Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
Just a heads up to everyone: I’m traveling at the moment, so the report
will be delayed. I was hoping to finish it up quickly today, but I had less
time than I thought I would and people keep creating tons of uproposals.
So, I’ll try to get it out as soon as I can, but that may take a bit.
-Aris
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 7:18 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> Hmm... that sounds like a use case for single-party contracts. If
> there's a reason to disallow such contracts, I'll withdraw the following
> proposal (not a pledge).
>
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Single-party Contracts
>
> Author: Jason Cobb
>
> AI: 2.5
>
> Text:
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 1742 ("Contracts") by replacing the text "Any group of two or
> more" with the text "Any group of one or more".
>
> }
>
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/14/19 5:05 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> >
> >> On Jul 14, 2019, at 12:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >> After pondering on it I'm likely going to vote against it - the stakes
> are
> >> too high. I don't think it's reasonable to be able to steal all of
> >> someone's assets via minor inattention.
> > Well, under the current rules, players can protect their assets by using
> contract-created banks...
>
DIS: Non-explicit numeric values
I'm just curious on whether or not my reading of the Rules is correct here. If I was to submit a proposal and specify the AI as something that needs to be evaluated, say "the power of [some Rule]", then that is evaluated at the time of me submitting the proposal, right? If that's the case, could I say the AI is "the power of [some Rule] at the time of resolution", and have that work? -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: July 2019
On Sun, 2019-07-14 at 20:23 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote: > I have investigated the history of the rule. Rule 2517 was repealed by > Proposal 8054 on 23 June 2018. Since that is the case, it should have > been removed from the ruleset; however, it was not. Since then, it has > been discussed once or twice despite not actually being in effect, > notably in the Dollar Auction discussion when someone attempted to > describe an inextricable conditional. However, the SLR was recently > ratified and, since the SLR included this rule, it was re-enacted. I > don't know what is required here, so for now the annotation will reflect > the situation described above. The SLR just contains the ratified version of the rule (because ratification makes the SLR match the ratified version). That causes an amendment to the Ruleset. The FLR thus needs to list the amendment in question, i.e. "Re-enacted by ratification" together with the date. (This has happened before, IIRC it's been an accident every time.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: July 2019
I have investigated the history of the rule. Rule 2517 was repealed by Proposal 8054 on 23 June 2018. Since that is the case, it should have been removed from the ruleset; however, it was not. Since then, it has been discussed once or twice despite not actually being in effect, notably in the Dollar Auction discussion when someone attempted to describe an inextricable conditional. However, the SLR was recently ratified and, since the SLR included this rule, it was re-enacted. I don't know what is required here, so for now the annotation will reflect the situation described above. On 7/14/19 12:02 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: Okay. I was going to try something nefarious with this, but I guess I can't then. On Rule 2517, the annotations list the rule as being enacted, and then repealed, without being re-enacted, so there might be something off there. On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 12:58 PM Reuben Staley wrote: No part of any ruleset is self-ratifying. -- Trigon On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 11:57 Jason Cobb wrote: Are the historical annotations in the FLR self-ratifying? Asking for a friend. On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 2:46 AM Reuben Staley wrote: THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/ Date of last official ruleset of this type: 16 Jun 2019 Date of this ruleset: 14 Jul 2019 Date of last SLR ratification: 8 May 2019 Number of rules currently enacted: 130 Most recent change to this ruleset: Rule 1950 "Decisions with Adoption Indices" amended by Proposal 8200 "Sane AI Defaulting" (Aris), 10 Jul 2019 Highest ID'd rule in this ruleset: 2597 Highest ID'd Proposal Passed: 8200 Highest ID'd Rule Enacted: 2598 Table of Contents: The Game of Agora * Rule 101: The Game of Agora * Rule 1698: Agora Is A Nomic Players * Rule 869: How to Join and Leave Agora * Rule 478: Fora * Rule 2139: The Registrar * Rule 1789: Cantus Cygneus General Definitions * Rule 2152: Mother, May I? * Rule 2509: Agoran Numbers * Rule 2125: Regulated Actions * Rule 1023: Agoran Time * Rule 1728: Dependent Action Methods * Rule 2595: Performing a Dependent Action * Rule 2124: Agoran Satisfaction * Rule 2518: Determinacy * Rule 2505: Random Choices * Rule 2517: Conditionals and Extricability Entities * Rule 1586: Definition and Continuity of Entities * Rule 2162: Switches * Rule 1688: Power * Rule 2140: Power Controls Mutability Proposals * Rule 2350: Proposals * Rule 1607: Distribution * Rule 2137: The Assessor * Rule 106: Adopting Proposals * Rule 2597: Line-item Veto Rules & Regulations * Rule 2141: Role and Attributes of Rules * Rule 217: Interpreting the Rules * Rule 1030: Precedence between Rules * Rule 2240: No Cretans Need Apply * Rule 105: Rule Changes * Rule 2493: Regulations * Rule 2486: The Royal Parade * Rule 1051: The Rulekeepor * Rule 1681: The Logical Rulesets * Rule 2221: Cleanliness * Rule 2429: Bleach Voting * Rule 693: Agoran Decisions * Rule 107: Initiating Agoran Decisions * Rule 2528: Voting Methods * Rule 683: Voting on Agoran Decisions * Rule 208: Resolving Agoran Decisions * Rule 955: Determining the Will of Agora * Rule 879: Quorum * Rule 2422: Voting Strength * Rule 2127: Conditional Votes * Rule 2168: Extending the voting period * Rule 1950: Decisions with Adoption Indices * Rule 2034: Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges Offices & Reporting * Rule 1006: Offices * Rule 2154: Election Procedure * Rule 2573: Impeachment * Rule 2160: Deputisation * Rule 2138: The Associate Director of Personnel * Rule 2472: Office Incompatibilities * Rule 2143: Official Reports and Duties * Rule 2379: No News Is Some News Documents * Rule 1551: Ratification * Rule 2202: Ratification Without Objection * Rule 2201: Self-Ratification Justice * Rule 2556: Penalties * Rule 2555: Blots * Rule 2478: Vigilante Justice * Rule 2479: Official Justice * Rule 2557: Removing Blots * Rule 2531: Referee Accountability Calls for Judgement * Rule 991: Calls for Judgement * Rule 591: Delivering Judgements * Rule 911: Motions and Moots * Rule 2175: Judicial Retraction and Excess * Rule 2492: Recusal * Rule 2246: Submitting a CFJ to the Referee Obligations & Contracts * Rule 2471: No Faking * Rule 2450: Pledges * Rule 2466: Acting on Behalf * Rule 2519: Consent * Rule 1742: Contracts Assets * Rule 2166: Assets * Rule 2576: Ownership * Rule 2577: Asset Actions * Rule 2578: Currencies * Rule 2579: Fee-based Actions Economics * Rule 2456: The Treasuror * Rule 2483: Economics * Rule 2496: Rewards *
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Thesis submission: A dream within a dream within a dream
On 7/14/2019 6:53 PM, James Cook wrote: Thanks for raising it, nch! G., I remember you put out a proto-proposal to add new degrees related to law [0]. I would be honoured to get any degree for this, but it would be kind of fun for it to be a law degree. [0] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg46799.html Oh that's right! I think I didn't get a lot of feedback on the law degree idea and then forgot. I'll do a proposal for law degrees that will include awarding you the first one. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My Spaceship
Are you sure it's ineffectual? I could consider ", increasing its armour switch to 10" to be an assertion separate from your announcement that you perform the action. I'll hold off on this week's Treasuror report in case you want to try to clarify the gamestate with a conditional action. (I'm also waiting to see if Trigon wants to do the same for eir recent Rulekeepor reward.) On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 01:55, nch wrote: > Oh you're right, I missed the "by 1" somehow. The payment should be > entirely ineffectual then. I'm not sure if the movement worked since the > ship might not be pilotable, but I see no reason to think 0 is a more > (or less) likely number than 10 in the rules. > > On 7/14/19 8:42 PM, James Cook wrote: > > On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 22:04, nch wrote: > >> It's also not clear what the default of the > >> armour value is. If my spaceships armour value is less than 10, I pay 1 > >> coin to repair it, increasing its armour switch to 10. > > Welcome! > > > > I think armour currently defaults to zero. There was a proposal to fix > > that, but we rejected it [0] either because it was buggy or because it > > conflicted with something else. > > > > I think 1 Coin is only enough to increase the armour switch to 1, and > > I think you started with 20 energy, not 10. > > > > [0] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg09279.html > > -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My Spaceship
In that case, both actions failed. I should have 10 coins and Theseus, my spaceship, has 20 energy. On 7/14/19 8:56 PM, James Cook wrote: Hm... my reading would be that the default is "null". And I'm not sure what happens if you increase "null' by 1. Jason Cobb I think it's 0 due to R2509 (Agoran Numbers): "If 0 is in the specified values...".
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My Spaceship
Whoops, you're right. I suppose I haven't read the entire ruleset yet :). Jason Cobb On 7/14/19 8:56 PM, James Cook wrote: Hm... my reading would be that the default is "null". And I'm not sure what happens if you increase "null' by 1. Jason Cobb I think it's 0 due to R2509 (Agoran Numbers): "If 0 is in the specified values...".
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My Spaceship
> Hm... my reading would be that the default is "null". And I'm not sure > what happens if you increase "null' by 1. > > Jason Cobb I think it's 0 due to R2509 (Agoran Numbers): "If 0 is in the specified values...".
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My Spaceship
Oh you're right, I missed the "by 1" somehow. The payment should be entirely ineffectual then. I'm not sure if the movement worked since the ship might not be pilotable, but I see no reason to think 0 is a more (or less) likely number than 10 in the rules. On 7/14/19 8:42 PM, James Cook wrote: On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 22:04, nch wrote: It's also not clear what the default of the armour value is. If my spaceships armour value is less than 10, I pay 1 coin to repair it, increasing its armour switch to 10. Welcome! I think armour currently defaults to zero. There was a proposal to fix that, but we rejected it [0] either because it was buggy or because it conflicted with something else. I think 1 Coin is only enough to increase the armour switch to 1, and I think you started with 20 energy, not 10. [0] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg09279.html
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Thesis submission: A dream within a dream within a dream
Thanks for raising it, nch! G., I remember you put out a
proto-proposal to add new degrees related to law [0]. I would be
honoured to get any degree for this, but it would be kind of fun for
it to be a law degree.
[0] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg46799.html
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 00:16, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It's the Herald's responsibility, but only enforced by a SHOULD. Our last
> Herald did a disappearing act around when this was being resolved (I think e
> may have announced intent to award just before e vanished). I just
> deputised to pick up the tasks but haven't gotten to this one yet (on my
> TODO!). But you're absolutely right it shouldn't disappear - maybe that
> should be a SHALL.
>
> On 7/14/2019 4:24 PM, nch wrote:
> > I haven't had a chance yet to properly review this document and recommend or
> > critique it, but it strikes me that we should have a review system that
> > makes this someone's responsibility so that the document doesn't disappear
> > into limbo, and the writer either gets their reward or understands why they
> > did not.
> >
> > On 6/4/19 8:25 AM, James Cook wrote:
> >> [I don't really know what Agora's standard of scholarly worth is, but
> >> I figure I might as well try. The title refers to this being a
> >> hypothetical judgement about the fictional new past created by
> >> ratification, which in itself is based on a hypothetical change to the
> >> past when the gamestate is "minimally modified".]
> >>
> >> I submit the rest of this message as a thesis, and intend it to
> >> qualify for a degree (whichever degree defined by Rule 1367 my peers
> >> find appropriate).
> >>
> >> This is a hypothetical judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727, assuming D.
> >> Margaux's attempt on 2019-05-26 22:50 to ratify a document without
> >> objection was successful. I think it is interesting because it discusses
> >> the question of whether when the Rules refer to the past, they are
> >> referring to a fictional past that can be modified by ratification.
> >> There are past (real) judgements that already consider this question,
> >> but I don't think they go into as much detail as this one.
> >>
> >> CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> >> attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
> >>
> >> CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
> >> more than 0 blots."
> >>
> >> 1. Arguments
> >>
> >>
> >> There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
> >> when D. Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
> >> Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019, and continuing on the thread
> >> "Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727" in June 2019. I will not try to
> >> repeat everything here.
> >>
> >> 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> >> =
> >>
> >> 2019-05-20 01:25
> >>
> >>The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
> >>blots.
> >>
> >> 2019-05-20 20:32
> >>
> >>D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to ratify
> >>it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
> >>
> >>{ For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
> >>have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
> >>
> >>Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
> >>Spaaace Rules has its default value.
> >>
> >>There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
> >>Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
> >>the Spaaace Rules. }
> >>
> >> 2019-05-21 10:20
> >>
> >>D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
> >>weekly reports:
> >>
> >>{there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
> >>recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
> >>switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
> >>value.}
> >>
> >>{there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
> >>recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
> >>switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default value.}
> >>
> >> 2019-05-25 22:02
> >>
> >>omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
> >>information in the above reports.
> >>
> >> 2019-05-25 22:54
> >>
> >>D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
> >>behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
> >>pointed".
> >>
> >> 2019-05-26 22:43
> >>
> >>Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand of
> >>Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following message:
> >>
> >>> Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information in
> >> the
> >>> report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the
> >> good of
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: My Spaceship
Hm... my reading would be that the default is "null". And I'm not sure what happens if you increase "null' by 1. Jason Cobb On 7/14/19 8:42 PM, James Cook wrote: On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 22:04, nch wrote: It's also not clear what the default of the armour value is. If my spaceships armour value is less than 10, I pay 1 coin to repair it, increasing its armour switch to 10. Welcome! I think armour currently defaults to zero. There was a proposal to fix that, but we rejected it [0] either because it was buggy or because it conflicted with something else. I think 1 Coin is only enough to increase the armour switch to 1, and I think you started with 20 energy, not 10. [0] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg09279.html
DIS: Re: BUS: My Spaceship
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 22:04, nch wrote: > It's also not clear what the default of the > armour value is. If my spaceships armour value is less than 10, I pay 1 > coin to repair it, increasing its armour switch to 10. Welcome! I think armour currently defaults to zero. There was a proposal to fix that, but we rejected it [0] either because it was buggy or because it conflicted with something else. I think 1 Coin is only enough to increase the armour switch to 1, and I think you started with 20 energy, not 10. [0] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg09279.html -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Thesis submission: A dream within a dream within a dream
It's the Herald's responsibility, but only enforced by a SHOULD. Our last
Herald did a disappearing act around when this was being resolved (I think e
may have announced intent to award just before e vanished). I just
deputised to pick up the tasks but haven't gotten to this one yet (on my
TODO!). But you're absolutely right it shouldn't disappear - maybe that
should be a SHALL.
On 7/14/2019 4:24 PM, nch wrote:
I haven't had a chance yet to properly review this document and recommend or
critique it, but it strikes me that we should have a review system that
makes this someone's responsibility so that the document doesn't disappear
into limbo, and the writer either gets their reward or understands why they
did not.
On 6/4/19 8:25 AM, James Cook wrote:
[I don't really know what Agora's standard of scholarly worth is, but
I figure I might as well try. The title refers to this being a
hypothetical judgement about the fictional new past created by
ratification, which in itself is based on a hypothetical change to the
past when the gamestate is "minimally modified".]
I submit the rest of this message as a thesis, and intend it to
qualify for a degree (whichever degree defined by Rule 1367 my peers
find appropriate).
This is a hypothetical judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727, assuming D.
Margaux's attempt on 2019-05-26 22:50 to ratify a document without
objection was successful. I think it is interesting because it discusses
the question of whether when the Rules refer to the past, they are
referring to a fictional past that can be modified by ratification.
There are past (real) judgements that already consider this question,
but I don't think they go into as much detail as this one.
CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
more than 0 blots."
1. Arguments
There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
when D. Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019, and continuing on the thread
"Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727" in June 2019. I will not try to
repeat everything here.
2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
=
2019-05-20 01:25
The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
blots.
2019-05-20 20:32
D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to ratify
it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
{ For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
Spaaace Rules has its default value.
There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
the Spaaace Rules. }
2019-05-21 10:20
D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
weekly reports:
{there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
value.}
{there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default value.}
2019-05-25 22:02
omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
information in the above reports.
2019-05-25 22:54
D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
pointed".
2019-05-26 22:43
Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand of
Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following message:
> Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information in
the
> report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the
good of
> the game, but there were also other options available (proposal, or
> ratification without objection, which would have been unlikely to
cause any
> problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for the good
of the
> game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the circumstances
though,
> some additional penalty is warranted for failing to adequately
consider and
> discuss options that would have avoided violating the rules.
>
> I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of Justice on D.
> Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. The required
> words are {optimize, preferentially, consider, supersubtilize,
> adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}.
2019-05-26 22:50
D. Margaux ratifies the document e
DIS: Re: BUS: My Spaceship
Unfortunately, nch, you are literally the only person with a spaceship right now On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 8:04 AM nch wrote: > It appears my registration causes me to own a spaceship, and G has > caused me to have 10 coins. It's also not clear what the default of the > armour value is. If my spaceships armour value is less than 10, I pay 1 > coin to repair it, increasing its armour switch to 10.I name my > spaceship Theseus, and frown at the fact that the rules do not codify > names as a switch for spaceships. I cause Theseus to pay 1 (out of 10) > energy to move to the Milky Way. I agree to be allied to any player that > responds to this message saying they agree to be allied to me in the > next 7 days. > > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Thesis submission: A dream within a dream within a dream
I haven't had a chance yet to properly review this document and
recommend or critique it, but it strikes me that we should have a review
system that makes this someone's responsibility so that the document
doesn't disappear into limbo, and the writer either gets their reward or
understands why they did not.
On 6/4/19 8:25 AM, James Cook wrote:
[I don't really know what Agora's standard of scholarly worth is, but
I figure I might as well try. The title refers to this being a
hypothetical judgement about the fictional new past created by
ratification, which in itself is based on a hypothetical change to the
past when the gamestate is "minimally modified".]
I submit the rest of this message as a thesis, and intend it to
qualify for a degree (whichever degree defined by Rule 1367 my peers
find appropriate).
This is a hypothetical judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727, assuming D.
Margaux's attempt on 2019-05-26 22:50 to ratify a document without
objection was successful. I think it is interesting because it discusses
the question of whether when the Rules refer to the past, they are
referring to a fictional past that can be modified by ratification.
There are past (real) judgements that already consider this question,
but I don't think they go into as much detail as this one.
CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
more than 0 blots."
1. Arguments
There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
when D. Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019, and continuing on the thread
"Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727" in June 2019. I will not try to
repeat everything here.
2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
=
2019-05-20 01:25
The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
blots.
2019-05-20 20:32
D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to ratify
it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
{ For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
Spaaace Rules has its default value.
There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
the Spaaace Rules. }
2019-05-21 10:20
D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
weekly reports:
{there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
value.}
{there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default value.}
2019-05-25 22:02
omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
information in the above reports.
2019-05-25 22:54
D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
pointed".
2019-05-26 22:43
Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand of
Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following message:
> Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information in the
> report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the good of
> the game, but there were also other options available (proposal, or
> ratification without objection, which would have been unlikely to cause any
> problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for the good of the
> game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the circumstances though,
> some additional penalty is warranted for failing to adequately consider and
> discuss options that would have avoided violating the rules.
>
> I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of Justice on D.
> Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. The required
> words are {optimize, preferentially, consider, supersubtilize,
> adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}.
2019-05-26 22:50
D. Margaux ratifies the document e earlier announced intent to ratify.
(This is fictional; in the actual judgement, I explain why this did
not succeed.)
2019-05-27 14:11
D. Margaux calls what is later named CFJ 3727.
2019-05-27 19:58
Aris calls what is later named CFJ 3726.
3. Effectiveness of the fine ignoring ratification
==
It is helpful to first consider whether the attempt to levy a fine
Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
> On Jul 14, 2019, at 12:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > After pondering on it I'm likely going to vote against it - the stakes are > too high. I don't think it's reasonable to be able to steal all of > someone's assets via minor inattention. Well, under the current rules, players can protect their assets by using contract-created banks...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (No Subject)
Thank you for the package, whatever it may contain (I'm still working my way through the current game-state). I'm deciding to play again while starting both a new job and a graduate degree (after all, I'll need some sort of equally-stressful distraction when those things stress me out), so I might be more background than foreground for a while. On 7/14/19 4:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I award nch a Welcome Package. On 7/14/2019 2:24 PM, nch wrote: You're right, I'm rusty. And regrettably the Protonmail IMAP bridge doesn't have a Linux release yet, so I guess I'll revive this account. I register with the name nch. On 7/14/19 3:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: If you were hoping that the cc would register you, it likely doesn't: actions can only be taken "within" messages (within the bodies). You can refer to other parts of the email in the body (e.g. "I do what the subject line says") but you can't straight-out take actions without some indication in the message body itself. On 7/14/2019 12:09 PM, Nich wrote: Empty Message
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (No Subject)
I thought it might be you :) Welcome back!!! On 7/14/2019 2:24 PM, nch wrote: You're right, I'm rusty. And regrettably the Protonmail IMAP bridge doesn't have a Linux release yet, so I guess I'll revive this account. I register with the name nch. On 7/14/19 3:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: If you were hoping that the cc would register you, it likely doesn't: actions can only be taken "within" messages (within the bodies). You can refer to other parts of the email in the body (e.g. "I do what the subject line says") but you can't straight-out take actions without some indication in the message body itself. On 7/14/2019 12:09 PM, Nich wrote: Empty Message
DIS: Re: BUS: (No Subject)
If you were hoping that the cc would register you, it likely doesn't: actions can only be taken "within" messages (within the bodies). You can refer to other parts of the email in the body (e.g. "I do what the subject line says") but you can't straight-out take actions without some indication in the message body itself. On 7/14/2019 12:09 PM, Nich wrote: Empty Message
Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
On 7/14/2019 10:48 AM, James Cook wrote: On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 16:04, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> This also gives a mechanism to trade/sell zombies - that was purposefully>> left out of the original I don't really think zombies should be a fungible>> asset.> > Why not? The zombie rules as a whole seem vaguely unpleasant to me,> maybe because they allow us to intrude into what's normally a player'> own private domain. But I don't see how making them liquid makes it> any worse. Come to think of it, my prejudice against selling zombies was in a previous version of the rules that didn't have resale value or limits on zombies- owning-zombies. As long as each transfer of a zombie still knocks down its resale value maybe that's cool, or even better (speeding a zombie's final burial). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: July 2019
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, even if it was for a self-serving purpose. I will investigate the history of this rule and report back. -- Trigon On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 12:02 Jason Cobb wrote: > Okay. I was going to try something nefarious with this, but I guess I can't > then. On Rule 2517, the annotations list the rule as being enacted, and > then repealed, without being re-enacted, so there might be something off > there. > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 12:58 PM Reuben Staley > wrote: > > > No part of any ruleset is self-ratifying. > > > > -- > > Trigon > > > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 11:57 Jason Cobb wrote: > > > > > Are the historical annotations in the FLR self-ratifying? Asking for a > > > friend. > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 2:46 AM Reuben Staley > > > wrote: > > > > > > > THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET > > > > > > > > These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/ > > > > > > > > Date of last official ruleset of this type: 16 Jun 2019 > > > > Date of this ruleset: 14 Jul 2019 > > > > > > > > Date of last SLR ratification: 8 May 2019 > > > > > > > > Number of rules currently enacted: 130 > > > > > > > > Most recent change to this ruleset: Rule 1950 "Decisions with > Adoption > > > > Indices" amended by Proposal 8200 "Sane AI Defaulting" (Aris), 10 Jul > > > > 2019 > > > > > > > > Highest ID'd rule in this ruleset: 2597 > > > > Highest ID'd Proposal Passed: 8200 > > > > Highest ID'd Rule Enacted: 2598 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Table of Contents: > > > > > > > > The Game of Agora > > > > * Rule 101: The Game of Agora > > > > * Rule 1698: Agora Is A Nomic > > > > Players > > > > * Rule 869: How to Join and Leave Agora > > > > * Rule 478: Fora > > > > * Rule 2139: The Registrar > > > > * Rule 1789: Cantus Cygneus > > > > General Definitions > > > > * Rule 2152: Mother, May I? > > > > * Rule 2509: Agoran Numbers > > > > * Rule 2125: Regulated Actions > > > > * Rule 1023: Agoran Time > > > > * Rule 1728: Dependent Action Methods > > > > * Rule 2595: Performing a Dependent Action > > > > * Rule 2124: Agoran Satisfaction > > > > * Rule 2518: Determinacy > > > > * Rule 2505: Random Choices > > > > * Rule 2517: Conditionals and Extricability > > > > Entities > > > > * Rule 1586: Definition and Continuity of Entities > > > > * Rule 2162: Switches > > > > * Rule 1688: Power > > > > * Rule 2140: Power Controls Mutability > > > > Proposals > > > > * Rule 2350: Proposals > > > > * Rule 1607: Distribution > > > > * Rule 2137: The Assessor > > > > * Rule 106: Adopting Proposals > > > > * Rule 2597: Line-item Veto > > > > Rules & Regulations > > > > * Rule 2141: Role and Attributes of Rules > > > > * Rule 217: Interpreting the Rules > > > > * Rule 1030: Precedence between Rules > > > > * Rule 2240: No Cretans Need Apply > > > > * Rule 105: Rule Changes > > > > * Rule 2493: Regulations > > > > * Rule 2486: The Royal Parade > > > > * Rule 1051: The Rulekeepor > > > > * Rule 1681: The Logical Rulesets > > > > * Rule 2221: Cleanliness > > > > * Rule 2429: Bleach > > > > Voting > > > > * Rule 693: Agoran Decisions > > > > * Rule 107: Initiating Agoran Decisions > > > > * Rule 2528: Voting Methods > > > > * Rule 683: Voting on Agoran Decisions > > > > * Rule 208: Resolving Agoran Decisions > > > > * Rule 955: Determining the Will of Agora > > > > * Rule 879: Quorum > > > > * Rule 2422: Voting Strength > > > > * Rule 2127: Conditional Votes > > > > * Rule 2168: Extending the voting period > > > > * Rule 1950: Decisions with Adoption Indices > > > > * Rule 2034: Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges > > > > Offices & Reporting > > > > * Rule 1006: Offices > > > > * Rule 2154: Election Procedure > > > > * Rule 2573: Impeachment > > > > * Rule 2160: Deputisation > > > > * Rule 2138: The Associate Director of Personnel > > > > * Rule 2472: Office Incompatibilities > > > > * Rule 2143: Official Reports and Duties > > > > * Rule 2379: No News Is Some News > > > > Documents > > > > * Rule 1551: Ratification > > > > * Rule 2202: Ratification Without Objection > > > > * Rule 2201: Self-Ratification > > > > Justice > > > > * Rule 2556: Penalties > > > > * Rule 2555: Blots > > > > * Rule 2478: Vigilante Justice > > > > * Rule 2479: Official Justice > > > > * Rule 2557: Removing Blots > > > > * Rule 2531: Referee Accountability > > > > Calls for Judgement > > > > * Rule 991: Calls for Judgement > > > > * Rule 591: Delivering Judgements > > > > * Rule 911: Motions and Moots > > > > * Rule 2175: Judicial Retraction and Excess > > > > * Rule 2492: Recusal > > > > * Rule 2246: Submitting a CFJ to the Referee > > > > Obligations &
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: July 2019
Okay. I was going to try something nefarious with this, but I guess I can't then. On Rule 2517, the annotations list the rule as being enacted, and then repealed, without being re-enacted, so there might be something off there. On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 12:58 PM Reuben Staley wrote: > No part of any ruleset is self-ratifying. > > -- > Trigon > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 11:57 Jason Cobb wrote: > > > Are the historical annotations in the FLR self-ratifying? Asking for a > > friend. > > > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 2:46 AM Reuben Staley > > wrote: > > > > > THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET > > > > > > These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/ > > > > > > Date of last official ruleset of this type: 16 Jun 2019 > > > Date of this ruleset: 14 Jul 2019 > > > > > > Date of last SLR ratification: 8 May 2019 > > > > > > Number of rules currently enacted: 130 > > > > > > Most recent change to this ruleset: Rule 1950 "Decisions with Adoption > > > Indices" amended by Proposal 8200 "Sane AI Defaulting" (Aris), 10 Jul > > > 2019 > > > > > > Highest ID'd rule in this ruleset: 2597 > > > Highest ID'd Proposal Passed: 8200 > > > Highest ID'd Rule Enacted: 2598 > > > > > > > > > > > > > Table of Contents: > > > > > > The Game of Agora > > > * Rule 101: The Game of Agora > > > * Rule 1698: Agora Is A Nomic > > > Players > > > * Rule 869: How to Join and Leave Agora > > > * Rule 478: Fora > > > * Rule 2139: The Registrar > > > * Rule 1789: Cantus Cygneus > > > General Definitions > > > * Rule 2152: Mother, May I? > > > * Rule 2509: Agoran Numbers > > > * Rule 2125: Regulated Actions > > > * Rule 1023: Agoran Time > > > * Rule 1728: Dependent Action Methods > > > * Rule 2595: Performing a Dependent Action > > > * Rule 2124: Agoran Satisfaction > > > * Rule 2518: Determinacy > > > * Rule 2505: Random Choices > > > * Rule 2517: Conditionals and Extricability > > > Entities > > > * Rule 1586: Definition and Continuity of Entities > > > * Rule 2162: Switches > > > * Rule 1688: Power > > > * Rule 2140: Power Controls Mutability > > > Proposals > > > * Rule 2350: Proposals > > > * Rule 1607: Distribution > > > * Rule 2137: The Assessor > > > * Rule 106: Adopting Proposals > > > * Rule 2597: Line-item Veto > > > Rules & Regulations > > > * Rule 2141: Role and Attributes of Rules > > > * Rule 217: Interpreting the Rules > > > * Rule 1030: Precedence between Rules > > > * Rule 2240: No Cretans Need Apply > > > * Rule 105: Rule Changes > > > * Rule 2493: Regulations > > > * Rule 2486: The Royal Parade > > > * Rule 1051: The Rulekeepor > > > * Rule 1681: The Logical Rulesets > > > * Rule 2221: Cleanliness > > > * Rule 2429: Bleach > > > Voting > > > * Rule 693: Agoran Decisions > > > * Rule 107: Initiating Agoran Decisions > > > * Rule 2528: Voting Methods > > > * Rule 683: Voting on Agoran Decisions > > > * Rule 208: Resolving Agoran Decisions > > > * Rule 955: Determining the Will of Agora > > > * Rule 879: Quorum > > > * Rule 2422: Voting Strength > > > * Rule 2127: Conditional Votes > > > * Rule 2168: Extending the voting period > > > * Rule 1950: Decisions with Adoption Indices > > > * Rule 2034: Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges > > > Offices & Reporting > > > * Rule 1006: Offices > > > * Rule 2154: Election Procedure > > > * Rule 2573: Impeachment > > > * Rule 2160: Deputisation > > > * Rule 2138: The Associate Director of Personnel > > > * Rule 2472: Office Incompatibilities > > > * Rule 2143: Official Reports and Duties > > > * Rule 2379: No News Is Some News > > > Documents > > > * Rule 1551: Ratification > > > * Rule 2202: Ratification Without Objection > > > * Rule 2201: Self-Ratification > > > Justice > > > * Rule 2556: Penalties > > > * Rule 2555: Blots > > > * Rule 2478: Vigilante Justice > > > * Rule 2479: Official Justice > > > * Rule 2557: Removing Blots > > > * Rule 2531: Referee Accountability > > > Calls for Judgement > > > * Rule 991: Calls for Judgement > > > * Rule 591: Delivering Judgements > > > * Rule 911: Motions and Moots > > > * Rule 2175: Judicial Retraction and Excess > > > * Rule 2492: Recusal > > > * Rule 2246: Submitting a CFJ to the Referee > > > Obligations & Contracts > > > * Rule 2471: No Faking > > > * Rule 2450: Pledges > > > * Rule 2466: Acting on Behalf > > > * Rule 2519: Consent > > > * Rule 1742: Contracts > > > Assets > > > * Rule 2166: Assets > > > * Rule 2576: Ownership > > > * Rule 2577: Asset Actions > > > * Rule 2578: Currencies > > > * Rule 2579: Fee-based Actions > > > Economics > > > * Rule 2456: The Treasuror > > > * Rule 2483: Economics > > > *
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: July 2019
They are not. Nothing in the SLR or FLR is self-ratifying. Customarily, we ratify the SLR from time to time by proposal in order to ensure we accurately understand the ruleset. This is done by explicit proposal so that people have an opportunity to check it and prevent scams. However, the FLR is never ratified, because doing so would unnecessarily ratify the history of how the ruleset got the way it is, potentially creating a mess if something is wrong. -Aris On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 1:57 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > Are the historical annotations in the FLR self-ratifying? Asking for a > friend. > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 2:46 AM Reuben Staley > wrote: > > > THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET > > > > These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/ > > > > Date of last official ruleset of this type: 16 Jun 2019 > > Date of this ruleset: 14 Jul 2019 > > > > Date of last SLR ratification: 8 May 2019 > > > > Number of rules currently enacted: 130 > > > > Most recent change to this ruleset: Rule 1950 "Decisions with Adoption > > Indices" amended by Proposal 8200 "Sane AI Defaulting" (Aris), 10 Jul > > 2019 > > > > Highest ID'd rule in this ruleset: 2597 > > Highest ID'd Proposal Passed: 8200 > > Highest ID'd Rule Enacted: 2598 > > > > > > > > Table of Contents: > > > > The Game of Agora > > * Rule 101: The Game of Agora > > * Rule 1698: Agora Is A Nomic > > Players > > * Rule 869: How to Join and Leave Agora > > * Rule 478: Fora > > * Rule 2139: The Registrar > > * Rule 1789: Cantus Cygneus > > General Definitions > > * Rule 2152: Mother, May I? > > * Rule 2509: Agoran Numbers > > * Rule 2125: Regulated Actions > > * Rule 1023: Agoran Time > > * Rule 1728: Dependent Action Methods > > * Rule 2595: Performing a Dependent Action > > * Rule 2124: Agoran Satisfaction > > * Rule 2518: Determinacy > > * Rule 2505: Random Choices > > * Rule 2517: Conditionals and Extricability > > Entities > > * Rule 1586: Definition and Continuity of Entities > > * Rule 2162: Switches > > * Rule 1688: Power > > * Rule 2140: Power Controls Mutability > > Proposals > > * Rule 2350: Proposals > > * Rule 1607: Distribution > > * Rule 2137: The Assessor > > * Rule 106: Adopting Proposals > > * Rule 2597: Line-item Veto > > Rules & Regulations > > * Rule 2141: Role and Attributes of Rules > > * Rule 217: Interpreting the Rules > > * Rule 1030: Precedence between Rules > > * Rule 2240: No Cretans Need Apply > > * Rule 105: Rule Changes > > * Rule 2493: Regulations > > * Rule 2486: The Royal Parade > > * Rule 1051: The Rulekeepor > > * Rule 1681: The Logical Rulesets > > * Rule 2221: Cleanliness > > * Rule 2429: Bleach > > Voting > > * Rule 693: Agoran Decisions > > * Rule 107: Initiating Agoran Decisions > > * Rule 2528: Voting Methods > > * Rule 683: Voting on Agoran Decisions > > * Rule 208: Resolving Agoran Decisions > > * Rule 955: Determining the Will of Agora > > * Rule 879: Quorum > > * Rule 2422: Voting Strength > > * Rule 2127: Conditional Votes > > * Rule 2168: Extending the voting period > > * Rule 1950: Decisions with Adoption Indices > > * Rule 2034: Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges > > Offices & Reporting > > * Rule 1006: Offices > > * Rule 2154: Election Procedure > > * Rule 2573: Impeachment > > * Rule 2160: Deputisation > > * Rule 2138: The Associate Director of Personnel > > * Rule 2472: Office Incompatibilities > > * Rule 2143: Official Reports and Duties > > * Rule 2379: No News Is Some News > > Documents > > * Rule 1551: Ratification > > * Rule 2202: Ratification Without Objection > > * Rule 2201: Self-Ratification > > Justice > > * Rule 2556: Penalties > > * Rule 2555: Blots > > * Rule 2478: Vigilante Justice > > * Rule 2479: Official Justice > > * Rule 2557: Removing Blots > > * Rule 2531: Referee Accountability > > Calls for Judgement > > * Rule 991: Calls for Judgement > > * Rule 591: Delivering Judgements > > * Rule 911: Motions and Moots > > * Rule 2175: Judicial Retraction and Excess > > * Rule 2492: Recusal > > * Rule 2246: Submitting a CFJ to the Referee > > Obligations & Contracts > > * Rule 2471: No Faking > > * Rule 2450: Pledges > > * Rule 2466: Acting on Behalf > > * Rule 2519: Consent > > * Rule 1742: Contracts > > Assets > > * Rule 2166: Assets > > * Rule 2576: Ownership > > * Rule 2577: Asset Actions > > * Rule 2578: Currencies > > * Rule 2579: Fee-based Actions > > Economics > > * Rule 2456: The Treasuror > > * Rule 2483: Economics > > * Rule 2496: Rewards > > * Rule 2559: Paydays > > * Rule 2499: Welcome Packages > > * Rule 2585: Birthday Gifts > > Auctions >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: July 2019
No part of any ruleset is self-ratifying. -- Trigon On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 11:57 Jason Cobb wrote: > Are the historical annotations in the FLR self-ratifying? Asking for a > friend. > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 2:46 AM Reuben Staley > wrote: > > > THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET > > > > These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/ > > > > Date of last official ruleset of this type: 16 Jun 2019 > > Date of this ruleset: 14 Jul 2019 > > > > Date of last SLR ratification: 8 May 2019 > > > > Number of rules currently enacted: 130 > > > > Most recent change to this ruleset: Rule 1950 "Decisions with Adoption > > Indices" amended by Proposal 8200 "Sane AI Defaulting" (Aris), 10 Jul > > 2019 > > > > Highest ID'd rule in this ruleset: 2597 > > Highest ID'd Proposal Passed: 8200 > > Highest ID'd Rule Enacted: 2598 > > > > > > > > Table of Contents: > > > > The Game of Agora > > * Rule 101: The Game of Agora > > * Rule 1698: Agora Is A Nomic > > Players > > * Rule 869: How to Join and Leave Agora > > * Rule 478: Fora > > * Rule 2139: The Registrar > > * Rule 1789: Cantus Cygneus > > General Definitions > > * Rule 2152: Mother, May I? > > * Rule 2509: Agoran Numbers > > * Rule 2125: Regulated Actions > > * Rule 1023: Agoran Time > > * Rule 1728: Dependent Action Methods > > * Rule 2595: Performing a Dependent Action > > * Rule 2124: Agoran Satisfaction > > * Rule 2518: Determinacy > > * Rule 2505: Random Choices > > * Rule 2517: Conditionals and Extricability > > Entities > > * Rule 1586: Definition and Continuity of Entities > > * Rule 2162: Switches > > * Rule 1688: Power > > * Rule 2140: Power Controls Mutability > > Proposals > > * Rule 2350: Proposals > > * Rule 1607: Distribution > > * Rule 2137: The Assessor > > * Rule 106: Adopting Proposals > > * Rule 2597: Line-item Veto > > Rules & Regulations > > * Rule 2141: Role and Attributes of Rules > > * Rule 217: Interpreting the Rules > > * Rule 1030: Precedence between Rules > > * Rule 2240: No Cretans Need Apply > > * Rule 105: Rule Changes > > * Rule 2493: Regulations > > * Rule 2486: The Royal Parade > > * Rule 1051: The Rulekeepor > > * Rule 1681: The Logical Rulesets > > * Rule 2221: Cleanliness > > * Rule 2429: Bleach > > Voting > > * Rule 693: Agoran Decisions > > * Rule 107: Initiating Agoran Decisions > > * Rule 2528: Voting Methods > > * Rule 683: Voting on Agoran Decisions > > * Rule 208: Resolving Agoran Decisions > > * Rule 955: Determining the Will of Agora > > * Rule 879: Quorum > > * Rule 2422: Voting Strength > > * Rule 2127: Conditional Votes > > * Rule 2168: Extending the voting period > > * Rule 1950: Decisions with Adoption Indices > > * Rule 2034: Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges > > Offices & Reporting > > * Rule 1006: Offices > > * Rule 2154: Election Procedure > > * Rule 2573: Impeachment > > * Rule 2160: Deputisation > > * Rule 2138: The Associate Director of Personnel > > * Rule 2472: Office Incompatibilities > > * Rule 2143: Official Reports and Duties > > * Rule 2379: No News Is Some News > > Documents > > * Rule 1551: Ratification > > * Rule 2202: Ratification Without Objection > > * Rule 2201: Self-Ratification > > Justice > > * Rule 2556: Penalties > > * Rule 2555: Blots > > * Rule 2478: Vigilante Justice > > * Rule 2479: Official Justice > > * Rule 2557: Removing Blots > > * Rule 2531: Referee Accountability > > Calls for Judgement > > * Rule 991: Calls for Judgement > > * Rule 591: Delivering Judgements > > * Rule 911: Motions and Moots > > * Rule 2175: Judicial Retraction and Excess > > * Rule 2492: Recusal > > * Rule 2246: Submitting a CFJ to the Referee > > Obligations & Contracts > > * Rule 2471: No Faking > > * Rule 2450: Pledges > > * Rule 2466: Acting on Behalf > > * Rule 2519: Consent > > * Rule 1742: Contracts > > Assets > > * Rule 2166: Assets > > * Rule 2576: Ownership > > * Rule 2577: Asset Actions > > * Rule 2578: Currencies > > * Rule 2579: Fee-based Actions > > Economics > > * Rule 2456: The Treasuror > > * Rule 2483: Economics > > * Rule 2496: Rewards > > * Rule 2559: Paydays > > * Rule 2499: Welcome Packages > > * Rule 2585: Birthday Gifts > > Auctions > > * Rule 2545: Auctions > > * Rule 2549: Auction Initiation > > * Rule 2550: Bidding > > * Rule 2551: Auction End > > * Rule 2552: Auction Termination > > * Rule 2584: Free Auctions > > The Undead > > * Rule 2532: Zombies > > * Rule 2574: Zombie Life Cycle > > * Rule 1885: Zombie Auctions > > Spaaace! > > * Rule 2588: Sectors > > * Rule 2589: Galaxy Maintenance > >
DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: July 2019
Are the historical annotations in the FLR self-ratifying? Asking for a friend. On Sun, Jul 14, 2019, 2:46 AM Reuben Staley wrote: > THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET > > These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/ > > Date of last official ruleset of this type: 16 Jun 2019 > Date of this ruleset: 14 Jul 2019 > > Date of last SLR ratification: 8 May 2019 > > Number of rules currently enacted: 130 > > Most recent change to this ruleset: Rule 1950 "Decisions with Adoption > Indices" amended by Proposal 8200 "Sane AI Defaulting" (Aris), 10 Jul > 2019 > > Highest ID'd rule in this ruleset: 2597 > Highest ID'd Proposal Passed: 8200 > Highest ID'd Rule Enacted: 2598 > > > > Table of Contents: > > The Game of Agora > * Rule 101: The Game of Agora > * Rule 1698: Agora Is A Nomic > Players > * Rule 869: How to Join and Leave Agora > * Rule 478: Fora > * Rule 2139: The Registrar > * Rule 1789: Cantus Cygneus > General Definitions > * Rule 2152: Mother, May I? > * Rule 2509: Agoran Numbers > * Rule 2125: Regulated Actions > * Rule 1023: Agoran Time > * Rule 1728: Dependent Action Methods > * Rule 2595: Performing a Dependent Action > * Rule 2124: Agoran Satisfaction > * Rule 2518: Determinacy > * Rule 2505: Random Choices > * Rule 2517: Conditionals and Extricability > Entities > * Rule 1586: Definition and Continuity of Entities > * Rule 2162: Switches > * Rule 1688: Power > * Rule 2140: Power Controls Mutability > Proposals > * Rule 2350: Proposals > * Rule 1607: Distribution > * Rule 2137: The Assessor > * Rule 106: Adopting Proposals > * Rule 2597: Line-item Veto > Rules & Regulations > * Rule 2141: Role and Attributes of Rules > * Rule 217: Interpreting the Rules > * Rule 1030: Precedence between Rules > * Rule 2240: No Cretans Need Apply > * Rule 105: Rule Changes > * Rule 2493: Regulations > * Rule 2486: The Royal Parade > * Rule 1051: The Rulekeepor > * Rule 1681: The Logical Rulesets > * Rule 2221: Cleanliness > * Rule 2429: Bleach > Voting > * Rule 693: Agoran Decisions > * Rule 107: Initiating Agoran Decisions > * Rule 2528: Voting Methods > * Rule 683: Voting on Agoran Decisions > * Rule 208: Resolving Agoran Decisions > * Rule 955: Determining the Will of Agora > * Rule 879: Quorum > * Rule 2422: Voting Strength > * Rule 2127: Conditional Votes > * Rule 2168: Extending the voting period > * Rule 1950: Decisions with Adoption Indices > * Rule 2034: Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges > Offices & Reporting > * Rule 1006: Offices > * Rule 2154: Election Procedure > * Rule 2573: Impeachment > * Rule 2160: Deputisation > * Rule 2138: The Associate Director of Personnel > * Rule 2472: Office Incompatibilities > * Rule 2143: Official Reports and Duties > * Rule 2379: No News Is Some News > Documents > * Rule 1551: Ratification > * Rule 2202: Ratification Without Objection > * Rule 2201: Self-Ratification > Justice > * Rule 2556: Penalties > * Rule 2555: Blots > * Rule 2478: Vigilante Justice > * Rule 2479: Official Justice > * Rule 2557: Removing Blots > * Rule 2531: Referee Accountability > Calls for Judgement > * Rule 991: Calls for Judgement > * Rule 591: Delivering Judgements > * Rule 911: Motions and Moots > * Rule 2175: Judicial Retraction and Excess > * Rule 2492: Recusal > * Rule 2246: Submitting a CFJ to the Referee > Obligations & Contracts > * Rule 2471: No Faking > * Rule 2450: Pledges > * Rule 2466: Acting on Behalf > * Rule 2519: Consent > * Rule 1742: Contracts > Assets > * Rule 2166: Assets > * Rule 2576: Ownership > * Rule 2577: Asset Actions > * Rule 2578: Currencies > * Rule 2579: Fee-based Actions > Economics > * Rule 2456: The Treasuror > * Rule 2483: Economics > * Rule 2496: Rewards > * Rule 2559: Paydays > * Rule 2499: Welcome Packages > * Rule 2585: Birthday Gifts > Auctions > * Rule 2545: Auctions > * Rule 2549: Auction Initiation > * Rule 2550: Bidding > * Rule 2551: Auction End > * Rule 2552: Auction Termination > * Rule 2584: Free Auctions > The Undead > * Rule 2532: Zombies > * Rule 2574: Zombie Life Cycle > * Rule 1885: Zombie Auctions > Spaaace! > * Rule 2588: Sectors > * Rule 2589: Galaxy Maintenance > * Rule 2590: The Astronomor > * Rule 2591: Spaceships > * Rule 2592: Spaceship Energy > * Rule 2593: Space Battles > * Rule 2594: Fame > Victory & Karma > * Rule 2449: Winning the Game > * Rule 2465: Victory by Apathy > * Rule 2510: Such is Karma > * Rule 2511: Karmic Balance > * Rule 2553: Win by Paradox > Awards > * Rule 2438: Ribbons > *
Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 16:04, Kerim Aydin wrote: > After pondering on it I'm likely going to vote against it - the stakes are > too high. I don't think it's reasonable to be able to steal all of > someone's assets via minor inattention. Oh, for some reason I thought this was just for stealing players who are already zombies. Yes, making a player into a zombie may be too much. > This also gives a mechanism to trade/sell zombies - that was purposefully > left out of the original I don't really think zombies should be a fungible > asset. Why not? The zombie rules as a whole seem vaguely unpleasant to me, maybe because they allow us to intrude into what's normally a player's own private domain. But I don't see how making them liquid makes it any worse.
Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
Oh, that makes sense. You probably want to do something about zombies with resale value 0. Normally their master switches can't be changed to another player. On Sun., Jul. 14, 2019, 11:53 D. Margaux, wrote: > Thought it could add a fun mechanic to zombies, where we'd be trying to > catch each other off guard. Especially because people tend to have periods > of higher and lower attention to Agora. > > On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 11:28 AM James Cook wrote: > > > On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 11:23, D. Margaux wrote: > > > I withdraw my AFK proposal and propose this in its place: > > > > > > Title: AFK Reform Act v1.1 > > > > What's the purpose of this proposal? > > > -- > D. Margaux >
Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
After pondering on it I'm likely going to vote against it - the stakes are too high. I don't think it's reasonable to be able to steal all of someone's assets via minor inattention. This also gives a mechanism to trade/sell zombies - that was purposefully left out of the original I don't really think zombies should be a fungible asset. On 7/14/2019 8:52 AM, D. Margaux wrote: Thought it could add a fun mechanic to zombies, where we'd be trying to catch each other off guard. Especially because people tend to have periods of higher and lower attention to Agora. On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 11:28 AM James Cook wrote: On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 11:23, D. Margaux wrote: I withdraw my AFK proposal and propose this in its place: Title: AFK Reform Act v1.1 What's the purpose of this proposal?
Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
"A player CAN by announcement pay 10 coins to Agora to flip to emself another
player's master switch without objection from that other player or that other player's
master (if any), provided the intent to flip that switch was announced at least 7 days
before the switch is flipped."
I think we generally call these fees, since that affords some protections.
Here's another issue: all I have to do is announce intent to become
master of every inactive player. Then, as soon as each one of em has eir
master flip to Agora, then I can become eir master (assuming I have
money), since Agora would not have objected to this intent - this
defeats the point of zombie auctions.
Jason Cobb
On 7/14/19 6:23 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
I withdraw my AFK proposal and propose this in its place:
Title: AFK Reform Act v1.1
AI: 2
Author: d Margaux
Coauthors: G., Jason Cobb
{
Amend rule 2532 as follows:
Add this sentence:
"A player CAN by announcement pay 10 coins to Agora to flip to emself another
player's master switch without objection from that other player or that other player's
master (if any), provided the intent to flip that switch was announced at least 7 days
before the switch is flipped."
Immediately following this sentence:
"A zombie's master CAN flip that zombie's master switch to Agora by
announcement."
}
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jason Cobb
Date: July 14, 2019 at 1:25:10 AM EDT
To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
Subject: Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
Reply-To: "Agora Nomic discussions \(DF\)"
Falisifian is the author of 8202 ("Police Power"), although e has listed me as
a co-author.
Jason Cobb
On 7/13/19 11:15 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
With all of the proposals that are in the pool at the moment, errors
seem likely. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated.
-Aris
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 7, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
conditional votes).
ID Author(s) AITitle
---
8188A G. 3.0 Blanket Denial
8189A Jason Cobb 1.7 Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
8190A G., D Margaux 2.0 Report Rewards
8191A R. Lee 1.1 Spaceships
8192A G. 1.0 auctions have fees
8194A Falsifian 2.0 Agora can transfer zombies
8195A Aris, omd, Jason Cobb 3.0 Timeline Control Ordnance v2
8202 Jason Cobb 1.7 Police Power
8203 Jason Cobb 2.0 Fixing Summary Judgement
8204 R. Lee 1.0 SMH @ Herald
8205 R. Lee 1.7 Timing proposal w/ no effect
8206 Jason Cobb 2.0 Rule 2472 Simplification
8207 G. [1] no power is all powerful
8208 Jason Cobb, [2]3.0 Regulated actions reform (v2)
8209 D Margaux 2.0 AFK Reform Act
The proposal pool is currently empty.
[1] The proposal has AI "none", whereas the decision shall have AI 1.0.
[2] Aris, omd, G., Falsifian
Legend: A : Distribution identifier for a second distribution.
The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
//
ID: 8188
Title: Blanket Denial
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: G.
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing:
do one of the following in a timely fashion:
with
do one of the following in a timely fashion, in an announcement
that clearly cites the claim of error:
//
ID: 8189
Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.2)
Adoption index: 1.7
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
Replace the text
The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
proceeding.
with the text
Subject to the provisions of this rule, the Referee CAN, by announcement,
impose Summary Judgment on a player. When e does so, e levies a fine of
up to 2 Blots on em. If e does not specify the number of Blots in the fine,
the attempt to impose Summary Judgment is INEFFECTIVE. Summary Judgement is
imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
proceeding.
//
ID: 8190
Title: Report Rewards
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: G.
Co-authors: D Margaux
Amend Rule 1006 (Offices) by prepending the following text to the 1st
paragraph:
An Office is a position described as an Office by the
Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
Thought it could add a fun mechanic to zombies, where we'd be trying to catch each other off guard. Especially because people tend to have periods of higher and lower attention to Agora. On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 11:28 AM James Cook wrote: > On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 11:23, D. Margaux wrote: > > I withdraw my AFK proposal and propose this in its place: > > > > Title: AFK Reform Act v1.1 > > What's the purpose of this proposal? > -- D. Margaux
Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 11:23, D. Margaux wrote: > I withdraw my AFK proposal and propose this in its place: > > Title: AFK Reform Act v1.1 What's the purpose of this proposal?
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: kwang
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 07:47, Reuben Staley wrote: > I earn 5 coins for the publication of the SLR for the twenty-seventh > week of 2019. I think it is the 28th week right now. I'm not sure whether this is successful. Maybe try again just to be sure?
