Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:59 PM, Josh T wrote: >> An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing >> document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its >> existence. > So no organization can define and issue assets, for example? No, although they're free

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Nic Evans wrote: > On 05/23/2017 11:01 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: >> >> I'm quite skeptical of this. I've put a lot of time into the current >> Assets proposal, and feel like "Defin[ing] Assets very simply" would >> have significant disadvantages in several respects.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

> An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing > document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its existence. So no organization can define and issue assets, for example? > If an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class of entitie

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

> On May 23, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Quazie wrote: > > If i am the judge, how am I not the judge summoned to the CFJ? Eir > conditional didn't say that e paid a shiney to the barred judge, but to the > summoned judge. Hang on, I don’t think that matters. The pledges, reproduced here for convenienc

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Article 5 invokation

Has it been 30 days since e deregistered? It'd be a great registration if it has been, one of my more recent favorites On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 20:49 Gaelan Steele wrote: > The words spell UNDEAD - that’s probably important in some way > > On May 23, 2017, at 8:33 PM, Aris Merchant < > thoughtsofl

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

On 05/23/2017 11:01 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: I'm quite skeptical of this. I've put a lot of time into the current Assets proposal, and feel like "Defin[ing] Assets very simply" would have significant disadvantages in several respects. I think I'd have trouble convincing people to implement anothe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

I'm quite skeptical of this. I've put a lot of time into the current Assets proposal, and feel like "Defin[ing] Assets very simply" would have significant disadvantages in several respects. I think I'd have trouble convincing people to implement another system once we have one up and running, despi

DIS: Re: BUS: Prime Minister Takes a Dive... well, probably not

> On May 23, 2017, at 8:21 PM, Quazie wrote: > > I issue the Cabinet Order of Dive: > {{{ > I award myself a Green Card for attempting a known IMPOSSIBLE action > (This very attempt at issuing the Cabinet Order: Dive). > }}} > > The above action is impossible, as issuing cards is secured

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

On May 23, 2017, at 6:57 PM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 12:59 -0600, Sprocklem S wrote: >> Proposal: Ruleset Ratification >> {{{ >> Amend Rule 1681 ("The Logical Rulesets") by appending the following >> paragraph at the end: >> >> The portions of the SLR and the FLR constituting

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Article 5 invokation

The words spell UNDEAD - that’s probably important in some way > On May 23, 2017, at 8:33 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > We at least deserve a hint. I looked briefly, but couldn't find the > purported 2012 occurrence. > > -Aris > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: >> That

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3471-3472

> On May 23, 2017, at 5:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > CFJ 3472: 白票 yields "a white paper". This is clearly not a valid vote. > I judge 3472 FALSE. I’m surprised at this. I had assumed this was meant to translate as PRESENT - it’s an unmarked, but cast, ballot. -o signature.asc Descriptio

Re: Re: DIS: Proposal Concept: Hidden Motives

"is that many players value being involved in a win even if they don't win themselves, and it's not uncommon to have some subset of players who will therefore intentionally sabotage their own victory chances to help somebody else's." Very much this. There could also be people who get a mas

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Article 5 invokation

We at least deserve a hint. I looked briefly, but couldn't find the purported 2012 occurrence. -Aris On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:21 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > That would be telling. > > -o > > On May 23, 2017, at 6:54 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: > > What is this?

DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanup on Aisle 869

Remind me not to sign the message where I resolve this. Gaelan > On May 23, 2017, at 8:27 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > >> On May 23, 2017, at 2:38 PM, Gaelan Steele > > wrote: >> >> Fast Resolution doesn’t work if there are lots of non-voting players sitting >> around

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:26 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > >> On May 23, 2017, at 2:09 PM, Aris Merchant >> wrote: >> >> I don't think it is. We don't want people to, for instance, change a >> rule to open a loophole and let it self-ratify. Report's don't self >> ratify unless the rules say they do

DIS: Re: BUS: Bounty

On Tue, 23 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: If Quazie did not successfully pay themselves a shiny, I pay Quazie a shiny and identify myself as the last person to pay them a shiny. Given the conditionalness, I'm not sure that is "clearly". :P Greetings, Ørjan. On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 20:00 Nic

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

> On May 23, 2017, at 2:09 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > I don't think it is. We don't want people to, for instance, change a > rule to open a loophole and let it self-ratify. Report's don't self > ratify unless the rules say they do, so I don't think there was any > real risk. Then I need to

Re: DIS: Proposal Concept: Hidden Motives

I feel like limiting it to one mechanic makes it less interesting—something like what you propose would just make all shiny moves suspicious, as everyone would have a shiny-related goal of some sort. I’m starting to reconsider the idea—it may not work as well as I imagined it would. Still, I th

DIS: Re: BUS: Bounty

On Wed, 24 May 2017, Quazie wrote: Correction: I pay myself 1 Shiny. I identify myself as the last person to pay me a Shiny. Heh doing that was my first thought too but I'm not a player and I have no Shinies. However, I'm afraid you're the only player with Shinies who _cannot_ do this -

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Article 5 invokation

That would be telling. -o > On May 23, 2017, at 6:54 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: > > What is this? > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:52 AM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > Unicorn NalgeneDissolution >

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

> On May 22, 2017, at 9:53 PM, Josh T wrote: > > Regardless if the Pink Slip is valid, I get the feeling that a Red Card of > some sort ought to be coming forthwith given the level of ire incited, but my > gauge on that front may be inaccurate. Personally, I think Gaelan should not > be trust

Re: DIS: Proposal Concept: Hidden Motives

On Wed, 24 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 19:36 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > I feel that this would create some interesting gameplay where we > > would be second-guessing everybody’s moves, wondering if they are > > part of a win condition. > > What's to prevent players j

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

Was my intent discovered? My recollection was that I gave myself away; someone killed all attempts at victory by apathy in response to the Herald’s attempt. That killed mine as well, presumably by accident, so I responded with a “darn it all.” I’m unsure of any discovery before I mentioned it.

Re: DIS: Report Event History Ordering

> On May 22, 2017, at 7:55 PM, Quazie wrote: > > Does this ordering look correct: > 2017-05-22 - Quazie establishes WTQ > 2017-05-22 - CuddleBeam establishes ACP > 2017-05-22 - CuddleBeam establishes BGW > 2017-05-21 - Quazie changes GOD > 2017-05-20 - Quazie establishes QPS > 2017-05-20 - Publi

Re: DIS: Proposal Concept: Hidden Motives

Ah, when you said "players select a random item" I thought you meant random in the sense of arbitrary. :) Our last implementation of secret wins: secretly specify a different player, and a win method. If they win by that method, you win instead! On Tue, 23 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Har

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

> On May 22, 2017, at 9:30 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > I don’t think the Pink Slip is valid. > > Rule 2476/0: "A Pink Slip is a type of Card that is appropriate for abuses of > official power for personal gain. A Pink Slip CANNOT be issued unless the > reason indicates the specific office or

Re: DIS: Proposal Concept: Hidden Motives

On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 19:36 -0700, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I feel that this would create some interesting gameplay where we > would be second-guessing everybody’s moves, wondering if they are > part of a win condition. What's to prevent players just not trying to hide their motives? In general, tal

Re: DIS: Proposal Concept: Hidden Motives

Harder than that. My idea was that you'd get a random goal, not a choice. My idea was publishing a salted hash identifying a (near) future Bitcoin block, then use the hash of the bitcoin block to determine your goal. When you reach the goal, you publish the block you used (and the salt), allowin

Re: DIS: Proposal Concept: Hidden Motives

Simple implementation: To select a goal, you write a clear sentence stating your goal, add a little salt to the sentence, and hash it. Publish the hash. A recordkeepor just keeps a list of everyone's hash and submission date. When you reach the goal, publish your original sentence to prove it.

DIS: Proposal Concept: Hidden Motives

I had an interesting idea for a win condition: players privately select a random item from a pre-defined set of goals; when they reach that goal, they win. There would be some complex setup involved in proving that you selected a goal randomly without revealing your selection. I have a cryptogra

Re: DIS: I'd like to write an essay, seeking input

On Wed, 24 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote: > -"Sticky" versus "Illusion" Continuum: http://i.imgur.com/a3hRJS6.png > [i.imgur.com] . Really like the cartoon! A good addition to the literature alongside those theses. > Eventually add secrecy and the player’s own subjective satisfactions > too wh

DIS: Re: I'd like to write an essay, seeking input

I'll appreciate IT a fuckload.* typo, sorry On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:21 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I'll appreciate IT a fuckload.* > > typo, sorry > > > On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 4:18 AM, CuddleBeam > wrote: > >> Alternate title: humble agoran farmer attempts to make food for thought >> Agora's #

DIS: I'd like to write an essay, seeking input

Alternate title: humble agoran farmer attempts to make food for thought Agora's #1 produce! I personally find essays to be the apex of achievement in nomic. Consider the following as a cover letter of a sort I really like novelty and experimentation, even more so if they reveal new possibilities

Re: DIS: Conditional Upon The Future

On Wed, 24 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2017-05-24 at 01:16 +, Quazie wrote: > > It's been noted many times that actions can't be conditional upon > > future actions: > [snip] > > But i'm not sure if that's where the precedence comes from. > > > > Any assistance would be grand. > >

Re: DIS: Conditional Upon The Future

Thanks for the pointers. On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:35 PM Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2017-05-24 at 01:16 +, Quazie wrote: > > It's been noted many times that actions can't be conditional upon > > future actions: > [snip] > > But i'm not sure if that's where the precedence comes from. > > > >

Re: DIS: Conditional Upon The Future

On Wed, 2017-05-24 at 01:16 +, Quazie wrote: > It's been noted many times that actions can't be conditional upon > future actions: [snip] > But i'm not sure if that's where the precedence comes from. > > Any assistance would be grand. As it happens, I'm rereading my thesis in which I judged C

DIS: Conditional Upon The Future

It's been noted many times that actions can't be conditional upon future actions: {{{I pay grok a shiny if e sends a message saying "i want a shiny"}}} seems to not work, but I can't find the legal precedence for that, and I'd like to include a reference to it in an upcoming CFJ judgement. I know

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

I told you o, at all times I will have some Shiny in dispute, you encouraged me to do it. On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:10 PM Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > On May 23, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Quazie wrote: > > > > If i am the judge, how am I not the judge summoned to the CFJ? Eir > conditional didn't say th

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

> On May 23, 2017, at 9:09 PM, Quazie wrote: > > If i am the judge, how am I not the judge summoned to the CFJ? Eir > conditional didn't say that e paid a shiney to the barred judge, but to the > summoned judge. Oh, hell. -o signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

If i am the judge, how am I not the judge summoned to the CFJ? Eir conditional didn't say that e paid a shiney to the barred judge, but to the summoned judge. On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 6:07 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I agree with o's int

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

I agree with o's interpretation. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:05 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > So, in order: > > 1. I’m pretty sure Cuddlebeam’s condition is invalid, and thus no judges > are barred. > > 2. Therefore, the final proviso “as long as … the barring at

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3505 assigned to Quazie

So, in order: 1. I’m pretty sure Cuddlebeam’s condition is invalid, and thus no judges are barred. 2. Therefore, the final proviso “as long as … the barring attempt above had barred someone” in eir pledge does not hold. 3. Therefore, the pledge does not hold. 4. Therefore, the condition “the

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer reunites with long-lost twins, becomes immortal and sells CFJ slots for only $2.99

In case it’s not obvious, I suspect that > Powers: Agents may post a message on Cuddlebeam's behalf grants no powers whatsoever, and that such a message would in fact be posted on the Agent’s own behalf, even if it purported to be posted on Cuddlebeam’s behalf. -o signature.asc Description:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Criminal judges sought

> On May 22, 2017, at 12:39 PM, Quazie wrote: > > Grok - you can always point a finger with similar results. > > o - If someone were to abuse the power, would you be the one to get the Pink > Slip as they'd be abusing the power of the Referee on your behalf? A fantastic question. Having revie

DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

Looking back at Assets v3 and forward to current events, I think we should: -Define Assets very simply, distinguishing fungible and nonfungible -Replace balance with a more generic asset switch (which applies to organizations, agora, and *persons*) -Redefine trade and heirs to work for all as

DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

On Tue, 23 May 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: "Heir" is a person switch, tracked by the Registrar, whose value is either Agora (the default value), or a player other than emself, or an Organization. A player may flip eir Heir by announcement. That "emself" seems to be a bit fishy grammar wit

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3469 judged DISMISS

Is that a pledge? -grok On May 23, 2017 7:04 PM, "Publius Scribonius Scholasticus" < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: I think you did, but I am willing to let it go, if it is resolved definitely as a payment, I will pay you back. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Tue, M

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3469 judged DISMISS

Just conditionally pay em back "If the quoted message paid me 20 shinies, and I had already been paid 20 shinies in this other quoted message, I give 20 shinies to o" - boom, the end state is accurate and we don't have to CFJ unless someone cares. On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:04 PM Publius Scribonius

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3469 judged DISMISS

I think you did, but I am willing to let it go, if it is resolved definitely as a payment, I will pay you back. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:00 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > Er. Whups. Do I need to do anything about the fact that the below-quoted > message is a du

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3469 judged DISMISS

You seem to have sent a message to the public forum on two separate occasions, paying PSS. BUT the pre-text was no longer true, though I doubt the CFJ will come back in your favor. If i was secretary, i'd count it as a payment until CFJed otherwise (But that's just me) On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:

DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration and Assets

Sorry to not get on this until now. I'd be down with a rule that defined a word "Assets" perhaps, and note that Shinies and Estates are both considered Assets. Then the amendments would be easier to make in the future, we would just have to edit the concept of 'Assets' and the two rules would cat

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: CFJ 3469 judged DISMISS

Er. Whups. Do I need to do anything about the fact that the below-quoted message is a dup, or did I just pay PSS twice? -o > On May 23, 2017, at 7:59 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > TTttPF. > >> On May 22, 2017, at 12:08 AM, Owen Jacobson > > wrote: >> >> >> On May 20,

Re: DIS: Superintendent proto reports

I'm also maintaining an unofficial ~daily updated ADoP: https://agoranomic.github.io/ADoP/Reports/next.txt I think those of us working on the github stuff are also starting to converge on a structure and format, and we may see a 'grand opening' at some point in the next week or two. On 05/23

DIS: Superintendent proto reports

Just got the superintendent's upcoming report on to the web. I'll be making the reporting scripts continually better, but if you want an unofficial list of currently existing Agencies, feel free to look here: https://agoranomic.github.io/Superintendent/reports/month/next.txt

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 3:57 PM Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 12:59 -0600, Sprocklem S wrote: > > Proposal: Ruleset Ratification > > {{{ > > Amend Rule 1681 ("The Logical Rulesets") by appending the following > > paragraph at the end: > > > > The portions of the SLR and the FLR consti

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

On Tue, 2017-05-23 at 12:59 -0600, Sprocklem S wrote: > Proposal: Ruleset Ratification > {{{ > Amend Rule 1681 ("The Logical Rulesets") by appending the following > paragraph at the end: > > The portions of the SLR and the FLR constituting the substantive > aspects of the rules, as defined in Rule

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3471-3472

The following information is for the future thesis writer about translation and history of language on Agora: 反対 is both the verb "to oppose" or "to object" and a noun which can mean "against" or "objection". On a Japanese ballot paper, the conventional choices are 賛成 ("support") and 反対 ("against"

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Getting in on Agencies

I probably should have also tested the directional control characters and a right-to-left language, but there's only so much you can fit in three words. Congratulations on your script being otherwise pretty much Unicode 5.0 compliant! (For reference, Unicode 10 is expected to be finalized later thi

DIS: Re: BUS: Getting in on Agencies

Note: Thanks for helping me test my script for unicode compliance - delighted that no changes were necessary to handle your unicode. On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:10 PM Josh T wrote: > I resolve my quoted intention and establish the agency therein. > > 天火狐 > > On 22 May 2017 at 15:33, Josh T wrote:

Re: DIS: Votes, Supports, and Objections - OH MY

I also have a few thoughts for integrating them into an expanded justice system. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:11 PM, Nic Evans wrote: > This is the most recent proposal/discussion: > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg34622.html > >

Re: DIS: Votes, Supports, and Objections - OH MY

This is the most recent proposal/discussion: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg34622.html After I resolve the current voting round I will have a slew of economic proposals, all in the next day or two. On 05/23/17 15:59, Gaelan Steele wrote: > How did gigs work? > >>

Re: DIS: Votes, Supports, and Objections - OH MY

They are a proposal that hasn't been fully fleshed out yet. And then G. pseudo Writ Of Fage'd and so they fizzled a bit. Nichdel said e might pick it up though. On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:00 PM Gaelan Steele wrote: > How did gigs work? > > > On May 23, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Quazie wrote: > > > > W

Re: DIS: Votes, Supports, and Objections - OH MY

How did gigs work? > On May 23, 2017, at 1:08 PM, Quazie wrote: > > With so much activity, it's hard to keep track of all the things that could > be Supported, Objected, and Voted upon. > > Anyone else having trouble? > > I know we don't need any more officers at the moment, but if Gigs come

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7853-7857

It wouldn't, I had typed something else as that vote (Because I was being greedy and didn't want Grok to get a ribbon) but then thought against it, and instead just voted FOR. Forgot to take that line out. On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:13 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...

Re: DIS: Votes, Supports, and Objections - OH MY

In another Nomic I play in, we have a regular every 4 days report with a list of all matters for discussion or voting. It is very helpful. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Quazie wrote: > With so much activity, it's hard to keep track of all the things that

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7853-7857

Why would your vote on 7857 be invalid? Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Quazie wrote: > I vote as follows > > On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 4:54 PM Aris Merchant gmail.com> wrote: > >> ID Author(s) AI Title Pender Pend fee >> (

DIS: Votes, Supports, and Objections - OH MY

With so much activity, it's hard to keep track of all the things that could be Supported, Objected, and Voted upon. Anyone else having trouble? I know we don't need any more officers at the moment, but if Gigs come back in to play (What happened to them?) then I'm going to propose a Gig for makin

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7853-7857

I vote as follows On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 4:54 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > ID Author(s) AI Title Pender Pend fee > (sh.) > - > 7853* ais5233.0 C

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A.N. thesis - currencies

Nope. It's standard I Support/I Object, and you count if the Supporters/Objectors ratio is over the specified number. R2124. On Tue, 23 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > I don't believe voting strength affects it. > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > On Tue, May 23,

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > Why not just make it explicitly not ratifying, but a SHALL NOT to falsify > it. The intent is that if some error finds its way in accidentally and it's not caught, it should be ratified, so that the latest ruleset always re

DIS: Re: BUS: A.N. thesis - currencies

I don't believe voting strength affects it. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 3:45 PM, Quazie wrote: > I consent. Consent has nothing to do with voting strength, yeah? > > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:33 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > p.scribonius.scholasti...@g

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

Why not just make it explicitly not ratifying, but a SHALL NOT to falsify it. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Sprocklem S wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > I don't think it is. We don't want people to, for instance, chan

Re: DIS: Assorted theses, from the 2007 onwards

As Herald, I will try to compile all of the theses, whether failed or otherwise into my next report. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Sprocklem S wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Sprocklem S wrote: > > In the same message, there is also mention of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: fast resolution 2.0

2.0 isn't "greater than" 2.0. I think you want "greater than or equal to 2.0." -Aris On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I retract “Fast Resolution.” > > I create this proposal "Fast Resolution, now weaker" by Gaelan with AI 3 { > > Amend rule 107 “Initiating Agoran Decision

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: fast resolution 2.0

I retract “Fast Resolution.” I create this proposal "Fast Resolution, now weaker" by Gaelan with AI 3 { Amend rule 107 “Initiating Agoran Decisions” by replacing { The voting period lasts for 7 days. The minimum voting period for a decision with at least two options is five days. } with { Unless

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

I don't think it is. We don't want people to, for instance, change a rule to open a loophole and let it self-ratify. Report's don't self ratify unless the rules say they do, so I don't think there was any real risk. -Aris On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >

Re: DIS: Assorted theses, from the 2007 onwards

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Sprocklem S wrote: > In the same message, there is also mention of a rejected thesis from > ais523, but no address was given. I found ais523's failed thesis: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg19631.html The actual attachment resolves

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

If it is like most reports it would be, but I didn't find anything specific. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: > > Then, you

Re: DIS: Assorted theses, from the 2007 onwards

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:57 AM, Sprocklem S wrote: > [a bunch of text] Additionally, Thimblefox wrote: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg26242.html However, G. suggested he resubmit it with adjustments given by responders. I can't seem to find out if anything happe

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > Then, you failed to publish a report that you intended to be ratified. > Where exactly do the rules make the rulekeepor's report self ratifying? I can't find anything to that effect, but I might be missing something. -Aris

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

Agreed. E did something wrong, and should probably be punished, but we need em as Rulekeepor. -Aris On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:15 AM, Nic Evans wrote: > Removing Gaelan from office, or punishing em enough that e's unwilling to > continue, is a good way to shoot ourselves in the foot during a time

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer tends crops

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:37 AM, CuddleBeam wrote: > YES! Awesome. I'm super excited to see where this goes. > > However, I won't immediately raise a CFJ myself because I'm currently using > my own limited amount of them as products (with the informal brand of "Super > CFJs") for sale (partly for

DIS: Assorted theses, from the 2007 onwards

Here is the CFJ 3381 thesis: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07043.html The following theses were cited in the Herald's message "Thesis Archives" on 2013-08-08 (posted to help judges judge the CFJ 3381 thesis). The message claims that they compose the three qualifyin

Re: DIS: Where can I read/find other people's thesis?

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Tue, 23 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote: >> I'd love to read other people's thesis, for example "Judge's Arguments and >> Evidence on >> CFJ 3381", but I can't find them, aside from the stuff from Blob's Thesis >> Archive (which >> is just

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

Removing Gaelan from office, or punishing em enough that e's unwilling to continue, is a good way to shoot ourselves in the foot during a time of good momentum. On 05/22/17 20:53, Josh T wrote: > Regardless if the Pink Slip is valid, I get the feeling that a Red > Card of some sort ought to be co

Re: DIS: Where can I read/find other people's thesis?

On Tue, 23 May 2017, CuddleBeam wrote: > I'd love to read other people's thesis, for example "Judge's Arguments and > Evidence on > CFJ 3381", but I can't find them, aside from the stuff from Blob's Thesis > Archive (which > is just up to 2001). > > Where can I find the rest of this good stuf

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

Then, you failed to publish a report that you intended to be ratified. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I still don't buy this. I surrounded the apathy attempt in "this section > is not part of the report"/"the report resumes below." R

Re: DIS: Where can I read/find other people's thesis?

I'd love to be proven wrong, but I don't think there's anything more up to date. I did recreate Blob's archive on the wiki, at the bottom of the page: https://agoranomic.github.io/wiki/ If you (or someone else) finds others, adding them there would be greatly appreciated. On 05/23/2017 09:4

DIS: Where can I read/find other people's thesis?

I'd love to read other people's thesis, for example "Judge's Arguments and Evidence on CFJ 3381", but I can't find them, aside from the stuff from Blob's Thesis Archive (which is just up to 2001). Where can I find the rest of this good stuff?

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

I still don't buy this. I surrounded the apathy attempt in "this section is not part of the report"/"the report resumes below." Regardless of whether that worked, I think that makes it pretty clear I did not intend to ratify that into the ruleset. Gaelan > On May 23, 2017, at 3:50 AM, Publius

DIS: Re: BUS: Article 5 invokation

What is this? Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:52 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Unicorn NalgeneDissolution > Endemic Anemocrat Diaspora > > Usual forum please. > > Last invoked: 2012 (all voting debts 0). > > > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Betterer Pledge

I don't think we should risk the mess of the conditional. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Tue, 23 May 2017, Quazie wrote: > > Would the following proposal be valid? I'm unsure if the subvoting > > mechanism i'm suggesting will

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

You were attempting to add text to the ruleset by ratification for your own personal gain. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I CFJ on these statements: > > “Any player may take the office of Rulekeepor with 2 support.” [i.e. I got > a

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset

You also have not yet published a revised version of the report in response to the CoE. I think an appropriate solution would be to have Gaelan generate the reports but have someone else check them and publish them. Regardless, I believe that Gaelan should be issued a red card and or further punish

DIS: Re: BUS: No Sneakiness

I don't like this because if it is a not a required report, it should be fine. I think reports are especially problematic. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I create the power-1 proposal “No Sneakiness” by Gaelan: { > > Create a rule “N

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Betterer Pledge

天火狐 is right, the way it is written now, Agencies will mess with this. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Josh T wrote: > > A player CANNOT make any pledge that would create new obligations for > any other person. > > I think this should be changed to "A playe

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: fast resolution 2.0

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:05 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > I create this proposal "Fast Resolution" by Gaelan with AI 3.1 { > > > > Create rule "Fast Resolution" (Power 3.1) { > > > > For the purposes of

Re: DIS: Trivial Proposals

I would suggest turning them into one step, which would make it significantly easier to track. Other than that, looks good to me! -Aris On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:58 AM Quazie wrote: > Aris - As Promotor do you have any issue with this Proposal? If not I'm > gonna make it a proper proposal. >