Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Weekly Report] Forbes 461

[Reuben Staley via agora-official]

On 2/2/21 10:31 PM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:

On Tue, Feb 02, 2021 at 03:28:48PM -0700, Reuben Staley via agora-official 
wrote:


   FORBES FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY-NINE
   or   
 TREASUROR'S WEEKLY REPORT


Date of previous original report:  25 January 2021
Date of first report this week:01 February 2021
Date of first revision:02 February 2021
Date of this report:   02 February 2021

(all times and dates in UTC)


CoE: missing Feb 1 payday (including Agoran Press donation).


This CoE is accepted (sorry for taking so long to get around to it.

I submit the following revision:

  FORBES FOUR HUNDRED FIFTY-EIGHT
   or   
 TREASUROR'S WEEKLY REPORT


Reports available online in  and HTML formats at:


DATES OF PUBLICATION  (contains no data)


(all times and dates in UTC)

Date of previous original report:  25 January 2021
Date of first report this week:01 February 2021
Date of first revision:02 February 2021
Date of second revision:   02 February 2021
Date of this report:   04 February 2021

Report revisions are only accurate as of the date of the original's
publication, in this case, this report is only accurate as of 01
February 2021.


NOTES ON REPORT   (contains no data)


* REVISION 1
  * CoE: Aris spent three pendants on 26 Jan 2021.

* REVISION 2
  * This is a revision and only purports to be accurate as of the time
of the first report published this week.

* REVISION 3
  * CoE: A payday occured on 01 Feb 2021.

* GENERAL
  * I have started publishing Treasuror report drafts on discord before
I post them. If you want to give me feedback before I post, be sure
to check discord or IRC on Sundays. Except for this one, lol.
  * As always, please check the general accuracy of this report.


ASSET BALANCES   (self-ratifies)


 Playercn wcjclcvcwpbgpdxv
 ==  ==                
 Aris  1949 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 0
 ATMunn 671 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Cuddlebeam 332 0 0 0 010 0 0 0
 Falsifian 1243 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
 G.1500 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0
 Gaelan 764 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
 grok   239 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
 Jason 2040 0 2 2 3 0 0 5 0
 Joe[0] 508 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
 JTAC   397 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
 Lucidiot   204 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
 Murphy 546 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
 Nathan 191 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
 nix433 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
 Noah   108 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
 omd432 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
 R. Lee 201 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
 Shy Owl198 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
 Trigon1705 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
 Ubercrow   135 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

0. Slam_Joe_Junior_Supreme

Contract   cn wcjclcvcwpbgpdxv
 ==  ==                
 CB Locker  [0]   0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 D. Corp.   [1]   0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 DragonQE   [2]   0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 IBTWWBG[3]  50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 PlunderPS  [4] 179 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Press  [5] 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 SEAMSTRESS [6]   0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 TeamMarg   [7] 137 0  

OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8538-8540

[Aris Merchant via agora-official]

PROMOTOR'S REPORT AS OF RIGHT NOW

I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it,
and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote collector
is the Assessor, the quorum is 6, 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
---
8538*~  Aris, Jason 3.0   All Good Things Must Come to an End
8539*   Aris, G.3.0   The Great Rollback
8540*   nix, Aris, Jason3.0   Strengthening Extra Votes v2.1

The proposal pool is currently empty.

Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
# : Ordinary proposal, unset chamber.
c : Compliance ministry proposal (ordinary).
e : Economy ministry proposal (ordinary).
g : Legacy ministry proposal (ordinary).
l : Legislation ministry proposal (ordinary).
p : Participation ministry proposal (ordinary).
~ : Unsponsored proposal.

The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where
the information shown below differs from the information shown above,
the information shown above shall control.

//
ID: 8538
Title: All Good Things Must Come to an End
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: Jason


Enact a new power 3.15 rule entitled "Burn It With Fire", with the
following text:

  All Emergency Regulations are hereby repealed, destroyed, and
  incinerated.

  If it has been 1 second since this rule was adopted, this
  rule repeals itself.

//
ID: 8539
Title: The Great Rollback
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-author(s): G.


[This is a proposal to repeal bodies of law, which are essentially
unused and make the ruleset far more complicated than it needs to be.]

If this proposal has already taken effect, then it has no effect. If,
but for this sentence, Rule 101 would not exist as a rule after this proposal
ceases taking effect, then the remainder of this proposal has
no effect.


Enact a new power-3.5 rule entitled "Statutory Instrumentation
Simultaneity", reading:

  Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the proposal which enacted this
  rule CAN make multiple rule changes, which it could otherwise make
  individually, simultaneously. When it attempts to do so, if any single
  rule change it attempts is INEFFECTIVE, then so is the entire attempt.

  If the proposal which enacted this rule makes a change to the
  definition of a rule then, except for rules which are simultaneously
  and explicitly enacted or repealed with that change,
  the rules after that change are exactly the entities that were rules
  beforehand. This is a definition of the interpretation of the
  amendment to the rules and not, in and of itself, a rule change.


Apply the following rule changes simultaneously: {

  Repeal Rule 2611, "Instruments".
  Repeal Rule 2612, "Bodies of Law".
  Repeal Rule 2613, "Effects of Instruments".

  Amend Rule 1688, "Power", by, all as part of the same amendment,
1. Replacing:
A statute is a document with positive Power.
   with:
An instrument is an entity with positive Power.
2. Replacing:
A Rule that makes a change, action, or value secured (hereafter
the securing Rule) thereby makes it IMPOSSIBLE to perform that
change or action, or to set or modify that value, except as
allowed by a Statute with Power greater than or equal to the
change's Power Threshold.
  with:
A Rule that makes a change, action, or value secured (hereafter
the securing Rule) thereby makes it IMPOSSIBLE to perform that
change or action, or to set or modify that value, except as
allowed by an instrument with Power greater than or equal to the
change's Power Threshold.


  Amend Rule 2438, "Ribbons", by replacing "A statute" with "An instrument".


  Amend Rule 105, "Rule Changes" by, all as part of the same
  amendment:
1. Replacing:
Where permitted by other rules, a statute generally can, as
part of its effect,
  with:
When the rules provide that an instrument takes effect, it can
generally:
2. Replacing each instance of "statute" with "instrument".


  Amend Rule 2140, "Power Controls Mutability", by changing it to read in full:

Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no entity with power below
the power of this rule can

1. cause an entity to have power greater than its own.

2. adjust the power of an instrument with power greater than its own.

3. set or modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument
   with power greater than its own (that is, one that affects
   the instrument's operation).


  Amend Rule 2125, "Regulated Actions", 

OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report)
Wed 03 Feb 2021


DEADLINES (details below)
---
3893 Assigned to Gaelan  OVERDUE Fri 29 Jan 2021 20:53:36
3895 Assigned to ArisDue Sun 07 Feb 2021 20:19:26
3896 Assigned to G.  Due Wed 10 Feb 2021 17:26:24
3897 Assigned to G.  Due Wed 10 Feb 2021 17:26:53
3898 Assigned to Murphy  Due Wed 10 Feb 2021 17:31:34


INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE
---
3892 ATMunn
3893 Gaelan
3894 Jason
3897 G.
3898 Murphy
Occasional: Falsifian, Cuddlebeam, Aris
Timeout:R. Lee (3883)


OPEN CASES
---
3898 Assigned to Murphy [Due Wed 10 Feb 2021 17:31:34]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3898
 The time at which an intent to do something without objection
 becomes resolvable is a deadline.

3897 Assigned to G. [Due Wed 10 Feb 2021 17:26:53]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3897
 Proposal 7924, "Contracts v8", never took effect.

3896 Assigned to G. [Due Wed 10 Feb 2021 17:26:24]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3896
 If an AI 3.0 proposal with the text "Destroy Agora." were adopted,
 it would be blocked from taking effect by Rule 1698, "Agora is a
 Nomic".

3895 Assigned to Aris [Due Sun 07 Feb 2021 20:19:26]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3895
 I have now more than 20 Victory Points.

3893 Assigned to Gaelan [Due Fri 29 Jan 2021 20:53:36]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3893
 There exists exactly one rule with the number 2633.


RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES
---
3894 Judged FALSE by Jason [Sun 31 Jan 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3894
 The first statement in this message constitutes a breach of R2471
 "No Faking".

3892 Judged TRUE by Murphy [Sun 17 Jan 2021]
 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3892
 This is the highest-known altitude public message.

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3898 Assigned to Murphy

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

I state, under penalty of no faking, that I have not in any way discussed
the events underlying this cfj with Murphy, nor have I seen evidence of
eir opinions on the current situation.

The below CFJ is 3898.  I assign it to Murphy.

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3898

===  CFJ 3898  ===

  The time at which an intent to do something without objection
  becomes resolvable is a deadline.

==

Caller:Jason
Barred:G.

Judge: Murphy

==

History:

Called by Jason:  03 Feb 2021 02:25:25
Assigned to Murphy:   [now]

==

Caller's Arguments:

On 2/2/21 5:27 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> The following Emergency Regulation, The First Regulation of G.ravity,
> is enacted:
>
>   A pausable intent is any announcement of intent for performing a
>   dependent action either without N objections, with N Agoran consent,
>   with notice, or with T notice.
>
>   G. CAN, by announcement, cause this regulation to extend the prior
>   deadline, provided for in Rule 2595(3), for performing a dependent
>   action based on a specified pausable intent (i.e. change the
>   time between intent announcement and the enabling of the
>   performance of the specified dependent action), to 14 days.

That time does not seem to fit the natural language meaning of the word
"deadline".

Definition from Google: "the latest time or date by which something
should be completed."

Definition from Merriam-Webster online: "a date or time before which
something must be done"

Definition from Dictionary.com: "the time by which something must be
finished or submitted; the latest time for finishing something" or "a
line or limit that must not be passed."

In all of these definitions, something must become impossible - either
an action or the fulfillment of an obligation. For an intent resolution,
nothing becomes DISABLED or ILLEGAL when the intent becomes resolvable -
instead something becomes ENABLED. A close analogy seems to be the start
of a voting period - I would not say that the start is a deadline, only
the end.

A counterargument could be that the time when it becomes resolvable is
the deadline for people to get objections in while they can be sure they
can be heard. This is reasonable when communicating to people, but Rule
2614 specifically requires that the deadline be "provided for by any
instrument other than this rule". No instrument directly requires that
anything occur before an intent becomes resolvable, neither for
POSSIBILITY or LEGALITY. Thus it does not fulfill the requirement that
the deadline be provided for by the rules.

The start of the resolution period also does not fulfill any of the
criteria specifically listed in the rule - no action must be done before
the resolution period for it to be "valid" - objections are just as
valid after the intent is resolvable (when it will still have effect),
or even after it is resolved (when it is still an objection, and will
prevent repeated resolutions), nor is there generally any obligation for
something to be done before an intent becomes resolvable.


Caller's Evidence:

Rule 2614/5 (Power=3.01)
Eclipse Light [Excerpt]

- 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.

--

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

On 2/2/2021 6:25 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> This is reasonable when communicating to people, but Rule
> 2614 specifically requires that the deadline be "provided for by any
> instrument other than this rule". No instrument directly requires that
> anything occur before an intent becomes resolvable, neither for
> POSSIBILITY or LEGALITY. Thus it does not fulfill the requirement that
> the deadline be provided for by the rules.

The language is actually quite straightforward and in keeping with the
common definition of deadline.  Rule 2614 says "any deadline" and provides
the example of "a deadline for an obligation to be met".  While this is
just an example in the rule, that fact is that a player is obliged to
wait, as provided by R2595, 4 days between intent and successfully
performing objection-based 

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3897 Assigned to G.

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3897.  I assign it to G..

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3897

===  CFJ 3897  ===

  Proposal 7924, "Contracts v8", never took effect.

==

Caller:Aris

Judge: G.

==

History:

Called by Aris:   01 Feb 2021 00:28:00
Assigned to G.:   [now]

==

Caller's Arguments:

[linked to CFJ 3896]

Contracts v8 stated, said, in part:

"For the purposes of this proposal, neither pledges nor rules are contracts.

Destroy each contract."

If the CFJ immediately prior to this is FALSE, this one is trivially
false as well. However, if the previous CFJ is TRUE, that raises the
question of whether Proposal 7924 attempted to destroy Agora, and was
thus cancelled by AiaN. While the proposal states that rules are not
contracts, it says nothing about Agora as a whole. If Agora was a
contract (the term was undefined at the time), and AiaN blocks
attempts to destroy Agora by proposal, Proposal 7924 was entirely
blocked. Note that the use of "each" isn't enough to save the
proposal, since any proposal that has any part that would destroy
Agora is entirely cancelled.

CFJ 3813 is relevant, because it finds that Agora was not a contract
under a specific rules standard for contracts (although that standard
wasn't in effect at the time of Contracts v8).

Note also that this CFJ doesn't have a huge effect on the game; the
ruleset has been ratified since Contracts v8. The biggest question is
whether some old contracts, agencies, and organizations might in some
sense still exist.

==

OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3896 Assigned to G.

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

The below CFJ is 3896.  I assign it to G..

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3896

===  CFJ 3896  ===

  If an AI 3.0 proposal with the text "Destroy Agora." were adopted,
  it would be blocked from taking effect by Rule 1698, "Agora is a
  Nomic".

==

Caller:Aris

Judge: G.

==

History:

Called by Aris:   01 Feb 2021 00:28:00
Assigned to G.:   [now]

==

Caller's Arguments:

[linked to CFJ 3897]

A proposal that would destroy Agora would be canceled by AiaN. After
all, proposals that would otherwise "cause Agora to cease to exist"
are explicitly listed among the categories of proposals that AiaN
blocks. The question, then, is whether the proposal would, but for
AiaN, successfully cause Agora to cease to exist. If causing Agora to
cease to exist would involve repealing more than one rule, the action
would fail per Rule 105, which requires that the order of rule changes
be unambiguous. If it could be done without changes to the rules, I
honestly have no clue whether another rule would block it from
happening.

CFJ 3580 is relevant, since it discusses the behavior of legal
fictions with respect to AiaN.

==

OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3894 Judged FALSE by Jason

[Kerim Aydin via agora-official]

status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3894
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).

===  CFJ 3894  ===

  The first statement in this message constitutes a breach of R2471
  "No Faking".

==

Caller:Cuddlebeam

Judge: Jason
Judgement: FALSE

==

History:

Called by Cuddlebeam: 22 Jan 2021 21:53:05
Assigned to Jason:24 Jan 2021 23:43:08
Judged FALSE by Jason:31 Jan 2021 20:23:51

==

Caller's Evidence:

On 1/22/2021 1:53 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> This statement is a lie and I intend to mislead with it.

--

Gratuitous Arguments by nix and Gaelan:

nix wrote:
>>> There's no intent to mislead. CB is speaking untruthfully about that
>>> being the intent, as evidenced by the fact that in the rest of the
>>> message e openly acknowledges that people may see it as untrue.
 Gaelan wrote:
>> But wait, e falsely claimed, with intent to mislead, that the statement
>> was false with an intent to mislead.

nix wrote:
> Since e pointed out both possibilities, there's no apparent attempt to 
> convince us of any specific interpretation. So there's nothing 
> misleading, regardless of the truth of the overall statement or any 
> parts of it.

--

Judge Jason's Evidence:

Rule 2471/1 (Power=1)
No Faking

  A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that is a lie. A
  statment is a lie if its publisher either knew or believed it to
  be not to be true at the time e published it (or, in the case of
  an action, not to be effective), and it was made with the intent
  to mislead. Merely quoting a statement does not constitute making
  it for the purposes of this rule. Any disclaimer, conditional
  clause, or other qualifier attached to a statement constitutes
  part of the statement for the purposes of this rule; the truth or
  falsity of the whole is what is significant.
The previous provisions of this rule notwithstanding, a formal
  announcement of intent is never a lie.


Judge Jason's Arguments:

The first statement in the message is "This statement is a lie and I
intend to mislead with it." There are two components to this statement.
The first is "This statement is a lie". This is clearly an attempt at a
paradox. However, because the Rules define the meaning of "lie", it may
not be one. To determine whether the statement is a lie, the two part
test in Rule 2471 must be applied. First, Cuddlebeam must have known or
believed it "to be not to be true". That is nonsense, but is easily
adjusted to mean that e believed it "not to be true". Cuddlebeam clearly
believed this part of the statement to be a paradox (based on off-list
discussion and the fact that it very much resembles the liar's paradox),
which is not a factually true statement.

This violates the law of the excluded middle, but there is Rules-based
precedent for this: CFJ judgments. Neither TRUE nor FALSE is not an
appropriate judgment if PARADOXICAL is. This supports finding that a
statement which the publisher believes to be paradoxical is one e
believes to "not be true".

Cuddlebeam's statement "This statement is a lie and I intend to mislead
with it." E believed part of the statement not to be true, therefore e
believed the entire statement not to be true. The next question is
whether e intended to mislead by publishing the statement. Because this
is a statement about someone's intent, we can only work based on
probabilities. As such, I will judge based on what I perceive to be the
most likely situation.

I find that, on a balance of probabilities, Cuddlebeam did not intend to
mislead with eir statement because e explicitly noted e might receive a
No Faking sentence for publishing the above statement.

Cuddlebeam's statement was a lie, but e did not intend to mislead with
it. Judged FALSE.

==

OFF: [Emergency] [Proposal Distribution] Dictator Dethronement

[ATMunn via agora-official]

I intend, with 3 Agoran Consent, to repeal all existing Emergency
Regulations.

In addition, I issue the Cabinet Order of Manifesto to distribute the 
proposal "All Good Things Must Come to an End", initiating a referendum 
on 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).


[Side note: I am fully aware that both of these things accomplish the
same purpose. I am doing both of them in case one fails.]

--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary and Prime Minister of Agora :)