Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

2019-01-15 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
You're correct, I do apologise. I will publish a revision shortly.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, January 14, 2019 9:57 PM, Reuben Staley  
wrote:

> Ah, I just saw that you also noticed it before I did. I do have a
> legitimate CoE though: I collected a reward for the Rulekeepor weekly.
>
> -
>
> Trigon
>
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019, 14:54 Reuben Staley 
> > But the Assessor hasn't resolved the proposals that would create Clork and
> > Astronomor yet. This isn't a CoE because that section is not self ratifying
> > but it's still worth pointing out.
> > --
> > Trigon
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2019, 14:33 Timon Walshe-Grey  >
> > > Date of this weekly report: 2019-01-14
> > > Date of last weekly report: 2019-01-08
> > >
> > > ASSET INDEX
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > This section does not self-ratify.
> > > Asset class Recordkeepor Ownership
> > >
> > > Coins Treasuror (twg) Agora, players, contracts
> > > Balloons Clork (twg) Players
> > > Favours Clork (twg) Players
> > > Blots Referee (twg) Persons
> > > Spaceships Astronomor (twg) Players
> > > Energy Astronomor (twg) Spaceships
> > >
> > > COIN BALANCES
> > >
> > > ==
> > >
> > > This section self-ratifies.
> > > Coins Active player
> > >
> > >   66ATMunn
> > >   50Aris
> > >   66Corona
> > >   34CuddleBeam
> > >  716D. Margaux
> > >  508G.
> > >   40Gaelan
> > >   30Jacob Arduino
> > >   97Murphy
> > >   46omd
> > >   35Tarhalindur
> > >  257Trigon
> > >  471twg
> > >   39V.J. Rada
> > >
> > >
> > > Coins Zombie
> > >
> > >   35Hālian
> > >   35L.
> > >   30nichdel
> > >   20pokes
> > >   33Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > >   25Telnaior
> > >0天火狐
> > >
> > >
> > > Coins Non-player entity
> > >
> > > 1135Agora
> > >   12Lost and Found Department
> > >
> > >
> > > RECENT HISTORY
> > >
> > > ===
> > >
> > > This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify.
> > >
> > > Person Change Date (UTC) Reason
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > D. Margaux + 5c. 2019-01-13 18:40 Reward (Registrar weekly)
> > > Murphy + 5c. 2019-01-13 18:14 Reward (ADoP weekly)
> > > twg + 10c. 2019-01-08 16:38 Transfer from 天火狐
> > > 天火狐 - 10c. 2019-01-08 16:38 Transfer to twg
> > > twg + 5c. 2019-01-08 16:38 Reward (Tailor monthly)
> > > twg + 5c. 2019-01-08 16:38 Reward (Referee weekly)
> > > twg + 5c. 2019-01-08 16:38 Reward (Treasuror weekly)
> > > -- time of last report --
> > > Aris + 5c. 2019-01-07 07:55 Reward (Promotor weekly)
> > > twg + 10c. 2019-01-07 08:16 Transfer from Aris
> > > Aris - 10c. 2019-01-07 08:16 Transfer to twg
> > > D. Margaux + 5c. 2019-01-07 01:06 Reward (Arbitor weekly)
> > > Murphy + 5c. 2018-01-06 22:30 Reward (ADoP weekly)
> > > twg + 10c. 2019-01-06 19:31 Transfer from Aris
> > > Aris - 10c. 2019-01-06 19:31 Transfer to twg
> > > D. Margaux + 5c. 2019-01-01 09:47 Reward (Arbitor weekly)
> > > V.J. Rada + 10c. 2019-01-01 00:00 Payday
> > > twg + 30c. 2019-01-01 00:00 Payday (Assessor etc.)
> > > Trigon + 15c. 2019-01-01 00:00 Payday (Rulekeepor)
> > > 天火狐 + 10c. 2019-01-01 00:00 Payday
> > > Telnaior + 10c. 2019-01-01 00:00 Payday
> > > Tarhalindur + 10c. 2019-01-01 00:00 Payday
> > > P.S.S. + 10c. 2019-01-01 00:00 Payday
> > > pokes + 10c. 2019-01-01 00:00 Payday
> > > omd + 15c. 2019-01-01 00:00 Payday (Distributor)
> > > nichdel + 10c. 2019-01-01 00:00 Payday
> > > Murphy + 15c. 2019-01-01 00:00 Payday (ADoP)
> > > L. + 10c. 2019-01-01 00:00 Payday
> > > Jacob Arduino + 10c. 2019-01-01 00:00 Payday
> > > Hālian + 10c. 2019-01-01 00:00 Payday
> > > Gaelan + 10c. 2019-01-01 00:00 Payday
> > > G. + 15c. 2019-01-01 00:00 Payday (Herald)
> > > D. Margaux + 20c. 2019-01-01 00:00 Payday (Arbitor, Speaker)
> > > CuddleBeam + 10c. 2019-01-01 00:00 Payday
> > > Corona + 10c. 2019-01-01 00:00 Payday
> > > Aris + 15c. 2019-01-01 00:00 Payday (Promotor)
> > > ATMunn + 20c. 2019-01-01 00:00 Payday (P.M., Registrar)
> > > twg + 5c. 2018-12-29 13:37 Reward (Treasuror weekly)
> > > twg + 5c. 2018-12-29 13:37 Reward (Referee weekly)
> > > D. Margaux + 5c. 2018-12-25 22:02 Reward (CFJ 3691)
> > > D. Margaux + 5c. 2018-12-25 22:02 Reward (CFJ 3690)
> > > D. Margaux + 5c. 2018-12-24 02:05 Reward (Arbitor weekly)
> > > G. + 5c. 2018-12-10 00:34 Reward (Herald weekly)
> > > twg + 5c. 2018-12-10 00:21 Reward (Referee weekly)
> > > twg + 5c. 2018-12-10 00:21 Reward (Treasuror weekly)
> > > D. Margaux + 5c. 2018-12-10 00:08 Reward (Arbitor weekly)
> > > G. + 5c. 2018-12-08 19:19 Reward (Herald weekly)
> > > ATMunn + 5c. 2018-12-08 18:44 Reward (Registrar monthly)
> > > D. Margaux + 5c. 2018-12-03 14:31 Reward (Arbitor weekly)
> > > ATMunn + 5c. 2018-12-03 01:01 Reward 

DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] House of Snerds

2019-01-15 Thread Gaelan Steele



> On Jan 15, 2019, at 5:47 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> [ Clork's Notes - Not for Publication ]


Re: [Proposal] (was: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Astronomor] State of the Art)

2019-01-15 Thread Kerim Aydin



twg wrote:
> I submit this proposal:

Thanks for the quick response and solution!!

> Incidentally, I selected you and D. Margaux to attack because the two of
> you have the most coins and therefore are the biggest threats. I guess
> that doesn't hold true if you don't want to play at all (which I admit I
> didn't expect), but oh well.

Oops, saying "not interested" makes it sound like I thought it's a bad
sub-game or something - it wasn't so much "don't want to play at all" but
after noodling around with that card trading game idea I realized I was just
not in the place to jump into *any* subgame for the next few weeks at least,
so while the voting was going on I was sorta thinking "I'm not going to
read this closely, I'll just watch for a bit and maybe jump in later".

So it was really a surprise when I realized that was a crime (and who
knows, I guess I've got a week to respond...)

> The mandatoriness of submitting them is a holdover from ATMunn's original
> version, where the method for making the game optional was for Spaceships
> to be created by announcement; I didn't think to rephrase it. I apologise
> for the inadvertent autocratic behaviour.

That totally makes sense, I was thinking "I wouldn't object if you
had to opt-in by creating a spaceship or something" so that was probably
why it seemed fine before (I think the only time I commented on this was
on an early ATMunn draft).

I was reflecting just now:  the only time I can think of (ever) that
a player was required to respond to something without an opt-in of some
kind was an ancient tax system in an old economy (and even that required
some participation to earn enough to be taxed above deductibles, and was
horribly controversial at the time).

-G.



DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Astronomor] State of the Art

2019-01-15 Thread Kerim Aydin



I wasn't particularly interested in playing space.  Which is fine, and
I didn't read it closely.  But it looks like I'm required to respond - is
that correct?  If spaaace has made sub-games mandatory (another player can
force my response with a SHALL?) my preferred option would be to deregister
while this plays out.

So before I do so, is this interpretation correct?

As discussed to death during Land/Economy, sub-games should never be
mandatory, and one player should never be able to force another into
a Class-2 crime if they don't wish to participate.

On 1/15/2019 6:00 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Oops, thank you. I initiate a Space Battle between my Spaceship and G.'s 
Spaceship. For this Space Battle, the resolver is the Arbitor (D. Margaux).

-twg

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 1:58 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:


CoE: Space battle 2 was INEFFECTIVE because it named the wrong resolver (I am 
the Arbitor, not Murph).


On Jan 15, 2019, at 8:48 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
Date of this weekly report: 2019-01-15
Date of last weekly report: Never

LIST OF SECTORS



This section does not self-ratify.

1.  SECTOR 01 (occupied by 1 spaceship)
2.  SECTOR 02 (occupied by 1 spaceship)
3.  SECTOR 03 (occupied by 1 spaceship)
4.  SECTOR 04 (occupied by 1 spaceship)
5.  SECTOR 05 (empty)
6.  SECTOR 06 (occupied by 1 spaceship)
7.  SECTOR 07 (occupied by 2 spaceships)
8.  SECTOR 08 (occupied by 1 spaceship)
9.  SECTOR 09 (occupied by 2 spaceships)
10.  SECTOR 10 (occupied by 1 spaceship)
11.  SECTOR 11 (occupied by 1 spaceship)
12.  SECTOR 12 (occupied by 1 spaceship)
13.  SECTOR 13 (occupied by 1 spaceship)
14.  SECTOR 14 (occupied by 1 spaceship)
15.  SECTOR 15 (occupied by 1 spaceship)
16.  SECTOR 16 (empty)
17.  SECTOR 17 (occupied by 1 spaceship)
18.  SECTOR 18 (occupied by 1 spaceship)
19.  SECTOR 19 (occupied by 1 spaceship)
20.  SECTOR 20 (occupied by 1 spaceship)
21.  SECTOR 21 (occupied by 1 spaceship)
22.  SECTOR 22 (empty)
23.  SECTOR 23 (empty)

SPACESHIP STATISTICS

=

This section self-ratifies.
Location Owner Armour Energy

SECTOR 01 omd 10/10 20/20
SECTOR 02 ATMunn 10/10 20/20
SECTOR 03 P.S.S. 10/10 20/20
SECTOR 04 Gaelan 10/10 20/20
SECTOR 06 nichdel 10/10 20/20
SECTOR 07 G. 10/10 20/20
SECTOR 07 twg 10/10 20/20
SECTOR 08 CuddleBeam 10/10 20/20
SECTOR 09 D. Margaux 10/10 20/20
SECTOR 09 Tenhigitsune 10/10 20/20
SECTOR 10 Aris 10/10 20/20
SECTOR 11 L. 10/10 20/20
SECTOR 12 Trigon 10/10 20/20
SECTOR 13 Hālian 10/10 20/20
SECTOR 14 Telnaior 10/10 20/20
SECTOR 15 Tarhalindur 10/10 20/20
SECTOR 17 Jacob Arduino 10/10 20/20
SECTOR 18 Corona 10/10 20/20
SECTOR 19 pokes 10/10 20/20
SECTOR 20 Murphy 10/10 20/20
SECTOR 21 V.J. Rada 10/10 20/20

RECENT AND ONGOING SPACE BATTLES

=

This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify.
- SPACE BATTLE 0002 -
2019-01-15 - UNRESOLVED
SECTOR 07
Aggressor: twg VS. Defender: G.
Energy: ?? Energy: ??
Resolver: Murphy
- SPACE BATTLE 0001 -
2019-01-15 - UNRESOLVED
SECTOR 09
Aggressor: Tenhigitsune VS. Defender: D. Margaux
Energy: ?? Energy: ??
Resolver: twg
[ Astronomor's Notes - not for publication ]

-   The resolver for a Space Battle is the player highest in the following
 list at the time of the Space Battle's initiation who is not a combatant
 in the Space Battle:


1.  the Astronomor;
2.  the Arbitor;
3.  the Prime Minister;
4.  the non-combatant who has least recently registered.





DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] House of Snerds

2019-01-15 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Oh dear, I'm not having a very good day for errors, am I.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 3:05 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

>
>
> > On Jan 15, 2019, at 5:47 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> > [ Clork's Notes - Not for Publication ]




DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8139-8141

2019-01-15 Thread Kerim Aydin



On 1/15/2019 5:44 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

 In a timely fashion after a Space Battle is initiated, the
 combatants SHALL each once communicate to the resolver the amount
 of Energy they wish to spend in the battle, via any method that
 cannot be understood by the other combatant until e has also
 fulfilled this obligation. For example:
   * by publishing a salted cryptographic hash, and revealing its text
 after the other combatant has also communicated the Energy e will
 spend;
   * by sending the amount to the resolver in a private message;
   * by publishing the amount, if the other combatant has already
 communicated the Energy e will spend.


So here's an issue:  if I'm using the hash method, and my opponent sends
eir amount to the resolver privately, how do I know when it's safe to
reveal the hash's contents?  There's no requirement for anyone to tell
me that the other party has done so.

Moreover, there's also a loop-trap here if both parties decide to use hashes
(because "communicate" here is defined to include the "reveal after the
other party communicates", neither party can complete this operation).
Overall, the trouble is that "communicate" is used in two ways
throughout this paragraph - in the framing, "communicate" includes the
reveal, but in the first and third bullet, "already/after the other
combatant communicated" means the opponent has performed the secret step but
not the reveal).

Finally, if a combatant tries to break the logjam by just publishing eir
energy clearly after seeing an opponent's hash, the opponent can publish
a new hash (because the first communication is only half-completed, it
can be abandoned/ignored).


   After both combatants have communicated the Energy they will spend,
   or if the time limit to do so has expired, the resolver CAN...


Here, "communicate" clearly needs to include the reveal to work.

Note:  this is all very interesting to see if we can get it working,
we've talked many times about hashes and have used it for contracts
and other private arrangements, but this is the first time in my
memory that we've tried it directly in the rules.



DIS: Re: BUS: RIP

2019-01-15 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
"And I'm joining you live from Agora's Lost and Found Department, where a large 
Spaceship has appeared in the central office, causing widespread damage. 
Projected casualties number in the dozens..."

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 6:28 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

> Having given notice, I hereby deregister Telnaior.




Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8139-8141

2019-01-15 Thread D. Margaux
Another issue that has just arisen in my battle is, what do you do when the 
resolver controls a zombie that’s engaged in the battle? 

Don’t really know how the zombie can “communicate” the choice to the resolver 
there!

Hash would be fine if it worked, but it may be broken. 

It doesn’t work for the master to send a private message to emself on behalf of 
the zombie. That’s because under Rule 2466, “a person CANNOT act on behalf of 
another person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that might 
be taken within a message.”

In fact this may be a problem for any zombie battle, not just when zombie is 
controlled by the relevant resolver. 

> On Jan 15, 2019, at 4:07 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> See this would all have been very useful feedback BEFORE the proposal 
> passed... :P
> 
> I don't think this entirely breaks spaaace as a whole, because each combatant 
> (if e actually wants to play the subgame) is motivated to get a number in 
> before the deadline (as otherwise e would automatically lose), and has a 
> working method to do so (private message to the resolver). But it would be 
> cool if we could get the hashes working. I'll have a think about it.
> 
> -twg
> 
> 
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 6:56 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On 1/15/2019 5:44 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>>> 
>>> In a timely fashion after a Space Battle is initiated, the
>>> combatants SHALL each once communicate to the resolver the amount
>>> of Energy they wish to spend in the battle, via any method that
>>> cannot be understood by the other combatant until e has also
>>> fulfilled this obligation. For example:
>>> 
>>> -   by publishing a salted cryptographic hash, and revealing its text
>>>after the other combatant has also communicated the Energy e will
>>>spend;
>>> 
>>> -   by sending the amount to the resolver in a private message;
>>> -   by publishing the amount, if the other combatant has already
>>>communicated the Energy e will spend.
>>> 
>> 
>> So here's an issue: if I'm using the hash method, and my opponent sends
>> eir amount to the resolver privately, how do I know when it's safe to
>> reveal the hash's contents? There's no requirement for anyone to tell
>> me that the other party has done so.
>> 
>> Moreover, there's also a loop-trap here if both parties decide to use hashes
>> (because "communicate" here is defined to include the "reveal after the
>> other party communicates", neither party can complete this operation).
>> Overall, the trouble is that "communicate" is used in two ways
>> throughout this paragraph - in the framing, "communicate" includes the
>> reveal, but in the first and third bullet, "already/after the other
>> combatant communicated" means the opponent has performed the secret step but
>> not the reveal).
>> 
>> Finally, if a combatant tries to break the logjam by just publishing eir
>> energy clearly after seeing an opponent's hash, the opponent can publish
>> a new hash (because the first communication is only half-completed, it
>> can be abandoned/ignored).
>> 
>>> After both combatants have communicated the Energy they will spend,
>>> or if the time limit to do so has expired, the resolver CAN...
>> 
>> Here, "communicate" clearly needs to include the reveal to work.
>> 
>> Note: this is all very interesting to see if we can get it working,
>> we've talked many times about hashes and have used it for contracts
>> and other private arrangements, but this is the first time in my
>> memory that we've tried it directly in the rules.
> 
> 


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but

2019-01-15 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Actually, I don't think this is the same scenario. twgese is just a mechanism 
for ensuring that the value of the number Tenhigitsune has announced is unknown 
to D. Margaux; the nature of the action that is being taken is perfectly 
cromulent to everybody. (Unless it fails for another reason.)

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 9:55 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

> Oh gosh, that's brilliant. I wish I'd known about it, I'd have reused the 
> word.
>
> I have no idea what its implications are for this, though. Case law makes 
> everything more complicated.
>
> -twg
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 9:22 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk 
> ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2019-01-15 at 21:18 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> >
> > > I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau
> > > Energy in Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which
> > > is a constructed language invented by me. (Other twgese words include
> > > "quang" and "spaaace")
> > > Go ahead, CFJ this. You know you want to.
> >
> > I recommend searching the CFJ archives and/or Agoran mailing lists for
> > "nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk".
> > (It's not a very commonly used word, after all!)
> >
> > ais523




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but

2019-01-15 Thread Kerim Aydin



omg I haven't nkep'd anything in years.

On 1/15/2019 1:22 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:

On Tue, 2019-01-15 at 21:18 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau
Energy in Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which
is a constructed language invented by me. (Other twgese words include
"quang" and "spaaace")

Go ahead, CFJ this. You know you want to.


I recommend searching the CFJ archives and/or Agoran mailing lists for
"nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk".
(It's not a very commonly used word, after all!)



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but

2019-01-15 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Tue, 2019-01-15 at 21:22 +, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-01-15 at 21:18 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau
> > Energy in Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which
> > is a constructed language invented by me. (Other twgese words
> > include "quang" and "spaaace")
> > 
> > Go ahead, CFJ this. You know you want to.
> 
> I recommend searching the CFJ archives and/or Agoran mailing lists for
> "nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk".
> (It's not a very commonly used word, after all!)

And as a followup, the most relevant of the many nkep precedents
appears to be CFJ 2625 (which is almost exactly this situation,
attempting to act on behalf of another player using a word that has not
been publicly defined). I disagree with the outcome of that case (as
you can see from the arguments), and I'm not sure it gives us any
guidance for sorting out this situation anyway (as unlike in CFJ 2625,
there's no reason to suppose that the player in question knows the
meaning of the word, nor that they are paying enough attention to the
game to object to an attempt to use it incorrectly).

-- 
ais523



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but

2019-01-15 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
I see your Rule 2466/1 and raise you CFJ 3649.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 9:41 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

>
>
> > On Jan 15, 2019, at 4:18 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> > I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau Energy in 
> > Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which is a constructed 
> > language invented by me. (Other twgese words include "quang" and "spaaace".)
>
> Our emails crossed just now—interesting idea!
>
> I have no idea how this resolves.
>
> One reason this might not work is that the rule requires Tenhigitsune to 
> “communicate” eir choice, and Rule 2466 prohibits you from acting on behalf 
> of em to send a “message” (or synonymously, to “publish” something). The only 
> thing you can do is take the underlying game action on eir behalf—but here 
> there seems to be no action separate from the very act of sending a message 
> (i.e., “communicat[ing]”).




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but

2019-01-15 Thread Kerim Aydin



There's a fairly established set of decisions that says public communication
has to be intelligible to "a typical Agoran" and not just a single Agoran -
that's the AGAINT precedents, arguably more famous than nkep.

History of AGAINT:  Someone privately communicated with the Assessor
ahead of voting to say "when I vote AGAINT, it's a vote FOR."  Everyone
not in the know assumed it was a typo and a clear vote AGAINST.  Result:
using a private language/code doesn't work, it either fails entirely or
has the assumed typo meaning (depending on context).

On 1/15/2019 1:45 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

I see your Rule 2466/1 and raise you CFJ 3649.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 9:41 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:





On Jan 15, 2019, at 4:18 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau Energy in Space Battle 0001, where 
"rau" is a word in twgese, which is a constructed language invented by me. (Other twgese words 
include "quang" and "spaaace".)


Our emails crossed just now—interesting idea!

I have no idea how this resolves.

One reason this might not work is that the rule requires Tenhigitsune to 
“communicate” eir choice, and Rule 2466 prohibits you from acting on behalf of 
em to send a “message” (or synonymously, to “publish” something). The only 
thing you can do is take the underlying game action on eir behalf—but here 
there seems to be no action separate from the very act of sending a message 
(i.e., “communicat[ing]”).





Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8139-8141

2019-01-15 Thread Kerim Aydin



On 1/15/2019 1:07 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

See this would all have been very useful feedback BEFORE the proposal

> passed... :P

Honestly, on reflection, I think I could have read those passages 100 times
in the abstract editorial mode and not noticed all these intricacies; it's
amazing how "oh crap, I'm under attack, what are all my options including
loopholes" focuses the mind. :)



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but

2019-01-15 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Oh gosh, that's brilliant. I wish I'd known about it, I'd have reused the word.

I have no idea what its implications are for this, though. Case law makes 
everything more complicated.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 9:22 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk 
 wrote:

> On Tue, 2019-01-15 at 21:18 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau
> > Energy in Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which
> > is a constructed language invented by me. (Other twgese words include
> > "quang" and "spaaace")
> > Go ahead, CFJ this. You know you want to.
>
> I recommend searching the CFJ archives and/or Agoran mailing lists for
> "nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk".
> (It's not a very commonly used word, after all!)
>
> 
>
> ais523




Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8139-8141

2019-01-15 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
See this would all have been very useful feedback BEFORE the proposal passed... 
:P

I don't think this entirely breaks spaaace as a whole, because each combatant 
(if e actually wants to play the subgame) is motivated to get a number in 
before the deadline (as otherwise e would automatically lose), and has a 
working method to do so (private message to the resolver). But it would be cool 
if we could get the hashes working. I'll have a think about it.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 6:56 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On 1/15/2019 5:44 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > In a timely fashion after a Space Battle is initiated, the
> > combatants SHALL each once communicate to the resolver the amount
> > of Energy they wish to spend in the battle, via any method that
> > cannot be understood by the other combatant until e has also
> > fulfilled this obligation. For example:
> >
> > -   by publishing a salted cryptographic hash, and revealing its text
> > after the other combatant has also communicated the Energy e will
> > spend;
> >
> > -   by sending the amount to the resolver in a private message;
> > -   by publishing the amount, if the other combatant has already
> > communicated the Energy e will spend.
> >
>
> So here's an issue: if I'm using the hash method, and my opponent sends
> eir amount to the resolver privately, how do I know when it's safe to
> reveal the hash's contents? There's no requirement for anyone to tell
> me that the other party has done so.
>
> Moreover, there's also a loop-trap here if both parties decide to use hashes
> (because "communicate" here is defined to include the "reveal after the
> other party communicates", neither party can complete this operation).
> Overall, the trouble is that "communicate" is used in two ways
> throughout this paragraph - in the framing, "communicate" includes the
> reveal, but in the first and third bullet, "already/after the other
> combatant communicated" means the opponent has performed the secret step but
> not the reveal).
>
> Finally, if a combatant tries to break the logjam by just publishing eir
> energy clearly after seeing an opponent's hash, the opponent can publish
> a new hash (because the first communication is only half-completed, it
> can be abandoned/ignored).
>
> > After both combatants have communicated the Energy they will spend,
> > or if the time limit to do so has expired, the resolver CAN...
>
> Here, "communicate" clearly needs to include the reveal to work.
>
> Note: this is all very interesting to see if we can get it working,
> we've talked many times about hashes and have used it for contracts
> and other private arrangements, but this is the first time in my
> memory that we've tried it directly in the rules.




DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but

2019-01-15 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Tue, 2019-01-15 at 21:18 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau
> Energy in Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which
> is a constructed language invented by me. (Other twgese words include
> "quang" and "spaaace")
> 
> Go ahead, CFJ this. You know you want to.

I recommend searching the CFJ archives and/or Agoran mailing lists for
"nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk".
(It's not a very commonly used word, after all!)

-- 
ais523



DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but

2019-01-15 Thread D. Margaux



> On Jan 15, 2019, at 4:18 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau Energy in 
> Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which is a constructed 
> language invented by me. (Other twgese words include "quang" and "spaaace".)
> 

Our emails crossed just now—interesting idea!

I have no idea how this resolves. 

One reason this *might* not work is that the rule requires Tenhigitsune to 
“communicate” eir choice, and Rule 2466 prohibits you from acting on behalf of 
em to send a “message” (or synonymously, to “publish” something). The only 
thing you can do is take the underlying game action on eir behalf—but here 
there seems to be no action separate from the very act of sending a message 
(i.e., “communicat[ing]”).




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but

2019-01-15 Thread Kerim Aydin



Actually, this really convinces me that this rule makes it impossible (in a
real sense) to play with public announcements (hashes etc).  Because it's
impossible to "communicate with the resolver" in a manner that "cannot be
understood" by the other combatant.  If the communication relies solely on
publicly-available information (hashes etc.), there's no part of the process
where the resolver and combatant can have different information.

(of course, as pointed out, the private communication with the resolver
works fine).

On 1/15/2019 1:58 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Actually, I don't think this is the same scenario. twgese is just a mechanism 
for ensuring that the value of the number Tenhigitsune has announced is unknown 
to D. Margaux; the nature of the action that is being taken is perfectly 
cromulent to everybody. (Unless it fails for another reason.)

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 9:55 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:


Oh gosh, that's brilliant. I wish I'd known about it, I'd have reused the word.

I have no idea what its implications are for this, though. Case law makes 
everything more complicated.

-twg

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 9:22 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk 
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:


On Tue, 2019-01-15 at 21:18 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:


I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau
Energy in Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which
is a constructed language invented by me. (Other twgese words include
"quang" and "spaaace")
Go ahead, CFJ this. You know you want to.


I recommend searching the CFJ archives and/or Agoran mailing lists for
"nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk".
(It's not a very commonly used word, after all!)

ais523





DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but

2019-01-15 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 10:24 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:
> I cause L to point eir finger at twg for violating special relativity. In 
> particular, twg is the resolver, and in eir message e “reveal[ed] the Energy 
> a combatant is spending before both combatants have made their decisions” 
> (i.e., e revealed that Tenhigitsune is spending rau energy).

Actually, at the time you posted the quoted message, "rau" meant "a pigeon or 
dove", so your statement is clearly incorrect. twgese is, after all, an 
evolving language - the meanings of words change all the time.

I'm minded to declare your Finger Pointing Shenanigans unless somebody presents 
a convincing alternative argument. Also, I think your attempt to announce the 
Energy you will spend fails, because I have no idea what you thought "rau" 
meant, so your message did not communicate that information to me.

-twg


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but

2019-01-15 Thread D. Margaux


> On Jan 15, 2019, at 5:49 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> Actually, at the time you posted the quoted message, "rau" meant "a pigeon or 
> dove", so your statement is clearly incorrect. twgese is, after all, an 
> evolving language - the meanings of words change all the time.

I apologize, I should have been more precise. 

I spend rau + 1 energy, but I use the word “rau” in this context in an 
anachronistic sense to mean what “rau” meant in twgese at the time you sent 
your first message with the word “rau.”  Hope this clarifies things. :-)

> Also, I think your attempt to announce the Energy you will spend fails, 
> because I have no idea what you thought "rau" meant, so your message did not 
> communicate that information to me.

I don’t think this is quite right. You can never know precisely what I think 
anything means, because you can’t perceive directly into my mind. Accordingly, 
it cannot be a precondition to successful communication that you must know my 
private mental meanings if any (because that could never be satisfied). 
Instead, what you can perceive are the signs and symbols that I convey to you; 
and those signs and symbols are imbued with meaning by their history of usage 
by a community of language speakers/writers. So you don’t need to know what (if 
anything) I “thought rau meant” in my mind; instead, all that is required for 
successful communication is that you  evaluate the meaning of the signs and 
symbols I convey to you in their full social context.

Here, evidently, rau is a twgese word that had a particular meaning that you 
yourself know at the time you first used it. So that’s what I’ve communicated 
to you in my message. :-)

[[As a more serious aside, I think the logic I’m laying out in this email is 
essentially the reason why the later Wittgenstein demonstrated that private 
languages such as twgese are impossible. So actually “rau” has no meaning in 
either of our emails. But it’s been a long time since I had to think about 
Wittgenstein, so I may have garbled the logic of it.]]

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8143-8145 and 8142

2019-01-15 Thread Ørjan Johansen

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:


I resolve the Agoran Decisions to adopt each of Proposals 8143, 8144,
8145 and 8142, in that order, as follows. I'll do 8139-8141 after lunch.

(I know this is a controversial use of Assessor powers, but if you will
keep voting for proposals about rewards for proposals...)


Doing this to personally gain an advantage may be controversial, but doing 
it in a manner that ends up completely undoing the effect of proposal 8144 
is just plain rude.


Greetings,
Ørjan.


-twg


SUMMARY

This section self-ratifies.

IDAuthor(s)  Title  Result

8143  Trigon Happy Birthday to You v3   ADOPTED
8144  Trigon Sharing the Wealth ADOPTED
8145  Gaelan No Rebirth ADOPTED
8142  twg et al. Let Me Back In!ADOPTED

7 ballots were cast on Proposal 8142, so Quorum on Agoran Decisions is
now 5 except where otherwise stated.


TALLY OF VOTES

This section does not self-ratify.

+-+-+-+-+
| 8143| 8144| 8145| 8142|
++-+-+-+-+
|AI  | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2.0 |
|Quorum  |  7  |  7  |  7  |  7  |
++-+-+-+-+
|Aris| AAA | AAA | AAA | FFF |
|D. Margaux  | FFF | FFF | FFF | FFF |
|Gaelan  |+FFF |+ P  | FFF |+FFF |
|Murphy  | FFF | FFF | FFF | FFF |
|Tenhigitsune   Z|+FFF |+FFF |+FFF |+FFF |
|Trigon  | FFF |  P  |  P  | FFF |
|twg | FFF | FFF |+FFF | FFF |
++-+-+-+-+
|FOR | 18  | 15  | 18  | 21  |
|AGAINST |  3  |  3  |  3  |  0  |
|Ballots |  7  |  7  |  7  |  7  |
|Resolved|ADOP.|ADOP.|ADOP.|ADOP.|
++-+-+-+-+

Key:
#b. Possesses # blots [-floor(#/3) voting strength]
PM  Prime Minister [+1 voting strength]
Z   Zombie
+   Extricated conditional
x   Inextricable conditional


RIBBONS EARNED IN THIS RESOLUTION

This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify.

  PlayerRibbonProposal(s)
  -------
  twg   Orange8139
  twg   Orange8141
  twg   Orange8142


TEXT OF ADOPTED PROPOSALS

This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify.

//
ID: 8143
Title: Happy Birthday to You v3
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Trigon
Co-authors:


Enact a new rule entitled "Birthday Gifts", power=1, with the text:

 It is considered to be a player's Agoran Birthday on the
 anniversary of the day e most recently registered. Every time it
 is a player's Agoran Birthday, each of the other players CAN
 grant em 3 coins by announcement.

 Players are ENCOURAGED to announce their Agoran Birthdays.

//
ID: 8144
Title: Sharing the Wealth
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Trigon
Co-authors:


Amend rule 2496 "Rewards" by replacing the list element beginning "Being
the author" that reads:

 * The following apply to adopted proposals:

   *  Being the author: a number of coins equal to ((the total
  number of valid ballots cast FOR the decision - the total
  number of valid ballots cast AGAINST) times its adoption
  index) rounded up.
   *  Being listed as a coauthor: the same amount, divided by 2 and
  rounded up.

//
ID: 8145
Title: No Rebirth
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Gaelan
Co-authors:


IF THE PROPOSAL “Happy Birthday to You v3” HAS BEEN RESOLVED AND ENACTED:
 Amend the rule entitled “Birthday Gifts” by replacing “anniversary of the
 day e most recently registered” with “anniversary of the day e first
 registered. If the day a player first registered is unknown, that player
 CAN, with Agoran Consent, declare a day to be eir Agoran Birthday. As long
 as the day a player first registered remains unknown, it is considered to be
 eir Agoran Birthday on the anniversary of the day e most recently declared
 as eir Agoran Birthday”

IF THE PROPOSAL “Happy Birthday to You v3” HAS NOT BEEN RESOLVED, BUT IF
RESOLVED WOULD BE ENACTED:
 Create a power-1 rule entitled “ugh” with the text “Any player may, by
 announcement cause this rule to amend the rule entitled “Birthday Gifts”
 by replacing “anniversary of the day e most recently registered” with
 “anniversary of the day e first registered. If the day a player first
 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but

2019-01-15 Thread D. Margaux
Here’s a thought experiment to sharpen the point. 

Imagine that I don’t know any Spanish at all, but I’ve been told that “uno” is 
a number in that language (but not which number it is).  I then give the 
message, “I spend uno energy.” If twg speaks Spanish and knows that word, then 
have I communicated to him a choice of energy expenditure here? I think yes: 
the communicative content of the message does not depend on my internal mental 
state, but instead upon the signs that I am transmitting in broader social 
context, which is one where “uno” definitely means “one” (even if I don’t know 
that myself). 

Or what if I am told that -e^(i * pi) is a positive integer, but don’t know 
which one it is and refuse to google it. Do I communicate a valid choice if I 
tell twg that I choose -e^(i * pi)? 

If “rau” signifies a number in a legitimate language that twg understands 
(twgese), then my election of rau+1 should work in the same way as “uno” and 
“e^(i * pi)” do in the above hypotheticals. However, I think that “rau” 
actually doesn’t signify a number in any language (because private languages 
are impossible), and so twg didn’t actually communicate a number when e sent 
eir message and my election of rau+1 also doesn’t work. 

> On Jan 15, 2019, at 6:16 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Jan 15, 2019, at 5:49 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
>> 
>> Actually, at the time you posted the quoted message, "rau" meant "a pigeon 
>> or dove", so your statement is clearly incorrect. twgese is, after all, an 
>> evolving language - the meanings of words change all the time.
> 
> I apologize, I should have been more precise. 
> 
> I spend rau + 1 energy, but I use the word “rau” in this context in an 
> anachronistic sense to mean what “rau” meant in twgese at the time you sent 
> your first message with the word “rau.”  Hope this clarifies things. :-)
> 
>> Also, I think your attempt to announce the Energy you will spend fails, 
>> because I have no idea what you thought "rau" meant, so your message did not 
>> communicate that information to me.
> 
> I don’t think this is quite right. You can never know precisely what I think 
> anything means, because you can’t perceive directly into my mind. 
> Accordingly, it cannot be a precondition to successful communication that you 
> must know my private mental meanings if any (because that could never be 
> satisfied). Instead, what you can perceive are the signs and symbols that I 
> convey to you; and those signs and symbols are imbued with meaning by their 
> history of usage by a community of language speakers/writers. So you don’t 
> need to know what (if anything) I “thought rau meant” in my mind; instead, 
> all that is required for successful communication is that you  evaluate the 
> meaning of the signs and symbols I convey to you in their full social context.
> 
> Here, evidently, rau is a twgese word that had a particular meaning that you 
> yourself know at the time you first used it. So that’s what I’ve communicated 
> to you in my message. :-)
> 
> [[As a more serious aside, I think the logic I’m laying out in this email is 
> essentially the reason why the later Wittgenstein demonstrated that private 
> languages such as twgese are impossible. So actually “rau” has no meaning in 
> either of our emails. But it’s been a long time since I had to think about 
> Wittgenstein, so I may have garbled the logic of it.]]


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RIP

2019-01-15 Thread Ørjan Johansen

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

"And I'm joining you live from Agora's Lost and Found Department, where 
a large Spaceship has appeared in the central office, causing widespread 
damage. Projected casualties number in the dozens..."


Spaceships are destructible.  Reading rule 2576, it seems slightly unclear 
but plausible that it was destroyed immediately upon entering the L 
Department.


Which incidentally also provides a crude way of opting out of this game 
while not currently in a battle, for those seeking it.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Rule 2576/0 (Power=3)
Ownership

   Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset's backing document
   restricts its ownership to a class of entities, then that asset
   CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity outside that
   class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity outside that
   class. The restrictions in the previous sentence are subject to
   modification by its backing document. By default, ownership of an
   asset is restricted to Agora, players, and contracts.

   If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost
   and Found Department. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the
   Lost and Found Department can own assets of every type. Assets
   owned by the Lost and Found Department can be transferred or
   destroyed by any player without objection.


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but

2019-01-15 Thread Kerim Aydin



Proto-judgement:

The exact CFJ statement does not extend the quote far enough.  The full
text is:

> SHALL each once communicate to the resolver the amount
>  of Energy they wish to spend in the battle, via any method that
>  cannot be understood by the other combatant until e has also
>  fulfilled this obligation.

The "via any method that cannot be understood" is part of the SHALL
requirement.  So the requirement is fulfilled when a combatant communicates
to the resolver, without being understood by the other combatant.

Now, to communicate is to be understood; that is, common use of the term
includes the notion that information is successfully imparted, and if
understanding is not actually received, communication did not occur (example
use: "what we have here, is a failure to communicate.")

So:  the combatant must be understood by the resolver, without being
understood by the other combatant.

No one can ever be sure that anyone else truly "understands" something, but
we can use the standard of what a "typical current Agoran" might understand.
So the communication must be made via a method that a typical Agoran would
understand, but a different typical Agoran wouldn't understand.

Clearly, this is impossible if the method uses public information for all
communication on the matter.  To use the "typical" Agoran as a standard is
to assume that both parties, given the same public information, would come
to the same understanding.  If a hash (or "secret language") is used, then
when the hash is first published, neither party understands/has been
communicated to.  When the translation is published, both parties
understand.  There is never a time when one of the typical Agorans
understands, but not the other.

Of course, if one of the Agorans is possessed of private information (e.g. a
code arranged with the resolver ahead of time, that e understands), this is
trivial to arrange, as it becomes "a typical Agoran with information X
understands X, something that a typical Agoran without information X doesn't
understand".  Which makes perfect sense.

But under the assumption that the method of communication is entirely
conducted in public, FALSE: these conditions are never met.

On 1/15/2019 4:05 PM, D. Margaux wrote:

I assign these CFJs to G.


On Jan 15, 2019, at 6:58 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:


Favor, I can do it pretty quickly (but if anyone else is really keen I'm
cool with that too).


On 1/15/2019 3:52 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 11:16 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:
instead, all that is required for successful communication is that you evaluate 
the meaning of the signs and symbols I convey to you in their full social 
context.

That does make sense, I guess. I'd prefer some independent verification, though.
I CFJ, barring D. Margaux: "Tenhigitsune has fulfilled eir obligation, detailed in the 
rule entitled 'Space Battles', to 'once communicate to the resolver the amount of Energy [e 
wishes] to spend" in Space Battle 0001."
I CFJ, barring D. Margaux: "D. Margaux has fulfilled eir obligation, detailed in the rule 
entitled 'Space Battles', to 'once communicate to the resolver the amount of Energy [e wishes] 
to spend" in Space Battle 0001."
Of course, "in their full social context" is the important part. It would 
probably have been helpful if I'd mentioned this before now, but twgese is actually a 
cpizdacinsebangu - a language in which some words have different meanings when spoken by 
a kolmba (such as you) or a tcacpi (such as me or Tenhigitsune).
I think it would be a mistake for me to explain in any further detail the English 
meaning(s) of "rau" until those CFJs have been resolved. Don't want to make it 
even easier for people to pin a Class-5 Crime on me!
-twg
PS: As fun as this is, I am pretty sure both CFJs are FALSE for the reasons G. 
and ais523 have been outlining. But it doesn't hurt to make sure.
PPS: I am going to bed now, so please don't expect a prompt reply if you 
respond further.


DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but

2019-01-15 Thread Ørjan Johansen

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau Energy 
in Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which is a 
constructed language invented by me. (Other twgese words include "quang" 
and "spaaace".)


Go ahead, CFJ this. You know you want to.


This discussion makes me even more doubtful about the recent usage of 
"quang" BTW, except in those messages that also quote its definition.


Before all the mention of typical Agorans I thought it would probably be 
OK as long as you were the relevant recordkeepor, but now I'm not so sure.


Greetings,
Ørjan.