OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.


-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter (and a history lesson @Mischief)

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report. (This introduction is not self-
ratifying.)

Given the reregistration of Elysion/Mischief, and discussions about
Blot/Fugitive status, I'm going to start this week's report with a bit
of history, back from September 2009. (For reference, here's a ruleset
from this time period:
)

In September 2009, one of the win conditions (a win by Solitude) was to
be the only active first-class player who is legally able to win. At
the time, the player base was split into two subsets: first-class
players were human players (the concept which nowadays is just called
"player"), but contracts could also be players, forming a type of
second-class player known as a "partnership" – those didn't count
towards the win condition. If a contract was a player, its parties were
jointly responsible for ensuring that it obeyed the rules; in
particular, if a contract would be given a Rest (the equivalent of a
Blot), every member of the contract would be given a Rest instead.

Late 2008 / early 2009 was a time of heavy economic activity, and in
order to help automate trades, there were contract-based banking
systems. One of the most important banks was "The People's Bank of
Agora", generally just referred to as "the PBA" – it had its own
currency, with prices set automatically based on which assets were
selling and which assets were being sold (when you bought an asset, its
price would go up; when you sold one, the price would go down). For
reasons I no longer remember (and which might or might not have made
sense in the first place), the PBA was a partnership rather than a
regular contract; and as one of the most important ways to trade
assets, almost everyone was a member. By September 2009, the economy
had started to become less important, and the PBA was less relevant,
but it still existed, and many people who had become members during the
contract's heyday were still members and hadn't left.

The main economic subgame in September 2009 was a "cards" system;
players would be dealt cards from the Decks of Government, Justice and
Change, and the cards would either do something continuously while
held, or could be played to cause something to happen. The relevant
card here was a card named "Stool Pigeon", which allowed the player who
played it to specify a player and create a Rest in eir possession (with
the restriction that no single player could be Stool Pigeoned more than
once every 72 hours). Incidentally, the Cabinet Order "Dive" in the
current ruleset is somewhat reminiscent of the Stool Pigeon card.

All this combined to form a scam (which is not too hard to see once
you've been told which rules and pieces of gamestate are relevant…): in
order to set up for a Solitude win (for myself and co-conspirators), I
left the PBA and then played a Stool Pigeon card on the PBA. That
wasn't quite enough to win on its own, but it got most of the way
there; I got the rest of the way using a combination of a) additional
Stool Pigeon cards; b) transferring a Dunce Cap card (which prevented
its owner winning, couldn't be destroyed, and couldn't be transferred
until you'd held it for a week); and c) a number of act-on-behalfs via
contract to make players inactive and thus not counting against
Solitude. Here's the message where it happened:


Now, at the time, it was possible to be a party to a contract without
being a player. Elysion ended up in this situation by default; e was a
member of the PBA back when it was a heavily traded bank, was
deregistered for activity in April 2009, and yet that didn't cause em
to cease to be a memer of the contract. This therefore had the side
effect that, when I set up the Win by Solitude, Elysion ended up
gaining a Rest at the same time as the active players which the scam
was targeted at. Per the rules at the time, this made em a Fugitive
(which was defined as "a person who has one or more Rests but is not a
player"), despite the somewhat weird way the Rest was created. As such,
the Insulator (equivalent of today's Referee) was required to report
the Fugitive status.

Eventually the concept of a "fugitive" in the Ruleset got repealed. It
has since been re-enacted, but is now tied into the current Blots
system, rather than the old (but suspiciously similar) Rests system;
Elysion is not a Fugitive under the current definition because e has no
Blots (and also because e is currently registered). But there's
something of an Agoran tradition of saying "under some past ruleset,
this player was a Fugitive".

Was the situation recognised at the time? Here's the Herald's Report
from October 2009:

and the Insulator's report, published 2 minutes later by the same
player:

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report. Nothing crime-related has
happened, but it can take a while to read all the public messages to
verify the fact.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.


-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying, except for the parenthetical statement)
=

No Blots exist.

(Yachay had 1 Blot at the start of the week, but juan expunged it at
14:45:16 on 8 April 2024.)


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

Last week, one infraction was investigated, a violation of rule
2471 performed by Yachay at 17:22:56 on 1 April 2024, with a Class of 2
(e made a false statement intended to mislead readers into following a
link, and should have known that it was not true). This infraction was
noted by Gaelan at 20:44:45 the same day.

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

Yachay has 1 Blot.
All other persons have 0 Blots.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.

So far this week, one infraction was investigated, a violation of rule
2471 performed by Yachay at 17:22:56 on 1 April 2024, with a Class of 2
(e made a false statement intended to mislead readers into following a
link, and should have known that it was not true). This infraction was
noted by Gaelan at 20:44:45 the same day.

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] Infraction Reaction

[ais523 via agora-official]

On Mon, 2024-04-01 at 21:44 +0100, Gaelan Steele via agora-business wrote:
> On Apr 1, 2024, at 6:22 PM, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:
> > Quite a lot has happened in the last couple of hours. I have
> > taken complete control of Agora.
> >
> > Full explanation here: ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGxIE1hr0w4 )
>
> I note that, in the quoted message, Yachay has violated R2471 by making
> a false statement (“I have taken complete control of Agora”) with intent
> to mislead.

This statement was clearly falsy (it was not true, and the author of
the statement should have known that it was not true). So the question
is, was it made with intent to mislead?

I think it probably was not intended to mislead readers as to its truth
value – at least, not for very long. The context of the message is such
that a reasonable player might suspect that the dictatorship did not
actually exist (I know that I was suspicious immediately).

However, rule 2471 doesn't require an intent to mislead people into
thinking that the statement was true specifically – it just requires an
intent to mislead, with no further qualifiers. In this case, the
message appears to have been made with the intent to mislead readers
into clicking on a particular link, and the specified statement is part
of that. As such, an infraction has been committed.

I investigate this infraction by Yachay (making a falsy statement, "I
have taken complete control of Agora" with intent to mislead, in
violation of rule 2471). For this infraction, the Class is 2 and the
Base is 0. I specify a penalty of 1 Blot (I can't see a reason to
choose a value other than the middle of the range).

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying, except for the parenthetical comment)
=

No Blots exist.

(snail had one at the start of the week, but e expunged it at Mon, 25
Mar 2024 20:26:32.)

INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

snail has 1 Blot.
All other persons have 0 Blots.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

Last week, one infraction was investigated, a violation of rule
2471 performed by snail at 07:45:18 on 12 March 2024, with a Class of 2
(e claimed under penalty of No Faking that the message contained no
game actions, whilst apparently believing the statement to be
paradoxical, or at least ambiguous/unclear/debatable, rather than
unambiguously true). This infraction was never noted (snail attempted
to note it, but the attempt failed because no rule provided a mechanism
for em to note it).

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

snail has 1 Blot.
All other persons have 0 Blots.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.

So far this week, one infraction was investigated, a violation of rule
2471 performed by snail at 07:45:18 on 12 March 2024, with a Class of 2
(e claimed under penalty of No Faking that the message contained no
game actions, whilst apparently believing the statement to be
paradoxical, or at least ambiguous/unclear/debatable, rather than
unambiguously true). This infraction was never noted (snail attempted
to note it, but the attempt failed because no rule provided a mechanism
for em to note it).

-- 
ais523
Referee

[Referee] OFF: Infraction Reaction

[ais523 via agora-official]

On Tue, 2024-03-12 at 02:51 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-business
wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 2024, at 2:46 AM, secretsnail9 via agora-business
> >  wrote:
> > 
> > I confirm, under penalty of no faking, this message contains a
> > game action.
> > 
> > --
> > snail
> 
> I note that snail committed the infraction of breaking Rule 2471 (No
> Faking) in the above quoted message.
> 
> CFJ: The quoted message contains a game action.
> 
> Arguments for PARADOXICAL: the potential game action in question is a
> crime. If a crime was committed, the statement is true, and thus no
> crime was committed. But if no crime was committed, the statement is
> false, and a crime was committed.
> 
> Also this has real consequences because the referee now may have an
> obligation to investigate the crime.

As has been pointed out elsethread by Janet, the CFJ doesn't match the
actual alleged infraction: the CFJ is checking whether the message
contains a game action, whereas the infraction is checking whether the
publisher believed the message to be not true (i.e. whether snail
believed the message to contain a game action). In general,
truthfulness rules don't work as a way to "escalate" the truth of
arbitrary statements into becoming relevant for Agora: what matters is
not whether the statement is true, but whether the player vouching for
it believed that it was true.

It seems very unlikely (well beyond the "preponderance of the evidence"
standard) that snail did believe that "this message contains a game
action" was a true (as opposed to paradoxical) statement, especially
given that the "I note that" in the follow-up message would probably be
a No Faking violation in of itself if the infraction hadn't been
committed (although the "intent to mislead" is a bit less clear there:
the message seems to have envisaged the possibility that the noting
would fail, which might be enough of a disclaimer to cause the message
to not be misleading).

It is also worth noticing that the attempt to note the infraction did
in fact fail; there isn't actually a defined action of noting your own
infraction (rule 2478 defines an action of noting "any other player's"
infraction, but noting your own infraction doesn't fit that
definition), so the action by announcement fails. I think that that was
probably unintentional (and thus not done with intent to mislead). This
in turn means that there's no actual obligation on the Referee to do
anything here.

However, the situation is nonetheless an apparently intentional rules
breach as part of a win attempt, something which I think should be
taken seriously. That said, it was also essentially harmless: a rules
breach for the sake of being a rules breach, but not one that actually
harms any of the other players, and that lead to some interesting
gameplay. These factors cancel out somewhat, arguing for a penalty in
the middle of the range.

I investigate snail's infraction, by sending the message in the inner
quote above, of claiming (under penalty of No Faking) something which e
did not believe to be true (as opposed to paradoxical): this is a
violation of rule 2471, with a Base of 0 and Class of 2, and I specify
a penalty of 1 blot for it.

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report. Sometimes, nothing happened, but
you have to read a lot of messages to determine that nothing happened.
(This is one advantage of having a-d as a separate list: I know that I
can skip those messages when trying to work out whether I have new
records to keep.)


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.


-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.


-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.


-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.


-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.


-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.


-- 
ais523

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.


-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.


-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.


-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.


-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


A HOLIDAY REMINDER
==

It is currently a Holiday. Rule 1769 instructs me that if a player
misses a deadline due to a Holiday, punishment "is generally not
appropriate". This doesn't clearly match up well with the rules applied
to the Referee: my current interpretation is that if an infraction due
to missing a deadline during the Holiday period is noted, I should
apply a zero penalty if it is legal for me to do so.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.


-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.


-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.


-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.


-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist.


BLOT HOLDINGS HISTORY
=

As of the last report, 4st had 1 Blot. It was expunged by Murphy on
2023-Nov-26.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week. (4st
attempted to note an infraction by Goren, but the infraction did not
actually occur and as such cannot be noted.)


-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

4st has 1 Blot.
All other persons have 0 Blots.


BLOT HOLDINGS HISTORY
=

As of the last report, 4st had 3 Blots:
- 1 was expunged by Goren on 2023-Nov-21;
- 1 was expunged by juan on 2023-Nov-22;
and 1 of them still exists as of this report.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week. (4st
attempted to note an infraction by Goren, but the infraction did not
actually occur and as such cannot be noted.)

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] Infraction Reaction

[ais523 via agora-official]

On Mon, 2023-11-20 at 08:37 -0800, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 6:55 AM Goren Barak via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> 
> > I will now ratify ratify the following document, using Rule 2202
> > (Ratification Without Objection):
> > 
> > Effective a immediately, Goren now has 500 radiance.
> > Their voting strength is now 15.
> > Their Base Rockiness has also gone up to 100.
> > 
> > Rule 2202 tells me to make my intentions clear, so my intentions are to
> > win.
> > 
> > Neither Rule 2202 nor Rule 1728 specify a period in which you can
> > object, so that period is over. You can no longer object to this
> > document. Thank you for your time.
> > 
> 
> Per R2202, which Goren cited in the above:
> A player SHALL NOT knowingly use or announce intent to use
>   Ratification Without Objection to ratify a (prior to ratification)
>   document containing incorrect or Indeterminate information when a
>   corrected document could be produced with reasonable effort,
>   unless the general nature of the document's error and reason for
>   ratifying it is clearly and plainly described in the announcement
>   of intent. Such ratification or announcement of intent to ratify
>   is the Class 8 Infraction of Endorsing Forgery.
> 
> I note the above infraction committed by Goren. I suggest that the Referee
> investigate and find em guilty of 0 blots, since we are kind to new players.
> If e is found guilty of more blots, I plan to forgive em so e will have no
> blots. :)
> 
> (Goren, I recommend you keep trying to do things! This, one of the highest
> crimes, could only get you 8 blots maximum! ONLY 8! you need 40 to even be
> exiled as an outlaw! FOUR ZERO! FORTY!)

As far as I can tell, no infraction was actually committed here. R2202
prohibits two things, neither of which appears to have happened:

* It prohibits certain uses of Ratification Without Objection, but
Goren did not successfully use the rule.

* It prohibits certain announcements of intent to use Ratification
Without Objection. This is most naturally interpreted as (and was
probably meant as) "tabling an intent to use" Ratification Without
Objection, which Goren didn't do. It can be interpreted using the
natural-language definition of "announce intent", in which case Goran
announced intention to use rule 2202 "Ratification Without Objection",
but did not announce intent to use the process of Ratification Without
Objection, and it seems to me that the rule should be interpreted as
referring to the process rather than the rule.

Because there was no infraction committed, the attempt to note it
failed and I have nothing to investigate.

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

4st has 3 Blots.
All other persons have 0 Blots.


BLOT HOLDINGS HISTORY
=

As of the last report, 4st had 25 Blots:
- 19 of them were forgiven by Agoran Consent;
- 1 was expunged by ais523 on 2023-Nov-11;
- 1 was expunged by juan on 2023-Nov-13;
- 1 was expunged by ais523 on 2023-Nov-13;
and 3 of them still exist as of this report.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.


Last week, the following infractions have been noted and
investigated, all of which were violations of rule 2471 performed by
4st at 20:40:20 on 8 November 2023, with a Class of 2:

claiming that Gaelan was wearing a giant question mark as a hat under
penalty of No Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a situation
where e should have known this was false (unforgiven);

claiming that Murphy was wearing history itself as a hat under penalty
of No Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a situation where e
should have known this was false (forgiven by Agoran Consent);

claiming that Janet was wearing a pointy purple witch hat under penalty
of No Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a situation where e
should have known this was false (unforgiven);

claiming that cuddlybanana was wearing a banana hat under penalty of No
Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a situation where e
should have known this was false (unforgiven);

claiming that ais523 was wearing THE SUPER ULTIMATE WINNER's HAT under
penalty of No Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a situation
where e should have known this was false (forgiven by Agoran Consent);

claiming that snail was wearing the helix fossil as a hat under penalty
of No Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a situation where e
should have known this was false (forgiven by Agoran Consent);
4
claiming that juan was wearing the entrance gates of Agora as a hat
under penalty of No Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a
situation where e should have known this was false (forgiven by Agoran
Consent);

claiming that Yachay was wearing a regular old ghost as a hat under
penalty of No Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a situation
where e should have known this was false (forgiven by Agoran Consent);

claiming that blob was wearing emself as a hat under penalty of No
Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a situation where e
should have known this was false (forgiven by Agoran Consent);

claiming that Anneke-Constantine was wearing the movie Constantine as a
hat under penalty of No Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a
situation where e should have known this was false (forgiven by Agoran
Consent);

claiming that Kate was wearing "Beatrice (bird form)" as a hat under
penalty of No Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a situation
where e should have known this was false (forgiven by Agoran Consent);

claiming that Zipzap was wearing a zipper as a hat under penalty of No
Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a situation where e
should have known this was false (unforgiven);

claiming that nix was wearing anarchy as a hat under penalty of No
Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a situation where e
should have known this was false (forgiven by Agoran Consent);

claiming that omd was wearing a (purported) report as a hat under
penalty of No Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a situation
where e should have known this was false (forgiven by Agoran Consent).

-- 
ais523
Referee

(@Assessor) Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9027-9030

[ais523 via agora-official]

On Mon, 2023-11-13 at 06:12 -0600, secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote:
> ID  Author(s)   AI    Title
> ---
I vote as follows:
> 9027*   Kate, snail 3.0   De-Escalating the Hole
FOR
> 9028~   Janet   2.0   Fairness in Crime Act
AGAINST, primarily because it takes something subjective and makes it a
platonic restriction
> 9029~   snail, Zipzap   2.0   Sharing takes Care
PRESENT
> 9030~   4st 1.0   (n/a)
AGAINST on this decision (assuming it exists); I'm fine with the basic
idea, but this version of the proposal is broken, because it doesn't
actually create any rules

-- 
ais523

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

4st has 25 Blots.
All other persons have 0 Blots.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.

So far this week, the following infractions have been noted and
investigated, all of which were violations of rule 2471 performed by
4st at 20:40:20 on 8 November 2023, with a Class of 2:

claiming that Gaelan was wearing a giant question mark as a hat under
penalty of No Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a situation
where e should have known this was false;

claiming that Murphy was wearing history itself as a hat under penalty
of No Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a situation where e
should have known this was false;

claiming that Janet was wearing a pointy purple witch hat under penalty
of No Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a situation where e
should have known this was false;

claiming that cuddlybanana was wearing a banana hat under penalty of No
Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a situation where e
should have known this was false;

claiming that ais523 was wearing THE SUPER ULTIMATE WINNER's HAT under
penalty of No Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a situation
where e should have known this was false;

claiming that snail was wearing the helix fossil as a hat under penalty
of No Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a situation where e
should have known this was false;

claiming that juan was wearing the entrance gates of Agora as a hat
under penalty of No Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a
situation where e should have known this was false;

claiming that Yachay was wearing a regular old ghost as a hat under
penalty of No Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a situation
where e should have known this was false;

claiming that blob was wearing emself as a hat under penalty of No
Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a situation where e
should have known this was false;

claiming that Anneke-Constantine was wearing the movie Constantine as a
hat under penalty of No Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a
situation where e should have known this was false;

claiming that Kate was wearing "Beatrice (bird form)" as a hat under
penalty of No Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a situation
where e should have known this was false;

claiming that Zipzap was wearing a zipper as a hat under penalty of No
Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a situation where e
should have known this was false;

claiming that nix was wearing anarchy as a hat under penalty of No
Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a situation where e
should have known this was false;

claiming that omd was wearing a (purported) report as a hat under
penalty of No Faking, while believing it to be false, or in a situation
where e should have known this was false.

There are active intents to forgive many of these infractions, but none
has been forgiven yet.

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] Infraction Reaction

[ais523 via agora-official]

On Wed, 2023-11-08 at 15:47 -0500, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> On 11/8/23 15:40, 4st nomic via agora-official wrote:
> > This is a self-ratifying document. (Please do not object to this report
> > outright, instead, submit a CoE so I may make the appropriate correction
> > upon the next report).
> > I swear, to the best of my ability, that the following is true and correct,
> > under penalty of no faking:
> > 
> > The following are players and the hats they are wearing:
> > Player    Hat
> > --- --
> > Gaelan is wearing a giant question mark as a hat.
> > Murphy is wearing history itself as a hat.
> > Janet is wearing a pointy purple witch hat.
> > cuddlybanana is wearing a banana hat.
> > ais523 is wearing THE SUPER ULTIMATE WINNER'S HAT.
> > snail is wearing the helix fossil as a hat.
> > juan is wearing the entrance gates of Agora as a hat.
> > Aris is wearing a hat.
> > 4st is wearing the number 4 as a hat.
> > Yachay Wayllukuq is wearing a regular old ghost as a hat.
> > blob is wearing emself as a hat.
> > Anneke-Constantine is wearing the movie Constantine as a hat.
> > kiako is wearing a different hat.
> > Kate is wearing Beatrice (bird form) as a hat.
> > Zipzap is wearing a zipper as a hat.
> > nix is wearing anarchy as a hat.
> > omd is wearing this report as a hat.
> > innalienableWright is wearing as a hat.
> > beokirby is wearing the same hat.
> 
> I affirm, under penalty of no faking, that I am not wearing a hat, nor
> was I at the time of the above-quoted message.
> 
> I note each of the following infractions, in order:

These notings are all with respect to rule 2471, so it's worth taking a
look at what is actually required to violate the rule: the statements
have to be either intended to mislead or labeled as being under penalty
of no faking (the latter is true for all these statements), and the
author has to know (or should have known) that the statement is false,
or believe the statement to be false.

Some of these statements are obviously false; for these statements, 4st
should have known that the statement were false, and thus making it is
a violation.

Some of these statements are, from 4st's point of view, likely but not
certain to be false. Due to a bug in rule 2471, these are infractions
only if 4st believed the statement to be false (it is not sufficient
for 4st to not believe the statement to be true), and if the statement
is in fact actually false. It seems quite plausible that 4st made the
statements not knowing or caring whether they were true or not, as
opposed to actually believing them to be false, in which case there is
no infraction.

As such, many of these come down to the definition of "believe" – in
particular, is it possible to believe something if you've never thought
about whether it's true or not? I checked a few dictionaries, and many
of them said that "believe" has a connotation of not being absolutely
certain; as such, when making a wild stab in the dark as to an unlikely
statement about someone else, it seems semantically as though the
person making the statement believes it to be false, even if they
aren't sure.

This means that:
- for statements that are physically impossible or almost so, an
  infraction was committed (making a statement under penalty of No
  Faking that the author should have known was false);

- for statements that are not physically impossible, but unlikely,
  an infraction was committed (making a statement under penalty
  of No Faking that the author believed was false), unless the
  statement was actually true;

- for statements that are plausible, no infraction was committed
  because the author probably did not believe the statement to be
  false (even though e did not believe it to be true).

It's also worth thinking about the punishments here. As far as I can
tell, each statement is a separate infraction, meaning that even a
minimum punishment is likely to end up very large – disproportionate to
the actual damage to Agora that has been done by the message (which is
nonzero, because it may confuse new players into thinking that a
nonexistent office exists, but not as high as the rule). In most cases,
though, there is no choice in punishment anyway; the Class of all the
infractions below is 2, and the Base is 0 for the first investigated
infraction, 1 for the second, and 2 for the rest.

For each infraction I investigate below, I have given it a name,
consisting of a number in square brackets placed immediately before the
action that investigates it.

> * 4st publishing a falsy statement that Gaelan is wearing a giant
> question mark as a hat explicitly under penalty of No Faking, in
> volation of Rule 2471 (No Faking).

[1] I investigate this infraction, specifying a 0-Blot penalty – by a
preponderance of the evidence, 4st believed the statement to be false.

> * 4st publishing a falsy statement that Murphy is wearing history itself
> as a hat explicitly under penalty of No Faking, in 

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.


-- 
ais523
Referee

(@ADoP) OFF: [Prime Minister] Succession

[ais523 via agora-official]

A player has won recently (specifically me), meaning that I now have a
Prime Minister duty to select a new Speaker.

As such, I resign as Prime Minister and appoint myself as Speaker (via
the mechanism in rule 103).

-- 
ais523
Prime Minister

OFF: [Deputy Herald] Radiance Report

[ais523 via agora-official]

I temporarily deputise as Herald to publish the following report (no
notice is required for this, because the report is overdue and the
office is empty):

Each of the players listed below has the specified Radiance, and each
player not listed has 0 Radiance:

Murphy: 67
ais523: 19
Snail: 11
4st: 7
Aris: 7
Anneke-Constantine: 7
beokirby: 7
blob: 7
cuddlybanana: 7
G.: 7
inalienableWright: 7
Janet: 7
juan: 7
Yachay Wayllukuq: 7


Changes since last report:

G. is no longer a player, thus no longer has a Radiance switch;

Murphy's Radiance self-ratified at 67 (as far as I can tell, despite
the courts finding that 67 is not the correct value, nobody actually
CoEd the report specifying 67);

ais523 wielded the Radiance Stone on the following occasions, gaining 3
radiance each time:
  09 Oct 2023 00:05:26
  16 Oct 2023 00:16:54
  28 Oct 2023 06:33:48
  31 Oct 2023 00:30:13 

I have not applied changes from Dream of Sharing because it is
currently broken, and thus does not increase radiance.

-- 
ais523
Deputy Herald

OFF: [Prime Minister] Re: BUS: A far overdue reward

[ais523 via agora-official]

On Tue, 2023-10-31 at 22:55 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I intend, with 2 Agoran consent, to award Aris the Patent Title of
> Tapecutter, using the method set forth in Rule 2581.
> 
> I promised to award this years ago to the player who wrote the proposal
> undoing Statutory Instrumentation (P8354). Aris completed that challenge
> with P8539 ("The Great Rollback"), but I have only just realized I
> failed to give em eir do award. This would rectify that error.

I support; I see no reason to disagree with the Rulekeepor's reasoning here.

-- 
ais523
Prime Minister

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.


-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

-- 
ais523
Referee

[Prime Minister] OFF: Re: BUS: Murder of a God - A Paradox Lost

[ais523 via agora-official]

On Wed, 2023-10-11 at 10:28 -0700, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> WHEREIN, it has been 7 days since resubmission, and the assigned reviewers
> have not given any response whatsoever: whether it be feedback, requesting
> more time to review, or that they will not review it for any reason.
> 
> THEREFORE, I petition the Prime Ministor to use a dive order on snail or
> Aris, (since e can only perform it one at a time). They unofficially signed
> up to do this, and there is no other mechanism to blot them willy-nilly.

I respond to this petition as follows:

No rules have actually been broken here, and it's probably unreasonable
to expect reviewers to commit to reviewing on an ongoing basis (rather
than just reviewing a thesis as a one-off when it's submitted). As
such, I don't think this is a particularly good reason to use the Prime
Minister power.

Probably the best course of action is to fix radiance (and possibly
split it off from the Herald office), in order to make the office of
the Herald more attractive for people to fill. (Fixing radiance would
probably make offices in general more attractive for people to fill,
because we would then be able to give officers meaningful pay.)

-- 
ais523
Prime Minister

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.

BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist. (4st had one at the end of last week, but lost it at
the start of the week due to Dream of Justice.)

No other person has Blots.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.

BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

4st has 1 Blot. (E had two at the end of last week, but lost one at the
start of the week due to Dream of Justice.)

No other person has Blots.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.

BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

4st has 2 Blots.
No other person has Blots.

(Non-self-ratifying comment: this is no change from last week –
although 4st has envisioned a Dream of Justice, the envisioning
happened during the current Agoran Week and thus the envisioning has
not yet had an effect on eir Blot total. It would be helpful if players
envisioning or unenvisioning a Dream of Justice would flag the Referee
in the process, although I caught this one.)


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.

BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

4st has 2 Blots.
No other person has Blots.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report, "these timestamps are written in
UTC and converting them can sometimes be unexpectedly difficult"
edition.

BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

4st has 2 Blots.
No other person has Blots.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

One infraction was noted, and subsequently investigated, last week:

Infraction:  Weekly Tardiness (a breach of rule 2143)
Infracter:   4st
Class:   4
Blots created:   2
Occurred at: 2023-08-21, 00:00:00
Noted at:2023-08-25, 16:01:04 by G.
Investigated at: 2023-08-27, 17:46:12


No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] Infraction Reaction

[ais523 via agora-official]

On Fri, 2023-08-25 at 06:01 -1000, Kerim Aydin via agora-business
wrote:
> H referee,
> 
> I note that 4st violated r2143 by failing to publish the heralds weekly
> report last week.  In terms of penalties, I’ll mention I believe e missed
> the previous week too, and eir resignation below gives no aid to the
> incoming herald in reconstructing the report - it would have been easier
> under the circumstances had e resigned weeks ago.  Keeping the other parts
> of the office while having a professed lack of interest in the duties made
> it materially more difficult for anyone to take over.
> (I mean this to be respectful of 4st’s choices - there’s nothing wrong with
> losing interest in a task, but it’s reasonable for the penalty to reflect
> the material difficulties caused by the late resignation).

4st's most recent Herald weekly report was posted on 3 August. As such,
e indeed did not perform the Herald's weekly duties in the week of
August 14. This is a violation of rule 2143 (an infraction of Weekly
Tardiness).

Within the last month, 4st has committed this infraction on:
- 21 August (the infraction that was noted in the quote above);
- 14 August;
- 31 July (an infraction that was noted and investigated earlier).

That means that this a Class 4 infraction. The Base of this infraction
is currently 1 (due to an investigated infraction by the same person
having been committed within the past 30 days), and the infraction has
not been forgiven. As such, I am required to, when investigating this
infraction, specify a number of Blots in the range 1 to 4 inclusive.

I investigate this infraction, specifying 2 Blots. (This causes 4st to
be given 2 Blots.) I consider a penalty towards the middle of the range
to be appropriate here because a) regular asset reports are very
helpful to avoid losing track of the gamestate, and officers should be
encouraged to avoiding missing weeks, but b) under the current ruleset,
Radiance doesn't change very often (we repealed most of the ways to
gain it), and thus missing this report has had a smaller impact on
gameplay than missing some of the other asset reports might; and 4st
has been performing the other duties of the Herald office.

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.

BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

No Blots exist.

(4st had a Blot earlier this week, but e expunged it on 23 August.)


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.

BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

4st  1

No other persons have Blots.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions were noted nor investigated last week.

No infractions have been noted nor investigated so far this week.

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.

BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

4st  1

No other persons have Blots.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

One infraction was investigated last week (and possibly also noted, see
CFJ 4049):

Infraction:  Weekly Tardiness (a breach of rule 2143)
Infracter:   4st
Class:   1
Blots created:   1
Occurred at: 2023-07-31, 00:00:00
Noted at:    2023-08-04, 17:55:33 by G. (disputed, see CFJ 4049)
Investigated at: 2023-08-04, 23:32:55

No infractions have been noted or investigated so far this week.

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report. For the first time in my current
tenure as Referee, there is a Blot!


BLOT HOLDINGS  (self-ratifying)
=

4st  1

No other persons have Blots.


INFRACTIONS  (not self-ratifying)
===

No infractions were noted or investigated last week.


One infraction has been investigated so far this week:

Infraction:  Weekly Tardiness (a breach of rule 2143)
Infracter:   4st
Class:   1
Blots created:   1
Occurred at: 2023-07-31, 00:00:00
Noted at:2023-08-04, 17:55:33 by G. (disputed)
Investigated at: 2023-08-04, 23:32:55

It is possible that G.'s attempt to note the infraction failed; there
is a CFJ (that has not yet been assigned a number) that aims to
determine whether or not the infraction was correctly noted. The
infraction has been investigated regardless of whether or not it was
noted.

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] Infraction Reaction

[ais523 via agora-official]

On Fri, 2023-08-04 at 10:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business
wrote:
> You didn't out yourself, and it was noticed - I checked the ADoP
> report a couple days ago but didn't sit down to do duties until
> today.
> 
> H. Referee, I note that 4st violated R2143 (infraction: tardiness) by
> failing to publish a Herald's Weekly Report last week.

As far as I can tell, 4st had only two posts in the week of July 24,
and neither contained a Herald's Weekly Report. This is failure to
perform the Herald's weekly duties, and a violation of rule 2143 (an
infraction of Weekly Tardiness).

This appears to be eir first Weekly Tardiness infraction within the
previous month. As such, it is a class 1 infraction.

I investigate this infraction, specifying 1 blot. (This creates 1 blot
in 4st's possession.)

-- 
ais523
Referee

(@Stonemason) Re: OFF: [Stonemason] Billboard Rock Chart - 31 Jul 2023

[ais523 via agora-official]

On Mon, 2023-07-31 at 18:23 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote:
> THE BILLBOARD ROCK CHART (STONEMASON'S WEEKLY REPORT)
> 
> Stone    Mossiness  Owner    Last Wielded  Immune?
> ---  -  ---    ---
> Power    0  Agora    2023-06-11    Agora
> Soul 0  juan 2023-04-23
> Sabotage 0  Agora    2023-05-21    Agora
> Minty    0  Janet    2023-07-23
> Protection   0  Agora    2023-05-07    Agora
> Recursion    0  ais523   2023-06-04
> Hot Potato   0  Agora    2023-04-23    Agora
> Blank    2  snail    2023-05-28
> Anti-Equatorial  1  ais523   2023-05-28
> Radiance 0  juan 2023-06-25

I reach for the Protection Stone.
I wield the Recursion Stone as the Protection Stone, specifying the
Recursion Stone.
I wield the Anti-Equatorial Stone.

-- 
ais523

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report. Hardly anyone has been doing
anything, which means that nobody has done anything illegal.


BLOT HOLDINGS
=

No Blots currently exist.


INFRACTIONS
===

No infractions were noted or investigated last week.

No infractions have been noted nor investigated yet this week.

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report.


BLOT HOLDINGS
=

No Blots currently exist.


INFRACTIONS
===

No infractions were investigated last week. 4st attempted to note an
infraction (snail failing to respond to a CoE), but I believe that the
infraction did not exist (the CoE failed to identify a document that
snail was required to publish, so there was no legal duty to respond to
it), and thus the attempt to note it failed. No other infractions were
noted last week.

No infractions have been noted nor investigated yet this week.

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] Infraction Reaction

[ais523 via agora-official]

On Sun, 2023-07-16 at 18:01 -0700, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 3:11 PM 4st nomic via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > CoE: This is ratified, however, I still submit the CoE that "Secure
> > Contain Protect" is not in the proposal pool or otherwise voted
> > upon.
> 
> Referee!!
> I note an infraction for violating rule 2201:
> The Promotor failed to respond to this CoE in a timely manner.

A close reading of rule 2201 discovers that the duty to respond to a
CoE depends not on whether or not the original document is self-
ratifying, but rather on whether its publisher was required to publish
it. There is some inclarity as to specifically which document 4st was
doubting; e quoted a proposal distribution and the Promotor's proposal
pool report. The latter is part of the Promotor's weekly report (rule
1607), and therefore the Promotor is required to publish it (rule
2143); the former is required if the proposal was in the proposal pool
at the start of the week. Proposal 9002, the proposal being
distributed, was added to the proposal pool on Monday June 19, within
the same week, and as such the Promotor had not yet incurred a
requirement to publish the distribution of proposal 9002.

This means that 4st's action, of issuing a doubt in a document, failed;
rule 2201 requires the action of doubting a document to "identify a
document", among other things. Neither eir statement "in the proposal
pool or otherwise voted on", nor eir quote, unambiguously defines a
specific document, and so eir action of doubting is likely to have
failed due to ambiguity; the details of which document was being
identified matter, because it affects whether the Promotor has a duty
to respond. Even with the possible interpretation of "the doubted
document is the entire message", not everything within that message was
required to be published, and thus there is no SHALL-duty for its
author to respond to a CoE on the message as a whole.

As such, I believe that there was no infraction committed, and thus it
was not possible to note it. To be more precise: I cannot establish by
a preponderance of the evidence that the infraction was committed (rule
2531(1)), and as such, even if the infraction did occur (and thus was
noted), it would be automatically forgiven and I would thus be unable
to investigate it.

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report. All is quiet, at least with
respect to Blots.


BLOT HOLDINGS
=

No Blots currently exist.


INFRACTIONS
===

No Infractions were noted nor investigated last week. (4st attempted to
note an unspecified number of infractions, but I believe that number
was 0.)

No Infractions were noted nor investigated this week.

-- 
ais523
Referee

[Referee] OFF: Re: BUS: [@Arbitor/@Referee] The Boulder Was Not Pushed.

[ais523 via agora-official]

On Fri, 2023-07-07 at 19:27 -0700, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> Rule 2683 was violated, as the last time the boulder was pushed was
> June 23rd by 4st.
[snip]
> Finally, for each infracter, if any, I note an infraction committed
> by that player.

I am not convinced that conditional actions that are this vague work –
if you are not sure whether the infraction has occurred, why should
anyone else be able to resolve the conditional either?

In any case, CFJ 3730 suggests that no player has committed an
infraction here, and thus resolving the conditional based on existing
CFJ findings, no action was taken here (and thus, as Referee, I have
nothing to respond to).

-- 
ais523
Referee

OFF: [Referee] The Blotter

[ais523 via agora-official]

This is the Referee's weekly report, rule 2379 edition.

BLOT HOLDINGS
=

No Blots currently exist.


INFRACTIONS
===

No Infractions were noted nor investigated last week.

No Infractions were noted nor investigated this week. (4st attempted to
note an unspecified number of infractions, but I believe that number
was 0.)

-- 
ais523
Referee

(@Stonemason) BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] Billboard Rock Chart - 4 Jun 2023

[ais523 via agora-official]

On Sun, 2023-06-04 at 14:24 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-official wrote:
> THE BILLBOARD ROCK CHART (STONEMASON'S WEEKLY REPORT)
> 
> Stone    Mossiness  Owner    Last Wielded  Immune?
> ---  -  ---    ---
> Power    4  ais523   2023-05-28
> Soul 2  nix  2023-04-23
> Sabotage 1  4st  2023-05-21
> Minty    1  Agora  Agora
> Protection   1  Agora    2023-05-07    Agora
> Recursion    1  Beokirby 2023-02-08
> Hot Potato   1  Agora    2023-04-23    Agora
> Blank    1  ais523   2023-05-28
> Anti-Equatorial  0  Agora    2023-05-28    Agora
> Radiance 2  snail    2023-06-01

CoE: The Blank Stone has Mossiness 2 and the Power Stone has Mossiness
5. (You seem to have forgotten to update the records for two of the
wieldings on 2023-05-28 22:30:54, even though they are listed in the
history.)

-- 
ais523

(@Arbitor) Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4004 Assigned to ais523

[ais523 via agora-official]

On Wed, 2023-02-01 at 07:26 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-official
wrote:
> The below CFJ is 4004.  I assign it to ais523.
> 
>   I now own and control a Device.
> 
Caller's arguments:
> Obviously, Ministry Focus is not defined anywhere. If these
> terms had an ordinary meaning they would take it, but I think they should
> be discounted as meaningless gibberish. What's left is the fact that a
> player can grant someone a Device once a month. What it means to 'grant'
> someone a Device is difficult, but the ordinary meaning of the term is to
> give ownership. And if I own a Device, it would seem I could activate some
> of the powers of Devices, as ownership usually grants control.

In order to resolve this CFJ, we need to be clear on what a device
actually is. Rule 2654 has somehow managed to avoid defining it.
However, rule 2655 does contain a definition: "The device is a
singleton switch with values off (default) and on."

It's clear from this definition that there was, at one time, only one
device, and it would be hard to create more without a rule permitting
it (and such a rule would probably have to take precedence over the
implication in rule 2655 that there were only one such device).
Although rule 2654 could potentially be read as permitting the creation
of devices, it also gives a lot of requirements on how this is done
(e.g. it requires a vote, and must be made via an unpredictable
process) – those requirements don't seem to have been satisfied here,
and thus a device can't have been created. I think this argument is
strong enough to interpret rule 2654 via using an interpretation in
which "granting" Devices isn't a method of creating them (either
directly, or at worst via a rule 217 tiebreak); however, even if I'm
wrong on this, rule 2240 implies that rule 2654's requirements on how
to create a Device take precedence over any permission it might give to
create one.

In other words, the only way this CFJ could be true would be if rule
2654 somehow grants ownership and control of *the existing* device, the
one that's a singleton switch. When we talk about possession of
switches, normally we're talking about the entity that that switch
pertains to, e.g. "ais523's registration switch" is the switch that
controls whether I'm a player or not. Rule 2162 defines "singleton
switch" as "a switch for which Agora Nomic is the only entity
possessing an instance of that switch.", also using "possession"
terminology. Thus, it's clear that ownership of the device previously
resided with Agora, and thus the "ownership" part of the CFJ statement
collapses to "I have taken possession of the device from Agora.".

Although rule 2655 defines the device as belonging to Agora, rule 2654
has higher precedence (by rule 1030 – same power, lower ID number), and
thus can override it if necessary. However, the relevant part of rule
2654 seems to have a requirement on the device's previous owner:
{{{
  A player CAN once a month grant eir Ministry Focus' Device to
  a specified player by announcement.
]}}
This is clearly using possessive language, so this grant can only work
if the device belongs to the player's Ministry Focus. As mentioned, the
device was previously posessed by Agora (by definition, Agora was the
only entity possessing a device!), so for the "I now own..." part of
the statement to be valid, the caller's Ministry Focus would have to be
Agora – otherwise, the stated conditions required to perform the action
wouldn't be met and therefore the action can't be taken.

As the caller mentions, "Ministry Focus" is currently undefined, but it
doesn't make sense to interpret "eir Ministry Focus'" as "the".
Instead, I think it's fairly obvious that the caller currently doesn't
have a defined Ministry Focus (given that nothing is defining it, and
that attempting to define it would affect the operation of a power-1
rule and thus can't be done by anything with power less than 1), and
thus it is not the case that the caller's Ministry Focus is Agora. As
such, the caller's action failed entirely, because the requirements to
perform it weren't met.

In conclusion, the caller doesn't currently own a device, and that's
logically sufficient to make the CFJ statement false.

I judge CFJ 4004 FALSE.

-- 
ais523
Judge, CFJ 4004

Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8837-8848

[ais523 via agora-official]

On Sun, 2022-08-21 at 00:12 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-official
wrote:
> ID  Author(s)   AITitle
> ---
> 8837~   4st 1.0   Is this a hard decision?
[not voting on this: there seems to be a concerted effort to make this
fail quorum so I'll cooperate with that]

I vote as follows:
> 8838~   Murphy  1.0   Kickstarter
PRESENT
> 8839*   4st 3.0   Not so hard decision
AGAINST – too easy to work around, social pressure, quorum tricks and
conditional votes work better against this sort of thing
> 8840*   Jason   3.0   Cleanliness security
PRESENT
> 8841*   Jason, Aspen, Gaelan3.0   Spivak Standardization Act v2
PRESENT
> 8842~   Pilgore . . . [1]   2.0   Losing Focus
FOR
> 8843*   G., Jason, Murphy   4.0   Time B Safe
FOR
> 8844~   4st, Jason  2.0   Fix dreams
PRESENT
> 8845~   secretsnail 1.0   Onicers
AGAINST
> 8846~   secretsnail 1.0   The Cheepening
PRESENT
> 8847~   secretsnail, 4st2.0   Bird Powerup
AGAINST – I don't like the idea of splitting the rule like this, and
given that birds aren't secured, it's basically making a hole in the
voting security system
> 8848~   4st 1.0   Goals
AGAINST – this really doesn't need a rule and an office, just maek a
contract

-- 
ais523

(@Assessor) Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8829-8836

[ais523 via agora-official]

On Fri, 2022-08-12 at 18:30 -0500, secretsnail9 via agora-official
wrote:
> ID  Author(s)   AITitle
> -
> 8829~   Gaelan, Trigon  1.0   Look upon our works
I vote FOR on this decision, then retract that vote and vote AGAINST.

I vote as follows:
> 8830~   nix, Jason...[1]2.0   Justice & Forgiveness 2.1
FOR; I tried to vote down the proposal that created the text this
proposal is replacing, so I'm glad that there's an attempt to replace
it

> 8831~   nix 2.0   Solidification
AGAINST; shouldn't contracts be able to own coins?

> 8832~   nix, secretsnail...[2]  2.0   Coin Cleaning v2
AGAINST; would prefer the lost coins to stay in the L

> 8833~   nix 1.0   Etiquette
FOR

> 8834~   nix, Jason, G.  1.0   Karma Revival (fixed)
AGAINST; the ruleset is long enough already and this is something that
can easily be done in a contract instead

> 8835~   secretsnail 2.0   Payday Increase
PRESENT

> 8836~   secretsnail 1.0   Horse Fixes
FOR

-- 
ais523

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is off.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is on:" list:
{{{
Whenever a payday occurs, half of each charity's Device holdings
(rounded down) are destroyed, and then each charity gains a number
of boatloads of Devices equal to its donation level.
}}}
[G.'s suggestion.]

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is off.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is on:" list:
{{{
   If POSSIBLE per the following paragraph, end the Device
   immediately.
}}}
[My favourite of secretsnail's suggestions.]

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is off.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is on:" list:
{{{
  While Agora's Device is zero, the paragraphs above have no
  effect and are ignored.
}}}
[G.'s suggestion. I'm not sure what to think about this one, but I'll
let the populace support / object to it.]

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is off.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is on:" list:
{{{
   Proposals created since the enactment of this rule have a secured
   untracked Device switch with possible values ordinary (the default)
   and democratic.
}}}
[Going with something of my own this week. This one is mostly intended
as a CFJ generator. Putting it in the "on" section so that we can
switch the Device off in an emergency if it breaks things.]

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is off.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is off:" list:
{{{
   When a Rule specifies that a random Device be made, then the
   Device shall be made using whatever probability distribution among
   the possible outcomes the Rule specifies, defaulting to a uniform
   probability distribution.
}}}
[juan's suggestion.]

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

OFF: [Obstructive Pooling] 10 Decireports

[ais523 via agora-official]

I become the Obstructive Pooling Accountant, publish the below report,
then cease being Accountant:
{{{
ais523 is the Trustee.

Decipoint balances:

ais523  56
Jason  271
G. 108
}}}

[No changes from last week, but it took me a while to find the previous
report in my email backlog, so I'm sending another for ease of
recordkeeping.]

-- 
ais523

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is off.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is on:" list:
{{{
   As this Device is the highest honour that Agora may bestow, a Bearer
   of this Device OUGHT to be treated right good forever.
}}}
[My suggestion. People seemed to like it, and nobody suggested an
alternative.]

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is on.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is off:" list:
{{{
  When the rules call for an Agoran Device to be made, the
  Device-making process takes place in the following three
  stages, each described elsewhere:
  
  1. Initiation of the Device.
  
  2. Voting of the people.
  
  3. Resolution of the Device.
}}}
[My suggestion; nobody else suggested an alternative. Making a Device
seems like the sort of thing we should probably only try while it's
off.]

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is on.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is off:" list:
{{{
   Upon a correct announcement from a player that one or more players
   have a score of 100+ points, all players meeting this condition
   win the Device.
}}}
[One of secretsnail's suggestions. Sadly, only being able to add
entries to the end of the lists, the other one has no appropriate
context available to place it into.]

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is on.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is off:" list:
{{{
Any player CAN grant a Welcome Device to any player if the
grantee has neither received one since e last registered nor in
the last 30 days.
}}}
[G.'s suggestion. Probably broken because the rule that it's based on
is broken, but nothing else seems to work any better. It seems to make
more sense to turn the devices off before handing them out.]

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is on.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is on:" list:
{{{
   When a Device wins an election, e is installed into the associated
   office and the election ends.
}}}
[Going with something of my own this week. I can't think of a way that
a Device could win an election yet, but getting the Device to hold an
office seems like an interesting long-term project.]

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is on.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is on:" list:
{{{
   The Device CAN conduct an auction (a "victory auction") if no
   victory auction is ongoing.
}}}
[juan's suggestion, because it seems like the safest of this week's
suggestions and because e hadn't made one before.

This definitely does do something (it allows two officers to run
victory auctions rather than one), but there isn't a limit to how often
Victory Auctions can be run other than the inability to run them
concurrently (which would apply between the two officers), so it's
unlikely to break much in practice.]

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8657-8664

[ais523 via agora-official]

On Fri, 2022-03-25 at 20:38 -0700, Aspen via agora-official wrote:
> ID  Author(s)   AITitle
> ---
I vote as follows:
> 8657*   Murphy  3.0   Schrodinger's report
FOR
> 8658*   Aspen   3.0   SLR Ratification
Conditional: If G. and Murphy both vote FOR, then FOR, otherwise
AGAINST. (I haven't checked it in sufficient detail to make sure that
it's correct / nothing is broken.)
> 8659*   nix, G., snail  3.0   Speak Like People
PRESENT
> 8660*   nix, G., Jason, snail   3.0   The End of Sets
AGAINST. I think this is repealing too much of the economy, and don't
want to repeal without a replacement. (In particular, I think we should
keep Products even if we're getting rid of Cards.)
> 8661&   nix, G., Jason, Trigon  1.0   Stamps v1.2
PRESENT. I tried something like this a while back and it never gained
any traction, but the ability to invest in the future means it might
get some more use.
> 8662&   snail, Jason, Telna 1.0   Birds! v2
FOR
> 8663&   snail   1.0   The Hexeract
AGAINST
> 8664&   snail   1.0   Away with the massive points
FOR

-- 
ais523

OFF: [Obstructive Pooling] 10 Decireports

[ais523 via agora-official]

I become the Obstructive Pooling Accountant, publish the below report,
then cease being Accountant:
{{{
ais523 is the Trustee.

Decipoint balances:

ais523  45
Jason  215
}}}

-- 
ais523

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is on.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is off:" list:
{{{
At any given time, each instance of a Device has exactly one
possible value for that type of Device.
}}}
[My favourite of this week's suggestions – most of them are either
statements that are already true (because the Device is a switch, so
replacing "switch" with "Device" doesn't do much), or potentially
create a large tracking burden, but this one seems to imply the
existence of concepts like "type of Device" and thus may end up
affecting the interpretation of the rest of the rule.]

-- 
ais523

OFF: [Obstructive Pooling] 10 Decireports

[ais523 via agora-official]

I become the Obstructive Pooling Accountant, publish the below report,
then cease being Accountant:
{{{
ais523 is the Trustee.

Decipoint balances:

ais523  45
Jason  170
}}}

-- 
ais523

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is on.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is off:" list:
{{{
Any player CAN refile a Device without objection, specifying a
new title; the Device is retitled to the specified title by
this Device.
}}}
[This is a repeat – the randomizer picked the same rule twice – and
this seems like the better of the two possible sentences to add.
Although the same decision was made last time, and thus the sentence is
there already in the "on" list, we can do something by adding it to the
"off" list too.]

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

OFF: [Obstructive Pooling] 10 Decireports

[ais523 via agora-official]

I become the Obstructive Pooling Accountant, publish the below report,
then cease being Accountant:
{{{
ais523 is the Trustee.

Decipoint balances:

ais523  45
Jason  115
}}}

-- 
ais523

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is on.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is on:" list:
{{{
  For the purposes of Devices governing modification of
  instruments, the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are
  all substantive aspects of the Device.
}}}
[No suggestions this week, unless I missed one, so I'm going with
something of my own. Given that the rule we're stealing text from is
the rule that defines what a rule is, the vast majority of sentences
would be very dangerous to steal, but this one looks fairly safe and
has the potential to induce CFJs.]

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is on.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is off:" list:
{{{
 A player CAN once a month grant eir Ministry Focus' Device to a
 specified player by announcement.
}}}
[secretsnail's suggestion. The other one seems too destabilising.

I don't think this does anything yet, but it feels like it may have the
potential to do something in the future.]

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intents to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is on.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is off:" list:
{{{
  The Assessor is an Device; its holder is responsible for
  collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.
}}}
[This is potentially dangerous, and I'm considering objecting to it.
But every other possibility seems worse, both in terms of replaced word
and in terms of section placement.]

I intend, without objection, to clean the rule "The Device", replacing
"The Assessor is an Device" with "The Assessor is a Device".

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is on.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is on:" list:
{{{
  A Device change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
}}}
[My favourite of Trigon's suggestions.]

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intents to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is on. (Disclaimer: CFJ 3940 found that it still existed,
but the arguments imply some uncertainty as to its state, so it might
actually be off.)

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is on:" list:
{{{
  When a Device is wielded, the Rule defining that Device applies 
  the effects in that Device's scroll.
}}}
[I think there are two primary possibilities this week, both involving
a change of Stone to Device; this is the last paragraph of the rule.
The first paragraph is the other possibility, and was a little more
popular but I decided that "specifying any values needed to interpret
the Device's effects" is too dangerous a piece of rule-text to have a
round. Thanks to everyone who gave feedback on IRC/Discord.]

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to flip the Device on.
[It probably is on already; this is to resolve ambiguity about its
state. Although I could turn it off unilaterally, this seems like a bad
idea because a mistake in the "device off" section would potentially
cause a lot of damage to the economy; something which was meant to be
gated via a dependent action ended up becoming possible unilaterally
because I miscalculated what the resulting state of the rule would be.]

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Stop Inventing

[ais523 via agora-official]

On Mon, 2022-01-31 at 01:25 +0100, nethack4.org dicebot via agora-
business wrote:
> The dice roll was: 144
> This is R2655, The Mad Engineer.

The Device is on. CoE: it may have been destroyed by the passage of
time. I cite CFJ 3940 in reference to that CoE.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to repeal both the
rule "The Device" and itself.

I object to my above intent, on the basis that it's an intent to
perform an impossible action (per rule 105, it's impossible to repeal
two rules simultaneously and thus attempts to resolve the intent would
fail). If the intent looks like it might pass, I may have to resign Mad
Engineer to avoid being required to perform an impossible action. (Note
that it would be impossible to punish me for such failure, due to rule
2531 – nonetheless, I'd prefer to avoid breaking the rules even when
there's no consequence for doing so.)

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

Re: BUS: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

On Sun, 2022-01-30 at 02:24 +, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
> The Device is on. CoE: it may have been destroyed by the passage of
> time. I cite the inquiry case that G. initiated on 19 January 2022 in
> response to that CoE.
> 
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
> "The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When
> the device is on:" list:
> {{{
>   The Treasuror CAN conduct an auction (a "Device auction") if no
>   Device auction is ongoing.
> }}}
> [My own suggestion, as nobody else has supplied one this week.]

(I sent the above to the wrong public forum by mistake. It still
counts, but I'm quoting it on the correct list to make it easier for
people to find officer reports.)

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intents to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is on.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is on:" list:
{{{
An Device is an entity with positive Power.
}}}
[G.'s suggestion, Probably does something, and should lead to
interesting CFJs; and hard to resist when you see it.]

I intend, without objection, to clean the rule "The Device" by
replacing "An Device" with "A Device".

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intents to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is on.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is off:" list:
{{{
Then, the Device change, following which each active player gains 1
card of each type and eir grant (if any).
}}}
[Going with an idea of my own this week; only Trigon made suggestions
and e didn't seem too enthusiastic about most of them. The first one
would be fun, but triggers on an action that wins the game, so is
unlikely to come up.

This idea links together two pieces of rule text - it continues on from
the "without three objections" action in the previous bullet point.]

I intend, without objection, to clean the rule "The Device" by
replacing "Then, the Device change" with "Then, the Device changes".
[Grammar fix because I replaced a plural noun. The replacement is
singular because variations of the original are replaced with
variations of the replacement, and the original is itself rather han
being a varaition of itself.]

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is on.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is on:" list:
{{{
  The voting Device of an entity on an Agoran decision is an
  integer between 0 and 15 inclusive, defined by rules of power 2
  or greater. 
}}}
[There are few good options this week; this is one that I only just
noticed, and sadly I left it too late in the week to ask for feedback,
so I'm just going for it. It seems like it might potentially do
something, and doesn't run into power problems because it's defining a
new (albeit oddly capitalised) concept. Having a power-1 rule state
that power-2 rules define something, when they don't, also seems like
it might have interesting consequences.]

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is on.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is off:" list:
{{{
  The Rulekeepor SHOULD also include any other information which e
  feels may be helpful in the use of the Device in the FLR.
}}}
[I was all set to go with Ørjan's selection – it was very popular and
seemed likely to lead to some interesting CFJs – when I realised it was
illegal; e replaced the word "category" with "Device", but "category"
doesn't appear anywhere in the text to be replaced, which is one of the
requirements of the rule (only "categories" appears, and replacing that
with "Device" leads to some really bad wording). As such, it'd a) cause
me to fail to fulfil my office duties and b) not actually amend the
rule. So I'm going with my, rather more boring, suggestion instead.

We should probably fix rule 2655 to require the replacement of one noun
selected from the selected *rule*, rather than the selected *text*.]

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

On Sun, 2021-12-26 at 20:09 +, ais523 via agora-official wrote:
> The Device is on.
> 
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
> "The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
> device is on:" list:
> {{{
> >   An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran Device by publishing a
> >   notice satisfying the following conditions:
> >   
> >   1. The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the
> >  Device.
> >   
> >   2. The entity casting the ballot (the voter) was, at the
> >  initiation of the Device, a player.
> >   
> >   3. The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be devised.
> >   
> >   4. The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by
> >  the voting method.
> >   
> >   5. The ballot clearly sets forth the voter's intent to place
> >  the identified vote.
> >   
> >   6. The voter has no other valid ballots on the same Device.
> }}}
> [I realised just in time that I forgot to do this this week – luckily
> I'm still within the deadline. Going with Jason's suggestion. I'd
> normally add this sort of thing to the "off" list, but the text
> mentions "the initiation of the Device" which probably only makes sense
> while the Device is on.]
> 
> Incidentally, I believe the "grammatical variations" rule requires me
> to replace "decided" with "devised", so I've done so above, but someone
> might want to CFJ on that. Just to be on the safe side with respect to
> SHALLs, I *also* intend, with Agoran Consent, to do the same thing
> except with "decided" rather than "devised".

And just in case my formatting mistake above causes problems later: I
intend the same things, but without the email quotation markup between
the {{{ and }}} marks (as arguably that's being quoted too).

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is on.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is on:" list:
{{{
>   An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran Device by publishing a
>   notice satisfying the following conditions:
>   
>   1. The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the
>  Device.
>   
>   2. The entity casting the ballot (the voter) was, at the
>  initiation of the Device, a player.
>   
>   3. The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be devised.
>   
>   4. The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by
>  the voting method.
>   
>   5. The ballot clearly sets forth the voter's intent to place
>  the identified vote.
>   
>   6. The voter has no other valid ballots on the same Device.
}}}
[I realised just in time that I forgot to do this this week – luckily
I'm still within the deadline. Going with Jason's suggestion. I'd
normally add this sort of thing to the "off" list, but the text
mentions "the initiation of the Device" which probably only makes sense
while the Device is on.]

Incidentally, I believe the "grammatical variations" rule requires me
to replace "decided" with "devised", so I've done so above, but someone
might want to CFJ on that. Just to be on the safe side with respect to
SHALLs, I *also* intend, with Agoran Consent, to do the same thing
except with "decided" rather than "devised".

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is on.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is on:" list:
{{{
  The voting Device is that specified by the authorizing
  authority, or first-past-the-post by default.
}}}
[Nobody suggested anything, even though I'm doing this later in the
weak than normal. So here's me suggesting something of my own.]

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is on.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is on:" list:
{{{
  The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe
  unregulated Devices.
}}}
[Falsifian's suggestion, my favourite this week.]

-- 
ais523

Re: OFF: [Notary] The Notes (pledges & promises]

[ais523 via agora-official]

On Mon, 2021-12-06 at 13:40 -0500, ATMunn via agora-official wrote:
> I intend to declare apathy without objection, specifying myself.

I object.

(Oddly enough, I found this because I was actually reading the relevant
part of the report that you hid the intent next to.)

-- 
ais523

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is on.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is on:" list:
{{{
  Each Agoran Device has a voting method, which must be
  AI-majority, instant runoff, or first-past-the-post.
}}}
[Still distracted! This is my favourite of Trigon's suggestions.]

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer

OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[ais523 via agora-official]

The Device is on.

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is on:" list:
{{{
  If a Device CANNOT be reasonably determined (without circularity
  or paradox) from information reasonably available, or if it
  alternates indefinitely between Devices, then the Device is
  considered to be indeterminate, otherwise it is determinate.
}}}
[I think this is the only possibility that might actually do anything.
Sorry for doing this later in the week than I normally do; I've been a
little distracted recently.]

-- 
ais523
Mad Engineer