DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 9:17 PM, omd wrote: > Proposal: Down with bromides (AI=3) > > Amend Rule 101 to read: > > Please treat Agora right good forever. > > [ i. is meaningless. > ii. was only considered to have an effect once, and it probably > shouldn't have been judged that way. It is unlikely to ever be > generally violated. > iii. and iv. are no fun. >v. is guaranteed elsewhere. > vi. is unlikely to ever be generally violated. > vii. is almost meaningless and common sense.] > This sounds like the start to a scam.
Re: DIS: [Distributor] Date munging is back, receive-copies-of-own-mail default changed
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:47 PM, omd wrote: > Anyway, from a quick awk, the following players seem to have sent > messages via Gmail's web interface recently: (obvious correction: I meant people, not players.)
Re: DIS: [Distributor] Date munging is back, receive-copies-of-own-mail default changed
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > How many of those players are using Gmail's web interface? If it's that > many, I'd be surprised, because web interfaces aren't very good for > email (especially if they go crazy when the subject line of an email > sent to a mailing list gets rewritten, given that most mailing lists > have that functionality). Gmail's web interface is the best email client I have ever used. Despite my many niggles with it (especially poor performance compared to a native client), I have yet to find a native client that satisfies my needs, including good search and multiple aliases on the same mail account, with undo send as a big plus - though I think I might give sup a try at some point. Anyway, from a quick awk, the following players seem to have sent messages via Gmail's web interface recently: aarongoldf...@gmail.com arkes...@gmail.com ben.dov.schu...@gmail.com charles.w.wal...@gmail.com com...@gmail.com craigbdan...@gmail.com davidni...@gmail.com flameshadowxeros...@gmail.com henrib...@gmail.com james.m.bei...@gmail.com jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com lindartheb...@gmail.com m.sl...@gmail.com maxschutz...@gmail.com netge...@gmail.com penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com ride...@gmail.com sgeos...@gmail.com steven.gard...@monash.edu swe...@mail.gvsu.edu theagoranund...@gmail.com The two players with Gmail addresses and messages in the sample that were not using the web interface are Fool and woggle (both of whom appear to be using Thunderbird).
Re: DIS: [Distributor] Date munging is back, receive-copies-of-own-mail default changed
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2013-07-17 at 20:27 +, omd wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Alex Smith wrote: >> > /me vaguely glares at omd for choosing defaults that make sense only >> > with Gmail. Many Agorans use /proper/ email clients... >> >> Well, 18/26 players use Gmail... and the "on" behavior is very >> annoying in Gmail. >> >> maybe I should make it default only if you're using Gmail? that >> sounds like a lot of magic. > > How many of those players are using Gmail's web interface? If it's that > many, I'd be surprised, because web interfaces aren't very good for > email (especially if they go crazy when the subject line of an email > sent to a mailing list gets rewritten, given that most mailing lists > have that functionality). > > -- > ais523 > For what it's worth, I do, and I think it works just fine. ~ Roujo
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: what everyone wants to know is...
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 9:27 PM, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > I play stones on (-4, 4), (-4, 3), and (-4, 2). NttPF.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: some minor actions
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, omd wrote: > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > While I know this NOW, I might be able to compensate in future play. > > However, for interpreting actions made PRIOR to this investigation, any > > interpretation favoring receipt time (rather than send time) would put me at > > a severe and consistent disadvantage over other players in controlling the > > timing of my public forum posts, and thus violate my R101 right of > > participation om the fora relative to other players. > > Gratuitous: In CFJ 2901, one of my messages was delayed due to the > list being down and it was reasonable for me to be unaware of this, > but it was held that my right to participation was not violated > because I could have determined the list was down and sent it by other > means. 1. By the time I could have figured this out, too late, damage done. 2. At the time of 2901, it was equally down for everyone (I assume?), so it wasn't differential participation; 3. Anyway, looking at CFJ 2901, I'm pretty sure I disagree with the judge.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: some minor actions
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Tanner Swett wrote: > On Jul 17, 2013, at 5:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > This gap does not appear in any of the other players' headers that I spot > > checked. While I know this NOW, I might be able to compensate in future > > play. > > However, for interpreting actions made PRIOR to this investigation, any > > interpretation favoring receipt time (rather than send time) would put me > > at > > a severe and consistent disadvantage over other players in controlling the > > timing of my public forum posts, and thus violate my R101 right of > > participation om the fora relative to other players. > > With support, I intend to raise an eyebrow skeptically. > > How does "the right to participate in the fora" entail "the right to > successfully time the sending of a message so that it takes effect immediately > before a deadline, thereby preventing other players from responding to it > before the deadline"? It doesn't on its own. But assuming a majority of players have that ability, then it is part of standard 'participation'. So if that participation is then restricted for certain people, it limits participation, and therefore the right.
DIS: Re: BUS: what everyone wants to know is...
I play stones on (-4, 4), (-4, 3), and (-4, 2). -- OscarMeyr
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Disabled. Let's do it this way
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, omd wrote: >> (1) If the message contains a single reasonable date-stamp added >> by the forum as part of its canonical means of marking the >> date of messages, then it is used; otherwise, > > I have discovered in testing that this is quite possibly in violation of > my R101 rights. I'm submitting the reason in a gratuitious argument > to the original CFJ in a few minutes. Hmm. Could add an exception for "left the sender's TDoC, if it was delivered within 10 minutes" (or wherever it makes sense to draw the line - of course if it gets delayed for 24 hours it's unreasonable to use the original date), and it does seem unreasonable to make someone switch email accounts just to get predictable timing, but this also makes things substantially harder, as it becomes nontrivial to determine which Received header is right. Could just use Date, but then there is nothing stopping me from manually setting Date to the end of the voting period minus one second and sending it after the end - even if we don't allow delays for more than a few seconds under the presumption that Gmail does not have an internal delay of several minutes, multiple players might end up sending messages with the same datestamp. Then again, we could always use the list's order in that case, and just trust people not to fudge dates in general. Or we could explicitly allow fudging dates. I suppose there's nothing wrong with that...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Disabled. Let's do it this way
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >:) Hmm, I need to fix this for messages sent manually to all players too. I'll wait for other comments before resubmitting.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: some minor actions
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > While I know this NOW, I might be able to compensate in future play. > However, for interpreting actions made PRIOR to this investigation, any > interpretation favoring receipt time (rather than send time) would put me at > a severe and consistent disadvantage over other players in controlling the > timing of my public forum posts, and thus violate my R101 right of > participation om the fora relative to other players. Gratuitous: In CFJ 2901, one of my messages was delayed due to the list being down and it was reasonable for me to be unaware of this, but it was held that my right to participation was not violated because I could have determined the list was down and sent it by other means.
DIS: Re: BUS: Disabled. Let's do it this way
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, omd wrote: > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 5:20 PM, omd wrote: > > Proposal: Painfully explicit timing (AI=3) > > I retract this and submit an identical version except: > > > The true time of a message is the time when the forum started to > > make it available to other players. A reasonable date-stamp is > > one that can reasonably be determined to be within one minute of > > the true time. > > The true time of a message is the time when the forum started to > make it available to other players. A reasonable date-stamp is > one that can reasonably be determined to be within one minute of > the true time. If the message was sent independently via > multiple fora, then the earliest of the timings considering each > such copy of the message is used. :)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: some minor actions
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote: > [Now, watch this message go through with only a 1-second delay. just watch]. Yup. > Received: from mxout12.cac.washington.edu (140.142.32.167) > by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 17 Jul 2013 21:40:03 - > Received: from smtp.washington.edu Wed, 17 Jul 2013 14:39:54 -0700
DIS: Re: BUS: Disabled. Let's do it this way
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, omd wrote: > (1) If the message contains a single reasonable date-stamp added > by the forum as part of its canonical means of marking the > date of messages, then it is used; otherwise, I have discovered in testing that this is quite possibly in violation of my R101 rights. I'm submitting the reason in a gratuitious argument to the original CFJ in a few minutes. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Power of attorney
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > I destroy this promise. You need notice. -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Power of attorney
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > I destroy this promise. I believe you need notice.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 3373, 3374 assigned to scshunt
Walker wrote: Have we ever interacted with non-players other than Bucky? I deregistered for about a month during the partnership era, while continuing to act via the AFO partnership (basically "any partner can unilaterally cause the partnership to act by announcement").
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 3373, 3374 assigned to scshunt
Bucky wrote: Did you miss the point of the arguments? "no interpretation of Agoran law or binding agreement may substantially limit" => "interpretations of Agoran law or binding agreement MAY NOT substantially limit" => Substantially limiting is ILLEGAL "may" != "MAY"
Re: DIS: [Distributor] Date munging is back, receive-copies-of-own-mail default changed
On Wed, 2013-07-17 at 20:27 +, omd wrote: > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > /me vaguely glares at omd for choosing defaults that make sense only > > with Gmail. Many Agorans use /proper/ email clients... > > Well, 18/26 players use Gmail... and the "on" behavior is very > annoying in Gmail. > > maybe I should make it default only if you're using Gmail? that > sounds like a lot of magic. How many of those players are using Gmail's web interface? If it's that many, I'd be surprised, because web interfaces aren't very good for email (especially if they go crazy when the subject line of an email sent to a mailing list gets rewritten, given that most mailing lists have that functionality). -- ais523
Re: DIS: [Distributor] Date munging is back, receive-copies-of-own-mail default changed
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:27 PM, omd wrote: >> maybe I should make it default only if you're using Gmail? that >> sounds like a lot of magic. > > This isn't about the carbon copy, which anyone can configure. A default is > fine. Several messages have been complaining about the default.
Re: DIS: [Distributor] Date munging is back, receive-copies-of-own-mail default changed
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 4:27 PM, omd wrote: > maybe I should make it default only if you're using Gmail? that > sounds like a lot of magic. This isn't about the carbon copy, which anyone can configure. A default is fine.
Re: DIS: [Distributor] Date munging is back, receive-copies-of-own-mail default changed
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > /me vaguely glares at omd for choosing defaults that make sense only > with Gmail. Many Agorans use /proper/ email clients... Well, 18/26 players use Gmail... and the "on" behavior is very annoying in Gmail. maybe I should make it default only if you're using Gmail? that sounds like a lot of magic.
Re: DIS: [Distributor] Date munging is back, receive-copies-of-own-mail default changed
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, omd wrote: >> Hopefully this creates a single obvious meaning for "the time >> date-stamped on that message" in R478, so we can finally stop arguing >> about the timing of messages. ;p > > In this case, it's interesting to note that the only people who have > raised an issue or confusion over time stamps are the people with the > most to gain in the game from that interpretation. I do not understand. As has been noted, the timing of the last-minute General Election messages does not make much difference in-game, because the Best Party wins regardless of the validity of your votes, and scshunt's message was effective even if sent after the end of the voting period; and of course date munging only applies to future messages in any case. The only thing I gain is the ability to send last-minute messages without having to initiate a court case to determine their success, which applies equally to everyone (unless I sent a message directly from the server in the last fraction of a second, but I would consider that unethical). > This is exactly the kind of thing that caused problems for the moderator > of nomic world (Geoff), as e simultaneously made game reality decisions > on eir own instant judgement, thus exposing emself to charges of > favoritism. I apologize if this is perceived, although again, I do not see how I am favoring anyone. I was not expecting controversy because I temporarily enabled this when I became Distributor a month and a half ago, with more tentative wording in the announcement: On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 12:50 AM, omd wrote: > There is an experimental feature which I went ahead and implemented, > but I'd appreciate feedback and will turn it off if desired: all list > messages are piped through a script which rewrites the Date header to > be the same as the relevant value from the appropriate Received > header, for the convenience of recordkeepors. There has been some > confusion over the years over which header is canonical - > http://cfj.qoid.us/707, http://cfj.qoid.us/1646, and other later CFJs > suggest always using Received, but Murphy argues in both > http://cfj.qoid.us/2773 and http://cfj.qoid.us/2800 that the Date > header is to be used when it's within a normal range of the Received > header - but I assume the latter interpretation exists to keep > recordkeepors from having to look up headers all the time, not as some > kind of date choosing service for players, so no harm or rights > violation should be incurred in making the issue moot by rewriting the > Date header, allowing the normal datestamp shown in email clients to > be used for all recordkeeping purposes (unless two messages have > identical timestamps, as in http://cfj.qoid.us/3076, which remains an > issue for now). Although I soon turned it off because I was too busy to fix the Gmail issue, there were no objections to the feature at the time. Thus I did not use that wording this time, but of course I am still willing to turn it off if desired and will perhaps be more careful in the future. As for legislating before adjusting, I was going to submit a proposal, but it seemed pretty clear to me that what R478 says is sufficient, if the forum has a canonical date stamp: Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stamped on that message. But sure, conducting an informal poll in advance might indeed have been a wise move.
Re: DIS: [Distributor] Date munging is back, receive-copies-of-own-mail default changed
On Wed, 2013-07-17 at 15:40 +, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Side note: seeing this reply filtered to my Agora mailbox, without mine > bounced > back to me, makes me agree with Ørjan that I hate that as new default option > - > though I've just set it back, so this is to test that I did it right :P. I also dislike the new default, and just went and set it back to the way it was before. /me vaguely glares at omd for choosing defaults that make sense only with Gmail. Many Agorans use /proper/ email clients... -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: some minor actions
On Jul 17, 2013, at 6:18 AM, Charles Walker wrote: > On 16 Jul 2013 21:32, "Alex Smith" wrote: > > Older precedents use a "technical domain of control" argument. It seems > > likely that c-walker has no technical control over Google, making "09 > > Evidence: a close family member owns shares in Google. Gratuitous evidence: I own 0.07% of Google. —Machiavelli
Re: DIS: [Distributor] Date munging is back, receive-copies-of-own-mail default changed
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > A wise move, in making a large scale forum change that happens to > > support a current in-game profit, be out of keeping with all agoran > > history and usages, as well as the expected functioning of email systems > > in general, is to legislate *before* adjusting. > > > > -G. > > Agreed! Side note: seeing this reply filtered to my Agora mailbox, without mine bounced back to me, makes me agree with Ørjan that I hate that as new default option - though I've just set it back, so this is to test that I did it right :P. -G.
Re: DIS: [Distributor] Date munging is back, receive-copies-of-own-mail default changed
Given the controversy that date munging seems to be producing, I believe omd ought to turn it off and not reenable it until a proposal approving of it has been passed. —Machiavelli
Re: DIS: [Distributor] Date munging is back, receive-copies-of-own-mail default changed
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, omd wrote: > Hopefully this creates a single obvious meaning for "the time > date-stamped on that message" in R478, so we can finally stop arguing > about the timing of messages. ;p In this case, it's interesting to note that the only people who have raised an issue or confusion over time stamps are the people with the most to gain in the game from that interpretation. Despite that, the Distributor has made a distinct decision that may or may not be based on rules, custom, or precedent, and yet has set it by fiat. This is exactly the kind of thing that caused problems for the moderator of nomic world (Geoff), as e simultaneously made game reality decisions on eir own instant judgement, thus exposing emself to charges of favoritism. A wise move, in making a large scale forum change that happens to support a current in-game profit, be out of keeping with all agoran history and usages, as well as the expected functioning of email systems in general, is to legislate *before* adjusting. -G.
Re: DIS: [Distributor] Date munging is back, receive-copies-of-own-mail default changed
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > A wise move, in making a large scale forum change that happens to > support a current in-game profit, be out of keeping with all agoran > history and usages, as well as the expected functioning of email systems > in general, is to legislate *before* adjusting. > > -G. Agreed! -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Let's make timing scams more interesting
On Jul 16, 2013, at 3:59 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > It's also not equivalent to just moving the > deadline 1 hour earlier; because silence can be effectively chained by > an alliance of players, it's not clear how many hours before the > deadline that a timing scam should be carried out. That's not how I would interpret "a first-class player paid the Silence Fee for the first time that week". I'd interpret it as meaning that a muting can only occur once per week at all. —Machiavelli
Re: DIS: [Distributor] Date munging is back, receive-copies-of-own-mail default changed
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, omd wrote: Right. Mailman is really "vintage" code... The list should now: - rewrite date headers to be the actual time of receipt, as briefly attempted before; - include a new X-Timestamp header to provide additional precision if required; - by default, only send back copies of list mail if the subject was changed. You can change this back to always on the list options page. (If you had previously chosen never to receive copies, you don't need to set that again.) Let me go on the record as saying that I am disturbed by the first item, and positively hate the last one, since I am using the back copy as confirmation that the message got through. Greetings, Ørjan.
