Re: DIS: are agreements currently binding?
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Tanner Swett swe...@mail.gvsu.edu wrote: There is no explicit prohibition in Agora against violating an agreement, and, in particular, there is no particular rule that doing so would violate. Therefore, as far as I can tell, agreements in Agora are not binding. —Machiavelli I disagree. Upholding agreements would be consistent with the Spirit of the Game. Enforcing them would be a matter for an equity CFJ. -- OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: If you insist...
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Aaron Goldfein aarongoldf...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Lindar Greenwood lindartheb...@gmail.com wrote: At the insistence of Roujo, I do now assume a posture of standing. Let it be known that I do so proudly, and with a ridiculous pose. This fails. You can't simply flip your posture to standing. You need to flip it to sitting, and then you will become standing when the CotC next rotates the bench. Let's go easy on Lindar. Draft proposal: Amend R1871 by appending to the paragraph A player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value by announcement. the following text: A player who attempts to flip eir posture to standing will be treated as attempting to flip eir posture to sitting. If the CotC attempts to flip eir own posture to standing (other than by rotating the bench), players may point laugh at the CotC, who really ought to know better. -- OscarMeyr
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7516-7525
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:15 AM, Benjamin Schultz ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote: I cast as many votes as I can AGAINST Props 7516-7525. (This is mainly a test of whether I am eligible to vote on these proposals, or if I have to wait until next Week.) OscarMeyr As you registered before the distribution, I believe there is no reason you wouldn't be.
Re: DIS: are agreements currently binding?
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Benjamin Schultz ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote: I disagree. Upholding agreements would be consistent with the Spirit of the Game. Enforcing them would be a matter for an equity CFJ. Which were repealed long ago. -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Alliance Shennanigans
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, John Smith wrote: I intend with 1 ais523 support to join the alliance containing ais523. CfJ, barring ais523: If ais523 immediately replies to that intent with 'I support and do so', I become a member of the same alliance as ais523. Arguments: With the current wording of Rule 1728, the person who says I do so performs the action, regardless of who the initiator is. This results in ais523 joining the alliance. Evidence: ais523 is the only member of his alliance according to the most recent Registrar report. I'm not sure why this is a scam or shenanigan, as either way it requires ais523's support. Seems like a straightforward use of the rule.
Re: DIS: are agreements currently binding?
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Sean Hunt wrote: On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Benjamin Schultz ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com wrote: I disagree. Upholding agreements would be consistent with the Spirit of the Game. Enforcing them would be a matter for an equity CFJ. Which were repealed long ago. Community service can do a reasonable approximation of an equity adjustment, iff there is a Rule clause (or way to construe) that breaking an agreement is in fact some kind of rules violation. After the discussion, the consensus is that there isn't any violation - which is what I thought, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Alliance Shennanigans
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, John Smith wrote: I intend with 1 ais523 support to join the alliance containing ais523. CfJ, barring ais523: If ais523 immediately replies to that intent with 'I support and do so', I become a member of the same alliance as ais523. Arguments: With the current wording of Rule 1728, the person who says I do so performs the action, regardless of who the initiator is. This results in ais523 joining the alliance. Evidence: ais523 is the only member of his alliance according to the most recent Registrar report. I'm not sure why this is a scam or shenanigan, as either way it requires ais523's support. Seems like a straightforward use of the rule. Except for ignoring the current Gerontocracy complication. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in R. v. Machiavelli, CFJ 3357
By the way, just so you know... I'm not considering this an official judgement, since it's unclear what the intended sentence is. Please be more clear. =P ~ Roujo On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Fool fool1...@gmail.com wrote: HER FELINE MAJESTY DAVY I versus TANNER SWETT (aka MACHIAVELLI) Charles Walker on behalf of the Crown alleges that Machiavelli failed to pay a fine ordered by CFJ 3310, wherein the defendant was convicted of failing to publish an IADoP report, and for which the judgement was, in its entirety, GUILTY - FINE (2 VCs), handed down by Charles Reiss (aka woggle). It seems the Crown in this case presents no further evidence, and Machiavelli has nothing to say for himself either. So who gets to do the digging for you? Muggins, eh? Very well: it turns out that while the defendant did have quite a few VCs when 3310 was initiated (April 22), by the time sentence was passed (May 18, took long enough) all VCs had been reset (May 8), so he had no VCs to destroy. Nor did he thereafter earn a VC, until proposal 7450 passed (June 10), and then VCs were reset (June 17). His next VC was from proposal 7477 (June 29), and this case was initiated 3 days later (July 2). I quote Rule 1504: When a sentence has been assigned as part of a GUILTY judgement, the Accused is known as the ninny, and the sentence is in effect. The valid sentences are: [...] * FINE with an amount of one class of asset, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. An amount is only valid if the currency's backing document binds the ninny (the Rules are considered to bind all players) or the ninny has this amount of the asset, and the backing document specifies a maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater than the maximum. When in effect, the ninny SHALL, in a timely fashion, either destroy this amount of eir asset or transfer it to the Lost and Found Department. The ninny is only obliged to perform one destruction or transfer per case, even if sentences of this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more than once. There are some questions in my mind about this rule, foremost, who wrote this junk? I suppose this is the Agoran pragmatism that people keep raving about? Sure, during Agora XX we complained about Agora's initial ruleset, didn't we, well now, you guys have had twenty years, and this is what you all came up with ... look, never mind, rule 217 instructs me to apply common sense and to consider the interests of Agora, and by that standard it is clear that everyone is guilty here. So I just need to find appropriate punishments. Charles Reiss, for your sentencing antics, I fine you twenty berks (same as in town), and I haven't bothered to check if you have any berks, nor do I even know what berks are good for anyway. I just know that if you don't pay, there'll be trouble. Possibly involving a pointy stick. Charles Walker, for making me dig through archives unnecessarily, I sentence you to print out a hard copy of the agora-official mailing list from May onward, therewith to beat yourself over the head until you are cross-eyed. Tanner Swett, for starting this mess by not writing a simple report, I sentence you to three days at a dismal job where you'll be constantly pestered for totally pointless reports like that guy on Office Space. The rest of you, smarten up. Consider yourselves lucky that I'm in a good mood, because I'm usually a hanging judge. This judgement takes effect immediately. Long live the Queen. --Daniel Mehkeri
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3362 judged FALSE by G.
Well, yeah, it's still open. However, you still judged it FALSE. I'm just reporting on that fact. =) ~ Roujo On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:03 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: I award G. the Standard Case Fee for timely judgement of this case. Detail: http://cotc.psychose.ca/viewcase.php?cfj=3362 == CFJ 3362 == A party can be a nomic. I'm not sure if this is a CoE or just an addition, but I by-announcement filed a Motion to Reconsider this case on Tue Jul 9: http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2013-July/031777.html So CFJ 3362 is open; Rules are unclear on whether the the previous judgement remains in the case record or is voided. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 3362 judged FALSE by G.
On Fri, 12 Jul 2013, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: Well, yeah, it's still open. However, you still judged it FALSE. I'm just reporting on that fact. =) Yup. Just wasn't sure if a motioned case made the FALSE and arguments be voided (and wasn't sure if you'd seen the motion). Doesn't matter, doesn't ratify anyway :)
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7516-7525
I vote FOR 7522, 7523, 7519, 7516, and 7518. If it is possible to vote
on 7517, I vote FOR it. I ENDORSE OMD for 7524. I ENDORSE SCSHUNT for
7525.
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:59 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it. For this decision, the eligible
voters are the active first-class players at the time of this
distribution, the vote collector is the Assessor, and the valid
options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
Quorum is 7(!).
Pool report: The Proposal Pool is empty (and no proposals have nonzero
Distributability).
NUM AI PF C AUTHOR TITLE
7516 1.5 0 O G. Badges Badges Badges Badges
7517 10 O Lindar (untitled)
7518 1.5 0 O Yally Jumping Posture
7519 30 O omd, etc. fixed fixed Gerontocracy fix
7520 30 O omd Grammar fixes
7521 30 O FoolThe Office of Harold
7522 20 O Lindar Consistent inconsistency
7523 30 O omd remove dangling judicial declaration
..reference
7524 1 10 O scshunt SLAjflksagksjhyroinwhyfj
7525 20 O omd Public Disagreements
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7516 (AI=1.5, PF=Y0, Ordinary) by G.
Badges Badges Badges Badges
Create the following Rule, power-1.5, Badges:
A Badge is any patent title with the word 'badge' as part of its
name. A badge SHOULD be used to award multiple persons for
participating in specific event of note within Agora. Any player
CAN award a badge that does not yet exist to three or more persons
simultaneously, with Agoran Consent. The Herald CAN award an
existing badge to persons Without Objection.
[The last sentence is in case errors are made when a badge is awarded,
Herald can fix].
Award the Agora XX Badge to the following persons:
Fool, omd, FSX, Walker, Chuck, ehird, Yally, Michael, scshunt,
Roujo, Murphy, Goethe (G.), Steve, Blob, Tiger, woggle, Ørjan.
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7517 (AI=1, PF=Y0, Ordinary) by Lindar
(untitled)
Amend rule 2396 by appending the following paragraph: The official
flavour of Agora is 'bitter'.
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7518 (AI=1.5, PF=Y0, Ordinary) by Yally
Jumping Posture
[Adds a new Jumping judicial posture enabling players to decide how often
they want to receive cases.]
Amend the section of Rule 1871 which reads:
* Standing. Standing players are generally qualified to judge.
to read:
* Jumping. Jumping players are generally qualified to judge.
* Standing. Standing players are generally qualified to judge if there are
no well qualified jumping players.
and the section which reads:
A player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value by announcement.
When the CotC assigns a player as judge, that player becomes sitting.
The CotC CAN rotate the bench (change all sitting players to standing) by
announcement, but SHALL NOT do so unless, of the judicial cases requiring
assignment:
to read:
A player CAN flip eir posture to any value, except standing or jumping, by
announcement.
When the CotC assigns a player as judge, that player becomes standing if e
was previously jumping and sitting if e was previously standing.
Aspiration is a player switch with the same values as Posture, and default
value standing. A player CAN flip eir Aspiration to any value by
announcement. The CotC CAN rotate the bench (change the Posture of all
sitting players to their Aspiration values) by announcement, but SHALL NOT
do so unless, of the judicial cases requiring assignment:
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7519 (AI=3, PF=Y0, Ordinary) by omd, Walker
fixed fixed Gerontocracy fix
Amend Rule 2357 by replacing:
During the 32 days after a Gerontocracy is declared:
with:
A Gerontocracy ends 32 days after it is declared, unless it is
brought to an end early. Ending a Gerontocracy early is secured.
During a Gerontocracy:
and by appending:
* Any Elder CAN end the Gerontocracy early without three Elder
objections.
and by replacing:
An Elder can declare a Gerontocracy with 3 Elder support, unless
a Gerontocracy was declared within the preceding 28 days.
with:
An Elder can declare a Gerontocracy with 3 Elder support, unless
a Gerontocracy was declared within the preceding 28 days and has
not ended.
As of the adoption of this proposal, any ongoing Gerontocracy is
brought to an end.
}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
Proposal 7520 (AI=3, PF=Y0, Ordinary) by omd
Grammar fixes
Amend Rule 217 (Interpreting the Rules) by replacing:
Differences in
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7516-7525
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Charles Walker charles.w.wal...@gmail.com wrote: 7517 10 O Lindar (untitled) ENDORSE AGORA Since Agora is no longer a person, I am interpreting this per Proposal 5637.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Yak Herdor] Himalayan Survey
On Jul 12, 2013, at 7:02 PM, Charles Walker wrote: Machiavelli Y 240 Y 40 Y 24 Who wants to borrow Y 40? —Machiavelli
DIS: Re: OFF: [Ambassador-at-Large] Foreign Relations
Dear Ambassador-at-Large Charles Walker, and the other players of Agora Nomic: I am writing to ask Agora's opinion regarding trade with the nomic Entreco. We are currently discussing ways of allowing the players of Entreco to trade (inside Entreco) a currency representing Agoran Yaks. The Agoran public would not necessarily have to do anything differently as a result. The effect would be that people who are players of both Agora and Entreco would be able to trade currency in one nomic for currency in the other. I can understand that Agora may object to this idea, since it may be considered to give an unfair advantage to some players over others. I would like to ask Agora's Ambassador-at-Large whether Agora would like to permit this inter-nomic trade, or asks that we forgo it. Sincerely, Machiavelli Inactive Player of Entreco
