BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3931 Assigned to ais523 [@Arbitor + Glitter]

[ais523 via agora-business]

On Fri, 2021-09-17 at 12:59 +1000, Telna via agora-official wrote:
> The below CFJ is 3931. I assign it to ais523.
> =
> In this message I have won the game.

There are a few relevant questions surrounding this CFJ:
a) What "subject to modification" means in rule 2577.
b) Whether there were issues with Cuddlebeam's wording which prevent
   the scam working, even if the relevant rules supported it.
c) Whether there are precedence issues that prevent Cuddlebeam winning
   even if the text injection was successful.

Starting with b), because it gives a simple (if unsatisfying)
resolution to the CFJ. Cuddlebeam phrased eir attempted modifications
to the asset transfer action as "when". To me, this implies that the
asset transfer goes through first, and then the contract attempts to
cause something to happen as a consequence of that. I don't think that
sufficient to count as a modification to the asset transfer action (in
particular, if it failed, it wouldn't cause the transfer to fail, which
implies that it's something separate rather than the whole). So I judge
CFJ 3931 FALSE.

Looking at point c) also brings us to the same conclusion. Rule 2449
starts "When the Rules state that a person or persons win the game,"
implying that only a Rule can make the statement that a player wins. We
used to have an explicit rule that allowed players to win by proposal –
wins as a consequence of a proposal passing wouldn't have been valid
without that rule. It's since been repealed, and to win the game by
proposal nowadays, you need to create a rule that gives you the win
(rather than trying to have the proposal give you a win directly).

This implies that any sort of ruletext injection that awarded wins
would have to cause the rule itself to state that a player won the
game. With a "subject to modification by a contract" clause, it's the
*contract* that's stating that a player won the game. And because rule
2140 bans a power-0 contract from setting or modifying any aspect of a 
positive-power rule that affects its operation, there's no way for the
contract to cause a rule to state that Cuddlebeam wins the game either.
So, still FALSE.

These are both unsatisfying lines of reasoning, though – although they
let us answer the question asked in the CFJ, they don't solve the
underlying problem of whether the underlying scam is workable (for,
e.g., doing unsecured things). So let's look at point a) now; what do
the rules mean when they say something "subject to modification by [a]
backing document"?

R2577 uses the phrasing "generally CAN … by announcement … subject to
modification". By far the most sensible reading of the rule (which I
think may be the only reading supported by the text, but even if
not, it's surely the reading supported by game custom and common
sense) is that the "subject to modification" applies to the "generally
CAN … by announcement"; in other words, this is something you can
normally do by announcement, but that can be modified, and the "that"
here seems to be the "you can do it by announcement". So in other
words, the modifications suggested by the rules are modifications to
the mechanism via which the destruction or transfer happens.

Even if the text of the rules is considered to be "silent" or "unclear"
on the matter, and I'm not sure they are, R217 is in agreement with my
interpretation of what the text says. Game custom is definitely on its
side; the modifications that we typically see in practice are things
like "you can't do this" or "you can do this by paying a fee" or "you
can do this without objection", etc.. The best interests of the game,
and common sense, also suggest that the modifications should be things
that the backing document "can do anyway"; preventing an asset being
transferred is effectively the same as automatically moving it back,
and preventing it being destroyed is effectively the same as recreating
it.

Also potentially relevant, but pointing to the same conclusion, is
R2166: "An asset's backing document can generally specify when and how
that asset is created, destroyed, and transferred". "When and how"
sounds a lot like "the backing document controls the mechanism, but doesn't 
have influence over the effects on other parts of the gamestate when the 
mechanism is successfully used".

And of course, if what the backing document controls is the mechanism,
this means that you can't leverage it into winning the game as a
consequence of a successful transfer. "Attempts to transfer no assets
are successful"; but that doesn't mean you get to choose what those
attempts do (they simply just transfer no assets, it says that right in
the rule). It just means that a contract gets to choose what counts as
an attempt to transfer none of its assets, and what doesn't.

Anyway, this CFJ is FALSE, as I judged earlier in the message; there
are three grounds on which the win could reasonably have failed, and it
in fact failed on all three of them.

I award myself Blue Glitter for the 

BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection

[nethack4.org dicebot via agora-business]

This is an automated selection of a random rule from Agora's ruleset,
as part of the Mad Engineer's weekly duties.
Randomizing from 145 rules.

Assignment of dice rolls to rules:
1:R101; 2:R103; 3:R104; 4:R105; 5:R106; 6:R107; 7:R208; 8:R217;
9:R478; 10:R591; 11:R649; 12:R683; 13:R693; 14:R869; 15:R879;
16:R911; 17:R955; 18:R991; 19:R1006; 20:R1023; 21:R1030; 22:R1051;
23:R1367; 24:R1551; 25:R1586; 26:R1607; 27:R1681; 28:R1688; 29:R1698;
30:R1727; 31:R1728; 32:R1742; 33:R1769; 34:R1789; 35:R1950; 36:R2029;
37:R2034; 38:R2124; 39:R2125; 40:R2127; 41:R2137; 42:R2138; 43:R2139;
44:R2140; 45:R2141; 46:R2143; 47:R2152; 48:R2154; 49:R2160; 50:R2162;
51:R2166; 52:R2168; 53:R2175; 54:R2201; 55:R2202; 56:R2221; 57:R2231;
58:R2240; 59:R2246; 60:R2327; 61:R2350; 62:R2379; 63:R2415; 64:R2422;
65:R2423; 66:R2429; 67:R2438; 68:R2449; 69:R2450; 70:R2451; 71:R2456;
72:R2463; 73:R2464; 74:R2465; 75:R2466; 76:R2471; 77:R2472; 78:R2478;
79:R2480; 80:R2481; 81:R2483; 82:R2486; 83:R2492; 84:R2493; 85:R2495;
86:R2496; 87:R2499; 88:R2505; 89:R2509; 90:R2518; 91:R2519; 92:R2528;
93:R2531; 94:R2545; 95:R2553; 96:R2555; 97:R2556; 98:R2557; 99:R2559;
100:R2566; 101:R2573; 102:R2575; 103:R2576; 104:R2577; 105:R2578;
106:R2579; 107:R2581; 108:R2582; 109:R2585; 110:R2595; 111:R2602;
112:R2603; 113:R2605; 114:R2606; 115:R2608; 116:R2614; 117:R2616;
118:R2617; 119:R2618; 120:R2620; 121:R2621; 122:R2622; 123:R2623;
124:R2624; 125:R2625; 126:R2629; 127:R2630; 128:R2631; 129:R2632;
130:R2634; 131:R2635; 132:R2636; 133:R2638; 134:R2640; 135:R2641;
136:R2642; 137:R2643; 138:R2644; 139:R2645; 140:R2646; 141:R2649;
142:R2651; 143:R2653; 144:R2654; 145:R2655.

The dice roll was: 34
This is R1789, Cantus Cygneus.

--
ruleroller.pl v0.1.  For source code,
see 
and .

BUS: (@adop) Ministor Election

[Kerim Aydin via agora-business]

Having received 2 support, I initiate an election for Ministor.

I nominate myself.

-G.

On 9/19/2021 4:36 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> On 9/19/21 19:33, Trigon via agora-business wrote:
>> El 19/09/2021 a las 23:30, Kerim Aydin via agora-business escribió:
>>> I intend with 2 support to initiate an election for Ministor (becoming a
>>> candidate in doing so).
>>>
>>> -G.
>>>
>> I support.
>>
> 
> I support.
> 

Re: BUS: need a proper job (Ministor)

[Jason Cobb via agora-business]

On 9/19/21 19:33, Trigon via agora-business wrote:
> El 19/09/2021 a las 23:30, Kerim Aydin via agora-business escribió:
>> I intend with 2 support to initiate an election for Ministor (becoming a
>> candidate in doing so).
>>
>> -G.
>>
> I support.
>

I support.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason

Re: BUS: need a proper job (Ministor)

[Trigon via agora-business]

El 19/09/2021 a las 23:30, Kerim Aydin via agora-business escribió:


I intend with 2 support to initiate an election for Ministor (becoming a
candidate in doing so).

-G.



I support.

--
Trigon

 ¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST





I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

BUS: need a proper job (Ministor)

[Kerim Aydin via agora-business]

I intend with 2 support to initiate an election for Ministor (becoming a
candidate in doing so).

-G.

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3926 Assigned to Murphy (attn Treasuror)

[Edward Murphy via agora-business]

I wrote:


As I wrote when I attempted to grant those coins: I believe that, as
Glitter is not an asset, it's reasonable to interpret "gaining" it as a
gloss for "being awarded" it. TRUE.


I award myself Blue Glitter for judging CFJ 3926 on time. Accordingly, I
award myself 6 BoC (156 coins).

BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3926 Assigned to Murphy

[Edward Murphy via agora-business]

Telna wrote:


I recuse Gaelan from CFJ 3926 (overdue and player inactive).
I assign CFJ 3926 to Murphy.



The Tailor SHALL and CAN grant me coins as a consequence of my Blue
Glitter award earlier in this message.

Called by ais523: Wed 01 Sep 2021 04:23:34

=

On 2021-09-01 14:23, ais523 via agora-business wrote:

I award myself Blue Glitter. (I judged CFJ 3925 recently, already have
a Blue Ribbon, and have not tried to claim Blue Glitter since.)

CFJ: The Tailor SHALL and CAN grant me coins as a consequence of my
Blue Glitter award earlier in this message.

Evidence: this message, and the following quote from the online FLR:
{{{
Rule 2602/7 (Power=1)
Glitter

   "Each type of Ribbon has a corresponding type of Glitter with 
the

   same name. A player qualifies for a type of Glitter when e
   qualifies for the same type of Ribbon while already owning 
such a
   Ribbon. If a player has not been awarded that type of Ribbon 
or e

   corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or came to
   qualify for that type of Ribbon, and has not been so awarded 
five

   or more times within the past 24 hours, any player CAN award em
   that type of Glitter by announcement. When a player gains a type
   of Glitter, the Tailor SHALL in an officially timely fashion and
   CAN once by announcement award em N/2 boatloads of coins rounded
   up, where N is the number of players that did not own the
   corresponding type of Ribbon at the time of the award. The 
amount

   payable for each type of Glitter is tracked in the Tailor's
   weekly report.

Rule 2577/6 (Power=3), exerpt
Asset Actions

   For an entity to gain (historical syn. earn) an asset is for 
that

   asset to be created in that entity's possession. To grant an
   entity an asset is to create it in eir possession.
}}}

Arguments:
{{{
The version of Rule 2602 on the online FLR is a mess. In addition to an
unmatched double quote, it starts by defining the circumstances in
which a player "qualifies" for glitter, but then probably ignores them
(it may be that an oddly placed "that" is trying to point to this
definition). It then continues by saying that a player can be "awarded"
glitter if they haven't had glitter for a redundant earning of a
Ribbon. That's the action I took in the message where I called this
CFJ.

However, the Tailor's coin reward is based on "gaining" glitter. What
relationship does this have to being awarded it? The term "award" is
normally used for Ribbons and for Patent Titles, whereas "gain" is
typically used for assets; neither a Ribbon nor a Patent Title is an
asset. "Gain" is mentioned in the definition of the White Ribbon,
though. Rule 2577 mentions "gain" as a historical synonym for "earn",
which doesn't really help matters much (it may make the White Ribbon's
definition easier to understand, but maybe not); also, defining
something as a historical synonym doesn't necessarily imply that the
synonym exists now.

If being "awarded" glitter causes you to "gain" it, then is the glitter
itself some sort of tracked object? Perhaps an asset, or a Patent
Title? Or is this meant as some sort of hypothetical condition that
rules can look at (in which case there's no obvious reason to link
"gain" to "award"?).

It also seems possible that there's been a Rulekeepor error related to
the rule in question, and the online FLR doesn't match the actual
ruleset; I haven't looked into this.
}}}


As I wrote when I attempted to grant those coins: I believe that, as
Glitter is not an asset, it's reasonable to interpret "gaining" it as a
gloss for "being awarded" it. TRUE.

Re: DIS: Re: @ADoP Re: BUS: [@everyone] winning (attn Treasuror)

[Edward Murphy via agora-business]

I wrote:


Trigon wrote:


I appoint Trigon to the office of Speaker.


I award myself Platinum Glitter. Thank you all!


I award 8 BoC (208 coins) to Trigon.


TTttPF

Re: BUS: (@adop) Re: OFF: [ADoP] Floating salaries (attn Treasuror)

[Edward Murphy via agora-business]

I wrote:


I award 5 BoC (130 coins) to G. for publishing the Mad Engineer's report
on Sat, Sep 04 2021 (18:52:57).


Correction, that was the intent to flip the switch, however the ME
report is instead the intent to amend the rule. That was published on:
  1) Tue, 31 Aug 2021 07:26:43 -0700
  2) Sun, 12 Sep 2021 11:31:51 -0700
  3) Sun, 19 Sep 2021 09:07:56 -0700

If the above-quoted award was ineffective, then I award 5 BoC to G. for
publishing 1).

I award 5 BoC to G. for publishing 2).

I award 5 BoC to G. for publishing 3).

Re: BUS: (@adop) Re: OFF: [ADoP] Floating salaries (attn Treasuror)

[Edward Murphy via agora-business]

G. wrote:


On 9/12/2021 4:01 PM, Edward Murphy via agora-official wrote:

I grant boatloads of coins to players as follows:

(weekly)


The Mad Engineer's "report" isn't in your WEEKLY REPORTS section so I
can't tell if you missed the last sentence of the following paragraph, or
think it doesn't work for some reason (definitely possible! but cfj-worthy
if so):

Rule 2655:
   d) Announce intent to, with Agoran Consent, cause this rule to
   amend the rule "The Device" by inserting the modified text as the
   last list item in either the "device on" or "device off" lists in
   that rule (or, if 007 has been spotted, to repeal both that rule
   and this one).  This intent announcement counts as the Mad
   Engineers's weekly report.


Yeah, overlooked.

I award 5 BoC (130 coins) to G. for publishing the Mad Engineer's report
on Sat, Sep 04 2021 (18:52:57).

I also missed that deputising for Tracker of the Device doesn't install
you (since it's imposed rather than elected).

These will both be corrected in the next report.

Proto: Amend Rule 2655 (The Mad Engineer) by replacing
  "This intent announcement counts as"
with
  "This intent announcement counts as part of".

Proto: Amend Rule 2603 (Switch Responsibility) to read:

  For each type of switch which would otherwise lack an officer to
  track it, and is not defined as untracked, the ADoP CAN by
  announcement assign an officer as responsible for tracking that
  switch. This assignment remains in effect until the rules are
  amended to override it.

BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJs 3929 and 3930 Assigned to Jason

[Sarah S. via agora-business]

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 1:44 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> On 9/19/2021 2:02 AM, Telna via agora-official wrote:
> > I recuse R. Lee from CFJs 3929 and 3930. (E is deregistered).
> > I assign CFJs 3929 and 3930 to Jason.
>
> Note that if R. Lee is not late judging, this fails.  The rules are
> written so that you must be a player to be assigned as a judge, but you
> remain judge (and capable of judging) if you deregister.  All the other
> judicial actions beyond assignment refer to "judges" or "persons" not
> players (I think!), and the only grounds for Arbitor-recusal is late
> judging.
>
> -G.
>
> I recuse myself from both cases

-- 
--
R. Lee

BUS: Buying Justice Cards (@Notary)

[Telna via agora-business]

I grant ten copies of the following promise to the Library:


"Buying Justice Cards" created by Telnai
Bearer: the Library
Text:

Cashing conditions: The bearer has transferred Telna one Justice Card in 
the same message as which e cashes this promise, and has not cashed any 
other promise between doing so and cashing this promise, and Telna has 
at least 250 coins.


I transfer 250 coins to the bearer.

BUS: FAGE

[Sarah S. via agora-business]

I publish the following writ of FAGE: Cuddlebeam's view of society is
essentially that women should stay in the kitchen, which is pretty uncool
of him! I disagree strongly enough with those views that I would rather not
play this game with him at this time, a stance that may change later, but
probably won't within the next 30 days!

I should never have made the discord and talked about personal issues with
people, even though every single one of you is lovely and I'm honoured to
have met every one of you.

As the registrar, I deregister myself.

--
R. Lee