Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
Actually I'm going to think about Faking some more, I retract my Faking
proposal in this thread.
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:36 AM Rebecca wrote:
> Actually, another idea: what if I just removed the intent bit and made any
> false statement of fact a crime, but I also included a clause like this
> "Other rules notwithstanding, the Referee has discretion to levy a fine of
> 0 blots for Faking if the false statement of fact was, in eir judgement,
> clearly innocent and mistaken"
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:33 AM Rebecca wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I retract my proposal below and resubmit it with the same
>> attributes except I also make PSS a coauthor
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:32 AM Rebecca wrote:
>>
>>> I retract my proposal " This is not unlike defamation law" and create
>>> the following. I won't remove the bit about formal statements of intent not
>>> constituting faking, because it's already in the rule and I think it makes
>>> sense as there are already rules against ratifying false things, but I will
>>> follow some of PSS's other suggestions. I will also try to make it simpler
>>> and more readable. Also I'm going to add more fun law language, because I'm
>>> not paying some university jerks a hundred thousand dollars for nothing.
>>>
>>> I create the following proposal
>>> Title: Better Faking
>>> AI 1
>>> Chamber: Justice
>>> Text: Amend rule 2471 "No Faking" so that it states
>>> {Faking is a class 2 crime.
>>> Faking constitutes making a public statement that is
>>> 1. A pure and verifiable statement of fact fact about current or past
>>> Agoran gamestate and is
>>> 2. False at the time the statement is made and is
>>> 3. Either subjectively intended to be a lie or is surrounded by
>>> objective circumstances that make it overwhelmingly likely that the
>>> statement's falsity significantly benefits the maker of the statement,
>>> which means it may be presumed to be intended as a lie.
>>>
>>> However, a statement that is part of a formal announcement of intent is
>>> never Faking. A statement is never Faking if context establishes that the
>>> statement was qualified by its author as false in the same message, and it
>>> is never Faking to quote another person's false statement.}
>>>
>>> The defense that I included of having the statement be qualified or
>>> disclaimed is a little more protective than the current No Faking, but
>>> that's because the current No Faking was actually amended to allow more
>>> lies with disclaimers and such, which I find generally silly
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 9:01 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
>>> agora-discussion wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:48 AM Rebecca via agora-business
wrote:
>
> I create this proposal
>
> Title: This is not unlike defamation law
> AI 1
> Chamber: Justice
> Text: Amend rule 2471 "No Faking" so that it states
> A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that (1) is a statement of
pure
> and verifiable fact about the game state of Agora and
I like this change because it's more clear than the current text.
> (2) is false at the
> time the statement is made and
I'm interested in how this would interact with ratification and
confusion around that, but if we resolve that, I generally like it.
Additionally, this removes the possibility of someone believing that
they are making a false statement when it is in fact true. I think we
should keep that as illegal because that way we don't always have to
determine the exact accuracy of a statement at a time, which
unfortunately can be very complicated.
> (3) is likely, at the time the statement is
> made, to induce game actions by other persons that would not be taken
if a
> true statement was substituted for the false one.
This seems like an overly restrictive test. As the person who will
likely have to make this assessment, I would prefer if we either went
for much more specific or keep a more vague standard. I also don't
like the removal of the intent and knowledge clause because this could
force us to punish people for simply being wrong.
> Making such a statement
> is the Class-2 crime of Faking.
>
> Statements of formal intent never constitute Faking.
>
I don't like this final clause because it allows ratification of
things without a specific statement of any changes. Preventing this
increases transparency and is therefore good for the game.
I would also like to keep the following text because it provides some
helpful safeguards and avoids disputes:
Merely quoting a statement does not constitute making
it for the purposes of this rule. Any disclaimer, conditional
clause, or other qualifier attached to a statement constitutes
part of the statement for the purposes of
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
Actually, another idea: what if I just removed the intent bit and made any
false statement of fact a crime, but I also included a clause like this
"Other rules notwithstanding, the Referee has discretion to levy a fine of
0 blots for Faking if the false statement of fact was, in eir judgement,
clearly innocent and mistaken"
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:33 AM Rebecca wrote:
> Sorry, I retract my proposal below and resubmit it with the same
> attributes except I also make PSS a coauthor
>
> On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:32 AM Rebecca wrote:
>
>> I retract my proposal " This is not unlike defamation law" and create
>> the following. I won't remove the bit about formal statements of intent not
>> constituting faking, because it's already in the rule and I think it makes
>> sense as there are already rules against ratifying false things, but I will
>> follow some of PSS's other suggestions. I will also try to make it simpler
>> and more readable. Also I'm going to add more fun law language, because I'm
>> not paying some university jerks a hundred thousand dollars for nothing.
>>
>> I create the following proposal
>> Title: Better Faking
>> AI 1
>> Chamber: Justice
>> Text: Amend rule 2471 "No Faking" so that it states
>> {Faking is a class 2 crime.
>> Faking constitutes making a public statement that is
>> 1. A pure and verifiable statement of fact fact about current or past
>> Agoran gamestate and is
>> 2. False at the time the statement is made and is
>> 3. Either subjectively intended to be a lie or is surrounded by objective
>> circumstances that make it overwhelmingly likely that the statement's
>> falsity significantly benefits the maker of the statement, which means it
>> may be presumed to be intended as a lie.
>>
>> However, a statement that is part of a formal announcement of intent is
>> never Faking. A statement is never Faking if context establishes that the
>> statement was qualified by its author as false in the same message, and it
>> is never Faking to quote another person's false statement.}
>>
>> The defense that I included of having the statement be qualified or
>> disclaimed is a little more protective than the current No Faking, but
>> that's because the current No Faking was actually amended to allow more
>> lies with disclaimers and such, which I find generally silly
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 9:01 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
>> agora-discussion wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:48 AM Rebecca via agora-business
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I create this proposal
>>> >
>>> > Title: This is not unlike defamation law
>>> > AI 1
>>> > Chamber: Justice
>>> > Text: Amend rule 2471 "No Faking" so that it states
>>> > A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that (1) is a statement of
>>> pure
>>> > and verifiable fact about the game state of Agora and
>>>
>>> I like this change because it's more clear than the current text.
>>>
>>> > (2) is false at the
>>> > time the statement is made and
>>>
>>> I'm interested in how this would interact with ratification and
>>> confusion around that, but if we resolve that, I generally like it.
>>> Additionally, this removes the possibility of someone believing that
>>> they are making a false statement when it is in fact true. I think we
>>> should keep that as illegal because that way we don't always have to
>>> determine the exact accuracy of a statement at a time, which
>>> unfortunately can be very complicated.
>>>
>>> > (3) is likely, at the time the statement is
>>> > made, to induce game actions by other persons that would not be taken
>>> if a
>>> > true statement was substituted for the false one.
>>>
>>> This seems like an overly restrictive test. As the person who will
>>> likely have to make this assessment, I would prefer if we either went
>>> for much more specific or keep a more vague standard. I also don't
>>> like the removal of the intent and knowledge clause because this could
>>> force us to punish people for simply being wrong.
>>>
>>> > Making such a statement
>>> > is the Class-2 crime of Faking.
>>> >
>>> > Statements of formal intent never constitute Faking.
>>> >
>>>
>>> I don't like this final clause because it allows ratification of
>>> things without a specific statement of any changes. Preventing this
>>> increases transparency and is therefore good for the game.
>>>
>>> I would also like to keep the following text because it provides some
>>> helpful safeguards and avoids disputes:
>>>
>>> Merely quoting a statement does not constitute making
>>> it for the purposes of this rule. Any disclaimer, conditional
>>> clause, or other qualifier attached to a statement constitutes
>>> part of the statement for the purposes of this rule; the truth or
>>> falsity of the whole is what is significant.
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From R. Lee
>>
>
>
> --
> From R. Lee
>
--
>From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
Sorry, I retract my proposal below and resubmit it with the same attributes
except I also make PSS a coauthor
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 1:32 AM Rebecca wrote:
> I retract my proposal " This is not unlike defamation law" and create the
> following. I won't remove the bit about formal statements of intent not
> constituting faking, because it's already in the rule and I think it makes
> sense as there are already rules against ratifying false things, but I will
> follow some of PSS's other suggestions. I will also try to make it simpler
> and more readable. Also I'm going to add more fun law language, because I'm
> not paying some university jerks a hundred thousand dollars for nothing.
>
> I create the following proposal
> Title: Better Faking
> AI 1
> Chamber: Justice
> Text: Amend rule 2471 "No Faking" so that it states
> {Faking is a class 2 crime.
> Faking constitutes making a public statement that is
> 1. A pure and verifiable statement of fact fact about current or past
> Agoran gamestate and is
> 2. False at the time the statement is made and is
> 3. Either subjectively intended to be a lie or is surrounded by objective
> circumstances that make it overwhelmingly likely that the statement's
> falsity significantly benefits the maker of the statement, which means it
> may be presumed to be intended as a lie.
>
> However, a statement that is part of a formal announcement of intent is
> never Faking. A statement is never Faking if context establishes that the
> statement was qualified by its author as false in the same message, and it
> is never Faking to quote another person's false statement.}
>
> The defense that I included of having the statement be qualified or
> disclaimed is a little more protective than the current No Faking, but
> that's because the current No Faking was actually amended to allow more
> lies with disclaimers and such, which I find generally silly
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 9:01 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
> agora-discussion wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:48 AM Rebecca via agora-business
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > I create this proposal
>> >
>> > Title: This is not unlike defamation law
>> > AI 1
>> > Chamber: Justice
>> > Text: Amend rule 2471 "No Faking" so that it states
>> > A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that (1) is a statement of
>> pure
>> > and verifiable fact about the game state of Agora and
>>
>> I like this change because it's more clear than the current text.
>>
>> > (2) is false at the
>> > time the statement is made and
>>
>> I'm interested in how this would interact with ratification and
>> confusion around that, but if we resolve that, I generally like it.
>> Additionally, this removes the possibility of someone believing that
>> they are making a false statement when it is in fact true. I think we
>> should keep that as illegal because that way we don't always have to
>> determine the exact accuracy of a statement at a time, which
>> unfortunately can be very complicated.
>>
>> > (3) is likely, at the time the statement is
>> > made, to induce game actions by other persons that would not be taken
>> if a
>> > true statement was substituted for the false one.
>>
>> This seems like an overly restrictive test. As the person who will
>> likely have to make this assessment, I would prefer if we either went
>> for much more specific or keep a more vague standard. I also don't
>> like the removal of the intent and knowledge clause because this could
>> force us to punish people for simply being wrong.
>>
>> > Making such a statement
>> > is the Class-2 crime of Faking.
>> >
>> > Statements of formal intent never constitute Faking.
>> >
>>
>> I don't like this final clause because it allows ratification of
>> things without a specific statement of any changes. Preventing this
>> increases transparency and is therefore good for the game.
>>
>> I would also like to keep the following text because it provides some
>> helpful safeguards and avoids disputes:
>>
>> Merely quoting a statement does not constitute making
>> it for the purposes of this rule. Any disclaimer, conditional
>> clause, or other qualifier attached to a statement constitutes
>> part of the statement for the purposes of this rule; the truth or
>> falsity of the whole is what is significant.
>>
>
>
> --
> From R. Lee
>
--
>From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
I retract my proposal " This is not unlike defamation law" and create the
following. I won't remove the bit about formal statements of intent not
constituting faking, because it's already in the rule and I think it makes
sense as there are already rules against ratifying false things, but I will
follow some of PSS's other suggestions. I will also try to make it simpler
and more readable. Also I'm going to add more fun law language, because I'm
not paying some university jerks a hundred thousand dollars for nothing.
I create the following proposal
Title: Better Faking
AI 1
Chamber: Justice
Text: Amend rule 2471 "No Faking" so that it states
{Faking is a class 2 crime.
Faking constitutes making a public statement that is
1. A pure and verifiable statement of fact fact about current or past
Agoran gamestate and is
2. False at the time the statement is made and is
3. Either subjectively intended to be a lie or is surrounded by objective
circumstances that make it overwhelmingly likely that the statement's
falsity significantly benefits the maker of the statement, which means it
may be presumed to be intended as a lie.
However, a statement that is part of a formal announcement of intent is
never Faking. A statement is never Faking if context establishes that the
statement was qualified by its author as false in the same message, and it
is never Faking to quote another person's false statement.}
The defense that I included of having the statement be qualified or
disclaimed is a little more protective than the current No Faking, but
that's because the current No Faking was actually amended to allow more
lies with disclaimers and such, which I find generally silly
On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 9:01 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:48 AM Rebecca via agora-business
> wrote:
> >
> > I create this proposal
> >
> > Title: This is not unlike defamation law
> > AI 1
> > Chamber: Justice
> > Text: Amend rule 2471 "No Faking" so that it states
> > A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that (1) is a statement of
> pure
> > and verifiable fact about the game state of Agora and
>
> I like this change because it's more clear than the current text.
>
> > (2) is false at the
> > time the statement is made and
>
> I'm interested in how this would interact with ratification and
> confusion around that, but if we resolve that, I generally like it.
> Additionally, this removes the possibility of someone believing that
> they are making a false statement when it is in fact true. I think we
> should keep that as illegal because that way we don't always have to
> determine the exact accuracy of a statement at a time, which
> unfortunately can be very complicated.
>
> > (3) is likely, at the time the statement is
> > made, to induce game actions by other persons that would not be taken if
> a
> > true statement was substituted for the false one.
>
> This seems like an overly restrictive test. As the person who will
> likely have to make this assessment, I would prefer if we either went
> for much more specific or keep a more vague standard. I also don't
> like the removal of the intent and knowledge clause because this could
> force us to punish people for simply being wrong.
>
> > Making such a statement
> > is the Class-2 crime of Faking.
> >
> > Statements of formal intent never constitute Faking.
> >
>
> I don't like this final clause because it allows ratification of
> things without a specific statement of any changes. Preventing this
> increases transparency and is therefore good for the game.
>
> I would also like to keep the following text because it provides some
> helpful safeguards and avoids disputes:
>
> Merely quoting a statement does not constitute making
> it for the purposes of this rule. Any disclaimer, conditional
> clause, or other qualifier attached to a statement constitutes
> part of the statement for the purposes of this rule; the truth or
> falsity of the whole is what is significant.
>
--
>From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
I create this proposal Title: This is not unlike defamation law AI 1 Chamber: Justice Text: Amend rule 2471 "No Faking" so that it states A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that (1) is a statement of pure and verifiable fact about the game state of Agora and (2) is false at the time the statement is made and (3) is likely, at the time the statement is made, to induce game actions by other persons that would not be taken if a true statement was substituted for the false one. Making such a statement is the Class-2 crime of Faking. Statements of formal intent never constitute Faking. On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 5:21 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 12:14 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 4:24 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business < > > agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 11:11 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/3/2020 11:00 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: > > > > > A player SHALL NOT cast a ballot or induce another person to do > so > > > in a > > > > > way primarily intended to affect popularity. Doing so is the > Class-2 > > > > > Crime of Vote Manipulation. > > > > > > > > Notice of honour > > > > -1 Aris, for starting us down the road to criminalizing intent with > that > > > > awful forbidden arts thing, and continuing the criminalization of > intent > > > > by proposing penalties for the basic free act of voting. > > > > +1 D. Margaux, for being a generally good person. > > > > > > I retract Vote Manipulation. > > > > > > The forbidden arts thing doesn't even consider intent! Grumbles. This > > > one *does* consider intent though, and that's a fair argument against > > > it. I maintain that requiring people to at least *hide* what they're > > > doing could make it more interesting. Still, since it's you, and you > > > care this much, I'll retract the proposal. Next time maybe ask before > > > taking the honor? "Aris, I *really* think this is a bad idea", coming > > > from you, would have had the same effect. > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > Everyone's been too snippy recently. > > Oh, I was also snippy, wasn't I? Whoops. Sorry about that, G. I was > trying to sound very mildly annoyed and it doesn't appear to have gone > very well. > > > And besides, we already criminalize intent. We do that by making it > illegal > > to intentionally lie to mislead. > > That doesn't help much, because that one was also in large part my fault. > > -Aris > -- >From R. Lee
Re: [Proposal] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
On 6/3/20 8:30 PM, James Cook via agora-business wrote: >> I think that fixing this would be good, but I think R1586 might >> resolve that specific risk: >> >> A rule, contract, or regulation that refers to an entity by name >> refers to the entity that had that name when the rule first came >> to include that reference, even if the entity's name has since >> changed. > That still may leave open a scam wherein the Rulekeepor swaps rule > numbers to change the effect of a proposal just before it's adopted. I pledge not to change rule numbers in order to interfere with the functioning of a statute for the period of 60 days. -- Jason Cobb
[Proposal] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Aris Reshapes the Legislative Process
> I think that fixing this would be good, but I think R1586 might > resolve that specific risk: > > A rule, contract, or regulation that refers to an entity by name > refers to the entity that had that name when the rule first came > to include that reference, even if the entity's name has since > changed. That still may leave open a scam wherein the Rulekeepor swaps rule numbers to change the effect of a proposal just before it's adopted. I submit a proposal as follows. Title: Identity theft protection act Co-authors: G., P.S.S. AI: 3.1 Text: Amend Rule 2141 by adding the sentence "Once assigned, a rule's ID number CANNOT be changed." to the end of the second paragraph. - Falsifian
