Re: BAK: well, while we're at it
It is importantly to periodically remind players to read the backup lists.
On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 at 00:20 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I fail to see how this measure is in the interest of Agora. As Speaker, I
> must defend the interest of the game. The fact that this would bring in a
> new Speaker of course has nothing to do my thoughts on this matter
> (alright, maybe it does, but I don't really see the point of effortless
> wins anyway; it takes the fun out of it).
>
> On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 8:37 PM Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote:
>
>> I look at y'all menacingly. While eating chocolate.
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Ørjan.
>>
>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2018, Nicholas Evans wrote:
>>
>> > I object but can easily be convinced.
>> >
>> > On Feb 3, 2018 7:36 PM, "Alexis Hunt" <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I intend, without objection, to declare Apathy, specifying {ais523,
>> >> Alexis, Aris, G., Corona, Murphy, V.J. Rada, ATMunn}.
>> >>
>> >> (i.e. the set of people I suspect are actually reading the backup
>> list.)
>> >>
>> >> -Alexis
>> >>
>> >> ___
>> >> Agora mailing list
>> >> Agora@listserver.tue.nl
>> >> https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
___
Agora mailing list
Agora@listserver.tue.nl
https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
BAK: well, while we're at it
I intend, without objection, to declare Apathy, specifying {ais523, Alexis,
Aris, G., Corona, Murphy, V.J. Rada, ATMunn}.
(i.e. the set of people I suspect are actually reading the backup list.)
-Alexis
___
Agora mailing list
Agora@listserver.tue.nl
https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
Re: BAK: Test
Seems we forgot to filter this list. Assuming the rules regarding public fora haven't changed, there is precedent going back at least a decade that messages to public fora are public, even if only some subset of players receive them. The solution is to make an unreliable forum non-Public. On Wed., May 15, 2019, 23:41 Aris Merchant, < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think we have to consider any of the non-compliant messages as failing > the standards necessary for a published message, since many players appear > to be unable to receive them. The fact that the blame lies with the > policies of the sender’s server is especially relevant. There’s a CFJ > somewhere that supports this interpretation (specifically, it stated that a > message could not be considered published unless enough of those signed up > for the forum received it), although I don’t have time to find it at the > moment. > > -Aris > > On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 8:07 PM James Cook wrote: > >> I didn't receive it either. Also, GMail shows a big warning above this >> reply from D. Margaux, saying: >> >> "Be careful with this message >> >> Gmail could not verify that it actually came from >> dmargaux...@gmail.com. Avoid clicking links, downloading attachments >> or replying with personal information." >> >> It may have something to do with DMARC as AIS523 suggests. I remember >> seeing this on at least one other email from D. Margaux, and I think >> it was also a reply to something from Murphy, but it could be a >> coincidence. >> >> >> >> On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 20:13, D. Margaux wrote: >> > >> > Didn’t get it in inbox or junk folder... >> > >> > > On May 15, 2019, at 4:00 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" < >> ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: >> > > >> > >> On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 07:43 -0700, Edward Murphy wrote: >> > >> Test >> > > >> > > This went straight to my junk email folder. It did get through, >> though. >> > > >> > > -- >> > > ais523 >> > > >> > > ___ >> > > Agora mailing list >> > > Agora@listserver.tue.nl >> > > https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora >> > ___ >> > Agora mailing list >> > Agora@listserver.tue.nl >> > https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora >> ___ >> Agora mailing list >> Agora@listserver.tue.nl >> https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora >> > ___ Agora mailing list Agora@listserver.tue.nl https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
Re: BAK: [RWO] List Patch (attn. Arbitor)
I intend to register and prefer this case as soon as I have time to figure out how to do that. (Apologies for top-posting again but I am in a hurry at the moment.) On Wed., Jan. 1, 2020, 02:06 Aris Merchant, < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 9:41 PM James Cook wrote: > >> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 at 18:59, Aris Merchant >> wrote: >> > >> > I intend to ratify without objection the following ~~~-delimited >> > document (see further the notes at the bottom of this message): >> > ~~~ >> > Effective date: Dec 14 00:15:01 UTC 2019 >> > >> > At Dec 14 00:15:00 UTC 2019, the fora agora-official and >> > agora-business became discussion fora. >> > ~~~ >> > >> > I intend to ratify without objection the following ~~~-delimited >> > document (see further the notes at the bottom of this message): >> > ~~~ >> > Effective date: Dec 28 01:45:01 UTC 2019 >> > >> > At Dec 28 01:45:00 UTC 2019, the fora agora-official and >> > agora-business became public fora. >> > ~~~ >> > >> > I pledge not to ratify either of those documents without ratifying the >> > other one. I note that the documents above are technically incorrect, >> > but that ratifying them would reduce ambiguity about what messages >> > failed to be public under CFJ 1905. >> >> I object to both intents. >> >> Sorry to prolong this, but I'm not convinced this gets around Ørjan's >> objection. Here are two modifications to the gamestate that could be >> made at 00:15:01 on Dec 14 that would make the first document true: >> >> a) Insert two events into the historical record: a-o and a-b become >> discussion fora. Flip both publicity switches to Discussion. >> >> b) Insert four events into the historical record: a-o and a-b became >> discussion fora, then immediately after, became Public fora again. >> >> Both of these involve four changes (either two additions to history >> plus two changes to Publicity switches, or four additions to history). >> The first one is what we intend, but I'm not confident that it is the >> unique minimal modification. >> >> Is there anything wrong with passing a proposals that says "Change the >> gamestate to what it would be if a-b and a-o's publicity had been >> switched to Discussion at time X and then switched back to Public at >> time Y, so that none of the intervening messages on either list were >> sent via a public forum"? >> >> Alternatively, I wouldn't be averse to just fixing the uncertainties >> one by one. I don't think there are that many. A few Master switches, >> some income earned, the state of the PM election, and whether a >> proposal was distributed. Anything else? >> >> -- > > > > *Sigh.* I see your point, but I’m not buying it. > > I CFJ, barring Falsifian, the claim “If the two documents quoted above > were ratified, the first one would have the effect of modifying the > historical record twice and the publicity switches of the relevant fora > twice, in the manner stated as interpretation a above.” > > Arguments: > The relevant paragraph of rule 1551: > “When a document or statement (hereafter "document") is ratified, rules > to the contrary notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified to what it > would be if, at the time the ratified document was published, the > gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified document as > true and accurate as possible; however, if the document explicitly > specifies a different past time as being the time the document was true, > the specified time is used to determine the minimal modifications. Such a > modification cannot add inconsistencies between the gamestate and the > rules, and it cannot include rule changes unless the ratified document > explicitly and unambiguously recites either the changes or the resulting > properties of the rule(s). If no such modification is possible, or > multiple substantially distinct possible modifications would be equally > appropriate, > the ratification fails.” > > I don’t think any reasonable reader would say that the minimal change > necessary to make a document true involves inserting a change cancelling > out any changes made by the document. That’s simply not what minimal change > means in natural language. Also, if there is any interpretation in which > this view is correct, the best interests of the game and common sense > mandate that it be selected. > > End arguments. > > I request expedited assignment for this case. I pledge the Arbitor 5 coins > if e assigns this case within 2 days. I pledge the first judge of this case > 5 coins if e judges it within 2 days of it being assigned to em. > > -Aris > ___ Agora mailing list Agora@listserver.tue.nl https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
Re: BAK: [RWO] List Patch
>From the peanut gallery, I don't think ratification is the right approach here. Creation of a legal fiction would be better. On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 at 14:03, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I intend to ratify without objection the following ~~~-delimited > document (see further the notes at the bottom of this message): > ~~~ > Effective date: Dec 14 00:15:01 UTC 2019 > > At Dec 14 00:15:00 UTC 2019, the fora agora-official and > agora-business became discussion fora. > ~~~ > > I intend to ratify without objection the following ~~~-delimited > document (see further the notes at the bottom of this message): > ~~~ > Effective date: Dec 28 01:45:01 UTC 2019 > > At Dec 28 01:45:00 UTC 2019, the fora agora-official and > agora-business became public fora. > ~~~ > > I pledge not to ratify either of those documents without ratifying the > other one. I note that the documents above are technically incorrect, > but that ratifying them would reduce ambiguity about what messages > failed to be public under CFJ 1905. > > -Aris > ___ > Agora mailing list > Agora@listserver.tue.nl > https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora > ___ Agora mailing list Agora@listserver.tue.nl https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
Re: BAK: [RWO] List Patch
Do you have a link to the public archive version? I have lost my credentials it seems. On Sun., Dec. 29, 2019, 19:39 Alexis Hunt, wrote: > Interesting, I missed that and will have to read sometime. > > On Sun., Dec. 29, 2019, 18:16 Aris Merchant, < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> See Falsifian's J.N. thesis. [1] It considers this issue very >> thoroughly, and given the context (written by a judge about the >> hypothetical disposition of judicial cases assigned to em under >> hypothetical circumstances) is effectively a precedent. The TL;DR >> version is that ratification does in fact create a retroactive legal >> fiction. >> >> [1] >> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-June/040456.html >> >> >> -Aris >> >> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 2:02 PM Alexis Hunt wrote: >> > >> > Ratification doesn't retroactively adjust the game state, which can >> cause references to history to get weird. If memory serves, the precedent >> is that ratification does not paper over history with legal fictions. >> There's probably a scam there to be honest. >> > >> > On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 at 16:56, Aris Merchant < >> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> Why? >> >> >> >> -Aris >> >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 1:48 PM Alexis Hunt wrote: >> >>> >> >>> From the peanut gallery, I don't think ratification is the right >> approach here. Creation of a legal fiction would be better. >> >>> >> >>> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 at 14:03, Aris Merchant < >> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> I intend to ratify without objection the following ~~~-delimited >> >>>> document (see further the notes at the bottom of this message): >> >>>> ~~~ >> >>>> Effective date: Dec 14 00:15:01 UTC 2019 >> >>>> >> >>>> At Dec 14 00:15:00 UTC 2019, the fora agora-official and >> >>>> agora-business became discussion fora. >> >>>> ~~~ >> >>>> >> >>>> I intend to ratify without objection the following ~~~-delimited >> >>>> document (see further the notes at the bottom of this message): >> >>>> ~~~ >> >>>> Effective date: Dec 28 01:45:01 UTC 2019 >> >>>> >> >>>> At Dec 28 01:45:00 UTC 2019, the fora agora-official and >> >>>> agora-business became public fora. >> >>>> ~~~ >> >>>> >> >>>> I pledge not to ratify either of those documents without ratifying >> the >> >>>> other one. I note that the documents above are technically incorrect, >> >>>> but that ratifying them would reduce ambiguity about what messages >> >>>> failed to be public under CFJ 1905. >> >>>> >> >>>> -Aris >> >>>> ___ >> >>>> Agora mailing list >> >>>> Agora@listserver.tue.nl >> >>>> https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora >> ___ >> Agora mailing list >> Agora@listserver.tue.nl >> https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora >> > ___ Agora mailing list Agora@listserver.tue.nl https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
Re: BAK: [RWO] List Patch
Ratification doesn't retroactively adjust the game state, which can cause references to history to get weird. If memory serves, the precedent is that ratification does not paper over history with legal fictions. There's probably a scam there to be honest. On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 at 16:56, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why? > > -Aris > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 1:48 PM Alexis Hunt wrote: > >> From the peanut gallery, I don't think ratification is the right approach >> here. Creation of a legal fiction would be better. >> >> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 at 14:03, Aris Merchant < >> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I intend to ratify without objection the following ~~~-delimited >>> document (see further the notes at the bottom of this message): >>> ~~~ >>> Effective date: Dec 14 00:15:01 UTC 2019 >>> >>> At Dec 14 00:15:00 UTC 2019, the fora agora-official and >>> agora-business became discussion fora. >>> ~~~ >>> >>> I intend to ratify without objection the following ~~~-delimited >>> document (see further the notes at the bottom of this message): >>> ~~~ >>> Effective date: Dec 28 01:45:01 UTC 2019 >>> >>> At Dec 28 01:45:00 UTC 2019, the fora agora-official and >>> agora-business became public fora. >>> ~~~ >>> >>> I pledge not to ratify either of those documents without ratifying the >>> other one. I note that the documents above are technically incorrect, >>> but that ratifying them would reduce ambiguity about what messages >>> failed to be public under CFJ 1905. >>> >>> -Aris >>> ___ >>> Agora mailing list >>> Agora@listserver.tue.nl >>> https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora >>> >> ___ Agora mailing list Agora@listserver.tue.nl https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
Re: BAK: [RWO] List Patch
Interesting, I missed that and will have to read sometime. On Sun., Dec. 29, 2019, 18:16 Aris Merchant, < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > See Falsifian's J.N. thesis. [1] It considers this issue very > thoroughly, and given the context (written by a judge about the > hypothetical disposition of judicial cases assigned to em under > hypothetical circumstances) is effectively a precedent. The TL;DR > version is that ratification does in fact create a retroactive legal > fiction. > > [1] > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-June/040456.html > > > -Aris > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 2:02 PM Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > > Ratification doesn't retroactively adjust the game state, which can > cause references to history to get weird. If memory serves, the precedent > is that ratification does not paper over history with legal fictions. > There's probably a scam there to be honest. > > > > On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 at 16:56, Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> Why? > >> > >> -Aris > >> > >> On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 1:48 PM Alexis Hunt wrote: > >>> > >>> From the peanut gallery, I don't think ratification is the right > approach here. Creation of a legal fiction would be better. > >>> > >>> On Sun, 29 Dec 2019 at 14:03, Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I intend to ratify without objection the following ~~~-delimited > >>>> document (see further the notes at the bottom of this message): > >>>> ~~~ > >>>> Effective date: Dec 14 00:15:01 UTC 2019 > >>>> > >>>> At Dec 14 00:15:00 UTC 2019, the fora agora-official and > >>>> agora-business became discussion fora. > >>>> ~~~ > >>>> > >>>> I intend to ratify without objection the following ~~~-delimited > >>>> document (see further the notes at the bottom of this message): > >>>> ~~~ > >>>> Effective date: Dec 28 01:45:01 UTC 2019 > >>>> > >>>> At Dec 28 01:45:00 UTC 2019, the fora agora-official and > >>>> agora-business became public fora. > >>>> ~~~ > >>>> > >>>> I pledge not to ratify either of those documents without ratifying the > >>>> other one. I note that the documents above are technically incorrect, > >>>> but that ratifying them would reduce ambiguity about what messages > >>>> failed to be public under CFJ 1905. > >>>> > >>>> -Aris > >>>> ___ > >>>> Agora mailing list > >>>> Agora@listserver.tue.nl > >>>> https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora > ___ > Agora mailing list > Agora@listserver.tue.nl > https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora > ___ Agora mailing list Agora@listserver.tue.nl https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
