murphy   50   50
> nichdel  75   25 100
> o50   50 100
> omd  20   20
> Sprocklem   25   20   45
> 天火狐   5050
>
> Income  75  295   7550   495
>
> ABM = The Agoran Betting Market
> ACU = The Agoran Credit Union
> AVM = The Agoran Voting Market
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: 蘭亭社's highest allowable budget

[Josh T]

I am confused by the wording "barring 天火狐", and seek clarification on the
issue.

天火狐

On 27 April 2017 at 00:27, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> I CFJ, barring 天火狐, on the statement
>
> 蘭亭社's highest allowable budget for a single player is 50.
>
> I present no arguments, largely out of spite.
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3477 assigned to o

[Josh T]

The issue here as I see it is predicate level: there is a stage-level
interpretation and an individual-level interpretation. The individual-level
interpretation is that the adjective applies to the modified noun
intrinsically, that is, "the responsible people" at the individual-level
refers to people who are generally responsible. On the other hand, the
stage-level interpretation has a more holistic sense of the situation, with
a focus on the now: the stage-level interpretation of the aforementioned
statement, usually written as "the people responsible", using a
postpositive adjective, is generally interpreted as something like "the
people responsible for the situation at hand". Provided that allowable is
acceptable as a postpositive adjective, it seems reasonable to cast the
prepositive adjective statement as taking on the individual-level meaning,
which would agree with the interpretation of Quazie exceeding the Income
Cap.

天火狐

On 28 April 2017 at 19:47, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > If anyone can think of historical CFJs on the interpretation of
> “allowable” or a related term, I’m all ears.
>
> I got nothing.
>
> Dictionary seems to suggest either works.
>
> I think it's straight up "best interests of the game" territory here.
>
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: 蘭亭社's highest allowable budget

[Josh T]

I have no ill against you barring me, just that I wasn't familiar with the
procedure.

天火狐

On 27 April 2017 at 22:04, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:

> That’s pretty much it. You’re best-placed to actually provide insight into
> the truthiness of the statement, which is why I barred you: I’m actually
> trying to figure out how Agora as a whole interprets the 蘭亭社 charter.
> Having you step in and answer directly somewhat defeats the purpose.
>
> -o
>
> On Apr 27, 2017, at 2:51 AM, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This sounds like an issue where I sit on the sideline and eat popcorn and
> maybe attempt to correct if everyone is horribly off-mark. Wonderful.
>
> On 27 April 2017 at 02:46, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2017-04-27 at 02:43 -0400, Josh T wrote:
>> > I am confused by the wording "barring 天火狐", and seek clarification
>> > on the issue.
>>
>> When you call a CFJ, you can choose one player who will not be able to
>> judge that CFJ; that's called "barring a player". Normally you do that
>> if the CFJ is about that player or something that that player is
>> associated with (to avoid conflicts of interest), or if the eligibility
>> of the player to judge the CFJ would depend on the result of the CFJ.
>> However, you don't have to state your reason, and there doesn't even
>> have to be a reason.
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>>
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Not dead

[Josh T]

Can I come up with a wordlist to card you for tardiness?

天火狐

On 16 August 2017 at 19:48, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> For each of the following, I point the finger at myself:
>
> * Failing to publish the Secretary’s monthly report for August 2017 in a
> timely fashion.
> * Failing to publish the Secretary’s weekly report in a timely fashion.
> * Failing to publish the Surveyor's weekly report in a timely fashion.
> * Failing to publish the Referee's weekly report in a timely fashion.
> * Failing to resolve the August estate auction in a timely fashion.
>
> I further waggle my finger reprimandingly at myself for:
>
> * Not vacating offices or arranging cover before disappearing for an
> extended period.
>
> I’m back. I’m catching up. Thanks for your patience - I’m mildly surprised
> nobody deputised for me to handle my offices, but I’m grateful for that, as
> well, as I do enjoy those responsibilities.
>
> -o
>
>

DIS: Sort-of random question

[Josh T]

Random question: Is there a way to formalize the fact that I do not want my
name (as opposed to y nickname) to be an acceptable way to refer to me?

天火狐

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Sort-of random question

[Josh T]

Thank you for your pledge/ I don't think it's something quite bothersome
enough to make a proposal about, but I would like to express to all
individuals that I would prefer to be referred to by my nickname.

天火狐

On 15 May 2017 at 11:27, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think there exists any formal way.
>
> I pledge to not refer to 天火狐 as Josh or Josh T.
>
>
> On 05/15/17 00:54, Josh T wrote:
> > Random question: Is there a way to formalize the fact that I do not
> > want my name (as opposed to y nickname) to be an acceptable way to
> > refer to me?
> >
> > 天火狐
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Josh T]

Are we opening the mathematical can of worms here on Agora? Oh dear.

天火狐

On 19 June 2017 at 20:48, CuddleBeam  wrote:

> Hr
>
> I pay Agora i (imaginary unit) shinies.
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Josh T]

You know what, I can kind of see the argument for imaginary numbers being
reasonable. Quazie's remarks about personal balances being broken is still
a concern, and if it does actually go through it could be a little
inconvenient.

天火狐

On 19 June 2017 at 21:25, V.J Rada  wrote:

> No you don't. Imaginary numbers aren't included in any ordinary definition
> of amount.
>
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:48 AM, CuddleBeam 
> wrote:
>
>> Hr
>>
>> I pay Agora i (imaginary unit) shinies.
>>
>
>

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Josh T]

I think I'm OK with supporting that interpretation.

天火狐

On 20 June 2017 at 16:09, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > I'm not convinced that saying "the unit of Balance
> > values is shiny" is sufficient to restrict them to integers: I imagine
> > few people would dispute "the meter is a unit of length" as incorrect,
> > and it makes sense to talk about fractions of a meter.
>
> On the other hand, all those previous definitions were assuming
> currencies were modeled on physical money or assets (minimum unit
> quantities representing smallest coin sizes).
>
> This time it's a completely different metaphor, and maybe - as suggested
> elsewhere - we should go to the common usage of "switch".  If you have a
> TV remote switch, it's pretty clear that the "units" of channel and
> volume are fixed on some kind of integer/discrete scale even if the
> underlying measurement units (MHz or dB) are continuous.
>
>
>
>

Re: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pointless (has this been tried before?)

[Josh T]

On one hand, I'm kind of glad I don't have to try and explain what an
"algebraic integer" is to everyone since we can use the common-sense
ordinary-language definition of "integer" to mean "rational integer"; on
the other hand, I'm not convinced that saying "the unit of Balance values
is shiny" is sufficient to restrict them to integers: I imagine few people
would dispute "the meter is a unit of length" as incorrect, and it makes
sense to talk about fractions of a meter.

Tangent: The word "unit" in the realm of mathematics has the meaning of
"identity element", which would cause problems in the other direction
anyway.

天火狐

On 20 June 2017 at 15:20, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2017, CuddleBeam wrote:
> > > read: prevents us humanities majors from having to know what
> > > octonian space and lattice points are
> >
> > I agree. While for deviant cases I believe that now and then more
> > offshoot things can definitely arise, the rules themselves should
> > be as layman as possible imo (yet unambiguous and sufficiently
> > "complete" to cover gameplay).
>
> In the "old days" we actually explicitly favored mathematical and legal
> word usage over "ordinary" uses.  From Rule 754/7, circa 2007:
>(3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,
>and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by
>default has the meaning it has in those contexts.
>
>(4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule
>by default has its ordinary-language meaning.
>
> As a result, when my previously-mentioned judgement on CFJ 1813 was
> overturned by CFJ 1826, it relied on arcane aspects of set theory to
> find that "decreasing negatives" was nonsense rather than a net
> positive.  We later (in 2013) purposefully reversed/removed that
> mathematical and legal dominance, in favor of common language.
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Getting in on Agencies

[Josh T]

Here's a picture from my client for reference:

https://goo.gl/k21bMf

天火狐

On 22 May 2017 at 15:41, CuddleBeam  wrote:

> I think that's a very good idea!
>
> When I read this on the archives or attempt to see the message in my gmail
> interface I see boxes instead of certain characters tho
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Getting in on Agencies

[Josh T]

That's right. Specifically, this is an agency that allows people to refer
to it by another name consequence-free.

天火狐

On 22 May 2017 at 15:39, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote:

> So this is an agency that allows you to refer to this agency?
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:33 Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I intend to establish the following Agency after 24 hours:
>>
>> Name: ⌑≌⋻ შეესაბამება एजेन्सी (⌑შए)
>> Agents: All persons
>> Powers: Any person may refer to this Agency by another name, provided
>> that it is unambiguous. Given that the transliteration of the name, UShE is
>> recommended.
>>
>> Additional notes: This agency is effectively the Unicode compliance
>> agency, and exists to make sure that any system that we wring things
>> through won't break due to surface-level Unicode problems.
>>
>> 天火狐
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Getting in on Agencies

[Josh T]

I probably should have also tested the directional control characters and a
right-to-left language, but there's only so much you can fit in three
words. Congratulations on your script being otherwise pretty much Unicode
5.0 compliant! (For reference, Unicode 10 is expected to be finalized later
this year)

天火狐

On 23 May 2017 at 17:18, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Note: Thanks for helping me test my script for unicode compliance -
> delighted that no changes were necessary to handle your unicode.
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:10 PM Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I resolve my quoted intention and establish the agency therein.
>>
>> 天火狐
>>
>> On 22 May 2017 at 15:33, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I intend to establish the following Agency after 24 hours:
>>>
>>> Name: ⌑≌⋻ შეესაბამება एजेन्सी (⌑შए)
>>> Agents: All persons
>>> Powers: Any person may refer to this Agency by another name, provided
>>> that it is unambiguous. Given that the transliteration of the name, UShE is
>>> recommended.
>>>
>>> Additional notes: This agency is effectively the Unicode compliance
>>> agency, and exists to make sure that any system that we wring things
>>> through won't break due to surface-level Unicode problems.
>>>
>>> 天火狐
>>>
>>
>>

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3471-3472

[Josh T]

The following information is for the future thesis writer about translation
and history of language on Agora:

反対 is both the verb "to oppose" or "to object" and a noun which can mean
"against" or "objection". On a Japanese ballot paper, the conventional
choices are 賛成 ("support") and 反対 ("against"/"oppose"), although this is
not something I had expected people to know ahead of time.

白票 is a blank ("white") ballot. I had attempted to cast a blank ballot.

I had not expected any of those things to have worked (and indeed they
didn't, and were judged to have not), but it seems like the type of thing
that was worth trying anyway.

天火狐

On 23 May 2017 at 17:36, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, 23 May 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > (If the context is entirely contained in the foreign language; e.g.
> > "I vote XXX on proposal YYY" is written as its own message and not in
> reply
> > to a thread, it *is* in fact unreasonable effort, as it requires each
> > officer to determine out of context whether the message is directed at
> > them or not.  That was the case in CFJ 1460, but not here).
>
> Addendum:  this portion of the argument is also proof against certain types
> of scams, e.g. submitting a message in a foreign language that attempts
> to do something bad Without Objection, in the hope it prevents people
> from objecting.  That would not clearly indicate the message contents
> beyond
> unreasonable effort (as it requires everyone interpret the message in
> order to
> understand the type of public message and response required).
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Stamps

[Josh T]

> At the beginning of the game of Bing Bong each player SHALL pay the
organization 1 Shiny.

I object to being obliged to pay the organization 1 Shiny even if I do not
wish to partake in Bing Bong.

天火狐

On 24 May 2017 at 15:08, Quazie  wrote:

> Proto Organization: 'Bing Bong'
>
> [Organization standard stuff]
>
> There exists a game master, originally the creator of this organization.
>
> If a game of Bing Bong is not ongoing, a game of Bing Bong can be started
> with 24 hours notice.
>
> At the beginning of the game of Bing Bong each player SHALL pay the
> organization 1 Shiny.
>
> At the beginning of a game of Bing Bong the set of players of the game of
> Bing Bong is the set of members of this org.
>
> No player may join the org while a game is ongoing.
>
> A game starts with a list of players, to be treated as a circular array,
> with the game master in the first position, and a direction, Bing or Bong.
>
> When a player is in the first position of this list, they have 24 hours to
> publicly declare, within the Game Thread either Bing or Bong.
>
> If a player declares Bing then the array shifts left.
>
> If a player declares Bong then the array shifts right.
>
> If a player doesn't declare Bing or Bong in 24 hours then they are removed
> from the list, and the array shifts in such a way as if the player had
> declared Bing.
>
> When there is only 1 player left, that player gets a point.
>
> When the organization has enough shinies to buy a stamp, it does, and
> awards it to the player with the most points at that time - at that point
> all players points reset to 0.
>
>
>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:00 PM Nic Evans  wrote:
>
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> Title: Organization Integration and Stamp Collecting
>> AI: 1.2
>> Author: nichdel
>> Co-author(s):
>>
>> Amend "Organizations" by replacing the second, third, and fourth
>> paragraphs with:
>>
>>Players may become members of an organization by announcement as
>>specified by the charter of the organization. Players may stop being
>>a member of an organization by announcement.
>>
>>An organization may cause any player to stop being a member as
>>specified in its charter.
>>
>> [Remove Budget and make org membership more flexible.]
>>
>> Amend "Death and Birth of Organizations to read, in full:
>>
>>The Administrative Fee is 5 shinies.
>>
>>An organization is "In Bad Standing" if it a) has no members or b)
>>was not created this month and has not paid the Administrative Fee to
>>Agora.
>>
>>If an organization is In Bad Standing for more than 7 days, then any
>>player CAN destroy it by announcement, and the Secretary SHALL do so
>>in a timely fashion if the situation persists.
>>
>>Any player CAN create an Organization by announcement by paying the
>>Administrative Fee to Agora and specifying a name for the
>>Organization that is unique among Organizations and a Charter.
>>
>> [Replaces Budget with the Administrative Fee. Combined with giving org's
>> more control over their membership, it allows for orgs to raise money
>> and pay the fee in whichever way seems appropriate to them. Also removed
>> the limits on org membership and creation, because the price should be
>> a good enough limiters.]
>>
>> Amend "Organization Restructuring" by removing the text "Budget or", and
>> removing the paragraph starting with "2.", then changing "3." to "2.".
>>
>> [Budget cleanup]
>>
>> Enact a power 1 rule titled "Stamps" with the following text:
>>
>>Stamps are a type of asset tracked by the Secretary. Each Stamp is
>>identified by the person or organization that created the Stamp.
>>Stamps created by the same person or organization are fungible.
>>
>>The Stamp Price is always 4 times the current Pending List Price.
>>
>>Once per month any player MAY, by announcement, pay Agora the Stamp
>>Price, in shinies, to create one Stamp in eir possession. Once per
>>month any player MAY, by announcement and as specified by the
>>organization's charter, pay Agora the Stamp Price, in shinies, to
>>create one Stamp in its possession.
>>
>>Any player MAY, by announcement, destroy a specified Stamp in eir
>>possession. Any player MAY, by announcement and as specified by the
>>organization's charter, destroy a specified Stamp in its possession.
>>Whenever an organization or player destroys a Stamp in eir
>>possession, Agora SHALL pay em the Stamp Price.
>>
>>When a player has in eir possession at least one Stamp created by 15
>>different players or organizations then e may win by announcement,
>>specifying each stamp e possesses. When a player does so
>>successfully, all Stamps in eir possession are destroyed.
>>
>> [This implements what I described previously. Stamps are both a
>> speculative currency, with a changing value month-to-month, and a
>> valuable win condition. Also note that with 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Stamps

[Josh T]

We'd have to see Stamp Collecting pass anyway. As for the Bing Bong game
itself, I'd have to see how it plays out first.

On a more serious note, the proposal says that the organization needs to
pay an administrative fee, but the latest version of the Assets proposal
states that an organization can decide for themselves if they want to
accept an asset. While I think the budget system is clunky, I would rather
a player pay a one-time administration fee to create an Organization, and
have a restriction on how many organizations a player is allowed to be in
(which is my understanding a feature of the budget system) than force all
Organizations to have a Shiny balance.

天火狐

On 24 May 2017 at 15:31, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:30 Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > At the beginning of the game of Bing Bong each player SHALL pay the
>> organization 1 Shiny.
>>
>> I object to being obliged to pay the organization 1 Shiny even if I do
>> not wish to partake in Bing Bong.
>>
>> 天火狐
>>
>
> Each member obviously - i was simply throwing out a simple game idea to
> see if others were interested - I can't even make/join organizations for
> another month or so.
>
>
>
>
>> On 24 May 2017 at 15:08, Quazie <quazieno...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Proto Organization: 'Bing Bong'
>>>
>>> [Organization standard stuff]
>>>
>>> There exists a game master, originally the creator of this organization.
>>>
>>> If a game of Bing Bong is not ongoing, a game of Bing Bong can be
>>> started with 24 hours notice.
>>>
>>> At the beginning of the game of Bing Bong each player SHALL pay the
>>> organization 1 Shiny.
>>>
>>> At the beginning of a game of Bing Bong the set of players of the game
>>> of Bing Bong is the set of members of this org.
>>>
>>> No player may join the org while a game is ongoing.
>>>
>>> A game starts with a list of players, to be treated as a circular array,
>>> with the game master in the first position, and a direction, Bing or Bong.
>>>
>>> When a player is in the first position of this list, they have 24 hours
>>> to publicly declare, within the Game Thread either Bing or Bong.
>>>
>>> If a player declares Bing then the array shifts left.
>>>
>>> If a player declares Bong then the array shifts right.
>>>
>>> If a player doesn't declare Bing or Bong in 24 hours then they are
>>> removed from the list, and the array shifts in such a way as if the player
>>> had declared Bing.
>>>
>>> When there is only 1 player left, that player gets a point.
>>>
>>> When the organization has enough shinies to buy a stamp, it does, and
>>> awards it to the player with the most points at that time - at that point
>>> all players points reset to 0.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:00 PM Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I submit the following proposal:
>>>>
>>>> Title: Organization Integration and Stamp Collecting
>>>> AI: 1.2
>>>> Author: nichdel
>>>> Co-author(s):
>>>>
>>>> Amend "Organizations" by replacing the second, third, and fourth
>>>> paragraphs with:
>>>>
>>>>Players may become members of an organization by announcement as
>>>>specified by the charter of the organization. Players may stop being
>>>>a member of an organization by announcement.
>>>>
>>>>An organization may cause any player to stop being a member as
>>>>specified in its charter.
>>>>
>>>> [Remove Budget and make org membership more flexible.]
>>>>
>>>> Amend "Death and Birth of Organizations to read, in full:
>>>>
>>>>The Administrative Fee is 5 shinies.
>>>>
>>>>An organization is "In Bad Standing" if it a) has no members or b)
>>>>was not created this month and has not paid the Administrative Fee to
>>>>Agora.
>>>>
>>>>If an organization is In Bad Standing for more than 7 days, then any
>>>>player CAN destroy it by announcement, and the Secretary SHALL do so
>>>>in a timely fashion if the situation persists.
>>>>
>>>>Any player CAN create an Organization by announcement by paying the
>>>>Administrative Fee to Agora and specifying

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Josh T]

> I think the judge's "additional argument" is actually all that's needed
to find the CFJ false.

I really don't have an objection with the outcome. I agree with your point
that that additional argument is sufficient in ruling this CFJ false. I
just think that it serves Agora better Good to not codify a potential
fallacy and have a clear opinion piece on the subject of ambiguity.

天火狐

On 26 May 2017 at 15:25, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
> I think the judge's "additional argument" is actually all that's needed to
> find the CFJ false.
>
>
> On Fri, 26 May 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > I am kind of not comfortable with the argument provided being the
> official one, since it doesn't address the caller's arguments directly, and
> the main argument therein sort of just reads (at least to me) "If the
> statement is TRUE, Agora is
> > ossified. Agora does not want to be ossified. Thus, this statement is
> FALSE", which sounds awfully like an appeal to consequence fallacy to me.
> (I argue that if this CFJ were to be found TRUE, since a CFJ is not a
> proposal, it and any gamestate
> > changes it effects falls under the "any other single change to
> gamestate" clause, the specific offending result which would cause the game
> to become ossified would be cancelled; this does not prevent the CFJ being
> found true.)
> > While I think the line of reasoning presented in the additional argument
> is an acceptable resolution to this CFJ, I feel that this CFJ as it
> currently stands is unsatisfactory: it is my understanding of Agora CFJ
> system that the result of the
> > case is merely the destination and the logical journey of reaching the
> conclusion is equally, if not more, important in establishing the Agoran
> framework for the future.
> >
> > Hence, I would like to file a motion to reconsider with two support with
> the hope of having a judgement that addresses the caller's evidence and
> potentially avoiding setting bad precedents for Agora (including but not
> limited to the
> > aforementioned fallacy and establishing that it is an OK practice to
> ignore caller's evidence).
> >
> > 天火狐
> >
> > PS: Originally I filed this CFJ in an attempt by ad absurdum to show
> that "Translation between any two languages is inherently ambiguous" and
> "Any ambiguity is sufficient to stop an action which is required to be
> unambiguous" together are very
> > bad opinions to take as axiomatic in Gaelan's initial objection to the
> amendment of 蘭亭社's charter, with the expectation that the result of the CFJ
> was to be effectively irrelevant. However, I think having a strong CFJ on
> the subject of
> > ambiguity is something that is good for Agora as a whole.
> > On 26 May 2017 at 00:42, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
> >   I judge this as FALSE.
> > Rule 1698/4:
> >   Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable
> >   combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule
> >   changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted
> >   within a four-week period.
> >
> >   If, but for this rule, the net effect of a proposal would cause
> >   Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to
> >   exist, it cannot take effect, rules to the contrary
> >   notwithstanding.  If any other single change to the gamestate
> >   would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to
> >   cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules to the
> >   contrary notwithstanding.
> >
> > Judging this as TRUE would cause Agora to become ossified (proposals are
> created by announcement, announcements must be unambiguous). Therefore, it
> is IMPOSSIBLE to judge this CFJ as TRUE. Therefore, I judge as FALSE.
> >
> > Additional argument: ambiguous is a relative term, but it is clear from
> game precedent that in this context it means “reasonably unambiguous to the
> players of Agora."
> >   On May 19, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > I submit a Call for Judgement for the following statement:
> > "Every statement is ambiguous."
> >
> > I present the following argument as caller's evidence:
> > * Every statement is written in one language.
> > * Translation between any two languages is inherently ambiguous.
> > * Therefore, every statement is ambiguous at least in every language
> the statement was not originally written in.
> > * Agora does not formally make preference to any one language, and
> recognizes differences in dialect (CFJ 1439).
> > * Thus, every statement is ambiguous.
> >
> > 天火狐
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Josh T]

On my mail client, it's in reply to my motion to reconsider CFJ 3498
("Every statement is ambiguous") with two support.

天火狐

On 26 May 2017 at 15:45, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> What is this email in reference to?
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 2017, at 3:44 PM, CuddleBeam 
> wrote:
> >
> > I support this.
> >
> > I'm also pissed.
> >
> > The ability of Agora's system to append a certain value to a certain
> switch DOES NOT change whether a certain separate reality is factual or
> not. It's absurdity.
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Josh T]

I don't quite get the leap of logic to arrive at the sentence. I would like
to enquire CuddleBeam of clarification on what e means by "The ability of
Agora's system to append a certain value to a certain switch DOES NOT
change whether a certain separate reality is factual or not."

天火狐

On 26 May 2017 at 15:54, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> That’s what I thought, but it seems like a bit of an overreaction and I
> don’t understand the third sentence.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On May 26, 2017, at 3:52 PM, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On my mail client, it's in reply to my motion to reconsider CFJ 3498
> ("Every statement is ambiguous") with two support.
> >
> > 天火狐
> >
> > On 26 May 2017 at 15:45, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > What is this email in reference to?
> > 
> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 26, 2017, at 3:44 PM, CuddleBeam <cuddleb...@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I support this.
> > >
> > > I'm also pissed.
> > >
> > > The ability of Agora's system to append a certain value to a certain
> switch DOES NOT change whether a certain separate reality is factual or
> not. It's absurdity.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Find two contradictory CFJs -> Principle of explosion -> Do anything

[Josh T]

I also don't think the Principle of Explosion applies because DISMISS is an
option.

天火狐

On 26 May 2017 at 22:32, Nicholas Evans  wrote:

> More like guidelines, and generally newer overrides older.
>
> On May 26, 2017 9:30 PM, "CuddleBeam"  wrote:
>
>> Would this be a valid way to scam?
>>
>> Or are CFJs more like guidelines?
>>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Initiating Elections Again (Referee, ADoP, Registrar)

[Josh T]

If the incumbent thinks that someone else is better suited for the job, I
think they have the experience to make that decision.

天火狐

On 27 May 2017 at 21:43, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

> On Sun, 28 May 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 6:13 PM Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
>>
>> I have recently started wondering if all the new players using "endorse"
>>> know what it customarily means in Agora.  Especially since the term is no
>>> longer defined in the Rules.  (Although one rule still _uses_ the term.)
>>>
>>
>> It's defined by rule 2127.
>>
>
> Oh duh, I searched for "endorse", missing "endorsing".
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [ADoP] Initiating Elections Again (Referee, ADoP, Registrar)

[Josh T]

To be fair, I think that having an important philosophical argument and
background on these recent issues is important, although I haven't
personally had the chance to read and go over them with a fine comb because
of real life, much less come up with a worthy response. However, with the
responses of other players, I hazard to guess that is unwise at the moment.

天火狐

On 29 May 2017 at 13:12, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 29 May 2017, Nicholas Evans wrote:
> > To clarify i mean i completely deregister, not resign ADoP
>
> Ugh.  I really am going to shut up about philosophy now.  Really
> sorry for my part in this.
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Regulating snark

[Josh T]

Maybe also have something like "If a player X owns three grudges and for
each of those grudges the targets thereof also owns a grudge against the
player X, the {keeper of grudges} may place player X on Anger Management",
which would be a state that punishes a player a little.

Oh yeah, Grudges should not be tradable. I hazard that it would be unwise
if they were.

天火狐

On 29 May 2017 at 14:32, Quazie  wrote:

> It's a rough draft - I feel like holding grudges should be advantageous -
> but holding too many makes you vulnerable is the premise I was going for.
> Voting strength is pretty low right now (there were prior situations where
> voting strength defaulted to a much larger number) and maybe increasing it
> by 1 is interesting when the default is higher than 1.
>
> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 11:26 Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>
>> I don't like the voting strength bit—I don't think there is any harm in
>> creating a temporary grudge whenever you vote AGAINST.
>>
>> Gaelan
>>
>> > On May 29, 2017, at 10:35 AM, Quazie  wrote:
>> >
>> > Proto proposal: Grudge.
>> >
>> > There exists an asset called a Grudge.
>> >
>> > Each Grudge has a person associated with it.
>> >
>> > Once a month, A player may indicate a person, and a reason, and then
>> gain one Grudge associated with said person.
>> >
>> > If a player is holding a Grudge against every current player they may
>> be deregistered by announcement.  The registrar shall note this
>> deregistration as Spiteful.
>> >
>> > If every other player has a Grudge representing  the same player e may
>> be deregistered by announcement.  The registrar shall note this
>> deregistration as Banishment.
>> >
>> > If a player is holding a Grudge representing a player, they have voting
>> strength + 1 in every non-for vote on proposals written by that player.
>> >
>> > If a player votes for a proposal Witten by a person they hold a Grudge
>> against, then they 'Get Over It' and lose said Grudge.
>> >
>> > 
>> >
>> > I'm watching lots of angst exist all of a sudden, so let's codify it.
>> >
>> > I don't know if it's a good idea - but I've been bouncing it around in
>> my head for a while, so I decided to proto it.
>>
>

DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Court Gazette

[Josh T]

> Question:  should implications/citations be included in the case logs?

I think it would be a good idea to facilitate looking for things quickly.

天火狐

On 25 May 2017 at 05:06, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> [Comments on the below sections welcome.  If this is liked, I invite
> judges to
>  include implications & citations although I reserve the right to
> edit/comment.
>  Question:  should implications/citations be included in the case logs?]
>
>
> RECENT JUDGEMENTS of INTEREST
>
> CFJs 3463-3464, judged by Gaelan
>   IMPLICATIONS
>  A report listing properties of a person twice in a conflicting way
> (even
>  listing by different nicknames) is inconsistent and does not ratify.
>
>
> CFJ 3465, judged by nichdel
>   IMPLICATIONS
>  Alexis indeed became Dictator, and is now Princess of Agora.
>
>
> CFJ 3566, judged by nichdel
>   IMPLICATIONS
>  The internal state of an organization is part of the gamestate, and
> can
>  be ratified.
>   CITATIONS
>  R2202/6, R1551/18, CFJ 1420
>
>
> CFJ 3468, judged by Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   IMPLICATIONS
>  "With Agoran Support" is a reasonable synonym for "With Agoran
> Consent".
>
>
> CFJ 3469, judged by Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   IMPLICATIONS
>  A non-person can hold a Patent Title, if it was awarded when the
> entity
>  was a person.
>   CITATIONS
>  R649/37
>
>
> CFJ 3471-3472, judged by G.
>   IMPLICATIONS
>  Actions announcements posted in a non-English language may be
> successful,
>  by only if (1) an online translator is readily available, (2) there
> is sufficient
>  context to determine the type of action without the translator, and
> (3) the
>  literal English translation results in a clear action specification.
>   CITATIONS
>  CFJ 1460
>
>
> CFJ 3486, judged by Aris
>   IMPLICATIONS
>  Except for conditional votes, conditional actions must be resolvable
> based
>  on the gamestate at the time the action was announced.
>   CITATIONS
>  R478/33(recommend annotation), R2127/9
>
>
> CFJ 3487, judged by Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   IMPLICATIONS
>  The Arbitor's message "Judge: (player)" in reference to an open case
> is
>  clearly the act of assigning a judge.
>   CITATIONS
>  CFJ 3481
>
>
> CFJ 3488, judged by Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   IMPLICATIONS
>  When a person deregisters while judge of an open case, e remains
> judge:
>  e CAN still assign a judgement, and must do so in a timely fashion.
>   CITATIONS
>  R591/42(recommend annotation), R991/17
>
>
> CFJ 3489, judged by Aris
>   IMPLICATIONS
>  An organization cannot take actions automatically.
>   CITATIONS
>  R2483/2
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Bleach, what is it good for?

[Josh T]

Bleach is good as a whitening and cleaning agent .

On a slightly more serious note, whitespace characters encompass quite the
number of characters aside from space, tab, and "enter" (which is a line
feed and/or a carriage return), including characters like "non-breaking
space", "ideographic space" (sometimes known as "full-width space"), and
other more exotic characters like "Ogham space mark". None of these, of
course, are distinguishable visually without close inspection.

天火狐

On 19 May 2017 at 16:57, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> Yeah, that confused me. To stay on the safe side, I went to a lot of
> effort to preserve white space when I imported the ruleset until I could
> invoke Cleanup Time.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On May 19, 2017, at 1:45 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> >
> > I was looking at the following rule when trying to determine if the
> spacing within a submitted proposal can be modified by the rulekeepor.
> >
> > Rule 2429/1 (Power=1)
> > Bleach
> >
> >   Replacing a non-zero amount of whitespace with a different
> >   non-zero amount of whitespace is generally insignificant, except
> >   for paragraph breaks.
> >
> > History:
> > Created by Proposal 7665 (scshunt), 3 June 2014
> > Amended(1) by Proposal 7709 (Murphy), 3 November 2014
> > The rule seems useless to me - insignificant isn't defined or even used
> within the rules anywhere.
> >
> >
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: Re: 蘭亭社の憲章の修正箇条 2017/05/19

[Josh T]

Nobody seems to mind when CFJ 3478 was presented with "I present no
arguments, largely out of spite" ;P.

I pledge to not object to nichdel should they wish to assign themselves the
below-quoted CFJs:
* "Agora need not be played in English."
* "Agora can be played in any language."

On 19 May 2017 at 15:38, Nic Evans  wrote:

> Honestly, there should be a punishment for calling CFJs without evidence.
> You're creating extra work for at least three other people (ais, the judge,
> G), the least you can do is put some effort into it.
>
> I pledge to dismiss both quoted CFJs if assigned to me without evidence by
> the end of the day.
>
> On 05/19/2017 02:30 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>
> CFJ: "Agora need not be played in English."
> CFJ: "Agora can be played in any language."
>
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 2:54 PM, caleb vines  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 19 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>>> > It came up as a CFJ when 天火狐 first registered.
>>>
>>> If you follow the actual precedent, it actually *didn't* accept the
>>> Japanse-character nickname, but instead recommended transliteration:
>>>https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3467
>>>
>>> However, that has faced a "soft overrule" in that everyone ignored it
>>> and continued to use the Japanese characters.  And regardless, it goes
>>> out of its way to mention that Registration is a special, lenient case.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 19 May 2017, caleb vines wrote:
>>> > Are there any pending CFJ's regarding Organization 蘭亭社?  I don't see
>>> > any, but I did join after the organization was already chartered so I'd
>>> > rather be sure.
>>>
>>> Not pending, but this one was DISMISSED:
>>> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3478
>>>
>>> while noting there was no way to join the organization, so maybe you
>>> didn't actually join?  Dunno if it's relevant to the current text of
>>> the organization, haven't been following since that CFJ.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Following this discussion, I submit a Call for Judgment for each of the
>> following statement:
>>
>> "天火狐 is a member of 蘭亭社."
>>
>>
>> Please accept into caller's evidence for "天火狐 is a member of 蘭亭社.":
>>
>> The decision in CFJ 1460
>> The decision in CFJ 3478, specifically the following two excerpts:
>>
>> >There are plenty of lines which are potentially ambiguous; for example,
>> >paragraph 5 machine-translates as "suitable", and uses the characters
>> >｢相応し｣ to represent the word (as opposed to ｢相応しい｣, which is defined to
>> >mean "Appropriate"). However, some experimentation shows that when the
>> >word is followed by ｢くない｣, the final ｢い｣ is dropped (both incorrect
>> >combinations are flagged up as a typo by the autocorrect on the machine
>> >translator I'm using, which is about as clear a message as a computer
>> >can give on the subject). As such, it seems most reasonable to
>> >interpret ｢相応しくない｣ as meaning "Inappropriate", even if this definition
>> >cannot be determined via a simple matching of character sequences in an
>> >editor.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> >However, some lines are very clear. Line 3, for example, is a very
>> >clear statement of possibility for a Budget switch flip. Unfortunately,
>> >it does not use the word "Appropriate" anywhere, neither in its
>> >English form, nor anything resembling the specified Japanese
>> >translations ｢ふさわしい｣ or ｢相応しい｣. An Organization merely
>> >stating that something is possible has no effect; it needs to specify
>> >that the action is Appropriate. As such, I conclude that there's no
>> >actual way to join this Organization.
>>
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: 蘭亭社の憲章の修正箇条 2017/05/19

[Josh T]

> Unclear
Several dictionaries give a definition of this word to mean "ambiguous" or
"not easily understood", the latter of which is similar to "depends on
information which is unnecessarily difficult to determine", so I will
address those.

> Depends on information which is unreasonably difficult to determine
CFJ 3478 presents a translation by a "non-Japanese-speaker with
ordinary effort", to quote ais523, Given that "ordinary" can mean "usual"
or "normal", I do not think this constitutes "unreasonably difficult",
since ais523 is reasonably close to the mark. I think this is CFJ-able.

> Ambiguous
See my CFJ.

> Does anyone have a copy of the message 1460 was called on? Something sent
by Goethe in April 2003.
It's in CFJ 1439.

天火狐

On 19 May 2017 at 14:32, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 19 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > It came up as a CFJ when 天火狐 first registered.
>
> If you follow the actual precedent, it actually *didn't* accept the
> Japanse-character nickname, but instead recommended transliteration:
>https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3467
>
> However, that has faced a "soft overrule" in that everyone ignored it
> and continued to use the Japanese characters.  And regardless, it goes
> out of its way to mention that Registration is a special, lenient case.
>
>
> On Fri, 19 May 2017, caleb vines wrote:
> > Are there any pending CFJ's regarding Organization 蘭亭社?  I don't see
> > any, but I did join after the organization was already chartered so I'd
> > rather be sure.
>
> Not pending, but this one was DISMISSED:
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3478
>
> while noting there was no way to join the organization, so maybe you
> didn't actually join?  Dunno if it's relevant to the current text of
> the organization, haven't been following since that CFJ.
>
>
>

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3492 assigned to Quazie

[Josh T]

I submit the following gratuitous argument:
* Rule 2461 "Death and Birth of Organizations" states that "When an
organization is created this way, its Charter is set to the value that e
specified, and the Budget switch for that player and Organization is set to
the Income Floor."
* Rule 2459 "Organizations" states that "A 'member' of an Organization is a
player for which the pair consisting of that Organization and that player
has a nonzero Budget."
* "And" implies that the Charter and the Budget switch are set at the same
time.
* Therefore, 天火狐 had become a member of 蘭亭社 before its charter forbade
anyone for joining.

天火狐

On 19 May 2017 at 15:00, Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Fri, 2017-05-19 at 13:54 -0500, caleb vines wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 1:32 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> > > On Fri, 19 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > > > It came up as a CFJ when 天火狐 first registered.
> > >
> > > If you follow the actual precedent, it actually *didn't* accept the
> > > Japanse-character nickname, but instead recommended transliteration:
> > >https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3467
> > >
> > > However, that has faced a "soft overrule" in that everyone ignored it
> > > and continued to use the Japanese characters.  And regardless, it goes
> > > out of its way to mention that Registration is a special, lenient case.
> > >
> > > On Fri, 19 May 2017, caleb vines wrote:
> > > > Are there any pending CFJ's regarding Organization 蘭亭社?  I don't see
> > > > any, but I did join after the organization was already chartered so
> I'd
> > > > rather be sure.
> > >
> > > Not pending, but this one was DISMISSED:
> > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3478
> > >
> > > while noting there was no way to join the organization, so maybe you
> > > didn't actually join?  Dunno if it's relevant to the current text of
> > > the organization, haven't been following since that CFJ.
> > >
> > Following this discussion, I submit a Call for Judgment for each of the
> > following statement:
> >
> > "天火狐 is a member of 蘭亭社."
>
> This is CFJ 3492. I assign it to Quazie.
>
> > Please accept into caller's evidence for "天火狐 is a member of 蘭亭社.":
> >
> > The decision in CFJ 1460
> > The decision in CFJ 3478, specifically the following two excerpts:
> >
> > > There are plenty of lines which are potentially ambiguous; for example,
> > > paragraph 5 machine-translates as "suitable", and uses the characters
> > > ｢相応し｣ to represent the word (as opposed to ｢相応しい｣, which is defined to
> > > mean "Appropriate"). However, some experimentation shows that when the
> > > word is followed by ｢くない｣, the final ｢い｣ is dropped (both incorrect
> > > combinations are flagged up as a typo by the autocorrect on the machine
> > > translator I'm using, which is about as clear a message as a computer
> > > can give on the subject). As such, it seems most reasonable to
> > > interpret ｢相応しくない｣ as meaning "Inappropriate", even if this definition
> > > cannot be determined via a simple matching of character sequences in an
> > > editor.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > > However, some lines are very clear. Line 3, for example, is a very
> > > clear statement of possibility for a Budget switch flip. Unfortunately,
> > > it does not use the word "Appropriate" anywhere, neither in its
> > > English form, nor anything resembling the specified Japanese
> > > translations ｢ふさわしい｣ or ｢相応しい｣. An Organization merely
> > > stating that something is possible has no effect; it needs to specify
> > > that the action is Appropriate. As such, I conclude that there's no
> > > actual way to join this Organization.
>
> --
> ais523
> Arbitor
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

[Josh T]

> An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing 
> document),
and existing solely because its backing document defines its existence.
So no organization can define and issue assets, for example?

> If an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class of
entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity
outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity outside
that class (except for Agora, in which case any player CAN transfer or
destroy it without objection).
How is this different from "An asset's backing document may forbid its
ownership from a class of entities, but it CANNOT forbid Agora from owning
that asset. Any action done which would result in an entity gaining an
asset which it is forbidden to own is IMPOSSIBLE. If an asset is owned by
an entity which is forbidden from owning that asset, the asset is
destroyed. If Agora owns an asset, any player CAN transfer or destroy it
without objection" (adopting this phrasing may require rewording some later
parts so that they still work, but for the purpose of this question, that
is irrelevant).

PS: I think the default should be that an asset is transferable only via a
mechanism specified in the backing document. I probably would support a
rule which gives the record-keeper of assets to destroy abandoned
Agora-owned assets without objection.

> An organization's charter CAN specify whether or not that organization is
willing receive assets or a class of assets. Generally, an organization
CANNOT be given assets its charter states that it is unwilling to receive.
This seems ambiguous. A charter which says nothing about assets neither
specifies if it is willing or unwilling to receive them, so would not fall
under either sentence.

Say if a hypothetical organization says something like "At the beginning of
each Agoran month, this organization distributes as many of its Shinies
evenly to each member, with the organization holding the remainder," but
doesn't explicitly say that it can receive Shinies, where does it stand?

Does this change if the backing document is a rule with higher power than
the one for organizations?

> [The] entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class and
their owners.
Do you perhaps mean all extant or existent instances of that class, or we
can't have a theoretically unbounded asset class? (Example: "A floorb is an
asset with a name switch which is valid with any string. Any player who has
never previously made a floorb may create a new floorb and set its name
switch" might be impossible to record.)

> A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing document, and CANNOT
be transferred; any other asset is liquid.
Is this for ease of access in terms of terminology?

> Where it resolves ambiguity "Balance", without any currency modifiers,
[...]
I think you need a comma "ambiguity".

I finally managed to have time to look at this proposal. Seems good so far;
I would like to hear your thoughts about my remarks / concerns.

天火狐

On 24 May 2017 at 00:01, Aris Merchant 
wrote:

> I'm quite skeptical of this. I've put a lot of time into the current
> Assets proposal, and feel like "Defin[ing] Assets very simply" would
> have significant disadvantages in several respects. I think I'd have
> trouble convincing people to implement another system once we have one
> up and running, despite the possible advantages. I do agree about the
> lost and found department though. If someone writes new text for "you
> can't take it with you" that fits with assets, I'd be more than happy
> to include it (with appropriate credit of course).
>
> Here's my current draft of Assets v4:
>
> {{Title: Assets v4
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors: o, nichdel
>
> Reenact rule 2166, Assets (Power = 2), with the following text:
>
>   An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
>   document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
>   existence.
>
>   Each asset has exactly one owner.  If an asset would otherwise
>   lack an owner, it is owned by the Agora.  If
>   an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class
>   of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred
>   to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned
>   by an entity outside that class (except for Agora,
>   in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it
>   without objection).
>
>   Unless modified by an assets backing document, ownership of an asset is
>   restricted to Agora, persons, and organizations. An organization's
> charter
>   CAN specify whether or not that organization is willing receive assets
> or a
>   class of assets. Generally, an organization CANNOT be given assets its
>   charter states that it is unwilling to receive.
>
>   The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)
>   defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document.  

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Betterer Pledge

[Josh T]

> A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations for any
other person.

I think this should be changed to "A player CANNOT make any pledge that
would create new obligations for any other person or office, without the
other party's explicit consent."

天火狐

On 22 May 2017 at 20:47, Aris Merchant 
wrote:

>
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 5:38 PM Quazie  wrote:
>
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> Proposal: "Betterer Pledges, but because of reasons we can't define a
>> pledge without doing a lot of extra work, so we won't" AI=1.7 Coauthor='G.,
>> Gaelan, Aris'
>> {{{
>>   Replace the text of Rule 2450 with the following:
>>   {{{
>> Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense.
>>
>> If a publicly-made pledge says that the creator of a pledge will do
>> something,
>> without providing a time limit, then e SHALL do so in a timely manner
>> in order to not
>> break said pledge.
>>
>> A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations for
>> any other person.
>>   }}}
>> }}}
>>
>> Me: Looks good! I'm happy you came up with such a nice proposal!
>
> Promotor: The office of the Promotor is officially displeased with you,
> for submitting a proposal with an overly long name. We would appreciate it
> if you could make it an annotation or something.
>
>  -Aris & The Office of the Promotor
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

[Josh T]

Regardless if the Pink Slip is valid, I get the feeling that a Red Card of
some sort ought to be coming forthwith given the level of ire incited, but
my gauge on that front may be inaccurate. Personally, I think Gaelan should
not be trusted with the office of Rulekeepor, and should be removed from it
in addition to being barred from other report-generating offices, but it is
my understanding that Rulekeepor is an intensive duty that Agora cannot go
without, and there is no other candidate who wishes to take the mantle,
including myself.

天火狐

On 22 May 2017 at 21:30, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> I don’t think the Pink Slip is valid.
>
> Rule 2476/0: "A Pink Slip is a type of Card that is appropriate for abuses
> of official power for personal gain. A Pink Slip CANNOT be issued unless
> the reason indicates the specific office or offices whose power was abused.”
>
> The only reason being Rulekeepor aided me in this attempt at victory is
> that I had an excuse to publish a huge message; the ability to publish huge
> amounts of text is not a power given to the Rulekeepor by the rules. I
> could have, for example, hidden the attempt to win by Apathy in a
> written-out version of my Agency scam. There was no abuse of a specific
> power exclusive to the Rulekeepor.
>
> Gaelan
> > On May 21, 2017, at 10:46 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >
> >
> > On May 21, 2017, at 1:37 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> >
> >> The following section is not a portion of the report:
> >> For the purposes of this section, The Sentence is “I intend,
> >> without objection, to declare [word], specifying myself.”
> >> I execute The Sentence, substituting [word] for a word
> >> beginning with “ap” that is a synonym for “not caring.”
> >
> > This appears to be an attempt to abuse the office of Rulekeepor for
> personal gain, in the form of initiating a victory by Apathy for Gaelan
> while hiding it within the voluminous reports required of eir office. That
> the attempt may not succeed does not justify eir intentions. Accordingly, I
> issue Gaelan a Pink Slip for abuse of the office of Rulekeepor for the
> crime of Forgery.
> >
> > Gaelan: in spite of this censure, you remain Rulekeepor. I leave it to
> the discretion of Agora as a whole whether you should hold that office in
> light of this serious offence. Within the next seven days, any player may,
> with two support, take over an office which you hold. I stand aside, and
> will not support usurpation, but neither will I object. The office of
> Rulekeepor is essential to the functioning of Agora as a Nomic, and by
> abusing your authority to publish reports and compromising the trust
> players place in their content, you have put the integrity of the game at
> risk.
> >
> > -o
> >
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

[Josh T]

I am willing to support reconsidering this CFJ on behalf of G. if there is
interest among the players for reconsideration.

天火狐

On 28 May 2017 at 21:18, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> I'm just catching up to this CFJ now, and I have to say I'd consider
> this an example of judicial overreach and motion to reconsider were I a
> player.  Rather than extrapolating slightly to generalize the question,
> or slightly changing the wording of the CFJ to answer what the caller
> *meant* to ask, this uses a judgement to try and sent precedent on an
> entirely different matter.  If this were allowed we'd have to let judges
> opine on anything, unrelated to their CFJ topic, and consider it
> precedent.
>
> On Wed, 24 May 2017, Quazie wrote:
>
> >   First: Past rules allow for YES/NO questions to be judged
> TRUE/FALSE with TRUE meaning YES and FALSE meaning NO, and I will
> re-establish that
> >   tradition as a new judicial precedent within this judgment.  If
> there is issue with this interpretation, I will be happy to reconsider as
> DISMISS,
> >   but I will follow with the rest of my judgment.
> >
> > Next: The CFJ in question asks "Can this statement have a Judge?".  I
> find this CFJ to be trivially TRUE and judge it as such.  Even giving the
> > interesting barring attempt (Which I'll discuss shortly) only two
> realities exist:
> > Reality One: I am the judge of this CFJ, and if this is true then the
> barring attempt failed.
> > Reality Two: I am not the judge of this CFJ, but once thats established
> ais523 will simply assign a new judge, and E will likely agree with my
> statement
> > that e is the judge of the CFJ.
> >
> > In either reality there eventually is a judge for this CFJ, and thus the
> CFJ is TRUE (Meaning YES to the yes/no question presented).
> >
> > To be honest, I could end the judgment here.  CuddleBeam should've CFJed
> on "A player, other than CuddleBeam, is barred on this CFJ".  That would've
> > required someone to judge if the barring worked.  I note to CuddleBeam:
> Be more careful of your wording next time. I'm unsure if your $2.99 Super
> CFJs
> > are all their cracked up to be if I feel comfortable not judging the
> question you seemed to intend to raise.  But, I've got an opinion on the
> matter, and
> > I believe it's controversial, and I've got some words to say.
> >
> > So... let's get into the question at hand:
> >
> > Was anyone barred from judging this CFJ?
> >
> > It seems like ais523 didn't attempt to assign anyone else first (E gave
> no indication that E did so, and in fact noted that e didn't believe e had
> to).
> > {{{
> >   (My own current understanding
> >   is that the attempt to bar the judge fails because it's a conditional
> >   action based on information that will only be available in the future;
> >   presumably, the CFJ verdict might end up confirming or denying this
> >   understanding.)
> > }}}
> >
> > The thing is, I don't see it that way.
> >
> > Conditional activities are defined, in a general way, by R1023
> > {{{
> >   (c) If a regulated value, or the value of a conditional, or a
> > value otherwise required to determine the outcome of a
> > regulated action, CANNOT be reasonably determined (without
> > circularity or paradox) from information reasonably
> > available, or if it alternates instantaneously and
> > indefinitely between values, then the value is considered to
> > be Indeterminate, otherwise it is Determinate.
> > }}}
> >
> > The burden here is reasonability - is it reasonable to allow an
> conditional activity to happen?
> >
> > I agree, there's a long standing tradition (Potentially
> established/enforced through CFJ 3381 or CFJ 2926, this information
> gathering is left up to the
> > reader) that future conditional actions aren't valid, and I will uphold
> that logic for most cases.
> >
> > I agree that it's wrong for the game to allow an action to resolve at an
> arbitrary date in the future.
> > (e.g. "I give  1 shiny if they send a photo of a sloth via a
> public forum." should not actually send the Sloth-Sender a shiny.  That
> requires an
> > officer (or in simpler cases just the playerbase) to keep track of an
> action for an indeterminate amount of time which is unreasonable.)
> >
> > I agree that it's wrong and bad for the game to make future conditional
> action's be allowable with a pre-set arbitrary resolution event and time.
> > (e.g. "I give  1 shiny if, within the next week, they send out a
> message with unicode characters in it".  Non-rule defined deadlines are
> > similarly unreasonable, as they non-consensually place an obligation on
> someone else to track the conditional to ensure success of a future
> activity.)
> > (e.g. "When the promotor distributes proposal titled `Beef, it's what's
> for dinner!` I vote FOR" is invalid for similar reasons.  It isn't
> reasonable for
> > the Assesor to start tracking votes until the voting period begins.
> Once again, a 

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

[Josh T]

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

天火狐

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

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

Re: DIS: Draft promotor report

[Josh T]

I would like to unofficially request that the proposal pool not be drained
until people get paid so that people can afford to pay the fees.

天火狐

On 28 May 2017 at 20:11, Aris Merchant 
wrote:

> The following is a draft report. Note that it's not quite the same as
> a regular report, as it has some of the URLs that get cut from the
> finalized version. I welcome any applicable corrections. If you want
> your proposals distributed, you should talk to ais523 about pending
> them.
>
> --
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, and the
> valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>
> ID Author(s)   AI   Title   PenderPend fee
> (sh.)
> -
> 7858*  Gaelan  3.0  Fast Resolution, now workingais523N/A [1]
>
>
> The proposal pool currently contains the following proposals:
>
> IDAuthor(s) AI   Title
> 
> ---
> pp1   P.S.S [2] 1.0  Agora's To-Do List (v2/ov1)
> pp2   Ienpw III 1.0  Reader's Digest
> pp3   Quazie1.7  Issuing Cards is secured...[3]
> pp4   G., [4]   1.7  Betterer Pledges, (BBoRWCDaPWDaLoEWSWW)
> pp5   Gaelan1.0  No Sneakiness
> pp6   o, Aris   2.0  Deregistration and Assets
> pp7   nichdel   1.2  Organization Integration and Stamp Collecting
> pp8   Gaelan1.0  Sequential Numbering
> pp9   Gaelan1.5  State of the Union
>
>
> Legend: * : Proposal is pending.
>
> [1] Pended by the mechanism in the Rule "Reward and Delay"
> [2] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> [3] ...with power threshold 1.7.
> [4] Gaelan, Aris, 天火狐
>
> The Pending List Price (PLP) is 6 shinies. The Pending Minimum Price (PMP)
> is 5 shinies.
>
>
> The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below.
>
> //
> ID: 7858
> Title: Fast Resolution, now working
> Adoption Index: 3.0
> Author: Gaelan
> Co-author(s):
> https://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-
> business/2017-May/034840.html
>
>
>
> Amend rule 107 “Initiating Agoran Decisions” by replacing {
>   The voting period lasts for 7 days. The minimum voting period for a
> decision
>   with at least two options is five days.
> } with {
>   Unless specified by another rule with power greater than or equal to 2,
> the
>   voting period lasts for 7 days and the minimum voting period for a
> decision
>   with at least two options is five days.
> }
>
> Create rule "Fast Resolution" (Power 2) {
>   For the purposes of this rule, an Agoran Decision's Pertinent
> Information is
>   the set of all information that the vote collector must use to determine
> the
>   result of the decision.
>
>   If, for an Agoran Decison:
>
>   1. It has enough votes so that its result cannot be changed by any
> combination
>   of votes from players that have not yet voted (assuming no new players
>   register and no votes are withdrawn), and
>   2. None of its Pertinent Information has changed in the past 24 hours,
>
>   Then any player may cause its voting period to end immediately by
>   announcement.
> }
>
> //
> ID: pp1
> Title: Agora's To-Do List (v2/ov1)
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> Co-author(s):
>
> Enact a rule titled, "To-Do List", reading: "Any player MAY without two
> objection add an item to the to-do list with a specified number of Shinies
> associated with it. Any to-do list item must have a clear set of
> requirements
> for completion. The to-do list shall be maintained by the Lister. Any
> person MAY
> complete an item on the to-do list and claim the specified number of
> Shinies
> associated with it by notifying the Lister of their completion of the
> task. If
> the Lister agrees with the claimee, the Lister shall without two objection
> pay
> the claimee the specified number of Shinies from Agora. Any disagreement
> regarding completion shall be resolved via a CFJ. After an item has been
> completed, the Lister shall remove it from the to-do list."
>
> Enact a rule titled, "The Office of the Lister", reading: "The Lister
> is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the to-do of
> Agora.
>
> The Lister's Weekly report includes the current state of the Agoran
> to-do list and any recent events thereof."
>
> //
> ID: pp2
> Title: Reader's Digest
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Ienpw III
> Co-author(s):
>
> Enact a new rule entitled "Reader's Digest": {
>   There exists an elected office called 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Surveyor] June Estate Auction

[Josh T]

I really shouldn't be making Agora actions at 5AM before going to bed when
I can't English anyways. I tend to forget basic things.

天火狐

On 2 June 2017 at 13:48, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > I retract any previous "bid" I made on the Estate of Antegria.
>
> I should say I wasn't picking on you specifically; I think I noticed
> a couple other attempts like this recently :).
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Assets v5 (Last Call for Comments)

[Josh T]

> The previous provisions of this paragraph do not apply to an asset if the
  organization is required to provided that asset in order to continue
existing.

I think there is a grammar mistake somewhere in that sentence, and if it
exists it should be fixed.

Aside from that, it looks OK.

天火狐

On 4 June 2017 at 01:52, Aris Merchant 
wrote:

> This will be the last draft of this proposal before I submit it.
>
> -Aris
>
> Title: Assets v5
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors: o, nichdel
>
> Reenact rule 2166, Assets (Power = 2), with the following text:
>
>   An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
>   document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
>   existence.
>
>   Each asset has exactly one owner.  If an asset would otherwise
>   lack an owner, it is owned by Agora.  If an asset's backing document
> restricts
>   its ownership to a class of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained
> by or
>   transferred to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is
> owned
>   by an entity outside that class (except for Agora, in which case any
> player
>   CAN transfer or destroy it without objection). The restrictions in the
>   previous sentence are subject to modification by its backing document.
>
>   Unless modified by an asset's backing document, ownership of an asset is
>   restricted to Agora, persons, and organizations.
>
>   An organization's charter CAN specify whether or not that organization is
>   willing receive assets or a class of assets. Generally, an organization
> CANNOT
>   be given assets its charter states that it is unwilling to receive. The
>   previous provisions of this paragraph do not apply to an asset if the
>   organization is required to provided that asset in order to continue
> existing.
>
>
>   The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)
>   defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document.  That
>   entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class
>   and their owners.  This portion of that entity's report is
>   self-ratifying.
>
>   An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by
>   announcement, subject to modification by its backing document.
>   To "lose" an asset is to have it destroyed from one's
>   possession; to "revoke" an asset from an entity is to destroy it
>   from that entity's possession.
>
>   An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed) by its owner to
> another
>   entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing
>   document.  A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing
>   document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.
>
>   A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing
>   document.  Instances of a currency with the same owner are
>   fungible.
>
>   The "x balance of an entity", where x is a currency, is the number of x
> that
>   entity possesses. If a rule or proposal attempts to increase or decrease
> the
>   balance of an entity without specifying a source or destination, then the
>   currency is created or destroyed. Where it resolves ambiguity, "Balance",
>   without any currency modifiers, refers to an entity's balance of
> whichever
>   currency is designated as "Agora's official currency", if there is one.
>
>   Assets are always public. [To provide for private contract based assets
> later]
>
> Change the power of Rule 2166 to 3.0.
>
> Change the rule "Economics" to read in full:
>
>   Shinies (sg. shiny) are a liquid currency, and the official currency of
> Agora.
>   They may be owned by Agora, any player, or any organization. The
> Secretary is
>   the recordkeepor for Shinies.
>
>   The Secretary CAN cause Agora to pay any player or organization by
>   announcement if doing so is specified by a rule.
>
>   Shinies cannot be destroyed, except as allowed by rules specifically
>   addressing the destruction of Shinies. Any otherwise successful
>   attempt to destroy Shinies instead transfers them to Agora.
>
> Amend Rule 2459, Organizations, by adding as a paragraph at the end:
>
>   A member of an Organization CAN perform any action the rules authorize
> that
>   Organization to perform, if the Organization's charter states that doing
> so
>   is Appropriate.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, all shinies existing under the old system
> continue
> to so under the new system, and if they would not otherwise do so, new
> shinies
> are created to replace them.
>
>
> Amend the rule "The Surveyor" to have the folowing text:
>
>   The Surveyor is an office, and the recordkeepor of estates.
>
> Amend the rule "Estates" to have the following text:
>
>   An Estate is a type of liquid asset, which can be owned by players,
>   organizations, and Agora. The following changes are secured:
>   creating, modifying, or destroying an Estate; and causing an
>   entity to become an Estate or cease to be an Estate.
>
>   Estates cannot be destroyed, 

DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Josh T]

I understand that this isn't an actual report, but in the event are going
to think it is, my balance should be 15 Shinies after updating the values
with respect to my CoE in the prior report.

天火狐

On 15 June 2017 at 10:49, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> Secretary's Weekly Report
>
> Date of this report: Thu, 15 Jun 2017
> Date of last report: Sun, 11 Jun 2017
>
>
> Recent events (all times UTC):
>
> - previous report -
> Mon, 15 May 2017 09:27:29  Gaelan paid 1 Shinies (Quazie)
> Mon, 15 May 2017 16:28:54  Agora paid 10 Shinies (ais523)
> Thu, 18 May 2017 21:27:54  grok paid 1 Shinies (Aris)
> Sat, 20 May 2017 19:59:03  Agora paid 4 Shinies (Quazie)
> Sun, 21 May 2017 02:03:05  Agora paid 3 Shinies (ais523)
> Sun, 21 May 2017 02:05:52  Agora paid 1 Shinies (grok)
> Sun, 21 May 2017 23:11:33  Agora paid 4 Shinies (Aris)
> Mon, 22 May 2017 06:01:33  o paid 6 Shinies (Organization "AVM")
> Mon, 22 May 2017 06:01:33  Organization "AVM" paid 5 Shinies (o)
> Mon, 22 May 2017 06:20:40  o's budget switch with Organization "ACU"
>  flipped to 0
> Mon, 22 May 2017 19:10:48  天火狐 paid 0 Shinies (grok)
> Wed, 24 May 2017 00:46:28  CuddleBeam paid 5 Shinies (nichdel)
> Wed, 24 May 2017 03:23:54  Quazie paid 1 Shinies (Gaelan)
> Wed, 24 May 2017 16:47:00  Gaelan paid 0 Shinies (grok)
> Thu, 25 May 2017 00:06:37 !Gaelan paid 1 Shinies (Quazie)
> Thu, 25 May 2017 17:04:03  Organization 蘭亭社 charter amended (天火狐)
> Thu, 25 May 2017 22:21:46  Quazie paid 1 Shinies (CuddleBeam)
> - time of last report -
> Mon, 29 May 2017 16:58:50  grok deregistered
> Mon, 29 May 2017 17:00:14  nichdel deregistered
> Wed, 31 May 2017 13:41:35  aranea, Charles, Henri, Sci_Guy12, Tekneek,
>  The Warrigal, Yally deregistered
> Thu,  1 Jun 2017 00:00:00  Payday
> Fri,  2 Jun 2017 05:36:42  Agora paid 5 Shinies (Gaelan)
> Fri,  2 Jun 2017 05:38:18  Organization "AAaAA" destroyed (o)
> Mon,  5 Jun 2017 17:29:03  301 Shinies created in Agora's balance by
>  Proposal 7856
> Tue, 06 Jun 2017 20:27:07  Agora paid 30 Shinies (Quazie)
> Sat, 10 Jun 2017 08:27:45  天火狐 paid 5 Shinies (o)
> Sat, 10 Jun 2017 22:40:37  Agora paid 50 Shinies (天火狐)
> Sun, 11 Jun 2017 03:23:37  Agora paid 6 Shinies (Aris)
>
>
> Events marked with a ! are provisional pending the outcome of one or
> more CFJs.
>
>
> Personal Lockouts:
>
> Player Until
> 
> Quazie July 18, 2017
>
> Global Lockout: No
>
>
> Balances:
>
> The following information is provisional, pending one or more CFJs.
>
>   477 Shinies  Agora
>66 Shinies  Organization
> 5 ShiniesAVM
>   518 Shinies  Player
>14 ShiniesAris
>61 ShiniesCuddleBeam
>16 ShiniesGaelan
>10 ShiniesIenpw III
>60 ShiniesMurphy
>53 ShiniesPublius Scribonius Scholasticus
>19 ShiniesQuazie
>40 ShiniesSprocklem
>10 ShiniesVeggiekeks
>74 ShiniesZachary Watterson
> 5 Shiniesais523
>10 Shinieso
>60 Shiniesomd
>15 Shiniestmanthe2nd
>10 Shinies天火狐
>
>
> Budgets:
>
> Player ABM  ACU  AVM  蘭亭社 Expenditure
> ---
> ais523  25   30   55
> Murphy   50   50
> o 50  50
> omd  20   20
> Sprocklem   25   20   45
> 天火狐   5050
>
> Income  50  120   5050   270
>
> ABM = The Agoran Betting Market
> ACU = The Agoran Credit Union
> AVM = The Agoran Voting Market
>
>

Re: DIS: Not dead

[Josh T]

Oh how nice of yourself. I was going to issue you a card for not responding
to my CoE [1] in a timely manner with the following apology list:

pagoda
palsy
parsimony
petrichor
petunia
picaresque
pigeon
piquant
praxsis
primeval

[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28516.html

天火狐

On 9 June 2017 at 21:31, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Jun 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>>
>> Sorry about the extended absence at a bad moment. I’m catching up, but
>> I’m about 550 messages behind - bids and estates are a priority. Then I
>> plan to issue myself a Card for the offices I’ve neglected before stepping
>> down as Referee. Anyone have a suggestion for an apology word list?
>>
>
> caffeine
> cumulonimbus
> frisk
> lackadaisical
> molasses
> prithee
> stultify
> Tanganyika
> three-toed
> trepans
>
> Hope this helps,
> Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of Proposals 7858-7863

[Josh T]

I vote as follows:
> 7958*  Aris, [1] 3.0  Assets v7  Aris   6

AGAINST. I have expressed several concerns about this and Organizations
which have not been addressed to my satisfaction.

> 7859*  Quazie, grok  1.7  Gentle Judicial UpdatesQuazie 6

I endorse ais529 for resons similar to Aris.

> 7860*  Quazie1.7  Cards are power 1.7Quazie 6

PRESENT.

> 7861*  Quazie, [2]   3.0  Trivia(l)  Quazie 6

PRESENT.

> 7862*  Quazie, [3]   1.7  Betterer Pledges   Quazie 6

FOR.

> 7863*  Quazie1.2  Why should outsiders...[4] Quazie 6

PRESENT.


天火狐



On 11 June 2017 at 23:40, Aris Merchant 
wrote:

> > On Sun, 2017-06-11 at 18:32 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >> ID Author(s) AI   Title  Pender Fee
> >> 
> > I vote as follows:
> >> 7958*  Aris, [1] 3.0  Assets v7  Aris   6
> FOR. It's about time.
> >> 7859*  Quazie, grok  1.7  Gentle Judicial UpdatesQuazie 6
> Endorse ais523, as it's in eir area of control.
> >> 7860*  Quazie1.7  Cards are power 1.7Quazie 6
> FOR
> >> 7861*  Quazie, [2]   3.0  Trivia(l)  Quazie 6
> AGAINST. I just noticed that this is ambiguous, as it appears to say
> that only trivial proposals can be pended by the new mechanism, while
> defining trivial proposals in a rather subjective way.
> >> 7862*  Quazie, [3]   1.7  Betterer Pledges   Quazie 6
> FOR, despite reservations about the contract-like provisions.
> >> 7863*  Quazie1.2  Why should outsiders...[4] Quazie 6
> PRESENT. I'm going to stay out of this.
>
> -Aris
>

DIS: Re: BUS: An apology

[Josh T]

I just wanted to mention that I approve of what you did with the apology
words. I hope you enjoyed writing them as much as I enjoyed coming up with
the word list.

天火狐

On 16 June 2017 at 02:37, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> SCENE: Outside a pagoda. An old man, shaken with palsy and spotted with
> age, sits on the steps feeding the pigeons. A stall is set up next to the
> steps, selling petunias.
>
> MAN: How come you here?
>
> MERCHANT, sullen: I fled.
>
> MAN: You fled? Fled from what?
>
> MERCHANT: Ask me not.
>
> MAN: Oh, come now, don't be so piquant.
>
> MERCHANT: ...I suppose. I've nothing better to do, anyways. I fled
> from a land where all the money came to a stop. How's a flowerseller
> supposed to sell flowers if nobody can pay? How's a flowerseller supposed
> to buy stock if he can't pay either?
>
> MAN: Seems fairly fundamental to the praxsis of commerce. How did such
> parsimony come to pass? How does money ... come to a stop?
>
> MERCHANT: Simple. Where I came from, all money is kept in a single
> giant ledger. A scribe is charged with keeping this ledger correct,
> recording each exchange of good for value and value for good. That scribe,
> however, fell ill - some primeval affliction of the spirit, as I heard it.
> With nobody to keep the ledger, no money could change hands. All trade
> stopped. Oh, it was awful.
>
> MAN: Seems quite the picaresque tale.
>
> MERCHANT: No need to be rude. As I said, I fled. It's behind me and
> I'd prefer not to think of it any longer. Are you going to buy anything, or
> are you content to throw perfectly good bread to the birds?
>
> MAN: I paid good coin for this bread and I'll do with it as I like.
> These birds, too, must be fed. But enough - do you smell that petrichor?
> Best to get your flowers inside before it rains. Good day.
>
> EXEUNT OMNES.
>
> This is, of course, something of an exaggeration. Not all trade stopped in
> my absence. However, the Shiny economy needs vigilant recordkeeping to
> remain functional for any length of time, and I have been derelict.
> Thankfully, we have no exiled merchants wandering in strange lands, but we
> very well could have. I apologize for my laxity.
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Josh T]

> I don’t think I can do anything about this, formally, since you’re still
not a player, but if you insist I can put together a theory under which
this should be carded.

CFJ 1709 states that non-players are still bound to contracts if they are
party to it, with the implication that non-players must still follow the
rules if they choose to interact with them. I'm sure you can, with that in
hand, contrive a reason to card G., especially since carding doesn't seem
to be restricted to players.

天火狐

On 15 June 2017 at 16:13, Quazie  wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:53 AM Alex Smith 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 16:00 +, Quazie wrote:
>> > Wow, that's broken - any public document proporting to be a report
>> > self-ratifies?
>>
>> It's not broken, it's intentional:
>>
>> a) Public documents puporting to be reports are fairly obvious, so if
>> someone makes one incorrectly or maliciously, we can just CoE it;
>> b) It means that reports continue to self-ratify even if, for some
>> reason, Agora as a whole is mistaken as to who holds the office. This
>> means that uncertainty about the identity of officers doesn't have any
>> serious long-term effects. (Without this, if we got confused as to who
>> held an office, it might mean that nothing self-ratified from that
>> point onwards due to a snowball effect of mistakes about the gamestate,
>> which could be very hard to recover from.)
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>>
>
>
> So, G. just published something that will self-ratify if we don't CoE it?
>
> It seems like I could embed public documents purporting to be a report in
> any long message in hopes of scamming to success.
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Josh T]

I don't see how something like the following in the appropriate forum
wouldn't successfully give a card, assuming that it was issued in the right
time frame: "I issue Donald Trump a Green Card for breaking his pledge to
direct his secretary of the treasury to label China a currency manipulator."

My reasoning for the above is as follows:
* It includes all the things that an announcement issuing a card must have
lest it be ineffective as per rule 2426;
* It is issued by a player;
* It clearly says in Rule 2450 that "breaking a publicly-made pledge is a
cardable offence";
* The infraction is inconsequential to Agora gameplay, and thus fits into
the category of a Green Card;
* It does not violate the other SHALL NOTs in rule 2426 (although mostly by
assumption)；
* Thus, the action would result in a card being issued.

If I am mistaken, I would like to be corrected on the issue.

天火狐

On 16 June 2017 at 02:12, Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 02:08 -0400, 天火狐 wrote:
> > > I don’t think I can do anything about this, formally, since you’re
> still
> >
> > not a player, but if you insist I can put together a theory under which
> > this should be carded.
> >
> > CFJ 1709 states that non-players are still bound to contracts if they are
> > party to it, with the implication that non-players must still follow the
> > rules if they choose to interact with them. I'm sure you can, with that
> in
> > hand, contrive a reason to card G., especially since carding doesn't seem
> > to be restricted to players.
> >
> > 天火狐
>
> As far as I can tell, the rules allow cards to be given to nonplayers
> in a general sense, but don't provide any mechanism for doing so (other
> than by proposal); all the mechanisms intended to be used for handing
> out cards only work with players.
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Josh T]

> Which rule is authorizing the issuance of a card?

Rule 2450, where it says that breaking a pledge is a cardable offense.

I suppose "publicly-made" might be construed to mean "in a public forum",
which would prevent Donald Trump from getting a card. I can see the
argument as for why G. can't be carded as of this message, but I think G.
can be carded for breaking a pledge e made, provided that it was in a
public forum.

天火狐

On 16 June 2017 at 02:39, Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 02:34 -0400, 天火狐 wrote:
> > I don't see how something like the following in the appropriate forum
> > wouldn't successfully give a card, assuming that it was issued in the
> right
> > time frame: "I issue Donald Trump a Green Card for breaking his pledge to
> > direct his secretary of the treasury to label China a currency
> manipulator."
>
> Which rule is authorizing the issuance of a card? Doing so is secured
> at power 1.7 (rule 2426), thus can't be done without a power 1.7+ rule
> authorizing it. (Additionally, doing so is regulated (rule 2125) due to
> there being specific mechanisms for it, and thus can't be done without
> a rule authorizing it; the security in rule 2426 thus serves to limit
> which rules could potentially make it possible, but it wouldn't be
> possible even without the security restriction.)
>
> --
> ais523
>

DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Resolving ADoP, Registrar, and Referee Elections:

[Josh T]

I am kind of legitimately curious how roujo's vote of "I submit a vote for
whoever 天火狐's vote currently counts for" in the election of ADoP has a
different vote result with 天火狐.

天火狐

On 9 June 2017 at 13:56, Quazie  wrote:

> I resolve the Agoran Decisions of electing ADoP as electing Quazie.
> I resolve the Agoran Decisions of electing Registrar as electing Publius
> Scribonius Scholasticus.
> I resolve the Agoran Decisions of electing Referee as electing o.
>
> Below are the full results for each election:
> <--->
>
> Full results for ADoP:
>   Towards Quorum: 8, Cast Votes: 6
> o
>   Vote   : nichdel
>   As Cast: nichdel, followed by Gaelan.
>
> nichdel
>   Vote   : Quazie
>   As Cast: [Quazie]
>
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   Vote   : Quazie
>   As Cast: I endorse nichdel.
>
> CuddleBeam
>   Vote   : PRESENT
>   As Cast: I vote PRESENT
>
> 天火狐
>   Vote   : PRESENT
>   As Cast: I endorse the incumbent, if any; should the office be vacant, I
> vote PRESENT
>
> roujo
>   Vote   : Quazie
>   As Cast: I submit a vote for whoever 天火狐's vote currently counts for
>
> Quazie
>   Vote   : Quazie
>   As Cast: I vote as follows:
>[Quazie] followed by a list that is equivalent to endorsing the current
> office holder.
>
> If the above vote is invalid, or results in PRESENT I instead vote:
>[Quazie, nichdel]
>
> Quazie
>   Vote   : Quazie
>   As Cast: I vote as follows:
>[Quazie] followed by a list that is equivalent to endorsing the current
> office holder.
>
> If the above vote is invalid, or results in PRESENT I instead vote:
>[Quazie, nichdel]
>
> <--->
>
> Full results for Registrar:
>   Towards Quorum: 8, Cast Votes: 7
> o
>   Vote   : Quazie
>   As Cast: Quazie, followed by Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
>
> nichdel
>   Vote   : Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   As Cast: endorse PSS, nichdel
>
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   Vote   : Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   As Cast: I vote for Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
>
> CuddleBeam
>   Vote   : PRESENT
>   As Cast: I vote PRESENT
>
> 天火狐
>   Vote   : Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   As Cast: I endorse the incumbent, if any; should the office be vacant, I
> vote PRESENT
>
> roujo
>   Vote   : Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   As Cast: I submit a vote for whoever 天火狐's vote currently counts for
>
> Quazie
>   Vote   : Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   As Cast: if the current office holder places a vote other than PRESENT I
> endorse em, otherwise I vote for em.
>
> Quazie
>   Vote   : Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   As Cast: if the current office holder places a vote other than PRESENT I
> endorse em, otherwise I vote for em.
>
> <--->
>
> Full results for Referee:
>   Towards Quorum: 8, Cast Votes: 7
> o
>   Vote   : o
>   As Cast: o.
>
> nichdel
>   Vote   : o
>   As Cast: I endorse the current officeholder.
>
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   Vote   : o
>   As Cast: I endorse o.
>
> CuddleBeam
>   Vote   : PRESENT
>   As Cast: I vote PRESENT
>
> 天火狐
>   Vote   : o
>   As Cast: I endorse the incumbent, if any; should the office be vacant, I
> vote PRESENT
>
> roujo
>   Vote   : o
>   As Cast: I submit a vote for whoever 天火狐's vote currently counts for
>
> Quazie
>   Vote   : o
>   As Cast: if the current office holder places a vote other than PRESENT I
> endorse em, otherwise I vote for em.
>
> Quazie
>   Vote   : o
>   As Cast: if the current office holder places a vote other than PRESENT I
> endorse em, otherwise I vote for em.
>
> <--->
>
> [Note: Quazie has two ballots as his VP is 2 via Prime Minister]
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: Re: BUS: CFJ 3509 Judgement (Dismissed, insufficient information)

[Josh T]

@Gaelan: I have expressed a desire to not be referred to by my real name.
While there is nothing in the rules that prevents you from doing so, I
shall glare at you menacingly for ignore my wishes.

I have gotten the mailing list to accept 天火狐 as my name as of this message,
and if everything goes well it should use that for the name field of the
email than pulling directly from gmail, hopefully.

天火狐

On 25 May 2017 at 13:20, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> This could probably go do DIS, but I’m sending it to BUS just in case.
>
> I would like CFJ’s that focus more on interpreting the rules than abstract
> philosophy. Examples:
>
>- Josh’s ambiguity CFJ - no
>- My pink slip CFJ - yes
>- That “no Player” CFJ - yes. It is not relevant to current gameplay,
>but it is still a simple reading of the rules and examination of precedent
>
> On May 25, 2017, at 7:48 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 14:45 +, Quazie wrote:
>
> Is it reasonable to request to you not be eligible for certain
> judicial subsets?
>
> Could I ask to be ineligible for CFJs about Card based actions for
> example?
> - not that I want this, just asking about the concept.
>
>
> I think that's a reasonable request. Judging some CFJs gives more judge
> variety than judging none at all.
>
> There do need to be limits in case of abuses (e.g. asking only to judge
> about scams by a particular coconspirator), but that can be partially
> dealt with by barring, and that sort of bad faith request would be
> fairly obvious and thus ignorable.
>
> --
> ais523
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Stamps

[Josh T]

On one hand, I respectfully disagree that limiting the number of
organizations that a player can join "reduces the strategic moves
available". It just means that each player needs to think more
strategically about how to allocate their resources (which organizations
they join), which in turn makes each organization need to compete for
players (since organizations would die by not having players).

On the other hand, people aren't required to join organizations, and thus
is hard enough to get people to join without giving them a good reason to,
and having people be limited in doing so doesn't help. As stated, I agree
that the process outlined would result in a victory.

However, I do honestly think it is valuable that we can have organizations
not partake in the Shiny economy, if nothing else other than being able to
have a subsystem which doesn't directly influence the Shiny economy, and if
an organization is barred from owning a Shiny, they can't pay the
administrative cost, effectively banning such organizations. Would a
proposal that says to the effect of each organization that a player has
created and still exists makes that player's next new organization more
expensive? (Eg. A player's first organization costs 5 Shinies, 2nd
organization costs 10, 3rd 20, etc.)

天火狐

On 24 May 2017 at 16:26, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 05/24/17 15:24, Nic Evans wrote:
>
>
>
> On 05/24/17 15:03, Josh T wrote:
>
> > [...] to solve the problem of orgs receiving assets they don't want and
> don't know how to deal with [...]
> I think it's valuable to allow orgs to not want to take part in the Shiny
> system if they don't want to.
>
> > Why play a game where I may lose some shinies and not gain a stamp when
> I could just save my shinies to farm more stamps?
> Because the stamps rule proposal says 15 *different* stamps, so someone
> angling for this victory has to get some stamps from sources they can't
> control.
>
> Create a shell org to buy stamps when they're cheap, and do nothing else.
> You pay 5 shinies for it once, and from then on you can buy 2 Stamps at the
> minimum price every month. When Stamp prices go up, sell the excess stamps
> to fund new orgs. After a couple months (assuming prices fluxtuate up and
> down, by as little as 2 shinies, monthly) you're making unique stamps for
> free.
>
>
> Clarification: By 'for free' I mean, without paying any extra. It's
> cheaper or as cheap to make shinies this way as it is to cooperate. A good
> economy is based on the value you create for others, not for yourself.
>
> If the Agora community as a whole doesn't want to encourage a player
> sitting on three organizations (the number I think is reasonable) farming
> stamps, the community as a whole doesn't have to accept that player's
> stamps.
>
> The Budget system works by acting as a streamlined currency. Everyone is
> 'paying in' to maintain the org, and the price per individual can go down
> as the org grows. A hard limit removes the advantages of trying to make
> inclusive orgs, and reduces the strategic moves available.
>
>
> Actually, I think I would support an addition to the rule which increases
> the destroy value of a stamp if a stamp of that type had not been created
> recently, giving stamps a hold value as well.
>
> That might be an interesting mechanic. Even without codifying it, rare
> Stamps may trade at a premium because variety is important.
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 24 May 2017 at 15:51, Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On a more serious note, the proposal says that the organization needs
>> to pay
>> > an administrative fee, but the latest version of the Assets proposal
>> states
>> > that an organization can decide for themselves if they want to accept an
>> > asset. While I think the budget system is clunky, I would rather a
>> player
>> > pay a one-time administration fee to create an Organization, and have a
>> > restriction on how many organizations a player is allowed to be in
>> (which is
>> > my understanding a feature of the budget system) than force all
>> > Organizations to have a Shiny balance.
>> I'm happy to remove that section, or to grant shinies an exception. I
>> just added it to solve the problem of orgs receiving assets they don't
>> want and don't know how to deal with, which came up in a discussion.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Stamps

[Josh T]

> [...] to solve the problem of orgs receiving assets they don't want and
don't know how to deal with [...]
I think it's valuable to allow orgs to not want to take part in the Shiny
system if they don't want to.

> Why play a game where I may lose some shinies and not gain a stamp when I
could just save my shinies to farm more stamps?
Because the stamps rule proposal says 15 *different* stamps, so someone
angling for this victory has to get some stamps from sources they can't
control. If the Agora community as a whole doesn't want to encourage a
player sitting on three organizations (the number I think is reasonable)
farming stamps, the community as a whole doesn't have to accept that
player's stamps.

Actually, I think I would support an addition to the rule which increases
the destroy value of a stamp if a stamp of that type had not been created
recently, giving stamps a hold value as well.

天火狐

On 24 May 2017 at 15:51, Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On a more serious note, the proposal says that the organization needs to
> pay
> > an administrative fee, but the latest version of the Assets proposal
> states
> > that an organization can decide for themselves if they want to accept an
> > asset. While I think the budget system is clunky, I would rather a player
> > pay a one-time administration fee to create an Organization, and have a
> > restriction on how many organizations a player is allowed to be in
> (which is
> > my understanding a feature of the budget system) than force all
> > Organizations to have a Shiny balance.
> I'm happy to remove that section, or to grant shinies an exception. I
> just added it to solve the problem of orgs receiving assets they don't
> want and don't know how to deal with, which came up in a discussion.
>
> -Aris
>

Re: DIS: Proto: Agoran Research Funding/Grants/Scholarship/other term

[Josh T]

I support academic themeing as I think it would be an interesting change of
pace. Bonus fact: 蘭亭社 makes reference to a famous literati gathering which
had influenced Eastern art for centuries.

天火狐

On 25 May 2017 at 16:00, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> The Herald traditionally gives interesting historical facts, I just didn't
> because I just wanted to get a report out there.
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 12:47 PM, grok (caleb vines)
>>  wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> >  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I am already trying to do this some with the Herald and I see no need
>> to
>> >> add a new office, so I would be happy to take this up informally to go
>> along
>> >> with the Herald. As to the funding, we could set this up through
>> donations
>> >> with a pseudo-trust set up with a pledge.
>> >
>> >
>> > Your efforts as Herald are appreciated, but the Herald already does
>> have a
>> > ton of responsibilities and you wear a lot of hats now. Plus that
>> University
>> > Director role would also be well-kept by a long-tenured Player or
>> person,
>> > while the Herald role doesn't necessarily need someone with years of
>> > experience or deep deep CFJ knowledge. I think it would be a great
>> shift to
>> > distribute those responsibilities so we maintain a kind of "levels" of
>> > experience required for certain offices.
>> I disagree. The Herald is already basically a historian, in charge of
>> keeping track of Agoran history through titles, theises, and degrees.
>> I don't see why a new office in needed for this.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: I don't want to CFJ, but let's just chat

[Josh T]

If this is the case, I have no problem supporting such a proposal.

天火狐

On 30 May 2017 at 14:26, Quazie  wrote:

> So grok left, and that's a bummer, but it's especially a bummer for me,
> the Superintendent - I think his agency still exists... there's nothing in
> the rule about Agencies that suggests it goes away, but I think the agency
> is fully neutered, as agencies only allow you to act on behalf of a player.
>
> Also - this likely means that PSS's agency to allow anyone to re-register
> em will never be effective.
>
> Let's not CFJ unless we need to, but I think we need to modify the Agency
> rule to allow the destruction of non-player Agencies at the least (or they
> will live `forever`)
>

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity

[Josh T]

Sorry for not specifying in the text itself, but this is relevant to
gameplay because Gaelan (who, I believe is assigned this CFJ, numbered
3498, by ais523 [1]) is trying to question the validity of my amendment to
the charter of 蘭亭社 with "Translation between any two languages is
inherently ambiguous" as a premise.

天火狐

[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07938.html

On 21 May 2017 at 10:30, caleb vines  wrote:

>
> On May 21, 2017 9:16 AM, "Nic Evans"  wrote:
>
> I submit the following evidence and recommend AGAINST if DISMISS is not
> accepted:
>
> -"Translation between any two languages is inherently ambiguous." is an
> untrue statement. There is no such rule in language.-'Ambiguous' in the
> rules refers to player interpretation, not some unknowable objective mark.
> -Because ambiguity is determined case-by-case, it's impossible (and
> fruitless) to make a statement about the ambiguity of every statement.
>
> I submit CFJs 3499 and 3500 as supporting evidence for this gratuitous
> argument.
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Agora Sky News, vol. ½

[Josh T]

I mostly didn't expect that my editor uses different sized tabs compared to
my client after it gets sent. I'll need to change to space-tabulated manual
spacing for next issue.

@Aris Thank you.

天火狐

On 13 September 2017 at 15:03, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > I do apologize if the formatting is wonky, there are some teething
> issues at present
> > and I hope to get it resolved by next week.
>
> Format looked perfect to me!  (or if not "perfect", very readable).  +1
> like overall.
>
>
>

Re: DIS: a relief valve

[Josh T]

The Japanese term for a (western) serf is *noudo*, literally meaning farm
servant. If you want something from the historical Japanese caste system,
since they took after Confucian ideas, peasant was was actually the highest
commoner class (above craftsmen and merchants); the outcasts of the
Japanese feudal system were the *eta* (historical name, somewhat derogatory
today, means "full of defilement"), *hinin* ("non-humans"), or the modern
politically correct term in English, *burakumin* ("hamlet people",
referring to how they were exiled from towns and cities to have their own
hamlets). Hopefully that helped.

天火狐

On 13 September 2017 at 15:38, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >   - Any player with a karma of -5 or less is a (Japanese term for
> serf?).
>
> Just as an addendum, if 天火狐 or anyone with better knowledge of Japanese
> feudal/cultural terms than me wants to suggest flavor improvements (in
> English
> alphabet please), I'd gratefully add them.  Maybe we should call the whole
> thing a tea ceremony...
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[Josh T]

I typed up a long response and then realized that I think we might have
differing ideas of what it means to talk about "whole votes", thus I am
going to ask; what did you mean by "count PRESENT as a whole vote"?

天火狐

On 14 September 2017 at 23:48, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That's a conditional, which is totally different. G's here talking
> about an instant runoff ballot of
> 1. Jeff
> 2. PRESENT
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > It sounds like having endorse or PRESENT as the tail of a list of votes
> is
> > acceptable. This allows things like "I endorse A, unless eir vote
> indicates
> > preference for B, in which case my vote is PRESENT."
> >
> > 天火狐
> >
> > On 14 September 2017 at 19:09, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> My current policy is to count PRESENT as a whole vote. Endorse can't
> >> be a whole vote bc people keep saying things like "vote CB, else
> >> endorse G". My current policy is to count that vote as a list of {CB,
> >> all of G's votes in order except for the vote for CB, which is first}
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> >> I have no idea how to handle PRESENT in runoff voting.  Is it a
> >> >> replacement
> >> >> for the whole list, or is it an option on the list?  If it's the
> first
> >> >> option
> >> >> on a ranked voting, is PRESENT "eliminated" if it doesn't win, so my
> >> >> vote doesn't
> >> >> end up counting towards quorum?  And what happens if PRESENT is the
> >> >> majority?
> >> >> is everyone else eliminated?  I'm not sure if the "standard
> definition
> >> >> of instant
> >> >> runoff" covers this.   So let's test that in some slightly-less
> >> >> essential offices.
> >> >> Fun!!
> >> >
> >> > This question is also a concern for endorsements.
> >> >
> >> > Take the following results votes for voters P...Z for candidates A..G,
> >> > then my
> >> > vote:
> >> >
> >> > P:  {A, B, C}
> >> > Q:  {A, B, C}
> >> > R:  {A, B, C}
> >> >
> >> > S:  {D, E, F}
> >> > T:  {D, E, F}
> >> > U:  {D, E, F}
> >> >
> >> > Z:  {G, A}
> >> >
> >> > Me:  {endorse Z, D}
> >> >
> >> > From first-choices, we have A=3, D=3, G=2 (1 certain G, 1
> endorsement).
> >> >
> >> > G is eliminated.
> >> >
> >> > So if we eliminate my first conditional choice, "endorse Z", then the
> >> > second
> >> > vote on my list is for D, D wins.
> >> >
> >> > But if we keep my "endorse Z" vote, and G is eliminated, then I'm
> >> > endorsing Z's
> >> > second choice, and A wins.
> >> >
> >> > Which is right, if either?
> >> >
> >> > The only way I can really make sense of this is if PRESENT and Endorse
> >> > are
> >> > whole votes (i.e. substitute for the whole list, not part of a list).
> >> > But
> >> > I'm not sure if the rules say that, or are broken?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> From V.J. Rada
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[Josh T]

It sounds like having endorse or PRESENT as the tail of a list of votes is
acceptable. This allows things like "I endorse A, unless eir vote indicates
preference for B, in which case my vote is PRESENT."

天火狐

On 14 September 2017 at 19:09, VJ Rada  wrote:

> My current policy is to count PRESENT as a whole vote. Endorse can't
> be a whole vote bc people keep saying things like "vote CB, else
> endorse G". My current policy is to count that vote as a list of {CB,
> all of G's votes in order except for the vote for CB, which is first}
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> I have no idea how to handle PRESENT in runoff voting.  Is it a
> replacement
> >> for the whole list, or is it an option on the list?  If it's the first
> option
> >> on a ranked voting, is PRESENT "eliminated" if it doesn't win, so my
> vote doesn't
> >> end up counting towards quorum?  And what happens if PRESENT is the
> majority?
> >> is everyone else eliminated?  I'm not sure if the "standard definition
> of instant
> >> runoff" covers this.   So let's test that in some slightly-less
> essential offices.
> >> Fun!!
> >
> > This question is also a concern for endorsements.
> >
> > Take the following results votes for voters P...Z for candidates A..G,
> then my
> > vote:
> >
> > P:  {A, B, C}
> > Q:  {A, B, C}
> > R:  {A, B, C}
> >
> > S:  {D, E, F}
> > T:  {D, E, F}
> > U:  {D, E, F}
> >
> > Z:  {G, A}
> >
> > Me:  {endorse Z, D}
> >
> > From first-choices, we have A=3, D=3, G=2 (1 certain G, 1 endorsement).
> >
> > G is eliminated.
> >
> > So if we eliminate my first conditional choice, "endorse Z", then the
> second
> > vote on my list is for D, D wins.
> >
> > But if we keep my "endorse Z" vote, and G is eliminated, then I'm
> endorsing Z's
> > second choice, and A wins.
> >
> > Which is right, if either?
> >
> > The only way I can really make sense of this is if PRESENT and Endorse
> are
> > whole votes (i.e. substitute for the whole list, not part of a list).
> But
> > I'm not sure if the rules say that, or are broken?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[Josh T]

We could use the Unicode collation algorithm, I guess. Your point is noted
however.

天火狐

On 14 September 2017 at 23:46, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:

>
> > On Sep 14, 2017, at 11:43 PM, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I believe that the term "alphabetical order" can be used to mean
> "lexicographical order", of which increasing unicode codepoint values is a
> naturalistic choice.
>
> Objection: ‘alphonse’ generally comes before ‘Bob’ in an alphabetical
> list. Hence my question about your name: I suspected someone would apply
> “lexical order” but my name comes significantly after VJ Rada’s name by
> that standard, and I’m not convinced it should.
>
> Generally, If we mean lexical order, we should say so. Collation is a hard
> problem and using terms fuzzily only makes it harder.
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[Josh T]

I believe that the term "alphabetical order" can be used to mean
"lexicographical order", of which increasing unicode codepoint values is a
naturalistic choice.

天火狐

On 14 September 2017 at 20:19, grok (caleb vines) 
wrote:

> For reference: if you resolve that vote as present and that vote causes
> PSS to be elected, I will probably CFJ the assessment.
>
>
> -grok
>
>
> On Sep 14, 2017 7:15 PM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:
>
> I would say use eir preferred English character titles but there are
> two different ones which start with different letters. I guess if
> there is a tie here, I would resolve as PRESENT due to ambiguity.
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > There isn't one. For anyone who wants to try this, I'd suggest
> > ascending order of unicode code points. In fact, I may propose making
> > a rule that defines alphabetical order that way.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sep 14, 2017, at 4:11 PM, grok (caleb vines) 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sep 13, 2017 6:22 PM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:
> >>
> >> Please note the already ongoing election for agronomist.
> >>
> >> I initiate the elections for and the agoran decisions for the
> >> determination of the Arbitor, the Superintendent, the Tailor, the
> >> Promotor, the Referee, the Registrar, the Surveyor, and the
> >> Rulekeepor. These elections are either legal under the 90 day rule or
> >> are vacant offices. The vote collector is the ADoP and the quorum is
> >> 2.0.
> >>
> >> --
> >> >From V.J Rada
> >>
> >>
> >> In the election for registrar , I vote for the player with the most
> votes
> >> that is not the incumbent, using alphabetical order as a tiebreaker.
> >>
> >>
> >> What is the alphabetical ordering of 天火狐 with respect to myself, and
> why?
> >>
> >> -o
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Make Your Home Shine

[Josh T]

Here's two more:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034600.html
(the one quoted directly in the link, and the one quoted by that message)

天火狐

On 14 September 2017 at 22:14, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> > On Sep 14, 2017, at 9:55 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Read line 1 of the pledge.  If part of the pledge is saying I CAN revoke
> it (including a method),
> > I can do so as part of keeping the pledge, I assume.
>
> It’s not at all clear how that works, or even if it works, but the intent
> is clear and I think it would be unfair not to allow you to stop upholding
> a promise in _precisely the way you initially promised to do so_. I’m
> content to leave this pledge out of the next version of the proposal, and
> to wait until you resolve this notice before revising the proposal.
>
> V.J Rada, thanks for catching two pledges I missed!
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registering

[Josh T]

That sounds like fairly reasonable statistics. If someone writes out some
specific scenarios I suppose I'll take a look and do some number-crunching
when I am slightly less busy.

天火狐

On 23 September 2017 at 16:36, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> It sounds like the kind of thing that could work.  Right now, what I'm
> really
> dying for is for someone to do a very simple simulation.  E.g. assume N
> players,
> M officers, each player pends a random# of proposals a week - how do things
> fluctuate and do holdings diverge between have and have-nots?  Then we
> could
> try various scenarios such as taxes.  (coding this was on my todo list but
> not
> likely soon...)
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > On Sep 23, 2017, at 3:46 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > > On Fri, 22 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > >> On Sep 22, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I suspect that welcome packages are considerably too large, but I
> don’t think that
> > >> that was at all obvious at the time. Consider: in the last month or
> so, the pending
> > >> price has fluctuated between 1 and, approximately, 6 sh. repeatedly.
> We’ve actually
> > >> managed to keep most shinies in the hands of player. 50 sh. is enough
> to author
> > >> and pend more proposals than I have written since I started playing,
> more than a
> > >> year ago - and each Welcome Package causes the pend price to drop at
> least one full
> > >> shiny in the following week.
> > >>
> > >> I strongly suspect that that’s more economic impact than intended or
> wanted. I
> > >> know you’re planning to vote against any economy proposals that
> doesn’t enact a
> > >> reliable source of shinies in one form or another, but would you
> consider
> > >> supporting one that shrinks welcome packages?
> > >
> > > You mean instead of fixing basic income, do something that makes the
> problem worse?
> > > No, I don't think I'd support that, and in general I disagree that
> this is the
> > > issue to fix.
> >
> > Fair enough, it never hurts to ask.
> >
> > What about something like:
> >
> > * To “distribute” an amount fungible asset to a set of recipients is to
> transfer one instance of that asset at a time to the recipient with the
> fewest of that asset, until either no more instances of the asset are
> eligible to be distributed or the number of instances so transferred equals
> the amount to be distributed. If two or more recipients are tied for the
> fewest of an asset, then the recipient that most recently became eligible
> to own the asset shall be selected.
> >
> > * The Tax Rate is a singleton natural switch which can take values
> between 0 and 100, inclusive, tracked by the Secretary. The Tax Rate has a
> default value of 50.
> >
> > [It’s a switch for consistency and ease of tracking, but it can only be
> flipped by proposal.]
> >
> > * When a player pays Agora, the Secretary CAN cause Agora to distribute
> a percentage of that payment equal to the Tax Rate to all players, and
> SHALL do so in a timely fashion. As part of eir weekly duties, the
> Secretary SHALL do so for all payments to Agora that have not yet been
> scattered.
> >
> > [This gets rounded up, the Assets rule takes care of that, so the net
> result is that when the Pend Value is 1 sh., every shiny spent pending
> proposals goes to a player. It’s a trickle, but it’s a trickle proportional
> to the amount of activity going on.]
> >
> > -o
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Frivolous but harmless scam attempt of the week

[Josh T]

I mean, I guess that's helpful, but I was mostly humoring Gaelan on em
questioning my remark about how I don't think VJ Rada's sentence is a
deceleration or successful action because "it doesn't jive with my
understanding of language which Agora recognizes" (especially since Agora
*doesn't* recognize an official language).

To be a little bit more specific, since this is a nomic, and we've had
minutiae determine the outcome or interpretation of actions / documents, I
think the lack of proper formatting nullifies any effect VJ Rada may have
intended with eir post. That being said, we should talk about this because
they (or someone else) can just try this again after proofreading.

天火狐

On 23 September 2017 at 17:06, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
> If you paste the basic 我反对。 string into Google translate, it auto-detects
> Chinese
> and spits out "I Object."  It's pretty much as clear a translation as you
> can get
> if you're going to allow that sort of thing at all.
>
> On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > I can't quite explain it. Could you be so kind as to enlighten me as to
> the meaning of those words,
> > as how it pertains to VJ Rada's sentence?
> > 天火狐
> >
> > On 23 September 2017 at 15:43, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
> >   Why not?
> >
> >   Gaelan
> >   > On Sep 23, 2017, at 8:44 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >   >
> >   > I do not believe that this was effective.
> >   > 
> >   > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >   > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >
> >   >> On Sep 23, 2017, at 11:42 AM, Gaelan Steele <gael...@icloud.com>
> wrote:
> >   >>
> >   >> I have aimed to make this response as concise as possible.
> >   >>
> >   >> 我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。
> >   >> 我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反对。我反å
> > [...]
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Economy and Games

[Josh T]

I have an idea for making goods which is bouncing around in my mind, but I
haven't the time to sit down and write it out. It'd also be my first
proposal, so I'm a bit apprehensive at throwing it out into the wild
without double-checking some basic things first.

天火狐

On 23 September 2017 at 19:01, VJ Rada  wrote:

> I think we need to encourage spending. People ignore the current
> agoran economy too much. People don't ignore the real economy because
> they need to eat. My vision is to have it be completely impossible to
> meaningfully participate without paying for it, thus forcing economic
> participation.
>
> I also think we need inflation to match new players coming in. And we
> need more incentivisation of inter-player spending, rather than just
> player-agora spending. The few businesses people have set up right now
> (Celestial Fire-Fox's vote-buying thing for example) just aren't being
> used.
>
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2017 at 8:14 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > There's two separate issues:
> >
> > 1.  How fast should a brand new player be able to catch up with an old
> player;
> >
> > 2.  How much consistent advantage should an officer have over a
> non-officer.
> >
> > It's confounded because most old players are officers, but given the
> welcome
> > package I think it's mostly a problem of (2) not (1).
> >
> > On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Nic Evans wrote:
> >> On 09/23/2017 04:47 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >>   I think a good way to analyze the game design is to guess in how
> much time the average player (eith average activeness and skill) will
> achieve a win (or dictatorship) given their join date.
> >>
> >> If its not the same (or very similar) for someone who was around at the
> start than someone who joins later, then its Gerontocratic imo (on that
> front). For example, the case where the total capital
> >> of all active players, in comparison to what a newcomer has (Welcome
> Pack), grows over time.
> >>
> >>
> >> New players shouldn't have such a handicap that they overcome
> consistently good play from existing players. And the stamp win isn't
> restricted to one-time. New players can still win with as much work as
> >> old players, but the old players have a lead by virtue of starting
> sooner.
> >>
> >>   On Sat, 23 Sep 2017 at 22:26, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>   On Sat, 23 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> >>   > As for the gerontocracy argument: Money is an inherently
> gerontocratic system.
> >>   > It abstracts value from labor in a way that allows arbitrary
> allocation.
> >>
> >>   Ok, I've been mulling this over for the past week or so, and some
> broad thoughts.
> >>
> >>   I think we should step away from thinking of this in terms of
> Economies and
> >>   think of it in terms of Game Design.
> >>
> >>   On the supply side, what we have is classic exponential asset
> growth.  Base
> >>   assets let you get things which then let your assets grow faster
> (I'm
> >>   particularly thinking of the recent Agoraculture here).  This can
> be very
> >>   fun - the fun part of the grind games is when your properties
> start *really*
> >>   producing.  But the problem is that it leads to early
> determination of
> >>   winners versus losers, and if the game lasts too long, it's a
> frustrating
> >>   slog for the losers.  In a game with no fixed end (e.g. real
> life), this is
> >>   the gerontocracy.
> >>
> >>   It's greatly exacerbated by the fact that distribution of
> valuable assets
> >>   is via Auction.  Auctions are inherently exponential (a slight
> lead in
> >>   your base asset leads to you winning a big valuable asset).
> Moreover,
> >>   right now, the auction properties are far too rare, so you have
> to compete
> >>   directly with the gerontocracy to buy in.  My main reason to
> hoard right now
> >>   is to have any chance in an auction.
> >>
> >>   I think the solution is some minimum income, and drastically
> reducing the
> >>   buy-in difficulties for auctions (I'd do that through increased
> land).
> >>
> >>   On the spending side:  quite frankly, we don't have enough
> diversity of
> >>   things that actually buy game advantage to be worth spending on.
> We need
> >>   to add different pathways to accumulation and specialization.
> >>
> >>   There's a few ways to organize adding things to buy.  I
> personally would
> >>   add permanent political buy-in based on our old Oligarchic
> system, and
> >>   simultaneously re-form the Speaker position as we talked about
> last week.
> >>   This would be entirely separate from land.  (there are other
> things we could
> >>   invent to buy, this is one obvious addition).  I'd also think
> about specialized
> >>   roles (e.g. only allowing Farmers to own land, and you can't
> easily change
> >>   whether you're a farmer or 

Re: DIS: a relief valve

[Josh T]

Japanese as a general rule doesn't distinguish between singular and plural,
and English tends to keep the original language's plurals. It's one piece
of sushi, two pieces of sushi etc.; one samurai, two samurai, etc.

I'd probably pick eta because it's historical and short. We can pretend
people are Greek letters if some future person gets offended.

I do agree there should be some way to "recenter" the karma spread. I don't
have a good suggestion at the moment as to how to accomplish this.

天火狐

On 13 September 2017 at 15:58, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
> Thanks!  If you were picking one, which would you pick?  (And what's the
> singular
> version of that, does it match "is a Samurai" as both singular and plural)
>
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > The Japanese term for a (western) serf is *noudo*, literally meaning
> farm servant. If you want something from the historical Japanese caste
> system, since they took after Confucian ideas, peasant was was actually
> > the highest commoner class (above craftsmen and merchants); the outcasts
> of the Japanese feudal system were the *eta* (historical name, somewhat
> derogatory today, means "full of defilement"), *hinin*
> > ("non-humans"), or the modern politically correct term in English,
> *burakumin* ("hamlet people", referring to how they were exiled from towns
> and cities to have their own hamlets). Hopefully that helped.
> > 天火狐
> >
> > On 13 September 2017 at 15:38, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >   On Wed, 13 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >   >   - Any player with a karma of -5 or less is a (Japanese
> term for serf?).
> >
> >   Just as an addendum, if 天火狐 or anyone with better knowledge of
> Japanese
> >   feudal/cultural terms than me wants to suggest flavor improvements
> (in English
> >   alphabet please), I'd gratefully add them.  Maybe we should call
> the whole
> >   thing a tea ceremony...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: DIS: New player, just registered

[Josh T]

I think that is a wise plan. I feel like I didn't do very much aside from
watch for the first six months I was playing (my organization
notwithstanding).

天火狐

On 22 September 2017 at 13:25, ATMunn .  wrote:

> Thanks for the welcome package, whether it actually worked or not.
>
> I still have no real idea what I'm going to do; so for now I'll just watch
> and see what comes up. I'm sure I'll find something to do sooner or later.
>
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 11:35 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 21, 2017, at 9:35 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:
>>
>> > Hey! I'm ATMunn.
>> > I discovered Agora a little while back, and just decided it sounded
>> interesting, so I joined.
>> >
>> > I've seen some of the messages that have been so far, and honestly I
>> have no idea what's going on, or what to do. :P
>> > But it seems like there's a really friendly community here, so I'm sure
>> you all can help me learn the ropes.
>> >
>> > I've also joined the IRC channel. I'm usually quite active on IRC, so
>> you can pretty much always contact me there (I may not respond right away
>> though if I'm busy).
>>
>> Welcome!
>>
>> 10 Fun Things To Do In Agora When You’re Dead:
>>
>> * Scam a dictatorship and single-handedly cause a month-long lull in the
>> game.
>>
>> * Sit on an eighth of the economic resources and do nothing obvious with
>> them. (Cough.)
>>
>> * Write a proposal that is impossible to vote against.
>>
>> * Vote against it anyways.
>>
>> * Demonstrate that an innocent-looking mechanic is far more powerful and
>> useful than anyone intended.
>>
>> * Design a subgame. Try to get it enacted into the rules.
>>
>> * Run for an office.
>>
>> * Run from an office.
>>
>> * Find the most unlikely interpretations of the rules and call endless
>> CFJs to support those interpretations.
>>
>> * Win.
>>
>> I’ve kicked over a welcome package (Rule 2499) for you. This should give
>> you enough shinies to put forward several proposals and calls for
>> judgement, if it catches your fancy to do so.
>>
>> Note that by a strict reading of the rules, that action did not work -
>> this is a known issue and proposals are in flight to fix that problem. We
>> have an established agreement to keep records as if that the actions work
>> anyways, and I plan to ratify the results retroactively once the rules are
>> fixed. Reading up on the history of this problem might be interesting if
>> you have interest in how the rules function.
>>
>> -o
>>
>>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: 愚かな人

[Josh T]

Oh dear, I guess I should prepare for this.

天火狐

On 15 October 2017 at 16:22, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> I designate 天火狐 to be next week's Silly Person.
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Silly Proposal Query

[Josh T]

Alas, wordplay in Japanese does not
invoke quite the same type of afterthought.

天火狐

On 16 October 2017 at 12:30, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > About Silly proposals I am vexed:Of the rule's intention I am perplexed;
> > Ought the proposal's mood be most merry,
> > Or it's meaning and tone be contrary?
>
> The Rule's a blank slate
> With no preconceived notions
> Whatever you like
>
>
>
>

DIS: Silly Proposal Query

[Josh T]

About Silly proposals I am vexed:
Of the rule's intention I am perplexed;
Ought the proposal's mood be most merry,
Or it's meaning and tone be contrary?

天火狐

DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] September Estate Auction

[Josh T]

Oh well, I had fun writing my blurb. It was kind of hard to not use common
words like "the" or "of".

天火狐

On 9 September 2017 at 03:20, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> > On Sep 2, 2017, at 12:02 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >
> > As Surveyor, it is my pleasure to annouce that the September estate
> auction, for the estate of Cagliostro, has begun.
>
> This auction ended at 12:02 AM, Eastern Daylight Time, on September 9th
> 2017. The following bids were placed:
>
> DatePlaced by   sh.
> ---
> 2 Sep   o 1
> 2 Sep   nichdel  11
> 2 Sep   Quazie   12
> 2 Sep   P.S.S.   13
> 2 Sep   G.   15
> 2 Sep   天火狐-2
> 2 Sep   nichdel  15
> 2 Sep   Quazie   16
> 2 Sep   CuddleBeam   50
> 7 Sep   o61
> 7 Sep   CuddleBeam   62
> 9 Sep   o67
> 9 Sep   CuddleBeam   68
>
> All bids were placed on the issuing player’s own behalf; no Organization
> bids were placed.
>
> As there is exactly one highest bid, CuddleBeam wins this auction. At any
> time until 12:02 AM, EDT, on September 16th, 2017, while Agora owns the
> estate of Cagliostro, e may pay Agora 68 Shinies to transfer that estate to
> emself, by announcement.
>
> In satisfaction of my pledge, I pay CuddleBeam 7 sh.. Eir blurb will
> appear in a future Surveyors’ report.
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Yellow Card to Superintendent

[Josh T]

I do suppose that makes my attempt to issue the Superintendent a card is
quite moot. Carry on.

天火狐

On 11 September 2017 at 08:02, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> The office of Superintendent is empty.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Sep 11, 2017, at 12:32 AM, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I issue a Yellow Card to the Superintendent due to eir tardiness in
> publishing the September Monthly Agency report. Eir apology must contain
> the following words:
> >
> > * Shadow
> > * Shahadah
> > * Shakespeare
> > * Shaman
> > * Shameless
> > * Shanghaied
> > * Shark
> > * Shiitake
> > * Shmaltz
> > * Shrubbery
> >
> > 天火狐
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Surveyor] September Estate Auction

[Josh T]

I actually messed up in one place: "certain" begins with an s sound so
shouldn't have been included. I'm glad you enjoyed it regardless though.

天火狐

On 9 September 2017 at 11:48, Owen Jacobson <o...@grimoire.ca> wrote:

>
> > On Sep 9, 2017, at 10:42 AM, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Oh well, I had fun writing my blurb. It was kind of hard to not use
> common words like "the" or "of".
> >
> > 天火狐
>
> I rather liked your blurb. You picked an interesting writing challenge to
> riff on.
>
> Thank you for writing it.
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: Draft: Contracts

[Josh T]

Aw, I won't be able to keep / recreate 蘭亭社 under the new proposal. I'll
have to rethink how to test the things that should go with it should this
pass.

I would like to propose adding making CFJs as protected. I think the reason
thereof should be evident if one were party to a theoretical contract which
forbade making CFJs.

Otherwise, I think what needs to be said has been done. Well done.

天火狐

On 5 September 2017 at 11:22, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> I read this last night, slept on it, skimmed it again, and read the
> replies. Here’s my initial thoughts, thin as they are - I had more, but
> Gaelan and ais523 have already covered most of my inquiries.
>
> On Sep 4, 2017, at 11:10 PM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > My proposal has three parts. Part 1 cleans up (tweaks and repeals)
> > existing rules. A lot of it is drawn from o's organization repeal
> > proposal, which I borrowed and then edited. Thank you, o.
>
> No problem! I’m glad you found it useful.
>
> > # 1.2.2 Change Secretary to Treasuror
>
> One thing I missed in my original Organization Repeal proposal was
> something you (Aris) did in the Assets proposal. Quoting that proposal:
>
> On Jun 9, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > For the avoidance of doubt, all shinies existing under the old system
> continue
> > to so under the new system, and if they would not otherwise do so, new
> shinies
> > are created to replace them.
>
> Some similar mechanism to make it clear that the Secretary becomes the
> Treasuror, rather than that the Secretary’s office ceases to be defined by
> the rules and a new office comes to be defined, would be nice. It’s not
> strictly necessary but it might influence when elections for the office can
> be called.
>
> Carrying on…
>
> On Sep 4, 2017, at 11:10 PM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Amend rule 2489 ("Estates") by replacing the first sentence with:
> >
> >  {{{
> >  An Estate is a type of indestructible liquid asset.
> >  }}}
>
> Did you intend to allow persons who are not players to own Estates?
>
> > Amend rule 2483 ("Economics") by replacing its text, entirely, with:
> >
> >  {{{
> >  Shinies (singular "shiny", abbreviated "sh.") are an
> >  indestructible liquid currency, and the official currency
> >  of Agora. The Treasuror is the recordkeepor for shinies.
> >
> >  The Treasuror CAN cause Agora to pay any player or
> >  contract by announcement if doing so is specified by a
> >  rule.
> >  }}}
>
> Did you intend to allow persons who are not players to own Shinies?
>
> > Repeal Rule 2485 ("You can't take it with you”).
>
> Given that this rule is completely broken - its text never applies to any
> situation which can be reached by gameplay - I’m tempted to repeal it in a
> freestanding proposal just to get it gone. Objections?
>
> > Make  Notary. [Any volunteers? Maybe our current Secretary or
> > Superintendent?]
>
> I’m happy to take the office. This is an interesting-enough idea that I’d
> hate to see it wither for lack of recordkeeping.
>
> > # 3.0 Asset Changes
> >
> > Amend Rule 2166, "Assets", by changing it to read in full:
> >
> >  An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule, authorized regulation,
> >  group of rules/regulations, or contract (hereafter its backing
> >  document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
> >  existence.
> >
> >  Each asset has exactly one owner.  If an asset would otherwise
> >  lack an owner, it is owned by Agora.  If an asset's backing document
> restricts
> >  its ownership to a class of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained
> by or
> >  transferred to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is
> owned
> >  by an entity outside that class (except if it is owned by Agora, in
> which case
> >  any player CAN transfer or destroy it without objection). The
> restrictions in
> >  the previous sentence are subject to modification by its backing
> document.
> >
> >  Unless modified by an asset's backing document, ownership of an asset is
> >  restricted to Agora, players, and contracts.
>
> Flipping my previous two questions about ownership around, did you intend
> to forbid non-player persons from ever owning assets?
>
> -o
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Monsters

[Josh T]

I kind of like this idea, and goodness knows that I am perfectly willing to
deal with long-term mechanics and planning. *looks at 蘭亭社*

天火狐

On 5 September 2017 at 10:11, Nic Evans  wrote:

> Right now, under my reading, Monsters don't do anything when created? In
> my experience stub mechanics wither before being expanded upon. I'd
> suggest making a more clear usage of Monsters. Additionally your
> proposal should specify AI and Power for the enacted rule.
>
>
> On 09/04/17 23:16, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > I create the following proposal and pend it with 1 Action Point:
> >
> > - Title: Monsters
> >
> > - Content: Create a rule that titled "Monsters" and with the following
> > content:
> >
> > "Monsters are entities that exist within Estates and are tracked by
> > the Surveyor. Monsters have a name which is a string of text and an
> > amount of Power, which is equal to the amount of characters their name
> > string has. (eg, an "Imp" has a Power of 3, and a "Pit Demon" has a
> > power of 9).
> >
> > Players CAN, by announcement, cause themselves to lose a positive
> > integer amount of Stamps and create a Monster at an Estate of their
> > choice with Power equal to, at most, the square of the Stamps they
> > chose to lose."
>
>
>

Re: DIS: protest voting intention

[Josh T]

I support this movement.

天火狐

On 7 September 2017 at 11:05, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 7 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > It doesn't take 30 days due to a bug.
> [...]
> > I'd think about doing so as a protest; the difficulty towards casual
> > player economic participation has been pointed out and so far in
> > conversations, the designers of the system either aren't seeing the
> > great urgency to fix it, or think it's a feature.
>
> Actually, as I think of it, maybe some political hardball is in order
> here (there's not enough political wheeling-dealing that goes along
> here - among other things, this game is legislative simulation after
> all!)
>
> The registration bug is a form of economic protest, usable by the
> have-nots.  So I state my intention:  I will vote AGAINST any fix to
> the registration bug (which requires AI-3 to pass) until economic
> reforms for basic income are included/addressed.
>
> -G.
>
>
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Initiating elections.

[Josh T]

I intend to also make news sections freelance-able, to be included if
deemed worthy and author paid if used. Should I win and contracts pass, I
intend to make a contract which allows me to pay people for articles if
they wish to submit them and I choose to include them.

Please find a proto-newspaper below:

{{{

===
 News of Agora

==vol.
0===

   Elections Sweep Agora, Citizens Turn to Polls

In a recent flurry of activity where different offices are vacated and
claimed
by upstanding Agorans, elections for Prime Minister, Herald, ADoP, and
Reportor
have been initiated. Citizens head towards the polls as they cast their
ballots
and await the results with bated breath. In addition, the Agoran Decision
for
Silver Quill 2016 is also underway, taking advantage of the activity to try
and
be done. As of publication, the polls have yet to close, so one may still
cast
their votes if they wish to be heard.
 —天火狐

An Editorial Piece


Wherein the author of the piece pontificates about recent happenings in
Agora.

  —Hypothetical Author

News about Estates

Wherein I exercise my writing writing fiction about our Estates which has no
intended bearing on the game state whatsoever and is provided for
entertainment
purposes only
 —天火狐

}}}

天火狐




On 6 September 2017 at 17:38, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > For Reportor, I vote [PSS], followed by the list of people provided by
> the incumbent.
>
> I retract my recent vote for myself for Reportor, and cast a
> conditional vote:
>
> If PSS publishes a proto newspaper during the voting period, [PSS];
>
> otherwise, I vote for the list of players who publish a proto-newspaper
> during the voting period, in the order of publication [ie. earliest
> publisher first on list].
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Registration Delay Fix

[Josh T]

I thought I posted it somewhere, but evidently I didn't. I wrote it when
the CFJ said that I should change it to a transliteration thereof, and
provide a preferred reading.

The preferred reading/transliteration is "amatsukagitsune" and translates
to "celestial fire-fox" (with that reading---there are other meanings
possible depending on the reading since Japanese is fun that way). I
suppose "the celestial fox" is acceptable if it makes the sentence flow
better, but I would prefer to have the characters used as it appears as I
sign it; using Josh is anathema. Now that everyone knows, I expect no more
mess-ups from everyone currently subscribed, yes?

天火狐

On 10 September 2017 at 20:26, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

>
>
> 天火狐, would you be willing to supply either a transliteration of
> the Japanese sounds to your desired spelling, or go by "The sky fox"?
> (I think that latter choice is slightly off your desired translation
> IIRC).  I'll respect it if you don't, but I'm always pausing to go
> copy and paste when referring to you.
>
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> > yeah e should be referred to as 天火狐 but it's not a memorable word.
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > Nicknames are common law issues. But ratified Registrar’s reports
> contradict that and if they don’t they will in the future.
> > > 
> > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Sep 10, 2017, at 8:13 PM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Eir agoran nickname is Josh T, as judged in a CFJ I believe.
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > >> <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >>> Then, you aren’t respecting him or his wishes.
> > >>> 
> > >>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > >>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Sep 10, 2017, at 8:09 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Dude I'm not writing that japanese lol
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>> I would prefer to be addressed by what I sign my emails, not what
> the header says.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 天火狐
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 10 September 2017 at 19:54, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>> @Josh we really need that corkboard.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I really should get to making that. Please link me/pasta me your
> Agency and I'll add it as another business opportunity for you to it.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 1:50 AM, Josh T <draconicdarkn...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>>> Vote purchases/sells when
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Have you not seen my latest Agency?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 天火狐
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On 10 September 2017 at 19:45, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>> I'd make it so that each new player has something to bargain with
> though, to start. Maybe encourage them to sell APs or Trust Tokens.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Feels a bit like Mad Max and I love it. I enjoy entrepreneurship a
> lot, I'd love to see people open businesses and make business myself.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Loan Bank when
> > >>>>> AP brokers when
> > >>>>> Vote purchase/sells when
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> This is the direction that I am going with my ideas.
> > >>>> 
> > >>>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > >>>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On Sep 10, 2017, at 7:12 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>

DIS: Re: BUS: Votes & Stuff

[Josh T]

Yeah, that's the one. CB: you get yourself a freebie since someone else dug
it up for you.

天火狐

On 10 September 2017 at 20:12, VJ Rada  wrote:

> I cause 天火狐 using eir latest agency which I believe is 狐票店 but I make
> no promises, to vote in the ADoP and PM elections in this way ""I
> endorse the entity who has, between the period of the posting of this
> message and the tallying of the vote, transferred strictly the most
> value in Assets (assessed at the most recent market valuation of the
> Asset in Shinies available during vote tallying) to 天火狐; in the event
> of a tie or otherwise an inability to clearly determine such an
> entity, my vote is PRESENT.
>
> I transfer 天火狐; 1 shiny (going to 7?)
>
> --
> From V.J Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Registration Delay Fix

[Josh T]

I suppose it's better than "Josh". Don't overdo it, I guess, but it's not
like I can stop you.

天火狐

On 10 September 2017 at 20:58, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'll do "Fox" then (much how I say PSS and not the full name every lol)
>
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 2:56 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> (also, for what it's worth, I also go hunting for PSS's full name and
>> copy/
>> paste whenever I need it :P )
>>
>> On Sun, 10 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> > Thanks!  I was remembering that you'd given a favored transliteration
>> back
>> > then, but couldn't find it.
>> >
>> > I think I'll add this as gratuitous arguments to that case log, so I'll
>> > know where to find it :).
>> >
>> > On Sun, 10 Sep 2017, Josh T wrote:
>> > > I thought I posted it somewhere, but evidently I didn't. I wrote it
>> when the
>> > > CFJ said that I should change it to a transliteration thereof, and
>> provide
>> > > a preferred reading. The preferred reading/transliteration is
>> "amatsukagitsune"
>> > > and translates to "celestial fire-fox" (with that reading---there are
>> other
>> > > meanings possible depending on the reading since Japanese is fun that
>> way).
>> > > I suppose "the celestial fox" is acceptable if it makes the sentence
>> flow
>> > > better, but I would prefer to have the characters used as it appears
>> as I
>> > > sign it; using Josh is anathema. Now that everyone knows, I expect no
>> more
>> > > mess-ups from everyone currently subscribed, yes?
>> > > 天火狐
>>
>>
>