Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Rulekeepor's notes for Proposals 4893-4903
Kerim Aydin wrote: I would disagree with Zefram's choice, and follow the old regulation governing amendments, As I noted, that too would result in a clash. The old definition was the number of times that a rule with that number has been amended. Repealing a rule and then creating a new one with the same number doesn't involve any amendment, so the process ends with the same amendment number that it started with. Not the least of which, it screws up the searchable rules database I'm about 95% finished with. I reckon it's the renumbering that does that. I suggest that any historical database of the rules be keyed on the rules' *original* number, rather than current number. There is no duplication or change there. Proto-proto: renumber 105 back to its original 2131, so that all current rules have their original number; add a precedence clause to 2131 to restore the high precedence that the number 105 gave it; enact a Power=4 rule that defines the concept of a rule, and in particular says that rule numbers cannot change. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: contracts - rules
On 3/23/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Agoran Contracts, as defined by R2109, are indistinguishable from rules, except that they are tracked separately from the ruleset. It's a completely redundant mechanism. The above proposal converts the sole existing Agoran Contract into a rule and deletes the mechanism.) How are Agoran Contracts indistinguishable from rules? In any case, this repeal is going in the wrong direction. Instead of making more contracts into rules, we should be outsourcing more of the ruleset into contracts, leaving a core of rules managing contract law, the judiciary, and the legislature and declaring the rights of players. -- C. Maud Image (Michael Slone) (Look, sooner or later somebody's going to become Speaker.) -- OscarMeyr, in agora-business
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: contracts - rules
Michael Slone wrote: How are Agoran Contracts indistinguishable from rules? The essential features of both are that they bind all players and can only be created and amended by proposals. Anything that can be done with an Agoran Contract can be done equivalently with a rule. In any case, this repeal is going in the wrong direction. Instead of making more contracts into rules, we should be outsourcing more of the ruleset into contracts, That's OK for agreements between subsets of players, but I disagree for anything meant to bind all players. I think we should have all such universal agreements collected in one place, and all subject to the same mechanisms, because they have the same needs. We have better mechanisms for rules than for Agoran Contracts: CFJ annotations, history annotations, identity numbering, and so on. To get Agoran Contracts up to the same standard you'd have to duplicate all the mechanisms that exist for rules, and then we'd have two parallel mechanisms doing the same thing. I also note that R1503 already says that the rules are a binding agreement between players. If you want to replace rules with contracts, well, it's already done. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: contracts - rules
Zefram wrote: (Agoran Contracts, as defined by R2109, are indistinguishable from rules, except that they are tracked separately from the ruleset. It's a completely redundant mechanism. The above proposal converts the sole existing Agoran Contract into a rule and deletes the mechanism.) In the current ruleset it looks redundant. It's there for whenever we play subgames, e.g. have money, land, points and scoring rules, or anything that we want to have the force of rules for all players (therefore changed by proposal) but containing so much detail about the minutia of the subgame that it clutters the ruleset. It was writting last year when we were playing cards last year, and every single card (50 of them) needed a 5 or 6 line description with Rules-foce. That was cluttery. So we outsourced it. We don't have any subgames right now. I expect we will want to. -Goethe
DIS: re: BUS: proposal: bootstrapped enough
Zefram wrote: rule 104 is hereby repealed. I wish you the best of luck, sir. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: contracts - rules
Kerim Aydin wrote: In the current ruleset it looks redundant. It's there for whenever we play subgames, e.g. have money, land, points and scoring rules, If a subgame automatically involves all players then I reckon that's not very sub. Subgames in which participation is optional can be dealt with by contracts, of course. As for the specific current use, the sole existing Agoran Contract doesn't look anything like a subgame. Even if Agoran Contracts are to be retained for subgames, I think the Envoy should be governed by an ordinary rule. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: contracts - rules
Zefram wrote: If a subgame automatically involves all players then I reckon that's not very sub. Subgames in which participation is optional can be dealt with by contracts, of course. It's sub in the sense that it's a reasonble modular and separable part of the game, but integral to everyone's gameplay at that moment. I agree that the envoy is not a good example, and making it a rule is fine. But before you get rid of contracts as a whole, look at the ruleset here: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2005-June/002262.html In particular Rule 2067, 2071, 2076, and 2077, 2079, and 2084. There was consensus that all of that text should have rules force (applied to all players, changeable by proposal only, had precedence within the rules) but that it was taking an awful lot of mess in the ruleset so could be nicely delegated. Admit it, as new Rulekeepor you're just trying to centralize and consolidate your power :). -Goethe
DIS: Re: OFF: Rulekeepor's notes for Proposals 4893-4903
Zefram wrote: As I noted, that too would result in a clash. The old definition was the number of times that a rule with that number has been amended. Repealing a rule and then creating a new one with the same number doesn't involve any amendment, so the process ends with the same amendment number that it started with. You are right, I missed that. But since version numbers are not defined, you have latitude. Remember that at the instant the new 105 was created, amending had no definition in the ruleset (having been repealed the instant before) and so any of the changes could have been called amendments for that instant under the common language definition of amend. Remember the command was all one amendment: Amend the rule titled Fantasy Rule Changes to have number 105, Power 3, title Rule Changes, and this text: I'd suggest the following record for R105: History: Initial Immutable Rule 105, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1072, Oct. 4 1994 Amended by Proposal 1275, Oct. 24 1994 Renumbered from 1072 to 105 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial Amended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Renumbered after Repeal from to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy) Amended(3) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy) This is just a suggestion, not so much from the database as from the historical angle... in the name of concisely presevering the history of R105 in the full Ruleset, I'd hate for that history going back to an initial rule to be lost. I reckon it's the renumbering that does that. I suggest that any historical database of the rules be keyed on the rules' *original* number, rather than current number. There is no duplication or change there. I'm concerned with linking whatever is the current ruleset to its history. From that perspective, the history of R105 is a line back to its original, broken by a scam. This follows the substantive history of that rule even through its instantaneous repeal. Following that as the brief history of R is not so illuminating (and certainly doesn't document the scam). There is precedence for this... note in the history above it was already renumbered once! -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Rulekeepor's notes for Proposals 4893-4903
Goethe wrote: I'd suggest the following record for R105: History: Initial Immutable Rule 105, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1072, Oct. 4 1994 Amended by Proposal 1275, Oct. 24 1994 Renumbered from 1072 to 105 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial Amended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Renumbered after Repeal from to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy) Amended(3) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy) This is just a suggestion, not so much from the database as from the historical angle... in the name of concisely presevering the history of R105 in the full Ruleset, I'd hate for that history going back to an initial rule to be lost. I reckon it's the renumbering that does that. I suggest that any historical database of the rules be keyed on the rules' *original* number, rather than current number. There is no duplication or change there. I'm concerned with linking whatever is the current ruleset to its history. From that perspective, the history of R105 is a line back to its original, broken by a scam. This follows the substantive history of that rule even through its instantaneous repeal. Following that as the brief history of R is not so illuminating (and certainly doesn't document the scam). There is precedence for this... note in the history above it was already renumbered once! Proto: Upon the adoption of this proposal, the Rulekeepor shall annotate Rule 105 with history of the previous Rule 105.
DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: reorientation
Zefram wrote: H. Promotor, I hereby submit the following proposal, entitled reorientation: --- Amend rule 889 (The Clerk of the Courts) by deleting the text The CotC's Bi-Weekly Report shall include the following: (i) Each Player's Orientation. --- (Orientation isn't defined anywhere in the rules. The paragraph being deleted is obsolete.) But the concept (whether a player is turned or unturned) does still exist, so the paragraph should be amended to refer to it properly.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Rulekeepor's notes for Proposals 4893-4903
Kerim Aydin wrote: Remember that at the instant the new 105 was created, amending had no definition in the ruleset (having been repealed the instant before) Not true. The new 105 was created (as 2131) under the auspices of the old 105. When the new 105 was modified, that was under its own auspices, which said A proposal ... can ... modify the ... text of a rule. much as the old one did. (Neither actually uses the word amend: they say modify instead.) Continuity of definition was maintained throughout. Remember the command was all one amendment: Actually, I interpreted all versions of the Rule Changes rules as only permitting one of the aspects of a rule (power, title, text, or (under 2131/0) number) to change as a single rule change. Therefore I interpreted that part of the proposal as a sequence of four rule changes. This is consistent with the previous interpretation of rule 105, as revealed by the historical annotations to the rules. I'd suggest the following record for R105: History: Initial Immutable Rule 105, Jun. 30 1993 That would not be true. Initial Immutable Rule 105 has been repealed; it is no longer a rule. The present Rule 105 was created on 2007-02-12 by Proposal 4894. presevering the history of R105 in the full Ruleset, I'd hate for that history going back to an initial rule to be lost. That's a matter for historical record. Chuck used to maintain a Historical Ruleset, which recorded repealed rules and (I think) superseded versions of rules. That kind of document, which it might be good to compile once more, is the place for the history of Initial Immutable Rule 105. I'm concerned with linking whatever is the current ruleset to its history. From that perspective, the history of R105 is a line back to its original, broken by a scam. This follows the substantive history of that rule even through its instantaneous repeal. The historical annotations have never reflected the motion of text from one rule to another, which has happened many times. is precedence for this... note in the history above it was already renumbered once! The R1295 renumberings are a very different matter. Early on, any amendment to a rule changed its number to the number of the amending proposal. After the rules were changed so that rules retained their number across amendment, R1295 renumbered several rules back to numbers they had previously had. This did not cause any rule to acquire a number previously used by a different rule, which is what's going on here. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: reorientation
Ed Murphy wrote: But the concept (whether a player is turned or unturned) does still exist, so the paragraph should be amended to refer to it properly. Ah, I didn't realise that that was what it was about. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proposal: contracts - rules
Kerim Aydin wrote: The database I'm working on in FLR format Ah, cool. Please show me (privately) a sample of your data. I'd like to see how to fit it together with what I'm doing. -zefram
DIS: Re: OFF: Rulekeepor's notes for Proposals 4893-4903
Zefram wrote: This did not cause any rule to acquire a number previously used by a different rule, which is what's going on here. It suddenly occurs to me that this unique precedent gives us two entities with the same name and/or nickname by R1586 (self- reference alert: is a Rule a Rules-defined entity?) Name is different than title but in this case both the number and title are identical. So was the renumbering prohibited? Probably not, as the rule governing renumbering had higher precedence than R1586. We must therefore assume that R1586 demands a unique way to distinguish the old 105 and the new 105. The only consistent interpretation may be that 105 be given an amendement number unique from past ones. This is all speculative. Comments encouraged. -Goethe
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Voting Limits
Zefram wrote: Benjamin Schultz wrote: Zefram 1 1 0 I should have a VC for delivering judgement, and I expect several other players should too. Since 2007-01-22, R2126 includes: A player who submits a judgement during eir Deliberation Period gains one VC. A player whose judgement is overturned loses one VC, if e has any. I believe this is a complete list of all such changes so far: 1589 -1 GreyKnight 1598 +1 GreyKnight 1599 +1 OscarMeyr 1605 +1 Murphy 1614 +1 OscarMeyr 1618 +1 Zefram 1619 +1 Zefram 1620 +1 Zefram 1600 +1 Murphy 1601 +1 Murphy 1603 +1 Murphy 1604 +1 Murphy 1613 +1 Peter 1622 +1 Goethe Now that the Ruleset is up to date again, I should resume work on Two-Tone Economics and some other protos.
DIS: eligibility question
It is not clear to me if eligibility in terms of Appeals judges includes turning: As soon as possible after an Appellate Judge is recused, the Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to replace em. clause (iv) of R911: iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection. seems to include turning. But it is my belief and memory that the Speaker or CotC was never left of the Board of Appeals solely due to being turned. Thoughts? -Goethe
Re: DIS: eligibility question
Goethe wrote: It is not clear to me if eligibility in terms of Appeals judges includes turning: As soon as possible after an Appellate Judge is recused, the Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to replace em. clause (iv) of R911: iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection. seems to include turning. But it is my belief and memory that the Speaker or CotC was never left of the Board of Appeals solely due to being turned. Thoughts? Rule 1871 only makes players ineligible to be Trial Judges, not Judges in general.
Re: DIS: BUS: judicial activity overdue
Kerim Aydin wrote: Can you point me to these motions? -Goethe |Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] |Subject: BUS: Re: OFF: Corrections and dismissals |Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:07:37 + |... |So let's try out another loophole: I hereby submit a Motion on CFJ 1610 |to Judge it FALSE. I also hereby submit a Motion on CFJ 1612 to issue |an Order of Annotation. -zefram
