Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement, CFJ 2641
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, comex wrote:> On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 9:39 AM,
ais523 wrote:
>> I judge CFJ 2641 NOT GUILTY; GUILTY is inappropriate per rule 1504(d)
>> (it is reasonable that BobTHJ was aware that reports must be correct,
>> but did not believe eir report was incorrect).
> I haven't
> looked up the details of this case and of course most mistakes should
> be excused...
It was a systematic error; several people thought that a card worked,
several people knew it didn't, it wasn't specifically pointed out until
after self-ratification. With a new rule, easy to do. One could
argue that the officer should know the rule better than others but with
a new big change that's not 100% reasonable.
> but there must be some degree of negligence (e.g. routinely
> screwing up self-ratifying reports while nobody notices) worth a
> criminal punishment.
Er, how do you punish someone if noone notices?
Anyway, routine carelessness would probably eventually build up to
making R1504(d) not work as a defense: "you should have know better,
you've been warned you before about being this sloppy, so you can't
claim the defense this time". The easiest thing might just be to clarify
this slightly in R1504 ("persistent negligence in reporting matters of
fact that one is required to track is not excused under this clause").
Another thing; the purpose of self-ratification is to fix the past to
avoid recalculation. That doesn't mean we can't allow ratification to be
undone in a pragmatic way. Proto-proto: "If a judge finds that a self-
ratification has ratified an error in the past 60 days, the judge can
set the value to what it should have been without 3 Objections (this
change is not retroactive)".
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
That works...why would my regular IP not work? Either way, thanks much!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
Edmond Dantes wrote: > Won't work for me. Hasn't for a few days. Have you tried viewing it through a proxy site?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
Won't work for me. Hasn't for a few days.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
Edmond Dantes wrote: > I'll just go by Edmond Dantes, though you can call me /The Count /if you > want! > > I've just been observing the emails for a few days now, trying to get an > idea of how to play and exactly people are talking about. Alas, the > current rules page is down, so I've been waiting on taking any action. http://agora.qoid.us/current_flr.html works fine.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
I'll just go by Edmond Dantes, though you can call me *The Count *if you want! I've just been observing the emails for a few days now, trying to get an idea of how to play and exactly people are talking about. Alas, the current rules page is down, so I've been waiting on taking any action.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement, CFJ 2641
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 9:39 AM, ais523 wrote: > I judge CFJ 2641 NOT GUILTY; GUILTY is inappropriate per rule 1504(d) > (it is reasonable that BobTHJ was aware that reports must be correct, > but did not believe eir report was incorrect). I'd intend to appeal this, as it throws away the distinction between intentional and unintentional lies that already exists in the rules (unintentional are only illegal if it's a report), but of course you're correct based on the criminal case rule. Proto-proto: fix it; it should be possible to punish officers for negligence. I haven't looked up the details of this case and of course most mistakes should be excused but there must be some degree of negligence (e.g. routinely screwing up self-ratifying reports while nobody notices) worth a criminal punishment. -- -c.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
G. wrote: > On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Please let us know what additional questions you have. > > Was there a reference to your recent FAQ and ais523's thesis in these > links? (I missed them if there were). -G. Nope, here they are: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2009-April/019181.html http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2009-April/019440.html Some parts are now out of date (esp. with Notes recently being replaced by Cards), and IMO "scams" should be updated to mention the spectrum that G. recently pointed out.
DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
Edmond Dantes wrote: > I register. Hi, do you have a preferred nickname? > I have no idea what's going on. Here's a copy of the greeting I sent JonnyRotten earlier today: > Welcome to the Agoran community! http://agoranomic.org/ offers a > good set of initial pointers, here are a few additions/corrections: > > * By social convention, all your actions should be performed in > agora-business, unless you're an officer (in which case your > reports and other duties go to agora-official) or the main lists > malfunction (in which case use one or both backup lists). > > a-o and a-b redirect replies to agora-discussion by default, > remember to change this if your reply contains any actions. > > * Serving as an officer is voluntary (you must accept your nomination > unless you're the incumbent), likewise serving as a judge (you must > change your posture away from supine). > > You can get a proposal (typically including one or more rule > changes) distributed (to be voted on) by playing a Distrib-u-Matic > card, or Without Objection (typically reserved for obviously-needed > bug fixes). If your proposal would touch any rules with Power > 1, > then you should request an Adoption Index at least as high as the > highest such value. Proposals with AI >= 2 are Democratic > (basically one vote per player), others are Ordinary by default > (voting power depends on caste and can be further altered on a > per-proposal basis). Rule 2152 specifies words to declare something > impossible, possible-but-penalized, or formally-discouraged. > > * Large portions of gameplay are regulated by voluntary contracts. > > Large portions of the economy are tracked near-real-time at > http://nomic.bob-space.com/agoralog.aspx (whereas reports sent > to the mailing lists are typically weekly at best). > > * http://zenith.homelinux.net/acronyms/ explains many abbreviations. > > * There are several ways to win; the game keeps going, with only a > directly-relevant portion of the gamestate being reset. > > Please let us know what additional questions you have.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
2009/8/3 Elliott Hird : > 2009/8/2 Edmond Dantes : >> I register. >> >> I have no idea what's going on. >> > > Omegle? > I have never seen this person before. -- -Tiger
DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
2009/8/2 Edmond Dantes : > I register. > > I have no idea what's going on. > Omegle?
DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
Edmond Dantes wrote: > I register. > > I have no idea what's going on. Welcome to Agora! Do you have a nickname you wish to use? -coppro
DIS: Re: BUS: Registration
On Sun, 2 Aug 2009, Ed Murphy wrote: > Please let us know what additional questions you have. Was there a reference to your recent FAQ and ais523's thesis in these links? (I missed them if there were). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] Monthly Player Salaries
On Sun, 2009-08-02 at 11:14 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: > ais523 wrote: > > On Sun, 2009-08-02 at 11:00 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: > >> I award each of the following players the following cards: > >> > >> ais523:Kill Bill > > > > Don't I get two monthly salaries, for Ambassador and Notary? > > > You get weekly salary for Notary. I get monthly salary for Notary too, there's both a weekly and a monthly report. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] Monthly Player Salaries
ais523 wrote: > On Sun, 2009-08-02 at 11:00 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: >> I award each of the following players the following cards: >> >> ais523: Kill Bill > > Don't I get two monthly salaries, for Ambassador and Notary? > You get weekly salary for Notary.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Grand Poobah] Monthly Player Salaries
On Sun, 2009-08-02 at 11:00 -0600, Sean Hunt wrote: > I award each of the following players the following cards: > > ais523: Kill Bill Don't I get two monthly salaries, for Ambassador and Notary? -- ais523
