Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3818 Assigned to Jason
I always prefer an interpretation that the rules and game state are fixed clearly and intractably at all times, and it is only our failure that prevents us from having knowledge of them. Anyway, these conditionals, I think, are the most strongly supported by game custom. The "if this exists, I do it" conditional is frankly necessary for us to play this game, mostly. On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:45 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 3/2/20 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: > > The below CFJ is 3818. I assign it to Jason. > > > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3818 > > > > === CFJ 3818 > === > > > > Rance's master switch is set to Agora. > > > > > == > > > > Caller:Falsifian > > > > Judge: Jason > > > > > == > > > Immediate thoughts: > > FALSE per caller. However, I can also see an argument that Rance's > Master was indeterminate because I performed a conditional action based > on whether there was a zombie auction. At the time, it was not widely > known whether there was a zombie auction; is that enough to make the > value of the switch indeterminate? Or is it enough that the rules and > messages were "reasonably available", which would (theoretically, at > least) allow determining whether the zombie auction existed, to prevent > Rance's Master being indeterminate. > > -- > Jason Cobb > > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3820 Assigned to Murphy
I vividly remember arguing that the "unless the pledge explicitly states
otherwise" didn't actually say would would happen if the pledge DID happen
to explicitly state otherwise.
On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:28 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> The below CFJ is 3820. I assign it to Murphy.
>
> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3820
>
> === CFJ 3820 ===
>
> If Cuddlebeam does not win the game in the next 90 days, there
> exists a combination of actions by players that would allow a
> player to levy the Cold Hand of Justice on twg for violation of
> the pledge below, without changing the rules or ratifying a
> document.
>
> ==
>
> Caller:Gaelan
>
> Judge: Murphy
>
> ==
>
> History:
>
> Called by Gaelan: 01 Mar 2020 05:33:40
> Assigned to Murphy: [now]
>
> ==
>
> Caller's Evidence:
>
> On Feb 29, 2020, at 1:33 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> >
> > I cause myself to become CuddleBeam's Active Supermaster by pledging the
> > following:
> >
> > I Pledge that I will cause Cuddlebeam to Win Agora within 90 days. The
> > "N" of this Pledge, for the purpose of its Class N Crime of Oathbreaking
> > is a googleplex.
> >
> > -twg
>
>
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> 2450/7 reads, in part: {
> If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or refrain
> from performing) certain actions, then breaking the pledge within the
> pledge's time window is the Class N crime of Oathbreaking, where N is 2
> unless the pledge explicitly states otherwise. The time window of a pledge
> is 60 days, unless the pledge explicitly states otherwise. A pledge ceases
> to exist at the end of its time window.
> }
>
> I’m not sure if the quoted pledge “explicitly” states that its time window
> is 90 days. It certainly discusses a 90-day time window, but I’m not sure
> if that qualifies as “explicitly” stating that the pledge itself has a
> time window of 90 days.
>
> If the time window is 60 days, there’s no way to violate the pledge within
> its time window, and this is FALSE.
>
> If the time window is 90 days, it still might not work. When was the
> pledge violated? There’s an argument to be made that the violation occurs
> at the moment the 90-day window expires. If so, would that count as
> "breaking the pledge within the pledge's time window”?
>
> ==
>
>
--
>From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3818 Assigned to Jason
Oh okay, there is no zombie auction per CFJ 1817, so yes, false per caller On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:58 AM Rebecca wrote: > I always prefer an interpretation that the rules and game state are fixed > clearly and intractably at all times, and it is only our failure that > prevents us from having knowledge of them. Anyway, these conditionals, I > think, are the most strongly supported by game custom. The "if this exists, > I do it" conditional is frankly necessary for us to play this game, mostly. > > On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 11:45 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 3/2/20 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote: >> > The below CFJ is 3818. I assign it to Jason. >> > >> > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3818 >> > >> > === CFJ 3818 >> === >> > >> > Rance's master switch is set to Agora. >> > >> > >> == >> > >> > Caller:Falsifian >> > >> > Judge: Jason >> > >> > >> == >> >> >> Immediate thoughts: >> >> FALSE per caller. However, I can also see an argument that Rance's >> Master was indeterminate because I performed a conditional action based >> on whether there was a zombie auction. At the time, it was not widely >> known whether there was a zombie auction; is that enough to make the >> value of the switch indeterminate? Or is it enough that the rules and >> messages were "reasonably available", which would (theoretically, at >> least) allow determining whether the zombie auction existed, to prevent >> Rance's Master being indeterminate. >> >> -- >> Jason Cobb >> >> > > -- > From R. Lee > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Clean r2493 (Regulations)
alright WHO brought back regulations goddamnit On Tue, Mar 3, 2020 at 12:12 AM sukil via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > El 01/03/2020 a las 5:53, James Cook via agora-business escribió: > > On Wed, 26 Feb 2020 at 15:14, sukil via agora-business > > wrote: > >> I intend to clean, as stated by r2221, the rule pertaining to > >> regulations (2493), replacing every instance of "an" with "a" (as every > >> instance of it is incorrect), if there is no objection. > >> > >> (I don't think this requires a proposal, right?) > > I object. "an" appears in "and" and "Agoran" and maybe "CAN" :-) To > > avoid confusion of what this cleaning does, I think it would be better > > to say 'every instance of the word "an"'. > > > > - Falsifian > > > Right, fine. > > Now the cleanup's text is "I intend to clean, as stated by r2221, the > rule pertaining to regulations (2493), replacing every instance of the > word "an" with "a" (as every instance of it is incorrect), if there is > no objection. > > > P. S.: You've killed Paul Grice . > > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Shortening of name
My Agoran name is now R. "rythwjkejhwyetrhrjkaigiuhrdafkt4wiq5yrw9jgnfnvmmKAKAJJ" Lee On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 4:12 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 1/25/2020 7:31 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > > Thank you! Thank you! You have no idea how much easier this makes to fit > in > > the authors on a proposal distribution. > > > > (Please, no one respond by being contrary and expanding their Agoran > name.) > > > > -Aris > > *coughs in Publius Scribonius Scholasticus* > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: And in lighter news... [DoV]
apathy is the most noble On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 11:14 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 11:44 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > > > On 1/29/2020 11:17 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-business wrote: > > > Having achieved a full set of 16 Ribbons, including the new Emerald > > > Ribbon, I Raise a Banner, causing me to win the game. > > > > Congratulations!! > > I echo those congratulations; ribbons are, without a doubt, the > hardest and most noble way to win the game. > > > -Aris > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Renumbered Index: Proposals 8322-3341
i would like to know why in god's name have we gone from the 8000s to the 3000s with a letter on top, why not use the 9000s??? On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 3:48 PM Aris Merchant via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > It has come to the attention of the Promotorial Proposal Office that > certain > proposals were incorrectly numbered. I apologize for this lapse. > All proposals numbered 35## are hereby renumbered 33##, where the final two > digits remain the same. Here is a revised index of proposals up for vote > (each of the decisions on whether to adopt them has a quorum of 6). > All players are hereby advised to treat these numbers as canonical from > the present moment forward, and to vote in reply to this index > as if it were an original distribution. > > ID Author(s)AITitle > --- > 8322* Falsifian, Alexis, twg 3.0 Unrepetition v1.1 > 8323* Jason3.0 Secure Ribbons > 8324l Falsifian2.0 Democratic unassignment > 8325e Falsifian2.0 Inflation Vote > 3326* Falsifian3.0 Attempted cleanup > 3327l Falsifian1.0 Blink test v1.2 > 3328* Falsifian3.0 The Eternal Sprit > 3329p Alexis 1.0 RtRW Reschedule > 3330* G. 3.0 No looting white ribbons > 3331j Warrigal 1.7 Promissory cleanliness > 3332f Murphy, Alexis 1.0 Switch Responsibility Responsibility > l Murphy, Alexis 2.0 Meaningful extra votes > 3334e Murphy, Alexis 2.0 Meaningless extra coins > 3335f Murphy 2.0 Consistent ADoP duties > 3336* Jason3.0 Define "publicly" > 3337e Murphy 1.0 Fix Auctions > 3338l Murphy 2.0 Clarify quorum (option 1) > 3339l Murphy 2.0 Clarify quorum (option 2) > 3340p Alexis 1.0 The Paradox of Self-Appointment > 3341* Alexis, G. 3.0 Support of the Person > > The proposal pool is currently empty. > > Legend: * : Democratic proposal. > # : Ordinary proposal, unset chamber. > e : Economy ministry proposal. > f : Efficiency ministry proposal. > j : Justice ministry proposal. > l : Legislation ministry proposal. > p : Participation ministry proposal. > > > The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. > > > // > ID: 8322 > Title: Unrepetition v1.1 > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Falsifian > Co-authors: Alexis, twg > > > For each of Proposals 8287-8307, if the proposal took effect more than > once, then any changes to rule text caused by the second and later > times the proposal took effect are considered "extra" for the purposes > of this proposal. > > Reverse all such "extra" changes, in the reverse of the order in which > they occurred. > > [Comment: See > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-February/056587.html > for context. I think the changes this undoes are relatively benign, > but it's nice to have certainty about the state of the ruleset.] > > // > ID: 8323 > Title: Secure Ribbons > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Jason > Co-authors: > > > Amend Rule 2438 (Ribbons) by replacing the text "Ribbon Ownership is a > person switch" with the text "Ribbon Ownership is a secured person switch". > > // > ID: 8324 > Title: Democratic unassignment > Adoption index: 2.0 > Author: Falsifian > Co-authors: > > > If Proposal 8320 (Promotorial Assignment) has been adopted, then amend > the rule entitled "Proposal Chambers" by replacing "If a proposal in > the Proposal Pool has its chamber unset" with "If the chamber of an > ordinary proposal in the Proposal Pool is unset". > > // > ID: 8325 > Title: Inflation Vote > Adoption index: 2.0 > Author: Falsifian > Co-authors: > > > [Comments: > > Are we just going to let a steady stream of sufficiently dedicated > players claim their standard victories? I say we raise the bar a > little. > > There's been some talk of a larger re-working of the economy. In the > meantime, this proposal calls for players to vote on a new number to > replace the 1,000 coin victory fee. The median vote wins, favouring the > higher vote if there are two middle votes. > > ] > > For the purpose of this proposal: > > * An Inflation Ballot is a body of text published during the voting > period of this proposal that clearly, directly and without > obfuscation specifies a single non-negative integer and that it is an > Inflation Ballot. > > * Each player's Inflation Vote
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Renumbered Index: Proposals 8322-3341
i dont think anyone actually cares if you misnumber some stuff, youve been doing this job for like three years now lol On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 4:13 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 8:54 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > i would like to know why in god's name have we gone from the 8000s to the > > 3000s with a letter on top, why not use the 9000s??? > > > > The letters are a result of Proposal 8291, "Interesting Chambers > v3.1". The numbering is a result of me having a really, truly, > record-settingly terrible day. > > -Aris > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: told ya we wouldn't use this
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 1:01 PM Rebecca wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 12:41 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 3/10/20 8:32 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> > On 3/10/2020 3:57 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: >> >> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 18:26, Kerim Aydin via agora-business >> >> wrote: >> >>> I submit the following AI=1 Proposal "Homework extension fail": >> >>> >> >>> - >> >>> >> >>> Amend Rule 2327 (Read the Ruleset Week) by deleting the second >> paragraph. >> >>> >> >>> [For reference, it's the "... in the year 2020, Read the Ruleset Week >> is, >> >>> instead, the week of February 24 - March 1" paragraph]. >> >>> >> >>> - >> >> *sob* >> >> >> > was thinking of adding an "during RtRW the [Herald/Rulekeepor] SHOULD >> > promote activities to encourage a careful reading of the rules" or >> > something what do you think? >> > >> >> I don't think it's a great idea to have the Rulekeepor do it, especially >> when the Rulekeepor is me, since I am not good at this sort of stuff. In >> my view, setting up a contest or something (since I see that's what >> happened last year) is orthogonal to the Rulekeepor's normal duties. >> >> I think having the Herald do it makes sense, especially given the Herald >> can guarantee a Patent Title as a reward. >> >> -- >> Jason Cobb >> >> for REAL gamers every week is read the ruleset week > > -- > From R. Lee > in unrelated thread derailment, i am just starting my law degree now (at the university which still contains the inventor of nomic lol) and yeah i first joined this game almost 3 years ago, wild! -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: told ya we wouldn't use this
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 12:41 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 3/10/20 8:32 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 3/10/2020 3:57 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > >> On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 18:26, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > >> wrote: > >>> I submit the following AI=1 Proposal "Homework extension fail": > >>> > >>> - > >>> > >>> Amend Rule 2327 (Read the Ruleset Week) by deleting the second > paragraph. > >>> > >>> [For reference, it's the "... in the year 2020, Read the Ruleset Week > is, > >>> instead, the week of February 24 - March 1" paragraph]. > >>> > >>> - > >> *sob* > >> > > was thinking of adding an "during RtRW the [Herald/Rulekeepor] SHOULD > > promote activities to encourage a careful reading of the rules" or > > something what do you think? > > > > I don't think it's a great idea to have the Rulekeepor do it, especially > when the Rulekeepor is me, since I am not good at this sort of stuff. In > my view, setting up a contest or something (since I see that's what > happened last year) is orthogonal to the Rulekeepor's normal duties. > > I think having the Herald do it makes sense, especially given the Herald > can guarantee a Patent Title as a reward. > > -- > Jason Cobb > > for REAL gamers every week is read the ruleset week -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: told ya we wouldn't use this
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 3:26 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 9:17 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-business > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 10, 2020, at 7:02 PM, Rebecca via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > in unrelated thread derailment, i am just starting my law degree now > (at > > > the university which still contains the inventor of nomic lol) and > yeah i > > > first joined this game almost 3 years ago, wild! > > > > I pledge to transfer 100 coins to R. Lee by the end of this pledge’s > time window if Peter Suber registers as a player. The time window for this > pledge is one year. > > The government is prepared to support this effort by any means necessary. > > Aris > Prime Minister > oh sorry i got it wrong im at the university which still contains michael norrish, the first speaker of this game. who as i understand it returned in like 2005 so it wouldnt be that special haha. also he's not a law teacher. -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Less Democracy Means More Fun
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 3:58 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > you want more than 3.0 rather than less than 3.0. this is the opposite to > intended effect! > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 1:30 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I submit the following proposal. > > > > -Aris > > --- > > Title: Less Democracy Means More Fun > > Adoption index: 2.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: > > Chamber: Legislation > > > > Amend Rule 2606, "Proposal Classes", by changing the text > > > > "When a proposal with an adoption index greater than 2.0 is created, > > its class becomes democratic." > > > > to read > > "When a proposal with an adoption index less than 3.0 is created, > > its class becomes democratic." > > > > [Note that proposals can still be turned democratic with 2 Agoran > Consent. > > However, this reserves democratic status for proposals changing core > > rules or of great public concern.] > > > > > -- > From R. Lee > it was already replied to, sorry. -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Less Democracy Means More Fun
you want more than 3.0 rather than less than 3.0. this is the opposite to intended effect! On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 1:30 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I submit the following proposal. > > -Aris > --- > Title: Less Democracy Means More Fun > Adoption index: 2.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: > Chamber: Legislation > > Amend Rule 2606, "Proposal Classes", by changing the text > > "When a proposal with an adoption index greater than 2.0 is created, > its class becomes democratic." > > to read > "When a proposal with an adoption index less than 3.0 is created, > its class becomes democratic." > > [Note that proposals can still be turned democratic with 2 Agoran Consent. > However, this reserves democratic status for proposals changing core > rules or of great public concern.] > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: told ya we wouldn't use this
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 3:29 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Wed., Mar. 11, 2020, 10:33 Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion, < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > On 3/10/2020 9:52 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 3:26 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > > >> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 9:17 PM Gaelan Steele wrote: > > On Mar 10, 2020, at 7:02 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > > > in unrelated thread derailment, i am just starting my law degree now > > >> (at > > the university which still contains the inventor of nomic lol) and > > >> yeah i > > first joined this game almost 3 years ago, wild! > > >>> > > >>> I pledge to transfer 100 coins to R. Lee by the end of this pledge’s > > >> time window if Peter Suber registers as a player. The time window for > > this > > >> pledge is one year. > > >> > > >> The government is prepared to support this effort by any means > > necessary. > > >> > > >> Aris > > >> Prime Minister > > >> > > > > > > oh sorry i got it wrong im at the university which still contains > michael > > > norrish, the first speaker of this game. who as i understand it > returned > > in > > > like 2005 so it wouldnt be that special haha. also he's not a law > > teacher. > > > > lol when I noticed your timezone ages ago I thought there can't be too > > many nomic players there it's only a matter of time before they run into > > each other. > > > > I almost took a class taught by Waggie. > > -Alexis > > > > Peter Suber's email is pretty easy to find though, I will email him to try and get aris to pay up haha -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Code licenses
On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 3:01 PM Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Apr 9, 2020, at 9:58 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > I've added the following licenses to GitHub: > > > > * The ruleset viewer: MIT > > * My Notary automation: MIT, with a note about the text of contracts. > (Also, I need to update that report. Sorry!) > > > > Additionally, I hereby release the following under CC0 (to avoid any > risk of license incompatibility): > > * The ruleset automation stuff I built when I was rulekeepor (despite > two rewrites, the structure of the data is still essentially how I built > it, so I'm doing this to be safe) > > * Everything I've sent to an Agoran forum (excluding text clearly > labelled as something someone else wrote, of course) > > > > The AgoraNomic/Header repo is almost entirely mine, but it does have > some very minor changes from PSS —probably not enough to qualify for > copyright, though, so I can probably license it. Thoughts? > > > > Gaelan > > Aw crap, sorry for the top-post. > > Also, on the topic of real-world law: I've long wondered if it's worth the > trouble to add a disclaimer to the ruleset to clarify that it isn't > enforceable as a real-world contract. Does that seem worth doing? > > Gaelan No. The Monopoly rules contain no such disclaimer. We are a game. -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Code licenses
Besides, none of us are exchanging thing sof value so there's no consideration On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 3:48 PM ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Thu, 2020-04-09 at 22:01 -0700, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion > wrote: > > Also, on the topic of real-world law: I've long wondered if it's > > worth the trouble to add a disclaimer to the ruleset to clarify that > > it isn't enforceable as a real-world contract. Does that seem worth > > doing? > > In most real-world jurisdictions, you can't create a contract unless > the parties involved intended for it to be legally binding. I don't > think most Agoran players had that intention when joining the game (and > even if everyone else did, it'll be impossible to prove). I know I > didn't. > > -- > ais523 > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes on Application of Proposals 8357-8365
i think e just omitted a "will". e meant "I will resubmit" this proposal On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 1:09 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 4/8/20 10:51 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > >> The text to replace is not found in the rule. The "and then itself" was > >> removed by an earlier proposal (Proposal 8362). > > I was worried this might happen. Entirely my fault. I resubmit the > > above proposal (as closely as possible). > > > > -Aris > > > But wouldn't your resubmitted proposal have the same bug as the first? > > -- > Jason Cobb > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: OFF: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3826 Judgement
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:28 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussiongora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 4/6/2020 5:03 AM, Rebecca via agora-official wrote: > > I would like to note that I hate the rule 217 factors. I think they > should > > be abolished. And I think that my grammatical arguments are enough to > > sustain the judgement. > > Personally, I think your first judgement was sufficient (and good), and > R217 really isn't/shouldn't be used as a set of factors in a legal test. > > The first paragraph simply describes the tone and tenor of reasoning we > like to use in judgement, in particular just to suggest (without > requiring) that we try to remain relatively consistent (use of game > custom/past judgements), to imply that if you reach an absurd result using > logical formalism or other procedural logic on texts, you're allowed to > short-circuit that with some common sense (in other words, that we resolve > textual arguments "not like robots"), and finally to be clear that the > goal of judgement is not to, say, crater the game with paradox, but to > keep the game enjoyable, fair etc. (i.e. "the good of the game"). It > doesn't need to be used as a factor checklist. Your first judgement > followed those guidelines without explicitly spelling them out, IMO. > > The second paragraph is partly to diffuse/limit paradox judgements, and in > general is explicit defense against different types of specific > definitional scams that have been used over time (with the unfortunate > side-effect of requiring definitions to be higher-powered than they might > otherwise need to be). > > -G. > > I actually didn't read rule 217 before writing this. I think the 217 that I remember was more "hard" with the factors and didn't use the word "augmented". -- >From R. Lee
Re: OFF: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3826 Judgement
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:36 AM Rebecca wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 12:28 AM Kerim Aydin via > agora-discussiongora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> >> On 4/6/2020 5:03 AM, Rebecca via agora-official wrote: >> > I would like to note that I hate the rule 217 factors. I think they >> should >> > be abolished. And I think that my grammatical arguments are enough to >> > sustain the judgement. >> >> Personally, I think your first judgement was sufficient (and good), and >> R217 really isn't/shouldn't be used as a set of factors in a legal test. >> >> The first paragraph simply describes the tone and tenor of reasoning we >> like to use in judgement, in particular just to suggest (without >> requiring) that we try to remain relatively consistent (use of game >> custom/past judgements), to imply that if you reach an absurd result using >> logical formalism or other procedural logic on texts, you're allowed to >> short-circuit that with some common sense (in other words, that we resolve >> textual arguments "not like robots"), and finally to be clear that the >> goal of judgement is not to, say, crater the game with paradox, but to >> keep the game enjoyable, fair etc. (i.e. "the good of the game"). It >> doesn't need to be used as a factor checklist. Your first judgement >> followed those guidelines without explicitly spelling them out, IMO. >> >> The second paragraph is partly to diffuse/limit paradox judgements, and in >> general is explicit defense against different types of specific >> definitional scams that have been used over time (with the unfortunate >> side-effect of requiring definitions to be higher-powered than they might >> otherwise need to be). >> >> -G. >> >> > I actually didn't read rule 217 before writing this. I think the 217 that > I remember was more "hard" with the factors and didn't use the word > "augmented". > -- > From R. Lee > And I certainly don't remember that second paragraph. However necessary it may be (to avoid AI=1 proposals defining higher powered rules to mean their opposite or whatever), it reads like actual nonsense at first glance. Although I do remember the direct forward reasoning bit so maybe I'm just hallucinating that any of it used to be different. -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Cracking rocks
i wish someone was doing the treasuror's job now rip On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 8:35 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote: > On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 3:07 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > Well, it's too late for an effective formal apology, but hopefully not > > too late for an apology. How effective it is will depend on the whims > > of othes, as such things often do. > > > > I dragged my heels. I gave others cause to doubt that their efforts > > would be properly recognized; indeed, I was even responsible for their > > paychecks being delayed. How are they supposed to provide for their > > zombies, maybe buy a win every once in a while? I hang my head as I > > think back on the past, reminding myself that I must do better. > > > > Picture it: Sicily, 1918. The war was winding down, the influenza was > > just starting up... but of course, one didn't speak of such things out > > loud. Would be rude. I was only Deputy Assistant Director of Personnel > > back then; they wouldn't even enact Principal Deputy Assistant for > > another thirty years, and I was hardly the first name on anyone's lips > > when they did. Hanging out in the back of the supply depot, guarding > > the cimon supply, that was how my days went back then. My grandfather > > wanted me to become a space cadet, but of course they hadn't enacted > > Astronomor yet, either, so he was doomed to disappointment. > > > I apologize for having given so harsh a penalty, but I am entertained by > your informal apology and appreciate the effort greatly. > > > For each of the following, I intend (with 2 Agoran consent) to award > > Hard Labor to them: > > > >* Falsifian (Registrar, Treasuror) > >* G. (Arbitor, Herald) > >* Jason (Assessor, Rulekeepor) > > > I support each of these intents. > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3828 Assigned to Alexis
I think everyone has a level of self-interest because everyone (except the author of the proposal) could get a coin. Therefore, I think this CFJ should be assigned to the author of the proposal under the "clean up your own mess" principle. On Sun, Apr 19, 2020 at 5:48 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sat, 18 Apr 2020 at 15:36, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > Did you have some level of self-interest that I missed? (no worries > about > > the reason, just asking because it might apply to other potential judges, > > if there's an interaction I'm missing here). > > > > Not seriously, I don't think. > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8366-8367
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 3:10 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 01:04, Rebecca via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I vote FOR both proposals > > -- > > From R. Lee > > > > I endorse R. Lee on both proposals. > > -Alexis > I would note that, because CFJs are supposed to be judged as of the time they are called, this will not affect my coin CFJ regarding the coin award rule, of course. -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honor: ATTN Arbitor, Assessor
oops sorry On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 4:00 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 00:56, Rebecca via agora-business > wrote: > > > > -1 Falsifian for self ratifying that I am not a player, three times. > > +1 Aris because hes epic > > > > The CFJ I judged was never judged, G has to reassign that > > None of my votes count > > Herald's note: I will record the reason as "because [e's] epic". > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3826 Judgement
""A worker CAN dispose of a shipment if a recipient cannot eat any apple within" I think this sentence means the same thing as my example sentence. If "a recipient can eat any apple within the shipment", they can eat every single apple because any is universal here, the apple is arbitrarily selected. The reason it is universal is because, as my judgement notes, any is almost always universal in positive sentences like this one. If a recipient CANNOT eat just a single apple, it is untrue that they CAN eat "any" apple. This logic was not the logic of my judgement but it would sustain it. But I think in this case "the Auctioneer of that Auction cannot transfer any item included in a lot in that Auction" is a phrase that is different to "a recipient cannot eat any apple within the shipment" because in this context we are _really_ talking about the item itself being nontransferable by law, although the auctioneer is the actor in this sentence as grammatically written. Whereas in your example we seem to be talking a lot more about whether any theoretical recipient could actually eat it, which makes your sentence a very different sentence from "if the apple cannot be eaten". In this case, I don't think "the auctioneer cannot transfer" is different to "any lot can be transferred". On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:52 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 23:46, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I'm not actually convinced by the region example; I initially read that > the > > other way, and on rereading think it's ambiguous. Still, the apple > example > > seems sound, and I find that a good enough as an analogue. Good > judgement! > > > > -Aris > > > > I'm not sure I agree. In my view, there is a clear distinguishing factor. > In the apple example, the "cannot" appears after the "any", while in the > rule at issue, it appears before. This is a critical distinction. The > corresponding apple phrase would be "A worker CAN dispose of a shipment if > a recipient cannot eat any apple within". If I may make appeals to the > principles of first-order logic, (using words instead of symbols, for the > sake of those not used to logic notation), suppose we let P(x) mean "x can > be eaten" and Q mean "the shipment can be disposed of" (with x ranging over > all apples in the shipment). > > Then the judge's example is clearly equivalent to "If there exists an x > such that P(x) is false, then Q". This is logically equivalent to "If, for > all x, P(x) is true, then Q". But by contrast, if we have the statement "If > there does not exist an x such that P(x) is true, then Q", the logical > equivalent is "If, for all x, P(x) is false, then Q." > > Breaking down the English of "if a recipient cannot eat any apple within", > "eat any apple within" is a relative clause that is negated by "cannot". In > my opinion, this most strongly resembles "If there does not exist an x such > that P(x) is true". To interpret it otherwise requires either changing the > way that "cannot" binds or interpreting "any" as a universal (for all) > quantifier, rather than existential (there exists) quantifier. I contend > that this is not the most straightforward way to convert the English into > the language of logic, and once we have done so, the conclusion of TRUE on > the CFJ must follow. > > I intend, with 2 support, to file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3826; the > above needs to be addressed, at minimum. > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3826 Judgement
I think by whatever dictionary meaning of the word any you use, universal or existential, I can at least convince you all that the sentence is so ambiguous as to be unsolvable with pure English. Although I could have used other factors in resolving the case, I opted to use "common sense" (an enumerated factor), that being I resolved the case on my first initial reading of the sentence at issue. I have made arguments that the side of "any" being "one" has the better of it textually, but as a backup I think I am entitled to resolve the case using common sense. I am happy to slightly edit these explanatory paragraphs and append them to the judgement if you would like. On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 4:01 PM Rebecca wrote: > ""A worker CAN dispose of a shipment if a recipient cannot eat any apple > within" > > I think this sentence means the same thing as my example sentence. If "a > recipient can eat any apple within the shipment", they can eat every single > apple because any is universal here, the apple is arbitrarily selected. The > reason it is universal is because, as my judgement notes, any is almost > always universal in positive sentences like this one. If a recipient > CANNOT eat just a single apple, it is untrue that they CAN eat "any" apple. > > This logic was not the logic of my judgement but it would sustain it. > > But I think in this case "the Auctioneer of that Auction cannot transfer > any item included in a lot in that Auction" is a phrase that is different > to "a recipient cannot eat any apple within the shipment" because in this > context we are _really_ talking about the item itself being nontransferable > by law, although the auctioneer is the actor in this sentence as > grammatically written. Whereas in your example we seem to be talking a lot > more about whether any theoretical recipient could actually eat it, which > makes your sentence a very different sentence from "if the apple cannot be > eaten". In this case, I don't think "the auctioneer cannot transfer" is > different to "any lot can be transferred". > > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:52 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 23:46, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < >> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> >> > I'm not actually convinced by the region example; I initially read that >> the >> > other way, and on rereading think it's ambiguous. Still, the apple >> example >> > seems sound, and I find that a good enough as an analogue. Good >> judgement! >> > >> > -Aris >> > >> >> I'm not sure I agree. In my view, there is a clear distinguishing factor. >> In the apple example, the "cannot" appears after the "any", while in the >> rule at issue, it appears before. This is a critical distinction. The >> corresponding apple phrase would be "A worker CAN dispose of a shipment if >> a recipient cannot eat any apple within". If I may make appeals to the >> principles of first-order logic, (using words instead of symbols, for the >> sake of those not used to logic notation), suppose we let P(x) mean "x >> can >> be eaten" and Q mean "the shipment can be disposed of" (with x ranging >> over >> all apples in the shipment). >> >> Then the judge's example is clearly equivalent to "If there exists an x >> such that P(x) is false, then Q". This is logically equivalent to "If, for >> all x, P(x) is true, then Q". But by contrast, if we have the statement >> "If >> there does not exist an x such that P(x) is true, then Q", the logical >> equivalent is "If, for all x, P(x) is false, then Q." >> >> Breaking down the English of "if a recipient cannot eat any apple within", >> "eat any apple within" is a relative clause that is negated by "cannot". >> In >> my opinion, this most strongly resembles "If there does not exist an x >> such >> that P(x) is true". To interpret it otherwise requires either changing the >> way that "cannot" binds or interpreting "any" as a universal (for all) >> quantifier, rather than existential (there exists) quantifier. I contend >> that this is not the most straightforward way to convert the English into >> the language of logic, and once we have done so, the conclusion of TRUE on >> the CFJ must follow. >> >> I intend, with 2 support, to file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3826; the >> above needs to be addressed, at minimum. >> > > > -- > From R. Lee > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] March Zombie Auction
I bid 1 coin On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 11:45 AM James Cook via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I initiate a zombie auction, with the following lots (each zombie a > separate lot) ordered as follows (highest-bid first): > > 1. Trigon > 2. D. Margaux > 3. Baron von Vaderham > 4. Nch > 5. pikhq > 6. Walker > 7. ATMunn > > Agora is the Auctioneer, and the Registrar is the Announcer. The > currency is Coins with a minimum bid of 1. > > - Falsifian > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:38 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > +1: Jason for putting to rest a piece of ancient history > -1: Aris for abusing a motion to reconsider to extend a deadline > > -Alexis > +1 Jason -1 Aris Reasons are the same as Alexis, above -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Prime Minister Protos
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 5:47 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 02:17, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 11:12 PM Aris Merchant > > wrote: > > > > > > > Also, even if the PM is allowed to issue e.g. Certiorari and > > > > Consultation during the same month, I'd still prefer they were at > least > > > > informally grouped by the office primarily affected. (For one, it > makes > > > > it easier to work out which offices don't yet have any Cabinet Orders > > > > associated, and whether any might reasonably be added.) > > > > > > I'm happy to publish such an informal statement. > > > > Allocation - Treasuror > > Certiorari - Arbitor > > Consultation - Arbitor > > Dive - Referee > > Imprimatur - Assessor (primarily, though it could be used for ADoP on > > occasion) > > Manifesto - Promotor > > Pardon - Referee > > Reshuffle - ADoP > > > > Embargo - Speaker? > > > > -Aris > > > I think I dislike Embargo, it's a bit over-the-top. But the others I mostly > like. > I don't like allocation or embargo. Also "Dive" needs to say CAN and MAY (because otherwise fines CANNOT be levied for incorrect reasons). Pardon and reshuffle are fantastic -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] March Zombie Auction
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:59 AM James Cook via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 00:45, James Cook via agora-official > wrote: > > I initiate a zombie auction, with the following lots (each zombie a > > separate lot) ordered as follows (highest-bid first): > > > > 1. Trigon > > 2. D. Margaux > > 3. Baron von Vaderham > > 4. Nch > > 5. pikhq > > 6. Walker > > 7. ATMunn > > > > Agora is the Auctioneer, and the Registrar is the Announcer. The > > currency is Coins with a minimum bid of 1. > > > > - Falsifian > > I bid 40 Coins. > > - Falsifian > I bid all the coins i have -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8357-8365
I vote
8357p G. 1.0 Homework extension fail
FOR
8358j Jason, Alexis2.0 No zombie blot creation v2
FOR
8359p Alexis 1.0 Karmic Linkage
AGAINST
8360* Alexis 3.0 Social Distancing
FOR
8361* Aris, Alexis 3.0 Fix Emergencies
FOR
8362* Aris 3.0 Recurring Emergencies
FOR
8363e Warrigal 1.0 Somebody gets a coin
AGAINST
8364* Aris 3.0 Mint Regulations
FOR
8365* Aris 3.0 Emergency Termination Notice
FOR
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 12:52 PM Aris Merchant via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 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, the
> quorum is 7, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
> options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
> conditional votes).
>
> ID Author(s)AITitle
> ---
> 8357p G. 1.0 Homework extension fail
> 8358j Jason, Alexis2.0 No zombie blot creation v2
> 8359p Alexis 1.0 Karmic Linkage
> 8360* Alexis 3.0 Social Distancing
> 8361* Aris, Alexis 3.0 Fix Emergencies
> 8362* Aris 3.0 Recurring Emergencies
> 8363e Warrigal 1.0 Somebody gets a coin
> 8364* Aris 3.0 Mint Regulations
> 8365* Aris 3.0 Emergency Termination Notice
>
>
> The proposal pool is currently empty.
>
> Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
> # : Ordinary proposal, unset chamber.
> e : Economy ministry proposal.
> f : Efficiency ministry proposal.
> j : Justice ministry proposal.
> l : Legislation ministry proposal.
> p : Participation ministry proposal.
>
>
> The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
>
> //
> ID: 8357
> Title: Homework extension fail
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: G.
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2327 (Read the Ruleset Week) by deleting the second paragraph.
>
> [For reference, it's the "... in the year 2020, Read the Ruleset Week is,
> instead, the week of February 24 - March 1" paragraph].
>
> //
> ID: 8358
> Title: No zombie blot creation v2
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Jason
> Co-authors: Alexis
>
>
> Amend Rule 2532 (Zombies) by inserting the following list item before
> the item that says "deregister.":
>
> - create blots;
>
> Expunge each blot that a zombie's master caused that zombie to create.
>
> [First attempt was ineffective due to typo in "self-punishment"
> proposal. Masters should not be able to hurt their zombies in this way.]
>
> //
> ID: 8359
> Title: Karmic Linkage
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Alexis
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend rule 2510 (Such is Karma) by inserting the following as a new
> paragraph after the first list:
>
> "The reasons for provided for the gain and loss of karma SHOULD, but
> NEED NOT, be related to one another."
>
> //
> ID: 8360
> Title: Social Distancing
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Alexis
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Enact a new power-3.01 rule entitled "Eclipse Light", reading as follows:
> {{
> An emergency message is one whose subject line contains the text
> "[Emergency]".
>
> The Prime Minister CAN, in an emergency message and with 3 Agoran
> consent, enact, amend, or repeal Emergency Regulations, provided that
> the intent to do so was also contained in an emergency message.
>
> Emergency Regulations CAN:
> - Extend any deadline provided for by any instrument other than this
> rule, including a deadline for an obligation to be met, or deadline
> prior to which an action must be performed in order to be valid, such
> as the end of voting period. Such an extension CANNOT cause the total
> time period, such as the time from when an obligation was created to
> the deadline or the whole of a voting period, to be more than double
> its original length.
> - Create, destroy, or transfer assets, or require or forbid their
> creation, destruction, or transfer.
> - Cause one or more players to win Agora.
> - Appoint or remove officeholders.
> - Modify the Festivity.
> - Award Patent Titles not mentioned in any Rule and Badges.
> - Modify the Publicity of Fora.
>
> The Prime Minister CAN, in an emergency message and with 4 Agoran
> Consent, provided that the intent to do so was also contained in an
> emergency message,
DIS: Re: BUS: Rewards (Re: [Arbitor] Court Gazette)
I award myself a blue ribbon for CFJ 3826 (first judgement) and I award myself blue glitter for the second judgement following motion On Wed, Apr 29, 2020 at 11:13 AM Edward Murphy via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > G. wrote: > > > For timely judgements, I award 5 coins to: > > - Murphy for CFJ 3825 > > - R. Lee for CFJ 3826 (second judgement following motion) > > - G. for CFJ 3828 > > - Jason for CFJ 3829 > > - Publius for CFJ 3830 > > > > I also award myself Blue Glitter for CFJ 3828. > > I award myself Blue Glitter for CFJ 3825. > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: attn referee (Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport)
Well you can CFJ improper SHENANIGANS because you can CFJ anything. If the SHENANIGANS turned out to be improper, another finger may be pointed in identical terms to the first finger, yes? On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 8:55 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 4/25/2020 3:44 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 4/25/20 6:41 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > >> Still, I don't see that there's a way to CFJ on "improper" SHENANIGANS, > >> since such a call is valid if the referee believes that it would be > >> ineffective (whether or not it would be)... I suppose I could call on a > >> hypothetical but tend to prefer not to. > >> > >> -G. > >> > >> > > > > AFAIK there's no prohibition on levying a fine after previously finding > > SHENANIGANS, so couldn't you CFJ on "The Referee CAN levy a fine ..."? > > > > R2478 says that the investigator CAN "conclude" the investigation by > calling shenanigans. I'd argue that the common definition of "conclude" > (supported by an ethical/good of the game desire to avoid double jeopardy) > means you can't conclude the same thing twice. > > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3828 Assigned to G.
easiest win ever On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 6:28 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 4/25/2020 12:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >>> === CFJ 3828 > === > >>> > >>> A recent rule named "A coin award" was enacted, increased the > >>> number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself. > >>> > >>> > == > > I deliver the following judgement for CFJ 3828: > > This court agrees that we must adhere to the text of the rule "A Coin > Award" for the time that it was a rule: > > When this rule is enacted, a player other than the > author of the proposal which enacted this rule earns 1 > coin. Then, if a player earned a coin this way, this > rule repeals itself. > > The court also agrees that, upon the enactment of that rule, a coin was > created in the possession of a player, as per the definition of 'earn' in > R2577/2: > > For an entity to earn an asset is for that asset to be created in > that entity's possession. > > And just for good measure, the rules grant themselves explicit general > authority to create coins, as per R2166/28: > > An asset's backing document can generally > specify when and how that asset is created, destroyed, and > transferred. > > Therefore, in the words of "A Coin Award", a player did indeed earn a coin > "this way" and the rule repealed itself. > > In a more practical jurisdiction than Agora, a judge might say "ah, > looking at R2576/0, each asset has exactly one owner. The rule that > created the coin listed a subset of possible owners, therefore we merely > decide on someone in that set. Or maybe defer to the Officer to make the > decision." > > However, Agora also has Rule 2518/0: > > If a value CANNOT be reasonably determined (without circularity or > > paradox) from information reasonably available, or if it > > alternates indefinitely between values, then the value is > > considered to be indeterminate, otherwise it is determinate. > > This implies that, if insufficient information exists to determine the > owner of an existing coin, a judge's task is not to pick an arbitrary > method for determining the value, but simply to determine that the value > is indeterminate, and see if that leads to an appropriate result. > > First, for posterity, it's worth noting that after this CFJ was called, > P8366 'Asset Determinacy' was adopted (17 Apr 2020), changing part of > R2576's text from: > If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost > and Found Department. > to: > If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, or if its ownership > would otherwise be indeterminate, it is owned by the Lost and > Found Department. > > Therefore, upon that change taking effect, the coin in question was > transferred to the Lost and Found Department, where I believe it resides > now. > > However, at the time this CFJ was called, the coin belonged to an > indeterminate player, so that is the basis of this judgement. Taking the > wording of the CFJ statement: > > A recent rule named "A coin award" was enacted, increased the > number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself. > > We have determined that the rule was enacted, and the rule repealed > itself. However, it is indeterminate whether R. Lee's coin totals were > increased. Looking at the judgement options in R591/46: > > > * PARADOXICAL, appropriate if the statement is logically > >undecidable as a result of a paradox or or other irresovable > >logical situation. PARADOXICAL is not appropriate if IRRELEVANT > >is appropriate, nor is it appropriate if the undecidability > >arises from the case itself or in reference to it. > > If the owner of the coin is indeterminate, then it is logically > irresovable whether R. Lee's coin totals were changed. It is not > IRRELEVANT (at the time it was called), as it directly affects the > Treasuror's records, nor does the undecidability arise from the case > itself or in reference to it. Further, the other possible option, DISMISS > (because insufficient information exists to make a judgement with > reasonable effort) explicitly excludes itself from consideration if > PARADOXICAL is appropriate. > > Therefore, this court finds PARADOXICAL. > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] Speaker Appointment! All Hail the Speaker!
(I never received alexis's email) On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 10:40 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 5:29 PM Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > > On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 at 20:23, Aris Merchant via agora-official < > agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> > >> A Proclamation > >> > >> WHEREAS the rules require the Prime Minister, upon the beginning > >> of a new Round, to install a laureled player as Speaker; and > >> > >> WHEREAS the Honorable Herald has certified Trigon's victory by > installing > >> em as Champion; > >> > >> THEREFORE, LET IT BE KNOWN that I now hereby appoint Trigon, > >> victorious and laureled, as the Speaker of Agora Nomic. > >> > >> ALL HAIL THE SPEAKER! > >> > >> IN WITNESS WHEREOF, whereunto I have applied my will and caused the > >> Great Seal of Agora Nomic to be affixed. > >> > >> At agora-official, this twenty-eighth day of April in the Year of our > >> proleptic Gregorian Calendar two thousand and twenty. > >> > >> Aris > >> Prime Minister > > > > > > Is this the great seal? I think it's leftover from a few years ago. > > > The Office of the Prime Minister remains firmly unconvinced by the > suggestion that a *walrus* is a seal at all, much less the Great Seal > of Agora Nomic. > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: A few orders of business [attn Arbitor, Herald]
I suppose Trigon should be awarded speaker, though I will win in 6 days On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 11:01 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, 26 Apr 2020 at 20:56, Reuben Staley via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > With that out of the way, I would also like to have an office again. It > > appears that all the offices are filled, but if anyone has an office > > they don't really want to keep up, I would not mind taking care of it. > > > > PSS offered Treasuror up; I intend, with 2 support, to initiate an election > for Treasuror. I won't resolve this intent and become a candidate, but you > can. (You have to become a candidate in the same message to start an > election with support.) > > -Alexis > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [attn Promotor] Ping!
Well i held in that case that falsifian's submission did fall as a single block On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 2:29 PM Reuben Staley via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/11/20 10:01 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 12:41 PM Reuben Staley via agora-business < > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> I retract the quoted proposal and submit the following in its place: > >> > >> --- > >> Title: Agora plays table tennis > >> AI: 0.1 > >> Author: Trigon > >> Coauthors: > >> > >> [snip] > > I call the following CFJ: "In the above message, Trigon created a > proposal" > > > > The relevant precedent is CFJ 3744 where it said that it was up to the > > specific speech act as to whether a proposal that was submitted with an > > invalid AI failed entirely or defaulted to 1.0 AI. The speech in that > case > > was found clear, but the speech in this case is very different (and much > > closer to the default way that most people create proposals). Per CFJ > 3744, > > if this message _really_ means ""I create a proposal with > > the following Title, Coauthors, AI, and Text properties" then the > > proposal would entirely fail, whereas it would succeed with AI=1 if > > the message _really_ means ""I > > create a proposal with the following text. I optionally specify an AI. I > > optionally specify a Title. I optionally specify coauthors" > > Gratuitous Arguments: Having reread the relevant CFJ, I would argue that > the framing device I used implies submission of the proposal and all its > specified attributes as a single block. I stated "I... submit the > following [proposal]" not "I submit the following proposal text and > attributes" as Falsifian did in CFJ 3744. > > -- > Trigon > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [attn Promotor] Ping!
i think this rule would be much more fun if every single message in an agoran day (perhaps exclude things like reports and such) had to have ping or pong in an alternating fashion (also i don't see why this rule is restricted to public messages) On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 10:14 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Wouldn't this allow you to succ people dry out of their coins because there > is no limit to how many times you can activate this after an infraction? I > could just say nothing and just attempt it later on but like, this mechanic > would be such a pain in the ass lmao. > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 4:11 AM Reuben Staley via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I submit the following proposal: > > > > --- > > Title: Agora plays table tennis > > AI: 1.7 > > Author: Trigon > > Coauthors: > > > > Create a new rule entitled "Ping Pong" with Power=1.7 that reads: > > > >The first public message sent by a player each Agoran day must > >begin with the word ping (case-insensitive). The second public > >message sent by a player each Agoran day must end with the word > >pong (case-insensitive). > > > >If a player fails to include ping or pong as mandated by the > >previous paragraph, then, in that same Agoran day, any player CAN > >once revoke one coin from em. > > > > -- > > Trigon > > > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3836 Assigned to Murphy
This is IRRELEVANT to the game state now and should be so judged On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 8:08 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > The below CFJ is 3836. I assign it to Murphy. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3836 > > === CFJ 3836 === > > The above CFJ statement is about the possibility of a game action > so that its caller is eligible to win by paradox if a judgement of > PARADOXICAL is assigned to it for seven days. > > == > > Caller:R. Lee > > Judge: Murphy > > == > > History: > > Called by R. Lee: 16 May 2020 00:29:54 > Assigned to Murphy: [now] > > == > > Caller's Evidence: > > The "above CFJ statement", which is the statement for CFJ 3835: > (https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3835) > > It is both possible and true that a rule named "A coin award" took > the game action of increasing the number of coins R. Lee owned by 1. > > > Caller's Arguments: > > I will simply link the two CFJs that provide all relevant context for these > two CFJs: > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3828 > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3832 > > These two cases include sufficient arguments and summaries of the facts > involved that you can decide this case. I don't think I need to > provide/rehash any other arguments or evidence to avoid insufficiency. > The only thing I'd like to add is that irrelevant is not an appropriate > judgement on the first CFJ because it is relevant to whether or not I have > a legal obligation. Also the first CFJ is clearly about the possibility of > a game action due to its phrasing that specifically includes those > elements. > > == > > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Pledge Bug
Breaking a pledge is a crime. A pledge has a time window when after that the pledge stops existing. But a pledge exists that says "I will cause cuddlebeam to win agora within 90 days." That pledge is unenforceable because it ceases to exist when its time window expires, but before then it's not possible to say that the pledge has been broken! Any suggestions for fixing this rules loophole? -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Moot Attempt
only one more is needed On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:00 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 5/17/2020 7:50 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > On 5/17/20 1:19 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > >> On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 9:49 PM Rebecca via agora-business > >> wrote: > >>> I intend with 4 support to enter CFJ 3831 into moot > >>> Link: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3831 > >> I support. We don't do this often enough. > >> > >> -Aris > > > > > > I support. > > > > I support. > > -G. > > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: [attn Arbitor] Re: BUS: [Proposal] Elections Aren't Over Till They End
no please don't let me get you down, im always salty, sorry for making you feel like you aren't competent, you are just fine obviously On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:57 PM Reuben Staley via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/17/20 8:29 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > > This is a notice of honour > > +1 karma to aris for making a bug fix type of proposal that made the rule > > SHORTER rather than LONGER > > -1 karma to Trigon for stealing my win, im still salty > > I am no longer interested in judging cases. > > I didn't really want to do it in the first place, but I signed up for it > because we were running out of judges at one point. And then I decided > to continue because I actually felt like I was contributing to Agora. > But I clearly just don't have enough experience with legal > interpretation. I apologize sincerely, R. Lee. Please believe me when I > say that I do think you deserved your win. > > -- > Trigon > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: [attn Arbitor] Re: BUS: [Proposal] Elections Aren't Over Till They End
i just needed someone to subtract karma from, that's all. my use of the notice of honour is not to say that you're a bad agora or judge. On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 4:25 PM Rebecca wrote: > no please don't let me get you down, im always salty, sorry for making you > feel like you aren't competent, you are just fine obviously > > On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 3:57 PM Reuben Staley via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On 5/17/20 8:29 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: >> > This is a notice of honour >> > +1 karma to aris for making a bug fix type of proposal that made the >> rule >> > SHORTER rather than LONGER >> > -1 karma to Trigon for stealing my win, im still salty >> >> I am no longer interested in judging cases. >> >> I didn't really want to do it in the first place, but I signed up for it >> because we were running out of judges at one point. And then I decided >> to continue because I actually felt like I was contributing to Agora. >> But I clearly just don't have enough experience with legal >> interpretation. I apologize sincerely, R. Lee. Please believe me when I >> say that I do think you deserved your win. >> >> -- >> Trigon >> > > > -- > From R. Lee > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Elections Aren't Over Till They End
i do not think that it is punishment to remove karma. it is just a silly mechanic. On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 4:40 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 7:30 PM Rebecca via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > This is a notice of honour > > +1 karma to aris for making a bug fix type of proposal that made the rule > > SHORTER rather than LONGER > > -1 karma to Trigon for stealing my win, im still salty > > > This is ridiculous. You can't punish a judge for giving a perfectly decent > opinion just because you disagreed with it. That's why we have moots. > > -1 karma Aris (being the beneficiary of an unjust karma transfer) > +1 karma Trigon (delivering a perfectly good judgement) > > -Aris > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3828 Assigned to G.
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 6:20 AM Aris Merchant via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 1:28 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 4/25/2020 12:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > >>> === CFJ 3828 > > === > > >>> > > >>> A recent rule named "A coin award" was enacted, increased the > > >>> number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself. > > >>> > > >>> > > > == > > > > I deliver the following judgement for CFJ 3828: > > > > [...] > > > > Therefore, this court finds PARADOXICAL. > > > I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a motion to reconsider. I agree > with the judge's verdict, but Warrigal's objections are sufficiently > significant that they deserve an response on the record. > > -Aris > (to be very clear this wouldn't affect whether I would win or not, it had already had a judgement that was not objected to within 7 days) -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I won the game btw
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:51 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:41 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:26 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion <
>> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:11 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
>> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:16 PM Rebecca via agora-business <
>> > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 2:07 PM Rebecca
>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > I CFJ:
>> > > > > { CFJ 3828, which had the following statement, “A recent rule
>> named
>> > "A
>> > > > > coin award" was enacted, increased
>> > > > > the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.”
>> was
>> > a
>> > > > > "CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game
>> > > > > action” under rule 2553, such that if a judgement of PARADOXICAL
>> was
>> > > > > assigned to it for seven days, the caller of the CFJ would win the
>> > > game}
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I don't think anything is INSUFFICIENT here, so I'm not going to
>> > > provide
>> > > > > much argument/evidence. A good argument was made by G., below. And
>> > the
>> > > > CFJ
>> > > > > statement and rule quote is given here so you don't need to go
>> > looking
>> > > > (I'm
>> > > > > not CFJing whether a judgement of PARADOXICAL was in fact
>> assigned,
>> > so
>> > > no
>> > > > > need to look for that either)
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Sorry, I retract this CFJ and replace it with the following.
>> > > > { CFJ 3828, which had the following statement, “A recent rule
>> named "A
>> > > > coin award" was enacted, increased
>> > > > the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.”
>> was a
>> > > "CFJ
>> > > > about the legality or possibility of a game
>> > > > action” under rule 2553, such that if a judgement of PARADOXICAL was
>> > > > assigned to it for seven days, the caller of the CFJ would be
>> eligible
>> > to
>> > > > win the game by announcement under rule 2553}
>> > > >
>> > > > I adopt G's argument as to this CFJ which I include below (the rest
>> of
>> > > > these words are eirs not mine)
>> > > >
>> > > > The CFJ statement began 'A recent rule named "A coin award" was
>> > > > enacted...' which is a passively voiced action (active voice would
>> have
>> > > > been "Proposal XXX enacted a Rule...") . I think it's come up a
>> couple
>> > > > times recently in CFJs, that mere use of the passive voice doesn't
>> > change
>> > > > the fact that there's an action with an actor?
>> > > >
>> > > > Further, parsing the statement a bit gives 'A recent rule ...
>> increased
>> > > > the number of coins' which is definitely asking whether a rule
>> > succeeded
>> > > > in the action of coin-creation (a Rule creating a coin is
>> definitely an
>> > > > action, right?) So is a past tense "did X do Y?" close enough to
>> "it
>> > was
>> > > > POSSIBLE for X to do Y at the time it is purported to have
>> happened?"
>> > > I'd
>> > > > personally say yes because forcing the statement writing around
>> > > > possibility is a mess compared to the straightforward "did X
>> happen".
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Arguments:
>> > >
>> > > There is no way this is a CFJ about the possibility of a game action.
>> To
>> > > see why let's take a look at G.'s example. If the CFJ was "Rule XXX
>> COULD
>> > > do so and so", the answer would be yes, unless so and so involved
>> messing
>> > > with something secured. The question is whether Rule XXX actually
>> *did*
>> > so
>> > > and so is a completely separate matter. Possibi
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3828 Assigned to G.
Indeterminacy is different to "ambiguity". The indeterminacy here arises from the inability to determine the location of a certain game asset, rather than lack of clarity in the text of the rules of the sort that rule 217 could resolve. On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:18 PM Tanner Swett via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Dead-horse arguments on CFJ 3828: > > Respectfully, I think the Honorable G. has read too much into Rule 2518 > "Determinacy". I think that that rule is merely a definition of the words > "determinate" and "indeterminate" and has no intentional consequences > besides that. In particular, nowhere does Rule 2518 say or imply that if a > value is indeterminate, then we are relieved of any duty to attempt to > determine it. > > Furthermore, Rule 217 "Interpreting the Rules" says that in case of > ambiguity, the text of the rules "is to be" augmented by four factors. The > use of the phrase "is to be" suggests that such augmentation is mandatory; > we are expected not to simply give up on attempting to answer a question > merely because the answer is not clear from reading the rules. > > Of course, Rule 217 is clearly not saying that every player at all times > has a responsibility to attempt to resolve every open question. But surely > a judge *does* have a responsibility to attempt to resolve the question > which e has been called to judge. > > The rules certainly do anticipate that a value may be wholly and thoroughly > impossible to determine; otherwise the judgement of PARADOXICAL would not > exist. But, all the same, I think that before assigning a judgement of > PARADOXICAL, a judge is responsible for explaining why all four of the > factors listed on Rule 217 fail to resolve the indeterminacy. > > In any case, I thank G. for eir judgement. > > —Warrigal > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I won the game btw
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:41 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:26 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:11 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:16 PM Rebecca via agora-business <
> > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 2:07 PM Rebecca
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I CFJ:
> > > > > { CFJ 3828, which had the following statement, “A recent rule named
> > "A
> > > > > coin award" was enacted, increased
> > > > > the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.”
> was
> > a
> > > > > "CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game
> > > > > action” under rule 2553, such that if a judgement of PARADOXICAL
> was
> > > > > assigned to it for seven days, the caller of the CFJ would win the
> > > game}
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think anything is INSUFFICIENT here, so I'm not going to
> > > provide
> > > > > much argument/evidence. A good argument was made by G., below. And
> > the
> > > > CFJ
> > > > > statement and rule quote is given here so you don't need to go
> > looking
> > > > (I'm
> > > > > not CFJing whether a judgement of PARADOXICAL was in fact assigned,
> > so
> > > no
> > > > > need to look for that either)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I retract this CFJ and replace it with the following.
> > > > { CFJ 3828, which had the following statement, “A recent rule named
> "A
> > > > coin award" was enacted, increased
> > > > the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.” was
> a
> > > "CFJ
> > > > about the legality or possibility of a game
> > > > action” under rule 2553, such that if a judgement of PARADOXICAL was
> > > > assigned to it for seven days, the caller of the CFJ would be
> eligible
> > to
> > > > win the game by announcement under rule 2553}
> > > >
> > > > I adopt G's argument as to this CFJ which I include below (the rest
> of
> > > > these words are eirs not mine)
> > > >
> > > > The CFJ statement began 'A recent rule named "A coin award" was
> > > > enacted...' which is a passively voiced action (active voice would
> have
> > > > been "Proposal XXX enacted a Rule...") . I think it's come up a
> couple
> > > > times recently in CFJs, that mere use of the passive voice doesn't
> > change
> > > > the fact that there's an action with an actor?
> > > >
> > > > Further, parsing the statement a bit gives 'A recent rule ...
> increased
> > > > the number of coins' which is definitely asking whether a rule
> > succeeded
> > > > in the action of coin-creation (a Rule creating a coin is definitely
> an
> > > > action, right?) So is a past tense "did X do Y?" close enough to "it
> > was
> > > > POSSIBLE for X to do Y at the time it is purported to have happened?"
> > > I'd
> > > > personally say yes because forcing the statement writing around
> > > > possibility is a mess compared to the straightforward "did X happen".
> > >
> > >
> > > Arguments:
> > >
> > > There is no way this is a CFJ about the possibility of a game action.
> To
> > > see why let's take a look at G.'s example. If the CFJ was "Rule XXX
> COULD
> > > do so and so", the answer would be yes, unless so and so involved
> messing
> > > with something secured. The question is whether Rule XXX actually *did*
> > so
> > > and so is a completely separate matter. Possibility implies a question
> > > about the power of an agent, and the only agent involved unquestionably
> > had
> > > that power. So a CFJ about whether the rule COULD do the action has a
> > > materially different outcome (trivially TRUE) and is thus a different
> > > question. Indeed, the reason the CFJ is PARADOXICAL is that the rule
> > COULD
> > > have done what the CFJ statement said it did, but it's impossible to
> > figure
> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I won the game btw
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:52 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:51 PM Rebecca wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:41 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
>> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 10:26 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion <
>>> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:11 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
>>> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:16 PM Rebecca via agora-business <
>>> > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 2:07 PM Rebecca
>>> > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > I CFJ:
>>> > > > > { CFJ 3828, which had the following statement, “A recent rule
>>> named
>>> > "A
>>> > > > > coin award" was enacted, increased
>>> > > > > the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.”
>>> was
>>> > a
>>> > > > > "CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game
>>> > > > > action” under rule 2553, such that if a judgement of PARADOXICAL
>>> was
>>> > > > > assigned to it for seven days, the caller of the CFJ would win
>>> the
>>> > > game}
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > I don't think anything is INSUFFICIENT here, so I'm not going to
>>> > > provide
>>> > > > > much argument/evidence. A good argument was made by G., below.
>>> And
>>> > the
>>> > > > CFJ
>>> > > > > statement and rule quote is given here so you don't need to go
>>> > looking
>>> > > > (I'm
>>> > > > > not CFJing whether a judgement of PARADOXICAL was in fact
>>> assigned,
>>> > so
>>> > > no
>>> > > > > need to look for that either)
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Sorry, I retract this CFJ and replace it with the following.
>>> > > > { CFJ 3828, which had the following statement, “A recent rule
>>> named "A
>>> > > > coin award" was enacted, increased
>>> > > > the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.”
>>> was a
>>> > > "CFJ
>>> > > > about the legality or possibility of a game
>>> > > > action” under rule 2553, such that if a judgement of PARADOXICAL
>>> was
>>> > > > assigned to it for seven days, the caller of the CFJ would be
>>> eligible
>>> > to
>>> > > > win the game by announcement under rule 2553}
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I adopt G's argument as to this CFJ which I include below (the
>>> rest of
>>> > > > these words are eirs not mine)
>>> > > >
>>> > > > The CFJ statement began 'A recent rule named "A coin award" was
>>> > > > enacted...' which is a passively voiced action (active voice would
>>> have
>>> > > > been "Proposal XXX enacted a Rule...") . I think it's come up a
>>> couple
>>> > > > times recently in CFJs, that mere use of the passive voice doesn't
>>> > change
>>> > > > the fact that there's an action with an actor?
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Further, parsing the statement a bit gives 'A recent rule ...
>>> increased
>>> > > > the number of coins' which is definitely asking whether a rule
>>> > succeeded
>>> > > > in the action of coin-creation (a Rule creating a coin is
>>> definitely an
>>> > > > action, right?) So is a past tense "did X do Y?" close enough to
>>> "it
>>> > was
>>> > > > POSSIBLE for X to do Y at the time it is purported to have
>>> happened?"
>>> > > I'd
>>> > > > personally say yes because forcing the statement writing around
>>> > > > possibility is a mess compared to the straightforward "did X
>>> happen".
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Arguments:
>>> > >
>>> > > Th
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I won the game btw
On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 3:11 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 9:16 PM Rebecca via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 2:07 PM Rebecca wrote:
> >
> > > I CFJ:
> > > { CFJ 3828, which had the following statement, “A recent rule named "A
> > > coin award" was enacted, increased
> > > the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.” was a
> > > "CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game
> > > action” under rule 2553, such that if a judgement of PARADOXICAL was
> > > assigned to it for seven days, the caller of the CFJ would win the
> game}
> > >
> > > I don't think anything is INSUFFICIENT here, so I'm not going to
> provide
> > > much argument/evidence. A good argument was made by G., below. And the
> > CFJ
> > > statement and rule quote is given here so you don't need to go looking
> > (I'm
> > > not CFJing whether a judgement of PARADOXICAL was in fact assigned, so
> no
> > > need to look for that either)
> > >
> >
> >
> > Sorry, I retract this CFJ and replace it with the following.
> > { CFJ 3828, which had the following statement, “A recent rule named "A
> > coin award" was enacted, increased
> > the number of coins R. Lee owns by 1, and then repealed itself.” was a
> "CFJ
> > about the legality or possibility of a game
> > action” under rule 2553, such that if a judgement of PARADOXICAL was
> > assigned to it for seven days, the caller of the CFJ would be eligible to
> > win the game by announcement under rule 2553}
> >
> > I adopt G's argument as to this CFJ which I include below (the rest of
> > these words are eirs not mine)
> >
> > The CFJ statement began 'A recent rule named "A coin award" was
> > enacted...' which is a passively voiced action (active voice would have
> > been "Proposal XXX enacted a Rule...") . I think it's come up a couple
> > times recently in CFJs, that mere use of the passive voice doesn't change
> > the fact that there's an action with an actor?
> >
> > Further, parsing the statement a bit gives 'A recent rule ... increased
> > the number of coins' which is definitely asking whether a rule succeeded
> > in the action of coin-creation (a Rule creating a coin is definitely an
> > action, right?) So is a past tense "did X do Y?" close enough to "it was
> > POSSIBLE for X to do Y at the time it is purported to have happened?"
> I'd
> > personally say yes because forcing the statement writing around
> > possibility is a mess compared to the straightforward "did X happen".
>
>
> Arguments:
>
> There is no way this is a CFJ about the possibility of a game action. To
> see why let's take a look at G.'s example. If the CFJ was "Rule XXX COULD
> do so and so", the answer would be yes, unless so and so involved messing
> with something secured. The question is whether Rule XXX actually *did* so
> and so is a completely separate matter. Possibility implies a question
> about the power of an agent, and the only agent involved unquestionably had
> that power. So a CFJ about whether the rule COULD do the action has a
> materially different outcome (trivially TRUE) and is thus a different
> question. Indeed, the reason the CFJ is PARADOXICAL is that the rule COULD
> have done what the CFJ statement said it did, but it's impossible to figure
> out whether it did that (or did something else instead).
>
> Onto the legality. Here, there's actually some question. It very much
> depends on how you define the term "legality". Whether a rule decided to do
> something is certainly a legal question, and could be called a legality.
> However, I think the term "legality of a game action" probably refers to
> the matter of whether an action is legal or illegal. If this weren't clear
> enough on its own, it is from the canon of noscitur a sociis, given the use
> of the word "possibility" and the fact that possibility and permissibility
> tend to go together.
>
> Bottom line here, whether something could happen and whether it did happen
> are completely different questions. This is particularly relevant in this
> case, where one of the questions results in paradox and the other doesn't.
> The rule could do everything that it might have done; the question of it
> actually did so is irresolvable without paradox. I respectfully opine that
> the court should rule FALSE.
>
> -Aris
>
This is a CFJ about the possibility of a game action. The statement for CFJ
3828 was really three statements. If any were FALSE, the CFJ would be FALSE.
1: A recent rule called "A coin award" was enacted. For it to be enacted,
it needs to have been possible to enact this rule. Although the paradox
does not arise from this proposition, the proposition being present in the
CFJ still makes the CFJ "about" a possibility.
2: [The rule] increased the number of coins R. Lee owned by one. For this
to happen, it needs to have been POSSIBLE for the rule, with the specific
text as enacted, to
Re: DIS: Protos: Two Small Offices
Reporter is awful: it has been abolished TWICE in my time as an official
position because it is useless. It is just very bad.
Webmaster is good though.
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 11:04 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 5/7/20 1:44 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> > First, the Reportor. We've had it before, it gets sporadic usage, and
> then it
> > disappears. I think repealing it is a mistake. There's little-to-no
> legal debt
> > in having such a simple office, and its existence encourages someone to
> take
> > over its responsibility. Sporadic reports are better than none.
> >
> > I plan to submit the following proposal {
>
>
> I like these ideas (and I think we've talked about something similar
> recently, but never actually gotten a proposal written). Two minor things:
>
> - You don't have closing brackets on your proposals, only the rule
> texts; and,
>
> - As written, these proposals would make you the holder of both offices
> because of the last paragraph of R1006.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
>
--
>From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Protos: Coins have Value
lorite On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 6:56 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 5/13/2020 1:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > On 5/13/20 2:04 PM, nch wrote: > >> The equivalent in Agora would be to have several desirable assets and > either > >> 1) restrict who can generate/get each asset without trading or 2) make > >> generating/getting them an investment where players are encouraged to > go deep > >> on one asset and trade for the others. > > > > Who's ready to form Guilds? > > > > Nothing is new... from R1960: > > Each player may have a Role, which is one of the following: > > (a) Politician, > (b) Scribe, > (c) Acolyte. > > A Player may have only one of these roles at a time. If a > Player gains a new role, then e ceases to hold any previous > roles. Initially players do not have any role. > > You could only switch role every 3 months. Each role "generated" one type > of asset, each type of asset had a specific use. Also, some uses of the > assets were role-specific, and there were role-based powers. So you > needed trades/partnerships to do stuff. > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Weekly Nonsense (Report) [attn Promotor]
The notary doesn't recordkeep assets created by contracts anymore, so its
chill. i'll delete those parts of the history section next week.
On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 10:48 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On 5/7/20 3:43 AM, Rebecca via agora-official wrote:
> > History:
> > Mar 01 2020 23:13: Warrigal created
> > Mar 01 2020 23:13: Warrigal purchased 3 shares and became president
> > Mar 03 2020 00:14: Warrigal amended(1) as only party
> > Mar 03 2020 02:11:
> >Warrigal attempted to act on behalf of Gaelan to have em join the
> > contract and buy four shares, but was forbidden by R2519/1
> > Mar 10 2020 01:34:
> >Jason attempted to buy three shares but was not a party to the
> > contract and therefore these actions were ineffective.
> > Mar 21 2020 01:53: Warrigal sold 1 share of DRGN
>
>
> CoE in spirit: the contract never states that shares can only be
> possessed by players or only be sold to players, but this might have
> self-ratified by now.
>
> This never got used, so I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Slaying the dragon
>
> Adoption index: 1.0
>
> Author: Jason
>
> Coauthors:
>
> {
>
> For the purposes of this proposal, the Dragon Corporation is the
> contracted created on or about March 1, 2020 by Warrigal.
>
> For each coin owned by the Dragon Corporation, transfer that coin to the
> Lost and Found Department.
>
> Destroy the Dragon Corporation.
>
> }
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
>
--
>From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Proto: Sets
I mean people commit crimes all the time, it's just that nobody points fingers. I, for example, have blatantly and recklessly broken a pledge of mine recently. On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 4:56 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/13/20 5:54 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 13, 2020 6:42:08 PM CDT you wrote: > >> For blog-b-gones, I'd think we'd want 1, maybe 2 a week? I mean, we only > >> blot people like once a month anyway...? > >> > >> -Aris > > > > Well that's an easy fix. We just need to commit/make-up more Agoran > crimes. > > This was something I was going to point out when I got to my computer, > but someone beat me to it, it looks like. I, for one, would be perfectly > fine with being a lot harsher on crimes. > > -- > Trigon > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3834 judged FALSE
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 10:46 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 5:43 PM Rebecca via agora-official < > agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > CFJ 3834 asks whether or not "In a generic Agoran context, to refer a > > proposal to a chamber is > > to set its chamber switch to that chamber." > > > > This CFJ has a very odd statement. Generic means not specific, separated > > from an individual thing and instead relating to a certain group or > class. > > So a generic Agoran context relates to Agora as a concept, rather than a > > specific action or time period. This poses a problem for answering the > > question that Aris actually meant, which is basically whether or not e > can > > use the referral shorthand without defining it in future reports. I will > > answer the CFJ statement as written rather than attempting to ignore or > > rewrite it. > > > > It's clear to me that there is nothing inherent about "Agoran context" > that > > transmutes the first phrase into the second one. Both phrases would have > > been meaningless in Agoran context until recent changes in the rules. > > Anyway, the standard for making a by-announcement action is ambiguity. We > > can't make a generic or categorical judgement about the ambiguity of any > > specific phrase, but we can judge the ambiguity through context and other > > factors of any action that is actually attempted (or even hypothesized). > > > > I judge this CFJ FALSE. In a generic Agoran context, the first phrase > would > > have its ordinary meaning or none at all. Only specific context and rules > > (which may or may not exist here) could allow the first phrase to > > unambiguously mean the second. > > > > Fair! I'll come up with a more precisely worded CFJ statement when I have a > chance. I thank the honorable judge for eir ruling. > > -Aris > > > > > > In my entirely advisory personal opinion (well CFJs are technically advisory but we tend to treat them as though possessing legal force) "refer" is just fine. I don't even think it is jargon, its meaning is very similar and understandable to new and old players to the action taken. -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3833 Assigned to Jason
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 10:41 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/15/20 7:36 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > I disagree with this bit. Since it's a by-announcement action, it's > > governed by this in R478: > > > >> that person performs that action by unambiguously > >> and clearly specifying the action > > So the "creation" is done by "specifying during the announcement" as a > > single action - the use of the word "specify" in R2350 determines what > > specifications are necessary (or optional) for the creation announcement > > to meet R478's "clear specification" standards. > > > Yep, you're right. Perhaps the condition should really be that each > property specification is phrased a separate speech act, rather than the > creation and specifications being separate? > > -- > Jason Cobb > > I don't believe that's right. I think the condition should be that the mandatory attributes are separate from the optional ones. So: "I create a proposal with the following title and text, and specify the following other attributes" would probably be good enough text for non-atomicity. -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3833 Assigned to Jason
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 10:51 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 5:48 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 10:41 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > On 5/15/20 7:36 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > > I disagree with this bit. Since it's a by-announcement action, it's > > > > governed by this in R478: > > > > > > > >> that person performs that action by unambiguously > > > >> and clearly specifying the action > > > > So the "creation" is done by "specifying during the announcement" as > a > > > > single action - the use of the word "specify" in R2350 determines > what > > > > specifications are necessary (or optional) for the creation > > announcement > > > > to meet R478's "clear specification" standards. > > > > > > > > > Yep, you're right. Perhaps the condition should really be that each > > > property specification is phrased a separate speech act, rather than > the > > > creation and specifications being separate? > > > > > > -- > > > Jason Cobb > > > > > > I don't believe that's right. I think the condition should be that the > > mandatory attributes are separate from the optional ones. So: "I create a > > proposal with the following title and text, and specify the following > other > > attributes" would probably be good enough text for non-atomicity. > > > I think the "and" implies that the two actions are linked. It would be > useful, however, to know how strong a linkage different forms (participles > vs conjunctions, "and" vs "and then", etc) create. > > -Aris > > -Aris > > > > > > I think all of this discussion is advisory because this CFJ deals with a more clearly atomic action and the finer points of ambiguity (in ways that nobody would ever actually create a proposal) can be safely left for another day. -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: more paradox CFJs
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 1:06 PM Edward Murphy via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > R. Lee wrote: > > > On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 10:39 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 5:38 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > >> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> > >>> On 5/15/20 8:29 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > I call for judgement on this statement: It is both possible and true > >>> that a > rule named "A coin award" took the game action of increasing the > number > >>> of > coins R. Lee owned by 1. > I call for judgement: The above CFJ statement is about the possibility > >>> of a > game action so that its caller is eligible to win by paradox if a > >>> judgement > of PARADOXICAL is assigned to it for seven days. > >>> > >>> > >>> Alright, because this is an explicit win attempt, I feel obligated to > >>> attempt to poke some holes in it: > >>> > >>> 1. There no longer exists a rule named "A coin award", so perhaps FALSE > >>> on that grounds. > >>> > >>> 2. Even if the statement is PARADOXICAL, you can still get IRRELEVANT. > >>> You may have manufactured relevance to the gamestate, but there are > >>> three conditions for IRRELEVANT in R591, and meeting any of them gets > >>> you an IRRELEVANT judgement: > >>> > >>> - not relevant to the game; with your pledge, this condition is not met > >>> because of your pledge > >>> > >>> - overly hypothetical extrapolation of the game; not met, not a > >>> hypothetical > >>> > >>> - trivially determinable from the outcome of another case; this > >>> condition is met, it is trivially determinable from CFJ 3828, earning > >>> you an IRRELEVANT judgement > >>> > >> > >> That last point should thwart the attempt. > >> > >> -Aris > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > You can't have both point two and point one, Jason! Dispensing with point > > one is not trivial, and therefore it is not trivial that this CFJ is > > PARADOXICAL (thus making it IRRELEVANT) if this CFJ could actually be > FALSE > > due to point one. > > It took me a while to work out that you were referring to Jason's > outer numbers, rather than the first two of the three conditions for > IRRELEVANT. > > I suppose the intent of point one is a King of England fallacy, i.e. > even if there /was/ a rule named "A coin award", there isn't one any > more, and thus the CFJ tries to refer to a nonexistent thing? FWIW, I > would interpret that the explicit past tense of "took" makes it > reasonably clear that "a rule named 'A coin award'" is also attempting > to refer to the past, thus avoids any such problems. (I suspect that > some past CFJs have been accepted on similar grounds, even if the judge > hadn't consciously considered the alternative.) > > > Besides, this CFJ omits two elements (of enactment and repeal) that were > > decided in the previous CFJ, making it a different statement entirely. If > > the paradox arose from one of those elements, there would be no paradox > in > > this CFJ. > > Ah, because the previous statements were along the lines of "X was > enacted, did Y and was then repealed", and the judgement didn't make it > clear that "did Y" is where its paradox came from? (I suspect that it > did in fact make that clear, I'd have to go back and check though.) > I think all your arguments are correct (they have to be for me to win). That doesn't make them trivially correct, though. -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: more paradox CFJs
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 10:39 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 5:38 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 5/15/20 8:29 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > > > I call for judgement on this statement: It is both possible and true > > that a > > > rule named "A coin award" took the game action of increasing the number > > of > > > coins R. Lee owned by 1. > > > I call for judgement: The above CFJ statement is about the possibility > > of a > > > game action so that its caller is eligible to win by paradox if a > > judgement > > > of PARADOXICAL is assigned to it for seven days. > > > > > > Alright, because this is an explicit win attempt, I feel obligated to > > attempt to poke some holes in it: > > > > 1. There no longer exists a rule named "A coin award", so perhaps FALSE > > on that grounds. > > > > 2. Even if the statement is PARADOXICAL, you can still get IRRELEVANT. > > You may have manufactured relevance to the gamestate, but there are > > three conditions for IRRELEVANT in R591, and meeting any of them gets > > you an IRRELEVANT judgement: > > > > - not relevant to the game; with your pledge, this condition is not met > > because of your pledge > > > > - overly hypothetical extrapolation of the game; not met, not a > > hypothetical > > > > - trivially determinable from the outcome of another case; this > > condition is met, it is trivially determinable from CFJ 3828, earning > > you an IRRELEVANT judgement > > > > That last point should thwart the attempt. > > -Aris > > > > > > > > You can't have both point two and point one, Jason! Dispensing with point one is not trivial, and therefore it is not trivial that this CFJ is PARADOXICAL (thus making it IRRELEVANT) if this CFJ could actually be FALSE due to point one. Besides, this CFJ omits two elements (of enactment and repeal) that were decided in the previous CFJ, making it a different statement entirely. If the paradox arose from one of those elements, there would be no paradox in this CFJ. -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Ministerial Referrals
This seems to me like the most important consideration in accepting jargon, really. Whether it's close enough to what it means such that it's easily accepted/nearly unambiguous On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 5:13 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 5/15/2020 10:13 AM, James Cook wrote: > > On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 19:40, Aris Merchant wrote: > >> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:18 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > >>> > >>> Definition: To refer a proposal to a chamber is to set its chamber > >>> switch to that chamber. > >> > >> > >> I CFJ "In a generic Agoran context, to refer a proposal to a chamber > >> is to set its chamber switch to that chamber." > >> > >> Arguments: > >> > >> I've been putting "Definition: To refer a proposal to a chamber is to > >> set its chamber switch to that chamber." at the top of my referral > >> messages since February. My hope is that people have seen it enough by > >> now that the average Agoran knows what it means without needing to see > >> the definition. > >> > >> -Aris > > > > I think it would be good to keep repeating the definition. Otherwise, > > even if current players now understand it, as new players join I don't > > see how they're supposed to figure it out except by guessing. With > > some Agoran jargon, guessing might be enough, but for a word that only > > appears once a week and only in one context, I don't think that gives > > enough information for people to be really confident in their guess > > about what it means. > > > > - Falsifian > > > > Well e's not using a random strange word like Quang, either. To "refer" a > proposal to chamber" seems similar enough to me (in common usage terms of > refer) to "set the chamber of a proposal" in R2607 (and there's not really > any other possible rules-interpretations), such that anyone who takes the > time to learn what a "chamber" is would likely figure it out... > > -G. > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Ministerial Referrals
On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 11:05 AM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/15/20 1:12 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > > On 5/15/2020 10:13 AM, James Cook wrote: > >> On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 19:40, Aris Merchant wrote: > >>> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:18 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > > Definition: To refer a proposal to a chamber is to set its chamber > switch to that chamber. > >>> > >>> > >>> I CFJ "In a generic Agoran context, to refer a proposal to a chamber > >>> is to set its chamber switch to that chamber." > >>> > >>> Arguments: > >>> > >>> I've been putting "Definition: To refer a proposal to a chamber is to > >>> set its chamber switch to that chamber." at the top of my referral > >>> messages since February. My hope is that people have seen it enough by > >>> now that the average Agoran knows what it means without needing to see > >>> the definition. > >>> > >>> -Aris > >> > >> I think it would be good to keep repeating the definition. Otherwise, > >> even if current players now understand it, as new players join I don't > >> see how they're supposed to figure it out except by guessing. With > >> some Agoran jargon, guessing might be enough, but for a word that only > >> appears once a week and only in one context, I don't think that gives > >> enough information for people to be really confident in their guess > >> about what it means. > >> > >> - Falsifian > >> > > > > Well e's not using a random strange word like Quang, either. To "refer" > a > > proposal to chamber" seems similar enough to me (in common usage terms of > > refer) to "set the chamber of a proposal" in R2607 (and there's not > really > > any other possible rules-interpretations), such that anyone who takes the > > time to learn what a "chamber" is would likely figure it out... > > > > -G. > > If we're allowed to use the words "earn", "award" and "qualify", whose > meanings cannot be reasonably assumed, at least not in their full scope > (i.e. you qualify for ribbons for seven days after you earn them, > earning and awarding oneself are related but different despite seeming > similar, and even more intricacies), then we are certainly allowed to > use "refer" > > -- > Trigon > Well those terms appear in the rules -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Moot Attempt
Alright, this sure isn't happening then. Well, thanks all for the cautionary tale on why the moot process doesn't work! On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 9:19 AM James Cook wrote: > On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 04:49, Rebecca via agora-business > wrote: > > I intend with 4 support to enter CFJ 3831 into moot > > Link: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3831 > > > > -- > > From R. Lee > > I think we need 5 support now. The last judgement on CFJ 3831 was > assigned just over 3 weeks ago on April 26. > > I intend with 5 support to enter that judgement of CFJ 3831 into moot. > I intend with 6 support to enter that judgement of CFJ 3831 into moot. > > In case my math is off, I support R. Lee's intent quoted above. > > - Falsifian > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Moot Attempt
the original intents sent were not to the public forum LOOOL On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 8:45 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote: > > > > On May 18, 2020, at 21:20, Rebecca via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:15 AM Aris Merchant via agora-business < > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > >>> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 4:20 PM James Cook via agora-discussion > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Sun, 17 May 2020 at 04:49, Rebecca via agora-business > >>> wrote: > I intend with 4 support to enter CFJ 3831 into moot > Link: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3831 > > -- > From R. Lee > >>> > >>> I think we need 5 support now. The last judgement on CFJ 3831 was > >>> assigned just over 3 weeks ago on April 26. > >>> > >>> I intend with 5 support to enter that judgement of CFJ 3831 into moot. > >>> I intend with 6 support to enter that judgement of CFJ 3831 into moot. > >> > >> I support each intent. > >> > >> -Aris > >> > > > > Well, as do i > > -- > > From R. Lee > > As do I. -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Ministerial Referrals
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 5:21 AM Aris Merchant via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:18 PM Aris Merchant via agora-official > wrote: > > > > Definition: To refer a proposal to a chamber is to set its chamber > > switch to that chamber. > > > > [Where a proposal affects multiple ministries, I'm referring it so as > > to even out the number of proposals each ministry receives.] > > > > The Promotor hereby refers each proposal below as follows: > > > > The proposal "Burden + Accurate Naming" is referred to the Ministry of > Justice. > > > > The proposal "Bug Fixing IAR Writ" is referred to the Ministry of > Efficiency. > > > > The proposal "Expand wins by paradox" is referred to the Ministry of > > Participation. > > > > The proposal "You Tried" is referred to the Ministry of Participation. > > > > The proposal "The Webmastor" is referred to the Ministry of Efficiency. > > > > The proposal "Agora plays table tennis" is referred to the Ministry of > > Participation. > > > > The proposal "Bones of Criminals" is referred to the Ministry of Justice. > > > > The proposal "Slaying the dragon" is referred to the Ministry of Economy. > > > > The proposal "Defense Against the Dark Arts" is referred to the > > Ministry of Legislation. > > [Whoops, missed one.] > > The proposal "Justice for R. Lee" is referred to the Ministry of > Participation. > Oh hey, I get 2 extra voting strength on economic proposals, neat! -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Ministerial Referrals
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 6:36 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 5/14/2020 12:44 PM, nch wrote: > > On Thursday, May 14, 2020 2:39:04 PM CDT Aris Merchant wrote: > >> On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:18 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > >>> Definition: To refer a proposal to a chamber is to set its chamber > >>> switch to that chamber. > >> > >> I CFJ "In a generic Agoran context, to refer a proposal to a chamber > >> is to set its chamber switch to that chamber." > >> > >> Arguments: > >> > >> I've been putting "Definition: To refer a proposal to a chamber is to > >> set its chamber switch to that chamber." at the top of my referral > >> messages since February. My hope is that people have seen it enough by > >> now that the average Agoran knows what it means without needing to see > >> the definition. > >> > >> -Aris > > > > I think this instance is probably fine but I have some concern about > building > > up jargon that isn't codified somehow. Could easily be a rule addition > to define > > it. > > > > I tried to lay out a 3-part test for accepting jargon in CFJ 3663 (one of > the ones missing from the database): > > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-September/039201.html > > A quick re-read of that judgement and I'd guess "refer" has as strong a > case as any for being acceptable (but I'll assign it to a different judge > than me, I'm curious how 3663 holds up to additional scrutiny...) > > -G. > > I'm not able to log into that list (I don't remember my password and every time I try to reset my password, it simply doesn't work). If it's not too much trouble, could you link that judgement in another form when you distribute this CFJ (at least if you give it to me) -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Contract to win the game by circuitous means
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:26 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/7/20 3:32 AM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > > I create a contract with the following text > > > > "Any player may become a party to this contract. Any party to this > > contract may act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin away from R. > Lee > > to emselves. The previous sentence is void and has no effect if a rule > > titled "A coin award" was enacted and awarded R. Lee one coin after its > > enactment, and then repealed itself. For the avoidance of ambiguity, the > > current position of the said coin does not matter for the purposes of > this > > contract." > > > By the way, any party to this contract can transfer away all of your > coins, so you might want to destroy it. > > -- > Jason Cobb > > Well, it's indeterminate whether they can or not. -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Contract to win the game by circuitous means
Too late, I already just destroyed i t before you showed up (also ntttpf i think) On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:34 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business wrote: > Well, let's test this. I become a party to the contract. For each coin > currently in R. Lee's possession (I believe 30, but there isn't an > up-to-date Treasuror's report), I transfer it to myself, then for each > coin, if the previous action has succeeded, I transfer it to G. > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 9:26 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 5/7/20 3:32 AM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > > > I create a contract with the following text > > > > > > "Any player may become a party to this contract. Any party to this > > > contract may act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin away from R. > > Lee > > > to emselves. The previous sentence is void and has no effect if a rule > > > titled "A coin award" was enacted and awarded R. Lee one coin after its > > > enactment, and then repealed itself. For the avoidance of ambiguity, > the > > > current position of the said coin does not matter for the purposes of > > this > > > contract." > > > > > > By the way, any party to this contract can transfer away all of your > > coins, so you might want to destroy it. > > > > -- > > Jason Cobb > > > > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contract to win the game by circuitous means
By the way I hope everyone knows I will call all future CFJs with magic about how it is possible to do something just in case of indeterminacy On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:32 PM Rebecca wrote: > Oh yes, that in 2166 will do it. Fine, I retract my two most recent CFJs > and destroy my most recent contract. I could just re-CFJ the original CFJ > with slightly different magic words phrasing but that would risk > IRRELEVANCE (for duplication and no change in current game state). h > > On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:28 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On 5/7/2020 12:28 AM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: >> > I create a contract with the following text >> > >> > "Any player may become a party to this contract. Any party to this >> > contract may act on behalf of R. Lee to trasnfer one coin away from em >> to >> > emselves. The previous sentence is void and has no effect if a rule >> titled >> > "A coin award" was enacted and awarded R. Lee one coin after its >> enactment, >> > and then repealed itself. For the avoidance of ambiguity, the current >> > position of the said coin does not matter for the purposes of this >> > contract." >> >> Gratuitous: >> >> You can't do this with a contract, in the way you can't make a paradox by >> conditional announcement (e.g. "If this statement is false, I transfer a >> coin"). >> >> I'll find the precedent before I assign the case, but in R2166 this part: >> "An asset's backing document can generally specify when and how that asset >> is created, destroyed, and transferred." uses "specify" which does not >> allow for indeterminate conditionals - those are unclear and fail. >> >> The sole reason it worked in the previous version is the "text of the >> rules has precedence" concept. (I had some text about this in CFJ 3828 to >> explain why doing it by-rule would lead to paradox but doing it >> by-proposal, without a rule, would outright fail, but it seemed like a >> digression and I cut it). >> >> So if it's in a rule, paradoxical conditionals are still "resolved" as >> indeterminate because those texts have special status. But contracts, >> like announcements, don't, so they fail if they don't clearly specify >> (without ambiguity OR indeterminacy). >> >> This is why you have to be more careful of voting for rules texts than >> when creating other types of backing documents. >> >> >> > > -- > From R. Lee > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Contract to win the game by circuitous means
It wouldn't have worked, the sentence purporting to void transfers in an indeterminate way would have still made it unspecified. On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:36 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 5/7/2020 6:30 AM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:26 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > >> On 5/7/20 3:32 AM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > >>> I create a contract with the following text > >>> > >>> "Any player may become a party to this contract. Any party to this > >>> contract may act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin away from R. > >> Lee > >>> to emselves. The previous sentence is void and has no effect if a rule > >>> titled "A coin award" was enacted and awarded R. Lee one coin after its > >>> enactment, and then repealed itself. For the avoidance of ambiguity, > the > >>> current position of the said coin does not matter for the purposes of > >> this > >>> contract." > >> > >> > >> By the way, any party to this contract can transfer away all of your > >> coins, so you might want to destroy it. > >> > >> -- > >> Jason Cobb > >> > >> Well, it's indeterminate whether they can or not. > > > > Well sure let's test because the conditional that voids the transfer would > fail, but there's no conditional allowing the transfer: > > I become a party to the above contract. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > I act on behalf of R. Lee to transfer one coin to myself. > > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Contract to win the game by circuitous means
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:12 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 5/7/20 3:32 AM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > > I call the following CFJ (I bar trigon) > > "It is a possible game action for a player to use the contract contained > in > > this message to act on R. Lee's behalf to transfer a coin". > > I also call the following (unofficially linked) CFJ barring trigon. > > "If the statement in the first CFJ contained in this message is judged > > PARADOXICAL, and that judgement stands for seven days, R. Lee may win the > > game by announcement" > > > Gratuitous: > > R. Lee emself admits that the first CFJ is basically identical to CFJ > 3828. I believe this means it is IRRELEVANT because the case "can be > trivially determined from the outcome of another [...] judicial case > that was not itself judged IRRELEVANT". > > -- > Jason Cobb > > Not trivial (trivial is an extremely low amount of effort). Perhaps there is some other defect with the contract, who knows? -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Protos: Two Small Offices
On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 12:40 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 5/8/2020 6:16 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:10 AM Rebecca wrote: > > > >> Reporter is awful: it has been abolished TWICE in my time as an official > >> position because it is useless. It is just very bad. > > > > Could you elaborate on this? nch seems to be proposing a new paradigm for > > these offices that wouldn't expect them to always be filled. This is in > > line with previous discussions that proposed similar things. I think that > > your response without further explanation is very rude and > inappropriately > > dismissive of eir ideas, particularly after we've put up with your recent > > sloppy win attempt. > > > > Having seen Reportor come and go so many times I agree with R. Lee, the > issue for me is that it's really a bit of creative writing on game > summaries. Which is good and definitely adds to the game when it happens, > but doesn't really fit with a held-office weekly-report model. The most > successful runs have been those who did it voluntarily when it wasn't an > office, and didn't worry about skipping a few weeks, didn't worry about > tracking the office, etc. > > It might be worth experimenting with "tasking" type of responsibility for > this one without calling it an office e.g. some version of "If no player > has published the Newspaper in the current week, any player CAN do so." > > -G. > > > I have never once got any value out of any form of the newspapers (well except the ones I intentionally published with no text to get paid lol), mainly because it's actually a lot easier to catch up on the game by reading emails than by reading someone's incomplete summary of those emails. -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Protos: Two Small Offices
On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 2:01 AM Rebecca wrote: > r > > On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 12:40 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> >> On 5/8/2020 6:16 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> > On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:10 AM Rebecca wrote: >> > >> >> Reporter is awful: it has been abolished TWICE in my time as an >> official >> >> position because it is useless. It is just very bad. >> > >> > Could you elaborate on this? nch seems to be proposing a new paradigm >> for >> > these offices that wouldn't expect them to always be filled. This is in >> > line with previous discussions that proposed similar things. I think >> that >> > your response without further explanation is very rude and >> inappropriately >> > dismissive of eir ideas, particularly after we've put up with your >> recent >> > sloppy win attempt. >> > >> >> Having seen Reportor come and go so many times I agree with R. Lee, the >> issue for me is that it's really a bit of creative writing on game >> summaries. Which is good and definitely adds to the game when it happens, >> but doesn't really fit with a held-office weekly-report model. The most >> successful runs have been those who did it voluntarily when it wasn't an >> office, and didn't worry about skipping a few weeks, didn't worry about >> tracking the office, etc. >> >> It might be worth experimenting with "tasking" type of responsibility for >> this one without calling it an office e.g. some version of "If no player >> has published the Newspaper in the current week, any player CAN do so." >> >> -G. >> >> >> I have never once got any value out of any form of the newspapers (well > except the ones I intentionally published with no text to get paid lol), > mainly because it's actually a lot easier to catch up on the game by > reading emails than by reading someone's incomplete summary of those emails. > > -- > From R. Lee > I suppose it wouldn't be all that bad to have a sentence in the rules like "A player CAN publish a newspaper weekly. Any player can award the writer of a newspaper 10 coins with agoran consent" (the agoran consent is for minimum quality standards) The problem with economic rewards of that sort, of course, is that the economy has NO VALUE WHATSOEVER right now. the time i had the most fun in this game and it was most active was the broken boom/bust economy when everyone was filing 40 proposals a week because it only cost one coin some weeks (after the boom). There's much less engagement when it costs zero coins! -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8349-8356
you should vote on behalf of em to vote as I voted, so I get a vote On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 11:04 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > More positivity: On behalf of o, I vote FOR every decision to adopt a > proposal that is currently in its voting period. > > On 3/16/2020 10:59 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Some Positivity: I vote FOR every decision to adopt a proposal that is > > currently in its voting period. -G. > > > > On 3/9/2020 8:15 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: > >> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran > >> Decision of whether to adopt it... > > > > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: One last one for tonight.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:36 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 3/16/2020 10:01 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 3:43 PM Alexis Hunt wrote: > >> On Mon., Mar. 16, 2020, 13:01 Alexis Hunt wrote: > >>> On Mon., Mar. 16, 2020, 12:46 Alexis Hunt, wrote: > On Mon., Mar. 16, 2020, 07:06 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > > I like the general idea, but I have a couple questions: > > > > 1. In "any player CAN cause this rule to repeal all Emergency > > Regulations and then itself." Why do we want the rule to repeal > > itself? > > Because I wrote it in a hurry and didn't intend it as a general > emergency rule. More of a short-term subgame. > >>> > >>> To clarify, the extension of deadlines is about the only thing I think > we > >>> really need in an emergency. And while in the past Agora's had that > >>> during > >>> the holiday season, we seem fine with the existing "only obligations > are > >>> excused". So I didn't want to try to write in a general mechanism just > to > >>> have all the effort repealed in 6 months. > >>> > >>> -Alexis > >>> > >> > >> My wife jokingly suggested that we have a zombie insurrection, not > knowing > >> that all our zombies have been lying around not auctioned off due to a > >> rules bug. > >> > > when is that getting fixed > > > > When proposal 8352 takes effect - hopefully. > > Also sorry - I didn't see your note about endorsing your votes until just > now and voting period closed a few hours ago. > > -G. > > that's okay, what i really want is for proposals like "CFJ setup" to not pass, but it looks like it would have passed anyway -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: One last one for tonight.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 3:43 PM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon., Mar. 16, 2020, 13:01 Alexis Hunt, wrote: > > > On Mon., Mar. 16, 2020, 12:46 Alexis Hunt, wrote: > > > >> On Mon., Mar. 16, 2020, 07:06 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > >> agora-discussion, wrote: > >> > >>> I like the general idea, but I have a couple questions: > >>> > >>> 1. In "any player CAN cause this rule to repeal all Emergency > >>> Regulations and then itself." Why do we want the rule to repeal > >>> itself? > >>> > >> > >> Because I wrote it in a hurry and didn't intend it as a general > emergency > >> rule. More of a short-term subgame. > >> > > > > To clarify, the extension of deadlines is about the only thing I think we > > really need in an emergency. And while in the past Agora's had that > during > > the holiday season, we seem fine with the existing "only obligations are > > excused". So I didn't want to try to write in a general mechanism just to > > have all the effort repealed in 6 months. > > > > -Alexis > > > > My wife jokingly suggested that we have a zombie insurrection, not knowing > that all our zombies have been lying around not auctioned off due to a > rules bug. > > > > when is that getting fixed -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honor: ATTN Arbitor, Assessor
I've voted in the ongoing votes on proposals only (starting with "CFJ setup") which i am now not eligible to vote on because I became a player after the voting period started On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 3:53 AM Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Except for the last one in which e doesn't appear to have voted. > > On Mon., Mar. 16, 2020, 09:03 Jason Cobb via agora-business, < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 3/16/20 8:52 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > > On 3/16/20 12:56 AM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > > >> -1 Falsifian for self ratifying that I am not a player, three times. > > >> +1 Aris because hes epic > > >> > > >> The CFJ I judged was never judged, G has to reassign that > > >> None of my votes count > > >> > > > Grr... couldn't we just ratify without objection that you were in fact > a > > > player? You clearly consented to being one. > > > > > > > Also, most(?) resolutions would have self-ratified by now, so they > > should be fine. > > > > -- > > Jason Cobb > > > > > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: hi
hi On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 1:27 PM nch via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Tuesday, May 19, 2020 10:24:36 PM CDT grok \(caleb vines\) via agora- > business wrote: > > I register > > > > > > -grok > > I cause grok to receive one welcome package. > > -- > nch > > > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Sets Feedback
The faithful option is the better one in this case. Half-baked mechanics often seem to lose interest immediately, preventing them from ever being amended into fully baked mechanics. On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 12:23 AM nch via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I know I said I didn't want to get bogged down in design choice debates > but > since the auction portion has to be rewritten (and it looks like the > rewrite > might be more complex than I thought), I wanted to get some feedback. > > As far as I see it, there's two main options right now: > > 1) Rewrite the auction [the faithful option] > > 2) Remove it, leaving no way to get victory cards until a new proposal is > passed [the easier option] > > I do have ideas for alternatives, but I'd rather not switch to one in the > middle of trying to get this passed. Thoughts? > > -- > nch > > > > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Sets v1.3
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 10:42 AM nch via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Ok, here's 1.3.
>
> I cut out auctions completely because there are two proposals right now to
> fix
> them and I'd rather that dust settled first. I have a separate proposal,
> based
> on Trigon's transmutation idea, coming later tonight. That both adds a way
> to
> get Victory Points and helps us balance any card types that might end up
> scarce.
>
> I also reworked pending, based on G's comments. Now proposals go straight
> into
> the pool like they always did. There's a separate rule that adds a Pend
> switch
> for them, and distribution requires proposals to have Pend=True. The net
> effect
> is less direct changes to important rules, and honestly a more intuitive
> system.
>
> The other changes are mostly tiny. As before you can see the difference
> between
> this and 1.2 on github (
> https://github.com/nichdel/AgoranProposal/compare/
> ce8b1458178fa420b0b94564791288aac6889fdb...c6d7f79ce39a88d97e491f62204e3ee2e6ac649c
>
> )
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {
>
> Title: Sets v1.3
> Author: nch
> Co-Authors: Trigon, Falsifian, PSS, Jason, Aris, G.,
> AI: 3
>
> Enact a new Power=1 rule titled "Cards & Sets" with the text:
>
> Cards are a type of currency with a corresponding Product. Products
> are
> also currencies. The types of Cards and their corresponding Products
> are:
>
> * Victory Cards and Victory Points.
>
> * Justice Cards and Blot-B-Gones
>
> * Legislative Cards and Pendants
>
> * Voting Cards and Extra Votes
>
> A player CAN pay a 'set' of X Cards of the same type to earn Y
> corresponding Products. The value of X determines the value of Y in
> the
> following ways:
>
> * 1 Card = 1 Product
>
> * 2 Cards = 3 Products
>
> * 3 Cards = 6 Products
>
> * 4 Cards = 10 Products
>
> A player CANNOT pay more than 4 Cards as one 'set'.
>
> Cards and Products are tracked by the Treasuror.
>
> For each player that is not a zombie, grant em 1 card of each type.
>
> [The core of this proposal. Collect cards to make the other assets.]
>
> Amend rule 2499 "Welcome Packages" by replacing:
>
> When a player receives a Welcome Package, e earns 10 coins.
>
> with:
>
> When a player receives a Welcome Package, e earns 10 coins and one of
> each type of Card defined in the rules.
>
> [Simple Welcome package addition]
>
> Amend rule 2483 "Economics" by removing the following line:
>
> A player CAN win the game by paying a fee of 1,000 Coins.
>
> [Ultimately counter to an economy where we want constant trading and asset
> movement.]
>
> Enact a new Power=1 rule titled "VP Wins" with the following text:
>
> If a player has at least 20 more Victory Points than any other
> player, e
> CAN win by announcement. When a player wins this way, all Cards and
> all
> Products are destroyed. Then each non-zombie player is granted 1
> card of
> each type.
>
> [Exactly what it says on the tin.]
>
> Amend rule 2555 "Blots" by replacing the following paragraph:
>
> If a person (the penitent) has neither gained blots nor had more
> than 2 blots expunged from emself in the current Agoran week, then
> any player (the confessor) who has not, by this mechanism,
> expunged any blots in the current Agoran week CAN expunge 1 blot
> from the penitent, by announcement.
>
> with:
>
> Any player CAN expunge a blot from a specified person (or emself if
> no
> one is specified) by paying a fee of one Blot-B-Gone.
>
> [Pretty straightforward, now you need to use Blot-B-Gones to get rid of
> Blots
> (except for the fugitive decay, I left that in).]
>
> Amend rule 2350 "Proposals" by replacing:
>
> Creating a proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool. Once a proposal
> is created, neither its text nor any of the aforementioned
> attributes can be changed. The author (syn. proposer) of a
> proposal is the person who submitted it.
>
> with:
>
> Creating a proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool. Once a proposal
> is created, neither its text nor any of the aforementioned
> attributes can be changed except as described in the rules. The
> author
> (syn. proposer) of a proposal is the person who submitted it.
>
> [I moved all the pending stuff out of here, but still modified the language
> to allow the co-author mechanic.]
>
> Create a new Power=1 rule titled "Pending Proposals" with the following
> text:
>
> Pended is a proposal switch tracked by the Promotor with possible
> values
> True or False and default value False. Any player CAN pay 1 Pendant
> to
> flip the Pended switch of a specified proposal to True. If the
> player did
> not create the proposal and is not listed in the list of co-authors
> of
> the proposal, e is added to the list of co-authors.
>
> The Promotor CAN, once a
DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Weekyl report
Reminder to self for next week: mastwg and zombeam expire, there are intents to destroy mastwg, Avoiding IRRELEVANCE, and R. Lee keeps top-posting On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 12:59 PM Rebecca via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > This is the notary's weekly report. All times are in UTC (I hope). I also > note that there was a pledge not to create any proposals that briefly > existed (it was made by nch), but that pledge's time window helpfully > expired at the most recent proposal distribution. > === CONTRACT === > |履✨Chattelbeam✨履 rev. 2| > |PARTIES: Cuddlebeam, twg | > > This contract only has up to two parties, one of the which is the > Superzombie and the other is the Supermaster. > > A Player can become the Supermaster by announcement unless a Player > already currently is the Supermaster. > > A Supermaster is either Active or Inactive, and they default to being > Inactive. > > Cuddlebeam is a party to this contract, and is the Superzombie. > > An Active Supermaster can act on behalf of the Superzombie to perform > any action on their behalf except for the following: > >- enter a contract, pledge, or other type of agreement; >- initiate a Call for Judgement; >- grant consent; >- deregister. > > If a Supermaster has been Inactive for more than 7 days, that > Supermaster ceases to be a party of this contract. > > A Supermaster becomes Active (and ceases to be Inactive) by Pledging > the following: > "I Pledge to cause Cuddlebeam to Win Agora. The "N" of this Pledge, > for the purpose of its Class N Crime of Oathbreaking, is a > googolplex, and its time window is 90 days.". > > A Supermaster that has been Active for more than 90 days ceases to be a > party of this contract. > > While there is an Active Supermaster, Cuddlebeam cannot perform actions > unless someone acts on their behalf to perform them. > > Notes: > twg is the Supermaster, and is Active. E will cease to be a party to > the contract on May 29, 2020 at 21:33 UTC. > > History: > Feb 29 2020 18:15: Cuddlebeam created > Feb 29 2020 18:26: twg joined > Feb 29 2020 19:29: Cuddlebeam amended(1) by mutual consent > Feb 29 2020 21:33: twg became Active > Mar 01 2020 13:20: twg amended(2) by mutual (implied) consent > > > === CONTRACT === > |The Dragon Corporation rev. 2| > |PARTIES: Warrigal | > > ## Bylaw 1: Definition > > This contract is named "the Dragon Corporation". The purpose of the > Dragon Corporation is to earn as much money as possible for its > shareholders. > > All other provisions of this contract notwithstanding, this contract > does not permit any entity to act on behalf of any other entity. > > Shares of Dragon stock (also known as "shares of DRGN", or, in this > contract, "shares") are a currency whose purpose is to represent > ownership of the Dragon Corporation. An entity which owns at least one > share is known as a shareholder. > > If, at any time, the Dragon Corporation or the Lost and Found Department > owns any shares, then those shares are destroyed. > > Any person CAN, by announcement, become a party to this contract or > cease to be a party to this contract. A shareholder who is a party to > this contract is known as a member. > > Wherever this contract states that an entity becomes a party to this > contract or ceases to be a party to this contract, all parties to this > contract are considered to consent to this change. > > ## Bylaw 2: Proposals > > Any member CAN, by announcement, submit a Corporate Proposal. A > Corporate Proposal must have exactly one of the types defined by this > contract. Thereafter, any member CAN vote FOR or AGAINST that proposal > by announcement, or retract such a vote, which causes the vote to become > null and void. Whenever a member votes, all of eir previous votes on the > same proposal are implicitly retracted. > > If a Corporate Proposal was submitted more than 4 but fewer than 21 days > ago, and the proposal has approval (as defined in other bylaws), and the > proposal has not been applied, then any member may, by announcement, > apply the proposal, which has effects as defined in other bylaws. > > Members SHALL NOT submit, vote for, or apply proposals that are > egregiously unfair to other shareholders (such as a proposal which takes > or revokes shares from minority shareholders without just
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: TWG fingered
On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 7:31 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 10:58 PM Rebecca via agora-business > wrote: > > > > Oh cool (although I cant log into or see anything in that archive, I > trust > > you) > > > > In that case I point my finger at myself for Faking (saying that e > didn't > > cause CB to win the game when e did) > > I also point my finger at Trigon for violating the pledge " Trigon is a > > show-off " > > Were you aware that the statement was false and intend to mislead us > when making it? > no -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Back-Awarding of Silver Quills
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:34 AM Rebecca wrote: > > > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:27 AM James Cook via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 16:14, Rebecca via agora-discussion >> wrote: >> > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:11 AM Alex Smith via agora-discussion < >> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> > >> > > > On Thursday, 28 May 2020, 17:03:57 GMT+1, James Cook via >> > > agora-discussion wrote: >> > > > > In fact, it may be a good idea to have two separate tiers of >> crimes >> > > anyway: >> > > > > small infractions that earn you some blots, and serious ones that >> come >> > > with a >> > > > > punishment you can't pay off. I think that'd reconcile the ideas >> of >> > > "justice as >> > > > > a game mechanic" and "justice as a way to deal with bad faith >> > > actors/actions." >> > > > >> > > > If some justice is intended to be a game mechanic, I'd prefer the >> > > > crimes related to those to not be described as rule violations >> (SHALL >> > > > NOT, etc). >> > > > It doesn't really sound fun to me for the written rules of a game to >> > > > deliberately not be an accurate description of the expected >> boundaries >> > > > of gameplay. >> > > >> > > I fully agree with this. It's fine to have actions where "you're >> allowed >> > > to do this >> > > but there will be consequences", and it's fine to have illegal >> actions, >> > > but please >> > > don't mix the two. >> > > >> > > -- >> > > ais523 >> > > >> > >> > isn't law in real life exactly this though? there are plenty of things >> like >> > littering that people often do (and attract relatively small >> consequences) >> > that are just as illegal under law as, say, murder. >> > -- >> > From R. Lee >> >> There are a couple of differences in my mind. >> >> First, I never really agreed to my local laws. >> >> Second, at least for some games, the rules are the whole point. I >> wouldn't find a game of chess very fun if my opponent were trying to >> move pieces while I wasn't looking. It's not what I signed up for. I >> feel this way about Agora too. Admittedly I feel it less strongly in >> Agora than in chess, maybe because Agora's rules are much more vague >> and complicated. Still, if this is a game, it seems like the world >> "rules" should be used for the ground rules, i.e. the basic underlying >> structure people are expected to follow. >> >> - Falsifian >> > Well chess is a game in which there is no distinctions between CANs and > SHALLs, except I suppose in tournament play with regards to the chess > clock. In Agora, I find the CANs paramount and the SHALLs not particularly > important, as a general rule. > -- > From R. Lee > If someone attempted to sneak a piece behind the back of another, that person would no longer be playing chess, because the rules of chess have no concept of such a thing, and therefore don't punish it in a chess way. -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Back-Awarding of Silver Quills
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:27 AM James Cook via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Thu, 28 May 2020 at 16:14, Rebecca via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:11 AM Alex Smith via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, 28 May 2020, 17:03:57 GMT+1, James Cook via > > > agora-discussion wrote: > > > > > In fact, it may be a good idea to have two separate tiers of crimes > > > anyway: > > > > > small infractions that earn you some blots, and serious ones that > come > > > with a > > > > > punishment you can't pay off. I think that'd reconcile the ideas of > > > "justice as > > > > > a game mechanic" and "justice as a way to deal with bad faith > > > actors/actions." > > > > > > > > If some justice is intended to be a game mechanic, I'd prefer the > > > > crimes related to those to not be described as rule violations (SHALL > > > > NOT, etc). > > > > It doesn't really sound fun to me for the written rules of a game to > > > > deliberately not be an accurate description of the expected > boundaries > > > > of gameplay. > > > > > > I fully agree with this. It's fine to have actions where "you're > allowed > > > to do this > > > but there will be consequences", and it's fine to have illegal actions, > > > but please > > > don't mix the two. > > > > > > -- > > > ais523 > > > > > > > isn't law in real life exactly this though? there are plenty of things > like > > littering that people often do (and attract relatively small > consequences) > > that are just as illegal under law as, say, murder. > > -- > > From R. Lee > > There are a couple of differences in my mind. > > First, I never really agreed to my local laws. > > Second, at least for some games, the rules are the whole point. I > wouldn't find a game of chess very fun if my opponent were trying to > move pieces while I wasn't looking. It's not what I signed up for. I > feel this way about Agora too. Admittedly I feel it less strongly in > Agora than in chess, maybe because Agora's rules are much more vague > and complicated. Still, if this is a game, it seems like the world > "rules" should be used for the ground rules, i.e. the basic underlying > structure people are expected to follow. > > - Falsifian > Well chess is a game in which there is no distinctions between CANs and SHALLs, except I suppose in tournament play with regards to the chess clock. In Agora, I find the CANs paramount and the SHALLs not particularly important, as a general rule. -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Back-Awarding of Silver Quills
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:11 AM Alex Smith via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On Thursday, 28 May 2020, 17:03:57 GMT+1, James Cook via > agora-discussion wrote: > > > In fact, it may be a good idea to have two separate tiers of crimes > anyway: > > > small infractions that earn you some blots, and serious ones that come > with a > > > punishment you can't pay off. I think that'd reconcile the ideas of > "justice as > > > a game mechanic" and "justice as a way to deal with bad faith > actors/actions." > > > > If some justice is intended to be a game mechanic, I'd prefer the > > crimes related to those to not be described as rule violations (SHALL > > NOT, etc). > > It doesn't really sound fun to me for the written rules of a game to > > deliberately not be an accurate description of the expected boundaries > > of gameplay. > > I fully agree with this. It's fine to have actions where "you're allowed > to do this > but there will be consequences", and it's fine to have illegal actions, > but please > don't mix the two. > > -- > ais523 > isn't law in real life exactly this though? there are plenty of things like littering that people often do (and attract relatively small consequences) that are just as illegal under law as, say, murder. -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Back-Awarding of Silver Quills
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:04 AM James Cook via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > In fact, it may be a good idea to have two separate tiers of crimes > anyway: > > small infractions that earn you some blots, and serious ones that come > with a > > punishment you can't pay off. I think that'd reconcile the ideas of > "justice as > > a game mechanic" and "justice as a way to deal with bad faith > actors/actions." > > If some justice is intended to be a game mechanic, I'd prefer the > crimes related to those to not be described as rule violations (SHALL > NOT, etc). > It doesn't really sound fun to me for the written rules of a game to > deliberately not be an accurate description of the expected boundaries > of gameplay. In the card game "cheat", for example, it's generally > understood that deception is part of the game and allowed by the > rules, and I don't think the punishment for being caught is considered > to be punishment for a rule violation. > > If people feel there is a convention that some "SHALL NOT"s are not > really expected to be followed, maybe R2152 should be amended to make > that clear. > > James > My personal opinion is that people should follow SHALLs and refrain from SHALL NOTS only to the extent that social or legal punishment outweighs the benefits of breaking those rules. (Obviously this doesn't apply to truly morally repugnant conduct like racist slurs, spamming the forums or anything of that sort, which should be refrained from by all because of basic decency) -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Back-Awarding of Silver Quills
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 2:55 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 5/28/2020 9:42 AM, Nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > > > If I accidentally moved a knight wrong and neither of us noticed until a > move or two later, I broke the rules. But did I cheat? I don't think so. > That's the distinction I'm trying to draw. > > > > One of the issues is that we don't really do "equity" (we tried once, it > was complicated and interesting but I don't think it really worked). > > By which I mean, if you discover the wrong knight (and it's not a > tournament), you can discuss with the other player: what's fairer and more > equitable: leave it where it is? Put it where it should be? Go back two > moves? Start over? That would also depend on whether the misplacement > led to the loss of a Queen, how important it was to the following moves, > etc. > > We don't really do that "adjust gamestate to make up for the violation" so > we have to reduce to a common currency and just discourage by applying a > game penalty. And as soon as it's "currency" it becomes transactional (as > R. Lee's comments show). > > In fact, the first draft of the card system was meant to purposefully get > away from transactional punishment. A Green Card was meant to be a flag > and caution: "yes, you did break a rule and shouldn't have, but it didn't > really affect the game so Green". Making it a social contract that "you > really should have done that - doing that makes it less fun for all of us" > rather than "if you profited from this you can pay off the blot and not > worry". > > -G. > > Well in the great majority of chess games these days, someone would be unable to move a knight incorrectly because the game was played online and therefore the program would simply not move the piece. -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8377-8387
On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 6:24 AM Jason Cobb via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8377-8387 > = > > I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals. > > The quorum for all below decisions was 5. > > Voting Strengths > > Strength is 3 unless otherwise noted. > $: player has voting strength 4 > %: player has voting strength 5 > ^: player has voting strength 6 > &: player has voting strength 7 > =: player has voting strength 10 > > PROPOSALS > = > PROPOSAL 8377 (Burden + Accurate Naming) > CLASS: ORDINARY > CHAMBER: JUSTICE > FOR (6): Falsifian, G.%, Murphy, R. Lee, Tcbapo, pikhq > AGAINST (2): Aris%, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus% > PRESENT (4): ATMunn, Jason, Trigon^, nch > BALLOTS: 12 > AI (F/A): 20/10 (AI=2.0) > OUTCOME: ADOPTED > [ > ATMunn: Endorsement of Jason > Falsifian: Endorsement of R. Lee > Tcbapo: Endorsement of Falsifian > ] > > PROPOSAL 8378 (Bug Fixing IAR Writ) > CLASS: ORDINARY > CHAMBER: EFFICIENCY > FOR (1): Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > AGAINST (8): Aris%, Falsifian%, G., R. Lee, Tcbapo, Trigon^, nch, pikhq > PRESENT (3): ATMunn, Jason%, Murphy% > BALLOTS: 12 > AI (F/A): 3/31 (AI=2.0) > OUTCOME: REJECTED > [ > ATMunn: Endorsement of Jason > Tcbapo: Endorsement of Falsifian > ] > > PROPOSAL 8379 (Expand wins by paradox) > CLASS: ORDINARY > CHAMBER: PARTICIPATION > FOR (6): ATMunn, Jason%, Murphy, R. Lee, Trigon^, nch > AGAINST (5): Falsifian, G., Publius Scribonius Scholasticus&, Tcbapo, pikhq > PRESENT (1): Aris% > BALLOTS: 12 > AI (F/A): 23/19 (AI=1.0) > OUTCOME: ADOPTED > [ > ATMunn: Endorsement of Jason > Falsifian: Endorsement of Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: Conditional > resolved: no Notice of Veto was published > Tcbapo: Endorsement of Falsifian > ] > > PROPOSAL 8380 (Justice for R. Lee) > CLASS: ORDINARY > CHAMBER: PARTICIPATION > FOR (1): Trigon^ > AGAINST (11): ATMunn, Aris%, Falsifian, G., Jason%, Murphy, Publius > Scribonius Scholasticus&, R. Lee, Tcbapo, nch, pikhq > PRESENT (0): > BALLOTS: 12 > AI (F/A): 6/41 (AI=1.0) > OUTCOME: REJECTED > [ > ATMunn: Endorsement of Jason > Jason: Endorsement of Aris > Tcbapo: Endorsement of Falsifian > nch: Endorsement of Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > ] > > PROPOSAL 8381 (You Tried) > CLASS: ORDINARY > CHAMBER: PARTICIPATION > FOR (10): ATMunn, Aris%, G., Jason%, Murphy, Publius Scribonius > Scholasticus&, R. Lee, Trigon^, nch, pikhq > AGAINST (0): > PRESENT (2): Falsifian, Tcbapo > BALLOTS: 12 > AI (F/A): 41/0 (AI=1.0) > OUTCOME: ADOPTED > [ > ATMunn: Endorsement of Jason > Falsifian: Conditional resolved: no Notice of Veto was published > Tcbapo: Endorsement of Falsifian > ] > > PROPOSAL 8383 (Agora plays table tennis) > CLASS: ORDINARY > CHAMBER: PARTICIPATION > FOR (2): R. Lee, Trigon^ > AGAINST (4): Aris%, Murphy, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus&, nch > PRESENT (6): ATMunn, Falsifian, G., Jason%, Tcbapo, pikhq > BALLOTS: 12 > AI (F/A): 9/18 (AI=1.0) > OUTCOME: REJECTED > [ > ATMunn: Endorsement of Jason > Falsifian: Conditional resolved: no Notice of Veto was published > Tcbapo: Endorsement of Falsifian > ] > > PROPOSAL 8384 (Bones of Criminals) > CLASS: ORDINARY > CHAMBER: JUSTICE > FOR (1): Murphy > AGAINST (10): ATMunn, Aris%, Falsifian, G.%, Jason, Publius Scribonius > Scholasticus%, R. Lee, Tcbapo, Trigon^, pikhq > PRESENT (1): nch > BALLOTS: 12 > AI (F/A): 3/39 (AI=1.0) > OUTCOME: REJECTED > [ > ATMunn: Endorsement of Jason > Tcbapo: Endorsement of Falsifian > ] > > PROPOSAL 8385 (Slaying the dragon) > CLASS: ORDINARY > CHAMBER: ECONOMY > FOR (0): > AGAINST (6): ATMunn, Aris%, Jason, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, R. > Lee%, nch > PRESENT (6): Falsifian, G., Murphy, Tcbapo, Trigon=, pikhq > BALLOTS: 12 > AI (F/A): 0/22 (AI=1.0) > OUTCOME: REJECTED > [ > ATMunn: Endorsement of Jason > Falsifian: Conditional resolved: no Notice of Veto was published > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus: Conditional resolved: Aris and Jason > voted AGAINST on this proposal > Tcbapo: Endorsement of Falsifian > ] > > PROPOSAL 8386 (Restraining Motions) > CLASS: DEMOCRATIC > FOR (12): ATMunn, Aris, Falsifian, G., Jason, Murphy, Publius Scribonius > Scholasticus, R. Lee, Tcbapo, Trigon$, nch, pikhq > AGAINST (0): > PRESENT (0): > BALLOTS: 12 > AI (F/A): 37/0 (AI=3.0) > OUTCOME: ADOPTED > [ > ATMunn: Endorsement of Jason > Falsifian: Endorsement of G. > Tcbapo: Endorsement of Falsifian > ] > > The full text of each ADOPTED proposal is included below: > > // > ID: 8377 > Title: Burden + Accurate Naming > Adoption index: 2.0 > Author: R. Lee > Co-authors: > > > WHEREAS an elementary aspect of legal traditions that we all share is that > no criminal defendant should bear the burden of proof, and that the Agoran > system of criminal justice fails in other basic respects the people of > Agora HEREBY RESOLVE the following > Retitle rule 2531 to "Defendant's
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora
On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 11:56 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 9:47 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > Curiosity question, which win name do you get for winning by ribbons? I > > know G. won that way last year but I don't know which name is the ribbon > > one (there's no "ribbon" or "raising a banner") > > > > Previously, it has been listed for some as by banner, but it is now > listed as by Renaissance, in line with previous naming. > I assume paying 1000 coins is listed as high score? I would prefer that there are more categories and that the categories make it very clear what rule or system provided the victory, personally, but thats a matter for you -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora
Curiosity question, which win name do you get for winning by ribbons? I know G. won that way last year but I don't know which name is the ribbon one (there's no "ribbon" or "raising a banner") On Sun, May 31, 2020 at 8:40 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-official wrote: >=== > THE SCROLL OF AGORA >=== > >Herald's Monthly Report > May 31, 2020 > > --- >RECENT CHANGES > --- > > On March 16, Telnaior was awarded the title of Left in a > Huff > On April 27, G. was awarded the title of Silver Quill > 2019 > On April 27, Trigon was awarded the title of Champion, > categorized as High Score > On May 6, the titles of Prince of Agora and Princess > of Andorra were revoked from Alexis > On May 6, Alexis was awarded the titles of Prince of > Andorra and Princess of Agora > On May 11, Falsifian was awarded the title of Wooden > Gavel 2019 > On May 22, R. Lee was awarded the title of Money > Launderer > > --- > CHAMPION by > --- > Anarchy Alexis > Apathy ais523. Aris, Murphy, o, Sprocklem, Tenhigitsune, > Warrigal, Quazie, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, > tmanthe2nd, Gaelan(x2), Ienpw III, Veggiekeks, > omd, > R. Lee, Bayushi, nch, grok, babelian, twg, > D. Margaux > Cards Taral, G., Murphy, OscarMeyr, root > Clout ais523, Alexis >Election G. > Escape omd > High Score Elysion, G.(x2), Levi, Murphy(x2), Steve, > ais523(x3), Pavitra, omd(x4), Alexis(x2), > root, Wooble, Tiger, Murphy, BobTHJ, Walker, > Falsifian, twg(x2), Jason, CuddleBeam, Trigon > Junta ais523(x2), the AFO, omd(x2), G., OscarMeyr, > Alexis, nch > Leadership ais523 > Lotto Alexis, omd > Maniac Craig, root >Musicianship Zefram, ais523, Wooble, omd, Tiger > Paradox G., Murphy, root, BobTHJ (x2), ais523, ehird, > Alexis, Bucky(x2), omd >Politics Aris, D. Margaux (x2) >Proposal Human Point Two, Morendil, Steve(x3), > Andre(x3), ais523(x4), Canada, Bucky, G.(x2), > omd(x2), woggle, Spitemaster, allispaul, Yally, > BobTHJ, Murphy, Tiger, Alexis(x3), Andon, twg, > CuddleBeam, Trigon, D. Margaux(x501) > Renaissance ais523, Alexis(x3), Murphy, G.(x2), twg >Solitude ais523(x2), Alexis(x2), omd > Spaaace Falsifian, Jason (x1000) > Tournament Wooble, root, Taral, OscarMeyr, Aris > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >Via Ratification The President > Unspecified Blob, elJefe, General Chaos, Steve, > Chuck, Dave Bowen, favor, Garth, Ian, > Jeffrey, KoJen, Michael, Oerjan, Swann, t, > Timothy, Troublemaker at Large, Vanyel(x2), > Wes(x2). *(7/6): Chuck, elJefe, Kelly, KoJen, > Morendil, Steve, Swann, Troublemaker at > Large; *(4/3): Chuck, Kelly, KoJen, Steve, > Troublemaker at Large, Wes; *(3/2): Chuck, > Kelly, Steve; *(5/3): Kelly, Steve; *(11/6): > Kelly > *(N/P): Full patent title is Champion*(N/P) > where N/P is the winning ratio. > > > ORDER OF THE HERO OF AGORA NOMIC > > GRAND HERO OF AGORA NOMIC > Peter Suber, Chuck Carroll, Douglas Hofstadter, > Michael Norrish > >HERO OF AGORA NOMIC >Murphy, G. > > > HIGHER EDUCATION > >Associate of
Re: DIS: Re: [Pledge] Re: BUS: Proposal Bribery
On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 4:32 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 5/25/2020 8:14 PM, nch via agora-business wrote: > > On Monday, May 25, 2020 10:08:54 PM CDT Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > >> I create the following proposal (we need these sometimes, 4fun) > >> > >> Title: Voltaire, Lottery Scammer > > In terms of "fun", last couple times we did some actual prisoners dilemma > games where everyone had the same chance no one was privileged in the > proposal, those were more fun. > > >> -- > >> From R. Lee > > > > I pledge to vote AGAINST the proposal "Voltaire, Lottery Scammer" when > and if > > it is distributed. > > > > lol I'm probably voting against anything R. Lee proposes for the next > couple months anyway because e didn't let me keep a zombie. :P > > didn't I? -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
Welcome! My advice is just do stuff when you feel like it, no need to read every message, rule or CFJ On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 4:14 PM Zyborg Mao via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I, Zyborg, an Unregistered Person, wish to Register as a Player. > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
interesting, i think the moral of the story is that reading is for suckers On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 4:33 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 11:25 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > Welcome! My advice is just do stuff when you feel like it, no need to > read > > every message, rule or CFJ > > I on the other hand would advise reading all of the rules and > messages. Reading all of the CFJs... I'm not sure if that's humanly > possible? But I read the FLR before I registered, which put me in a > pretty good position as a player. Message traffic is... a lot higher > now than it was when I joined. > > I think the moral of the story here is that there are several valid > approaches, and which one you should take depends on your inclinations > and circumstances. > > -Aris > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch
there is a precedent actually that you can bar in a later message without recalling the CFJ if its "reasonably continuous" or something. On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:09 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/19/20 10:06 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 6/19/2020 7:03 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > >> I CFJ: "Within the past week, Jason committed the crime of Uncertain > >> Certification." > > thanks! (the reason I didn't right away is I've lost count this week I > > think I'm getting close to excess cfj territory). > > > Oh, I didn't even realize. No problem! > > -- > Jason Cobb > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch
yeah it probably has to be the same message now
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:00 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> On 6/19/2020 7:40 AM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote:
> > i remember someone called that CFJ in response to the first CFJ i ever
> > called
> > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3523
>
> Thanks, I didn't remember that! The rule language has changed, though,
> from (according to those CFJ arguments):
>
> Any person (the initiator) can initiate a Call for Judgement
> (CFJ, syn. Judicial Case) by announcement, specifying a statement
> to be inquired into. E may optionally bar one person from the case.
>
> to:
>
> When a person initiates a Call for Judgement, e CAN optionally bar
> one person from the case by announcement.
>
> The addition of "When" definitely implies "at the same time" more strongly
> than the previous wording. Though it doesn't explicitly say "in the same
> message", and "when" could also be "immediately after" in common usage
> ("when you do that, I'll do this").
>
> -G.
>
--
>From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch
i remember someone called that CFJ in response to the first CFJ i ever called https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3523 On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 12:28 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/19/2020 7:18 AM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > > there is a precedent actually that you can bar in a later message without > > recalling the CFJ if its "reasonably continuous" or something. > > Can you point me to that doesn't ring a bell. > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch
goddamn you guys are so bad at making rules that are good, its lucky i rarely care about the rules On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:35 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/19/20 11:33 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > agora-discussion wrote: > > On 6/19/20 11:31 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > >> On 6/19/20 11:21 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > >>> Not part of arguments: lol when I voted against this it was because it > >>> lacked the basic checks (e.g. dependent action or something). > Regardless > >>> of CFJ outcome you all have now fixed the price of pending at 4 blots > >>> (more or less). Another economic nerf out of the gate because Agorans > are > >>> terrified of gaming actual scarcity ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. > >> > >> Right now it's fixed at 0 blots because, even if you do commit the > >> crime, we still haven't fixed the Indictment process, so... > >> > >> I think PSS submitted a proposal with fixes, but I don't see it in the > >> recent proposal pool reports, so it might have self-ratified out of > >> existence by now. > >> > > I believe it was after the last Distribution, so it should appear in the > > next one. > > > > Oh, my bad, then. > > -- > Jason Cobb > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: A logo for Agora
PSS this is kind of unrelated (but related to herald) but your last report omitted some hard labor titles, the next one will have them right? On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 12:54 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > I’ve got the rules coming although there are a lot of edge cases. I should > have a draft in the next week. > > > On Jun 20, 2020, at 21:20, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > >>>>> On 6/20/2020 6:03 PM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > >> Free Tournament? Free Tournament? Free Tournament? > > > > Suggestion for tournament rule: Anyone can submit a design wholly > > described in text. Anyone else can try to draw that based on the text. > > co-winners for the best pair, judged both for overall good looks but also > > match between text and drawing (by popular vote). secret collaboration > > strongly discouraged. > > > > Publius, I don't know how the Diplonomic is coming along, but this (or a > > variation) is a simple tournament that goes along with the "birthday" > theme. > > > > -G. > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: [Treasuror] New Report Format
On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 11:14 PM lucidiot via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sunday 14 June 2020 09:00, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 2020-06-13 21:53, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > > > > On 6/13/20 11:48 PM, lucidiot via agora-discussion wrote: > > > > > > > On Sunday 14 June 2020 05:33, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 2020-06-13 21:32, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Trigon Speaker and Treasuror of Agora; Former Rulekeepor (12 > > > > > > > months) and Cartographor (8 months) of Agora; Champion of > Agora by > > > > > > > High Score and Proposal; Badge of the Salted Earth; > Sixth-Longest > > > > > > > Continually Registered Player of Agora; Player and former > Emperor of > > > > > > > BlogNomic; Player, Book-keeper, and originator of the > Metaruleset of > > > > > > > Infinite Nomic. > > > > > > > And I thought this was going to be a temporary joke. How > foolish of me. > > > > > > > I'm going to keep it until someone has to come to me in > desperation and > > > > > > > beg me to remove it. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Trigon > > > > > Speaker and Treasuror of Agora; Former Rulekeepor (12 months) and > > > > > Cartographor (8 months) of Agora; Champion of Agora by High Score > and > > > > > Proposal; Badge of the Salted Earth; Sixth-Longest Continually > > > > > Registered Player of Agora; Player and former Emperor of BlogNomic; > > > > > Player, Book-keeper, and originator of the Metaruleset of Infinite > Nomic. > > > > > You might want to squeeze "Founder of the League of Agorans > Facilitating Effective Recordkeeping" in there > > > > > > > > -- > > > > ~lucidiot > > > > > > Also. "contributor to the Talk:Nomic page on Wikipedia". > > > > Welcome, lucidiot! It's always great to see new people who show interest > > in our weird game. > > > > And thank you both for your wonderful contributions. I've added a few > > new ones of my own as well. You are contributing to an important cause. > > > > > - > > > > Trigon > > > > Speaker and Treasuror of Agora; Former Rulekeepor (12 months) and > > Cartographor (8 months) of Agora; Champion of Agora by High Score and > > Proposal; Bearer of the Badge of the Salted Earth; Founder of the League > > of Agorans Facilitating Effective Recordkeeping; Arcadian Revivalist; > > Sixth-Longest Continually Registered Player of Agora; Player and former > > Emperor of BlogNomic; Player, Book-keeper, and Originator of the > > Metaruleset of Infinite Nomic; Contributor to the nomic.club wiki and > > the Talk:Nomic page on Wikipedia. > > Mmmhhh, could that turn into a Signature Length Tournament‽ > > -- > ~lucidiot, far from winning the tournament > you could just put any old text in there though lol -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Attempt To Amend Codependancy Contract
while you're at it, can you have arbitrators order other things too, like transferring assets? On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:52 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/16/20 6:25 AM, nch via agora-business wrote: > > On 6/15/20 10:59 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote: > >> I want to amend (if nch agrees) the contract Co Dependants by adding on > the > >> end > >> > >> "All members to this contract shall be members of and be bound by the > >> Agoran Arbitration Association contract" > >> > >> I consent to this amendment and become a party to the AAA > >> > >> -- > >> From R. Lee > > I consent to this change and become a party to the AAA. > > > > Thanks for joining, but AAA won't work on your current setup because a > SHALL violation causes the responsible party to cease being a party. Let > me do some drafting and see if I can amend AAA to make it work... > > -- > Jason Cobb > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Tarot
damn i was sure these would actually be important in some way but they're even lamer than the other ones. this is a sad day. On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:20 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I transfer 50 coins to my locker. > > I then Fortunetell each of these cards! Here is your fortune, R.Lee! (The > hashes are SHA-256, done with this: > https://emn178.github.io/online-tools/sha256.html) > > > I - THE PLAYER: you will have good luck with proposals > > II - THE ANNOUNCEMENT: if you are smart about it you will earn a lot of > money > > III - THE JUDGE: a scam is looming close to you so be careful or take > the opportunity > > IV - THE SCAM: fortune will smile upon you if you do what needs to be done > > V - THE RIBBON: you are forgetting something important > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 1:53 PM Rebecca via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I transfer 50 coins to cuddlebeam in order to do so. > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:26 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > I think you need to make an explicit transfer > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:25 PM Rebecca via agora-business < > > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > I buy each of the first five listed tarot cards in Cuddlebeam's > > > > mystical contract > > > > > > > > -- > > > > From R. Lee > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > From R. Lee > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 1:53 PM Rebecca via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I transfer 50 coins to cuddlebeam in order to do so. > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:26 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > I think you need to make an explicit transfer > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:25 PM Rebecca via agora-business < > > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > I buy each of the first five listed tarot cards in Cuddlebeam's > > > > mystical contract > > > > > > > > -- > > > > From R. Lee > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > From R. Lee > > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Tarot
I was going to buy all of them, but I dont have enough coins On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 11:10 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Maybe one of the others has what you're looking for... > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 3:07 PM Rebecca via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > damn i was sure these would actually be important in some way but they're > > even lamer than the other ones. this is a sad day. > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:20 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-business < > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > I transfer 50 coins to my locker. > > > > > > I then Fortunetell each of these cards! Here is your fortune, R.Lee! > (The > > > hashes are SHA-256, done with this: > > > https://emn178.github.io/online-tools/sha256.html) > > > > > > > > > I - THE PLAYER: you will have good luck with proposals > > > > > > II - THE ANNOUNCEMENT: if you are smart about it you will earn a lot of > > > money > > > > > > III - THE JUDGE: a scam is looming close to you so be careful or take > > > the opportunity > > > > > > IV - THE SCAM: fortune will smile upon you if you do what needs to be > > done > > > > > > V - THE RIBBON: you are forgetting something important > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 1:53 PM Rebecca via agora-business < > > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > I transfer 50 coins to cuddlebeam in order to do so. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:26 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < > > > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think you need to make an explicit transfer > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:25 PM Rebecca via agora-business < > > > > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I buy each of the first five listed tarot cards in Cuddlebeam's > > > > > > mystical contract > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > From R. Lee > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > From R. Lee > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 1:53 PM Rebecca via agora-business < > > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > I transfer 50 coins to cuddlebeam in order to do so. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:26 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < > > > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think you need to make an explicit transfer > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 12:25 PM Rebecca via agora-business < > > > > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I buy each of the first five listed tarot cards in Cuddlebeam's > > > > > > mystical contract > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > From R. Lee > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > From R. Lee > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > From R. Lee > > > -- >From R. Lee
