DIS: Re: BUS: Clarity Act.

[Owen Jacobson]

Per G.’s exhortation, I’ve now read this in full, twice, and run through the “I 
vote as G. does” case that caused a CFJ against the proposed rules.

> On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:41 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> 
> I propose the following and pend it with an AP.
> 
> Proposal: Clarity Act (AI=3)
> {{{
> Text in square brackets is not a part of this proposal's substance and
> is ignored when it takes effect.
> 
> Enact a new power 3 rule entitled Voting Methods, reading as follows:
>   Each Agoran decision has a voting method, which must be
>   AI-majority, instant runoff, or first-past-the-post. The voting
>   method is that specified by the authorizing authority, or
>   first-past-the-post by default.
> 
>   Each Agoran decision has a set of valid options (the choices that
>   the voters are being asked to select from) and valid votes (the
>   ways in which the voters can express their opinion or lack thereof.
>   For AI-majority decisions, the valid options are FOR and AGAINST;
>   for other decisions, the valid options are defined by other rules.
> 
>   The valid votes on an Agoran decision are:
>   1. PRESENT;
>   2. The valid conditional votes, as defined by rules of power at
>  least that of this rule; and
>   3. For an instant runoff decision, the ordered lists of entities.
>   4. For any other decision, the valid options.
> 
> [This splits off the portion of 955 that isn't actually related to
>  resolution. The definition of instant runoff is changed to evaluate
>  validity of options at the end of the voting period, and avoid
>  retroactively invalidating votes if an option drops out.]

How does forking this out of the original (and quite old) rule change its 
interaction with other rules, under rule 1030 (“Precedence between Rules”)? I 
can’t see any obvious differences, but I wanted to draw attention to this in 
case others with more insight spot anything.

> Amend Rule 955 by replacing the second paragraph and numbered list with
> the following and by deleting the second bullet in the unnumbered list.
>   1. For an AI-majority decision, let F be the total strength of all
>  valid ballots cast FOR a decision, A be the same for AGAINST,
>  and AI be the adoption index of the decision. The outcome is
>  ADOPTED if F/A >= AI and F/A > 1 (or F>0 and A=0), otherwise
>  REJECTED.
> 
>   2. For an instant runoff decision, the outcome is whichever option
>  wins according to the standard definition of instant runoff.
>  For this purpose, a ballot of strength N is treated as if it
>  were N distinct ballots expressing the same preferences. In
>  case multiple valid options tie for the lowest number of votes
>  at any stage, the vote collector CAN and must, in the
>  announcement of the decision's resolution, select one such
>  option to eliminate; if, for M > 1, all eir possible choices in
>  the next M stages would result in the same set of options being
>  eliminated, e need not specify the order of elimination. If an
>  entity that is part of a valid vote is not a valid option at
>  the end of the voting period, or disqualified by the rule
>  providing for the decision, then that entity is eliminated
>  prior to the first round of counting.
> 
>   3. For a first-past-the-post decision, the outcome is whichever
>  option received the highest total strength of valid ballots. In
>  case of a tie, the vote collector CAN and must, in the
>  announcement of the decision's resolution, select one of the
>  leaders as the outcome.
> 
> [No change here, except for removing the valid votes, and clearly
>  specifying what happens to options that are no longer valid at the end
>  of the voting period.]
> 
> If the text "The rule providing for an Agoran Decision by instant runoff
> may disqualify one or more options; in such a case, they are eliminated
> prior to beginning the first stage of the vote count." appears in Rule
> 955, delete it.
> 
> [Coordinating amendment to the Election Procedure proposal. H. Assessor,
>  please resolve that one first.]
> 
> Amend Rule 2127 to read as follows:
>   A conditional vote on an Agoran decision is a vote which indicates
>   a vote based on some condition(s). A conditional vote is evaluated
>   at the end of the voting period and, rules to the contrary
>   notwithstanding, is clearly specified if and only if the value of
>   the condition(s) is/are determinate at the end of the voting
>   period. If the conditional is clearly specified, and evaluates to
>   a valid vote, it is counted as that vote; otherwise, it is counted
>   as PRESENT.
> 
>   Any vote which is clearly expressed as a conditional, e.g. "FOR if
>is true, AGAINST otherwise", is a valid conditional vote that
>   

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Archival disclosure

[Aris Merchant]

I was hoping to avoid this, but: me too. (blushes)

-Aris

On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> Hey, I’m not the only one!
>
> Gaelan
>
>
> On Sep 30, 2017, at 10:06 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>
> I'm just a random teenager.
>
> On Sunday, October 1, 2017, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>>
>> Out of curiosity: is anybody around here *not* a programmer of some sort
>> these days?
>>
>> Oh, and no language which thinks that `[1, 2] + [3, 4] == "1,23,4”` is
>> working fine.
>>
>> Gaelan
>>
>> > On Sep 30, 2017, at 7:14 PM, Aris Merchant
>> >  wrote:
>> >
>> > I've used it, and indeed use it for most of my scripting. JavaScript
>> > is a general purpose language, and it works fine for non-web usages.
>> >
>> > -Aris
>> >
>> > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 4:54 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> >  wrote:
>> >> I have used Node.JS before and I don't like it because it is using
>> >> javascript for something it isn't supposed to be used for.
>> >> 
>> >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> >> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> On Sep 29, 2017, at 5:29 PM, ATMunn .  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> To be honest, although Python is my favorite language, I really
>> >>> haven't tried many. The only other languages I really know are C# (which 
>> >>> I
>> >>> don't really like anymore) and a bit of Lua and Javascript.
>> >>>
>> >>> I have several friends who really like Javascript, (specifically
>> >>> Node.JS) so that's one I have interest in learning.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:15 AM, Owen Jacobson 
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>>  On Sep 28, 2017, at 12:29 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> 
>>  [sits in corner with my Ruby-powered ruleset]
>> 
>>  Gaelan
>> >>>
>> >>> I like Ruby. It and Go pay my rent, and they’re interesting languages.
>> >>>
>> >>> I just happen to like Python more for this specific use case. (I
>> >>> seriously considered writing it in Rust, too.)
>> >>>
>> >>> However, I’m a big believer in interoperability. The framework I’m
>> >>> using, apistar, automatically generates API docs in HTML form, as well 
>> >>> as a
>> >>> coreapi schema document, for APIs implemented against it. The support for
>> >>> including useful prose in those docs is limited, but it’s improving (and 
>> >>> I
>> >>> may send the apistar author a few pull requests about that myself, too).
>> >>>
>> >>> The idea is that the archive is an API-first service, accessible by
>> >>> any language, so that if it’s useful, any Agoran can write tools against 
>> >>> it
>> >>> in their languages of choice.
>> >>>
>> >>> -o
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>
>

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

[Owen Jacobson]

On Oct 5, 2017, at 3:21 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:

> I call a CFJ with the statement "PRESENT is a valid vote in
> instant-runoff elections for offices”.

AP or shinies?

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Archival disclosure

[Owen Jacobson]

On Sep 30, 2017, at 10:06 PM, VJ Rada > wrote:

> I'm just a random teenager.

On Oct 1, 2017, at 3:44 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> Hey, I’m not the only one!

For the record, you’re both well-spoken, diligent, intelligent, very easy to 
get along with, and a joy to play alongside.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Archive implementation (was DIS: Re: BUS: Archival disclosure)

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 29, 2017, at 4:00 AM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> I love this idea. It seems very practical without sacrificing
> usability for the end users (i.e. the players). I have a few
> suggestions:
> 
> 1. Who annotates. I think giving everyone access to the annotation
> interface would probably make sense. You can't personally annotate
> every message affecting the entire gamestate, and I'd love to help set
> the formats I'm consuming for Promotor. nichdel came up with a
> proposal format suggestion, and now that this has come along I'm
> modifying it to have more information for the Promotor side of the
> Promotor-Assessor pipeline. I'm sure other officers have input on how
> formalization for their parts of the gamestate should take place, and
> they have a unique understanding of what information is needed to do
> their jobs.

This is, I strongly believe, the correct answer. We’re none of us as creative 
or as thorough as all of us, just as a starting point, but I do genuinely 
believe this could be useful for other officers, and even random Agorans. It 
might also help provide some continuity between officers if it works out.

Right now, the API for this thing is totally unsecured - no authn or authz, no 
abuse detection, no rate limits, nothing. I trust Agorans fairly far, and I 
don’t think anyone here would make a problem out of this - other than maybe by 
putting in intentionally-bogus annotations to try to cause self-ratifying 
reports to be wrong in useful ways, anyways - but that trust does not extend to 
the internet at large. I’d like to address that, or at least to add some 
username/password/API token authentication even without any authorization 
layer, before I open it up further.

The other blocker for general adoption is a user interface. Right now I have a 
CLI tool (https://github.com/ojacobson/cadastre-cli/), and I plan on publishing 
docs for the HTTP API to hopefully make it possible to do other things with 
this, but there’s no HTML UI. I don’t think that’s viable if anyone other than 
the most hard-core software heads are going to touch it.

> 2. Annotation style. As you've mentioned, your format is a bit forced.
> You're doing a great job with what you have to work with, but I think
> the basic problem may be that you're trying to use markup to represent
> transactions. It works wonderfully for representing the data (and
> should probably be a base format for that), but poorly for
> representing things like conditional actions. You can add and add to
> the format, but you'll just be making it more complicated to use. I
> suggest you consider using programs (possibly with methods you
> provide) as annotations. It feels kind of intuitively weird to
> represent an annotation as a program, and they don't have the nice
> formal properties the data itself does (except maybe if you used
> Haskell or something), but I think it might be a lot more practical
> for actual use. Programs allow for loops, unrestricted conditionals,
> and the like, meaning that you don't have to work something out by
> hand or create a new transaction type just for one complicated
> transaction. They would work well for this because they take data and
> compute changes, which is exactly what our action system does. There
> is thus a neat one-to-one correspondence between an action and a
> program.

I’m enough of a lisp weenie that I don’t think of the two as distinct models. 
Code and data are, in important ways, the same thing - what’s important is the 
interpretation of that data. The JSON-Patch approach I’m using is, arguably, a 
programming language - albeit a very inexpressive one which can only write 
programs that terminate in constant time and which use constant space. I think 
you’re right that the annotations need to be more powerful than that - I’m not 
convinced they need to be turing-complete, but I think there’s a strong case 
that linear programs aren’t sufficient.

There are complicated constraints, though.

One - I’m not up to allowing arbitrary internet persons to upload code if that 
code could even potentially escape from the service or access code or data held 
by the service other than the state currently being evaluated. Sandboxing 
support is weak in a lot of languages - even Lua has primitives for basic IO, 
and they’re surprisingly hard to disable completely. Blizzard has spent years 
chasing sandboxing bugs in their own Lua implementation. This complaint extends 
to V8, embedded Python, “just use execfile”, Ruby, shell scripts, and most 
embedded languages.

Two - I would dearly like to be able to query the service for things like “show 
me all the emails in this date range that affected my Shiny balance.” In a 
fully turing-complete language, that property is not necessarily computable, 
and it’s certainly not computable in any widespread language. The python-ish 
program

if balances.o >= 5:
balances.o -= 5
   

DIS: argument in support of conditional voting

[Kerim Aydin]

First, I was incorrect when I say there will be "no net effect" of this 
judgement.
Back to it's original purpose, IT INVALIDATES ALL PAST ENDORSEMENT TRUST TOKENS.

So if you've been collecting trust tokens, you might care.


I think a main issue with Alexis's arguments for CFJ 3569 are here:

> Per established precedent, the correctness of a ballot submission is 
> evaluated 
> at the time of its submission.

I'm not sure what "established precedent" Alexis is citing.  However, most of
the precedents that I'm aware of are for INFORMAL conditional actions, not
conditional voting.  For conditional actions, there's no official Rules
governance.  So the body of precedent built up says "if AT THE TIME OF THE
ACTION it's relatively reasonable effort to resolve the conditional, it works."

However, the Conditional Votes rule was explicitly written to get around this.
It does so by effectively re-defining (at Power 3) the term "clearly specified" 
so that it's retroactive - if the Conditional is determinate at the END of the
voting period, then we retroactively declare that it was clear when cast.
(It's kind of like ratification).  Or similarly, at the time the vote is cast,
the rules *defer* the determination of "clear" until the end.

There's no reason that this retroactive clarity can't work, because we don't 
need to determine clarity until after the voting period ends[*].   "It was clear
when cast, because it 'ratified' that way" is no more philosophically 
difficult than ratification.  Especially because the rule was designed that way
and has functioned this way for over 10 years.

Now, the mess of rules around the terms "votes", "options", and "ballots" is
enough that I can't guarantee I wouldn't come to a similar conclusion to
Alexis by a different route.

But at the VERY least, I think it's enough to discard part of Alexis's 
conclusions:  if the rules language mess doesn't map a conditional vote
attempt to another Option, I think R2127 is abundantly clear that it's still
(retroactively, perhaps) a vote such that the default to PRESENT still works.

So at the very least, I think conditional = PRESENT still works.


[*] I believe there have been past CFJs that have been called during the
voting period on whether a conditional vote was clear, with the precedent
that the proper judgement is "currently INSUFFICIENT information as the voting
period hasn't ended yet, call the CFJ again when the voting period ends".
So, retroactive clarity.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: PLEASE READ on voting

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> I promise that my fix proposal has, to the best of my knowledge, no loopholes 
> or scams.

FWIW, it's a compliment that your past scams have been subtle enough to require 
this warning...
(and I do believe you).

> As for the campaign proposal, I shifted the duties to assessor mainly to 
> simplify the 
> resolution process, and avoid the ADoP needing to resolve the proposals. I 
> could rewrite
> if whoever wants assessor doesn't want that extra work.

I wasn't planning on being the Assessor when I read the proposal so didn't 
comment then,
for me it's also a "hmm... may be too much, but let the next assessor decide".

(One minor issue is that the Assessor only gets paid for the "first decision 
resolved in
a week" so this adds to workload while keeping the pay mostly the same, 
assuming proposals
are resolved most weeks).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> I am well aware of that :). G. has been around in various forms since
> 2002, right?

February 2002 (though I was in 1992-93 Nomic World too).  To show how old
that is in Internet time, I (and several others) joined Agora after it was
mentioned in a Slashdot comment, of all things.

DIS: Re: BUS: PLEASE READ on voting

[Alexis Hunt]

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017, 10:24 Kerim Aydin,  wrote:

>
>
> Hi folks,
>
> First, I don't want to be assessor past the election, I grabbed the job
> mainly because I was guessing quorum would be an issue and I didn't want
> my proposals (or ribbon) to languish.  I won't be able to keep up with
> Assessor *especially* if e is required to track election votes (I'm
> questioning the wisdom of that, myself).
>
> I vote {PSS, G.} for Assessor, and PRESENT for Tailor.
>
> Second, I haven't accepted Alexis's arguments really.  I was hoping someone
> else would throw in a counterargument, but if not I may - Alexis has a
> *plausible* argument, but there are also plausible counterarguments.  I
> "accepted" it in that I moved to converge the gamestate regardless.  And
> it may not be worth arguing - even if the counterarguments are better the
> rules in question *are* a mess and the re-write is a good thing.
>
> In particular, I have an argument that conditionals evaluating to PRESENT
> still works - but only worth pursuing if it makes a difference for the
> current
> election or next batch of proposals (everything else is "converged").
>
> Finally, PLEASE HELP ME IN READING THE FIX PROPOSAL CAREFULLY.  It looks at
> first glance very well written (I have a couple quibbles but they're minor
> so far).  But ALEXIS WOULDN'T BE THE PRINCESS if e had not been adept at
> sneaking in rather subtly crafted bugs for later exploitation (that's how
> e got the title).  So please, review carefully for holes.
>
> Thanks all,
> -G.
>

I promise that my fix proposal has, to the best of my knowledge, no
loopholes or scams. Not going to make this into a formal pledge because I
don't think the pledge mechanism is well suited for a highly subjective
promise like this, but I would not try to embed a scam into something I see
as an important fix proposal. That said, it's certainly possible for
something I missed to be in there.

As for the campaign proposal, I shifted the duties to assessor mainly to
simplify the resolution process, and avoid the ADoP needing to resolve the
proposals. I could rewrite if whoever wants assessor doesn't want that
extra work.

>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, VJ Rada wrote:
> So uh let's self-ratify my ADoP report? Because every election I have
> ever resolved didn't work according to this.

Agoran Decisions themselves self-ratify via R2034 so they're all fine.

And since Officeholder is a switch it's already been self-ratifying due
to R2162(3).

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Election Time Extension

[ATMunn .]

Ah. I guess I'll vote then, so I stop being humiliated. :P

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> The rules require em to issue one, but it doesn’t do anything. It’s just
> that—a reminder.
>
> Gaelan
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2017, at 6:28 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:
>
> What's a Humiliating Public Reminder? Is it actually something in the
> rules or something you made up?
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:38 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>
>> Whoops fair cop, yup. I retract my most recent CFJ.
>>
>> Sorry Trigon.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Aris Merchant
>>  wrote:
>> > The same rule makes PRESENT an option later on. In fact, that clause
>> > explicitly overrides the previous one:
>> >
>> >
>> > "The previous notwithstanding:
>> > ...
>> >   - PRESENT is always a valid vote, with no effect on the outcome
>> > except counting towards quorum."
>> >
>> >
>> > -Aris
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 12:04 AM VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I don't think either your vote here or Gaelan's vote worked. According
>> >> to rule 955 as interpreted by Alexis's most recent CFJ, in this
>> >> context "the valid votes are ordered lists of options". PRESENT is not
>> >> an option in instant run-off votes as previously interpreted:
>> >> therefore PRESENT votes are not valid. I'm not sure Gaelan's funny
>> >> business works either. You guys need to list players or do nothing at
>> >> all.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Accordingly I change my Assessor vote to G.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Rubin Stacy 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > In order to clear up any and all confusion, I retract my vote for
>> >> > Arbitor
>> >> > and replace it with a PRESENT vote.
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Trigon
>> >> > --
>> >> >
>> >> > On Oct 5, 2017 12:39 AM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Addendum: ENDORSE votes not being votes apparently, I also
>> publically
>> >> >> shane Quazie, Trigon and Alexis,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >> >> > I vote Alexis in the first election and PRESENT in the second.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:11 PM, VJ Rada 
>> wrote:
>> >> >> >> On the 27th, I initiated elections for Tailor and Assessor. I had
>> >> >> >> the
>> >> >> >> quorum at 2.0 but it was actually 8.0, I was right the first
>> time.
>> >> >> >> The
>> >> >> >> incorrect statement changed nothing. Therefore, the election is
>> >> >> >> extended by another 7 days. The votes currently stand at this:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> ===Tailor===
>> >> >> >> Alexis: Alexis
>> >> >> >> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
>> >> >> >> Trigon: Alexis
>> >> >> >> PSS: {Alexis, PSS}
>> >> >> >> o. If Alexis votes, endorse Alexis.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> ===Assessor===
>> >> >> >> Alexis: Endorse G.
>> >> >> >> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
>> >> >> >> Trigon: Endorse G.
>> >> >> >> PSS: {PSS, G}
>> >> >> >> o.: The first player to unconditionally vote themselves (that is
>> >> >> >> currently PSS)
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I issue Humiliating Public Reminders to myself (oh dear!), Aris,
>> >> >> >> Murphy, 天火狐, Gaelan, Ienpw III, omd, Bayushi, nichdel, G,
>> >> >> >> Cuddlebeam,
>> >> >> >> ATMunn and ProofTechnique.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I also would like to use this platform to unofficially remind all
>> >> >> >> you
>> >> >> >> fools to donate to the Community Chest.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> From V.J. Rada
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > --
>> >> >> > From V.J. Rada
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> From V.J. Rada
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> From V.J. Rada
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Election Time Extension

[Gaelan Steele]

The rules require em to issue one, but it doesn’t do anything. It’s just that—a 
reminder.

Gaelan

> On Oct 5, 2017, at 6:28 AM, ATMunn .  wrote:
> 
> What's a Humiliating Public Reminder? Is it actually something in the rules 
> or something you made up?
> 
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:38 AM, VJ Rada  > wrote:
> Whoops fair cop, yup. I retract my most recent CFJ.
> 
> Sorry Trigon.
> 
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Aris Merchant
>  > wrote:
> > The same rule makes PRESENT an option later on. In fact, that clause
> > explicitly overrides the previous one:
> >
> >
> > "The previous notwithstanding:
> > ...
> >   - PRESENT is always a valid vote, with no effect on the outcome
> > except counting towards quorum."
> >
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 12:04 AM VJ Rada  > > wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't think either your vote here or Gaelan's vote worked. According
> >> to rule 955 as interpreted by Alexis's most recent CFJ, in this
> >> context "the valid votes are ordered lists of options". PRESENT is not
> >> an option in instant run-off votes as previously interpreted:
> >> therefore PRESENT votes are not valid. I'm not sure Gaelan's funny
> >> business works either. You guys need to list players or do nothing at
> >> all.
> >>
> >>
> >> Accordingly I change my Assessor vote to G.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Rubin Stacy  >> >
> >> wrote:
> >> > In order to clear up any and all confusion, I retract my vote for
> >> > Arbitor
> >> > and replace it with a PRESENT vote.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Trigon
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > On Oct 5, 2017 12:39 AM, "VJ Rada"  >> > > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Addendum: ENDORSE votes not being votes apparently, I also publically
> >> >> shane Quazie, Trigon and Alexis,
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, VJ Rada  >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> > I vote Alexis in the first election and PRESENT in the second.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:11 PM, VJ Rada  >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >> On the 27th, I initiated elections for Tailor and Assessor. I had
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> quorum at 2.0 but it was actually 8.0, I was right the first time.
> >> >> >> The
> >> >> >> incorrect statement changed nothing. Therefore, the election is
> >> >> >> extended by another 7 days. The votes currently stand at this:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ===Tailor===
> >> >> >> Alexis: Alexis
> >> >> >> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
> >> >> >> Trigon: Alexis
> >> >> >> PSS: {Alexis, PSS}
> >> >> >> o. If Alexis votes, endorse Alexis.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ===Assessor===
> >> >> >> Alexis: Endorse G.
> >> >> >> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
> >> >> >> Trigon: Endorse G.
> >> >> >> PSS: {PSS, G}
> >> >> >> o.: The first player to unconditionally vote themselves (that is
> >> >> >> currently PSS)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I issue Humiliating Public Reminders to myself (oh dear!), Aris,
> >> >> >> Murphy, 天火狐, Gaelan, Ienpw III, omd, Bayushi, nichdel, G,
> >> >> >> Cuddlebeam,
> >> >> >> ATMunn and ProofTechnique.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I also would like to use this platform to unofficially remind all
> >> >> >> you
> >> >> >> fools to donate to the Community Chest.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> From V.J. Rada
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > From V.J. Rada
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> From V.J. Rada
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> From V.J. Rada
> 
> 
> 
> --
> From V.J. Rada
> 

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Election Time Extension

[ATMunn .]

What's a Humiliating Public Reminder? Is it actually something in the rules
or something you made up?

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 3:38 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:

> Whoops fair cop, yup. I retract my most recent CFJ.
>
> Sorry Trigon.
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > The same rule makes PRESENT an option later on. In fact, that clause
> > explicitly overrides the previous one:
> >
> >
> > "The previous notwithstanding:
> > ...
> >   - PRESENT is always a valid vote, with no effect on the outcome
> > except counting towards quorum."
> >
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 12:04 AM VJ Rada  wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't think either your vote here or Gaelan's vote worked. According
> >> to rule 955 as interpreted by Alexis's most recent CFJ, in this
> >> context "the valid votes are ordered lists of options". PRESENT is not
> >> an option in instant run-off votes as previously interpreted:
> >> therefore PRESENT votes are not valid. I'm not sure Gaelan's funny
> >> business works either. You guys need to list players or do nothing at
> >> all.
> >>
> >>
> >> Accordingly I change my Assessor vote to G.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Rubin Stacy 
> >> wrote:
> >> > In order to clear up any and all confusion, I retract my vote for
> >> > Arbitor
> >> > and replace it with a PRESENT vote.
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > Trigon
> >> > --
> >> >
> >> > On Oct 5, 2017 12:39 AM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Addendum: ENDORSE votes not being votes apparently, I also publically
> >> >> shane Quazie, Trigon and Alexis,
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >> >> > I vote Alexis in the first election and PRESENT in the second.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:11 PM, VJ Rada 
> wrote:
> >> >> >> On the 27th, I initiated elections for Tailor and Assessor. I had
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> quorum at 2.0 but it was actually 8.0, I was right the first time.
> >> >> >> The
> >> >> >> incorrect statement changed nothing. Therefore, the election is
> >> >> >> extended by another 7 days. The votes currently stand at this:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ===Tailor===
> >> >> >> Alexis: Alexis
> >> >> >> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
> >> >> >> Trigon: Alexis
> >> >> >> PSS: {Alexis, PSS}
> >> >> >> o. If Alexis votes, endorse Alexis.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ===Assessor===
> >> >> >> Alexis: Endorse G.
> >> >> >> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
> >> >> >> Trigon: Endorse G.
> >> >> >> PSS: {PSS, G}
> >> >> >> o.: The first player to unconditionally vote themselves (that is
> >> >> >> currently PSS)
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I issue Humiliating Public Reminders to myself (oh dear!), Aris,
> >> >> >> Murphy, 天火狐, Gaelan, Ienpw III, omd, Bayushi, nichdel, G,
> >> >> >> Cuddlebeam,
> >> >> >> ATMunn and ProofTechnique.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I also would like to use this platform to unofficially remind all
> >> >> >> you
> >> >> >> fools to donate to the Community Chest.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> From V.J. Rada
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > From V.J. Rada
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> From V.J. Rada
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> From V.J. Rada
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Idea: Regulations Impovement

[VJ Rada]

"These regulations are power 0.1 and may be repealed by subsequent holders
of that office or by anyone with three support"


that's probably better. although pink slips are already able to be
subjectively platonically invalid based on the same "abuse of power"
phrasing.

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 11:13 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017, 01:33 VJ Rada,  wrote:
>>
>> Title: Regulations for all
>> Author: VJ Rada
>> AI: 1
>> Create a power 1 rule called "Office Regulations" with the text
>> {{The holder of an office may promulgate regulations regarding the
>> performance of actions tracked by eir office or the performance of the
>> office's duties. These regulations are power 0.1, are INEFFECTIVE if
>> they are an abuse of power, and may be repealed by subsequent holders
>> of that office or by anyone with three support}}.
>>
>> An issue with Regs: The rule for Regs says Regs are normally the power
>> of the rule authorizing them. However, Regs is only power 1.0 so
>> anything authorising Regs must be less than that.
>>
>> ---From V.J. Rada
>
>
> No subjective platonic invalidity, please.



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Innocent Mistake Ratification

[Alex Smith]

On Wed, 2017-10-04 at 23:27 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
> I don't buy this argument. "When a public document is ratified, rules
> to the contrary notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified to what it
> would be if, at the time the ratified document was published, the
> gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified document
> as true and accurate as possible." You can change the gamestate now
> the same as it would have been if something had been true a certain
> time. In your example, ratification would change the gamestate now to
> whatever the gamestate would have been if the floating value had been
> 132 on October 3. It doesn't make it true, it makes it "as true and
> accurate as possible". You can CFJ this if you like, but I think it's
> pretty clear as a matter of game custom if nothing else.

I don't see how a change to the present gamestate that simulates the
effect of the floating value having been 132 makes the statement "the
floating value was 132" any more true than not making it.

Ratification doesn't create a retroactive effect. It just sets the
current gamestate as though there were a retroactive effect. This means
that ratification can't change the past.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Idea: Regulations Impovement

[Alexis Hunt]

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017, 01:33 VJ Rada,  wrote:

> Title: Regulations for all
> Author: VJ Rada
> AI: 1
> Create a power 1 rule called "Office Regulations" with the text
> {{The holder of an office may promulgate regulations regarding the
> performance of actions tracked by eir office or the performance of the
> office's duties. These regulations are power 0.1, are INEFFECTIVE if
> they are an abuse of power, and may be repealed by subsequent holders
> of that office or by anyone with three support}}.
>
> An issue with Regs: The rule for Regs says Regs are normally the power
> of the rule authorizing them. However, Regs is only power 1.0 so
> anything authorising Regs must be less than that.
>
> ---From V.J. Rada
>

No subjective platonic invalidity, please.

>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

[VJ Rada]

ya the resolutions are anyways.

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 11:04 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017, 02:38 VJ Rada,  wrote:
>>
>> So uh let's self-ratify my ADoP report? Because every election I have
>> ever resolved didn't work according to this.
>
>
> It already is?



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

[Alexis Hunt]

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017, 02:38 VJ Rada,  wrote:

> So uh let's self-ratify my ADoP report? Because every election I have
> ever resolved didn't work according to this.
>

It already is?

>

DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Election Time Extension

[Aris Merchant]

The same rule makes PRESENT an option later on. In fact, that clause
explicitly overrides the previous one:


"The previous notwithstanding:
...
  - PRESENT is always a valid vote, with no effect on the outcome
except counting towards quorum."


-Aris





On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 12:04 AM VJ Rada  wrote:

> I don't think either your vote here or Gaelan's vote worked. According
> to rule 955 as interpreted by Alexis's most recent CFJ, in this
> context "the valid votes are ordered lists of options". PRESENT is not
> an option in instant run-off votes as previously interpreted:
> therefore PRESENT votes are not valid. I'm not sure Gaelan's funny
> business works either. You guys need to list players or do nothing at
> all.


> Accordingly I change my Assessor vote to G.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Rubin Stacy 
> wrote:
> > In order to clear up any and all confusion, I retract my vote for Arbitor
> > and replace it with a PRESENT vote.
> >
> > --
> > Trigon
> > --
> >
> > On Oct 5, 2017 12:39 AM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:
> >>
> >> Addendum: ENDORSE votes not being votes apparently, I also publically
> >> shane Quazie, Trigon and Alexis,
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >> > I vote Alexis in the first election and PRESENT in the second.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:11 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >> >> On the 27th, I initiated elections for Tailor and Assessor. I had the
> >> >> quorum at 2.0 but it was actually 8.0, I was right the first time.
> The
> >> >> incorrect statement changed nothing. Therefore, the election is
> >> >> extended by another 7 days. The votes currently stand at this:
> >> >>
> >> >> ===Tailor===
> >> >> Alexis: Alexis
> >> >> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
> >> >> Trigon: Alexis
> >> >> PSS: {Alexis, PSS}
> >> >> o. If Alexis votes, endorse Alexis.
> >> >>
> >> >> ===Assessor===
> >> >> Alexis: Endorse G.
> >> >> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
> >> >> Trigon: Endorse G.
> >> >> PSS: {PSS, G}
> >> >> o.: The first player to unconditionally vote themselves (that is
> >> >> currently PSS)
> >> >>
> >> >> I issue Humiliating Public Reminders to myself (oh dear!), Aris,
> >> >> Murphy, 天火狐, Gaelan, Ienpw III, omd, Bayushi, nichdel, G, Cuddlebeam,
> >> >> ATMunn and ProofTechnique.
> >> >>
> >> >> I also would like to use this platform to unofficially remind all you
> >> >> fools to donate to the Community Chest.
> >> >>
> >> >> From V.J. Rada
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > From V.J. Rada
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> From V.J. Rada
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Archive implementation (was DIS: Re: BUS: Archival disclosure)

[Owen Jacobson]

I have. It merits a more thorough response than I’ve been able to give it but 
with archiving up I can put thought towards it now. I’ll write more tomorrow.

-o

P.S.: https://twitter.com/derspiny/status/915838104304590848

> On Oct 5, 2017, at 2:21 AM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> o, have you seen this?
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:28 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
 This is the first stage of an attempt to create an annotation system 
 designed to formalize game state changes by attaching formal descriptions 
 of those changes to documents, represented by email messages. At this 
 time, I plan only to archive messages, but there will be a read element 
 allowing anonymous users to read and enumerate messages from the archive 
 in the near future.
>>> 
>>> The broader scheme here is this:
>>> 
>>> 1. A client app forwards public messages to the archive. They sit in an 
>>> “unannotated messages” queue until someone - me, probably - picks them up 
>>> and annotates them.
>>> 
>>> 2. A user annotates each message with a short formal description of the 
>>> game-state changes imposed by a message. These annotations are mutable, so 
>>> mistaken annotations are not a permanent problem, and are versioned so that 
>>> vandalism can be undone. I haven’t worked out the exact schema for these 
>>> annotations, yet, but the concept I’m working with is loosely based on the 
>>> RFC 6902 JSON Patch format, adapted for Agora’s specific needs. For 
>>> example, an annotation transferring shinies might read, in YAML form for 
>>> readability:
>>> 
 - op: event
  office: Secretary
  summary: o paid Ørjan 1 sh.
 
 - op: transfer
  from: /Shinies/Player/o
  to: /Shinies/Player/Ørjan
  delta: 1
>>> 
>>> Obviously, this is an awkward format, but it has some nice properties that 
>>> I think make it worth building on. I’m still tweaking the actual format for 
>>> annotaitons, and it’s likely I’ll add a UI or some variety of terse syntax 
>>> so that it’s possible to write this kind of simple action in fewer than 
>>> eight lines.
>>> 
>>> 3. The archive exposes an API that can sum up the annotations, starting 
>>> from the beginning of time, all the way up to a specific point in time, and 
>>> then return the computed state of the game plus a list of events by office. 
>>> My report scripts will become “query this API in a specific way, and feed 
>>> the resulting data to a template to render it for email.”
>>> 
>>> The idea is that instead of trying to reduce Agora to a set of formal 
>>> actions, I instead want to keep the prose forms as the primary documents 
>>> and allow formal note-taking alongside them. Many of Agora’s state changes 
>>> are formalizable, and from there, those parts of Agora’s state are 
>>> computable, so this could take a bunch of load off for computing those 
>>> parts of the game.
>>> 
>>> I’ve had some success with a reduced version of this approach for the 
>>> office of Surveyor. All Surveyor’s reports have been generated by a 
>>> built-to-purpose Python script that applies the same principles to a set of 
>>> local YAML files instead of a web API.
>>> 
>>> -o
>> 
>> I love this idea. It seems very practical without sacrificing
>> usability for the end users (i.e. the players). I have a few
>> suggestions:
>> 
>> 1. Who annotates. I think giving everyone access to the annotation
>> interface would probably make sense. You can't personally annotate
>> every message affecting the entire gamestate, and I'd love to help set
>> the formats I'm consuming for Promotor. nichdel came up with a
>> proposal format suggestion, and now that this has come along I'm
>> modifying it to have more information for the Promotor side of the
>> Promotor-Assessor pipeline. I'm sure other officers have input on how
>> formalization for their parts of the gamestate should take place, and
>> they have a unique understanding of what information is needed to do
>> their jobs.
>> 
>> 2. Annotation style. As you've mentioned, your format is a bit forced.
>> You're doing a great job with what you have to work with, but I think
>> the basic problem may be that you're trying to use markup to represent
>> transactions. It works wonderfully for representing the data (and
>> should probably be a base format for that), but poorly for
>> representing things like conditional actions. You can add and add to
>> the format, but you'll just be making it more complicated to use. I
>> suggest you consider using programs (possibly with methods you
>> provide) as annotations. It feels kind of intuitively weird to
>> represent an annotation as a program, and they don't have the nice
>> formal properties the data itself does (except maybe if you used
>> Haskell or something), but I think it might be a lot more practical
>> for 

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Election Time Extension

[VJ Rada]

Changed my mind on  Gaelan's actually, reading 3569 closely his vote
seems to be legit.

Your new vote does work yes :)

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 5:16 PM, Rubin Stacy  wrote:
> PF
>
> --
> Trigon
> --
>
> On Oct 5, 2017 1:11 AM, "Rubin Stacy"  wrote:
>>
>> Fine. Then let my vote be retracted and replaced with {PSS, G.}. Does that
>> work?
>>
>> --
>> Trigon
>> --
>>
>> On Oct 5, 2017 1:04 AM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't think either your vote here or Gaelan's vote worked. According
>>> to rule 955 as interpreted by Alexis's most recent CFJ, in this
>>> context "the valid votes are ordered lists of options". PRESENT is not
>>> an option in instant run-off votes as previously interpreted:
>>> therefore PRESENT votes are not valid. I'm not sure Gaelan's funny
>>> business works either. You guys need to list players or do nothing at
>>> all.
>>>
>>> Accordingly I change my Assessor vote to G.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Rubin Stacy 
>>> wrote:
>>> > In order to clear up any and all confusion, I retract my vote for
>>> > Arbitor
>>> > and replace it with a PRESENT vote.
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> > Trigon
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > On Oct 5, 2017 12:39 AM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Addendum: ENDORSE votes not being votes apparently, I also publically
>>> >> shane Quazie, Trigon and Alexis,
>>> >>
>>> >> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> >> > I vote Alexis in the first election and PRESENT in the second.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:11 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> >> >> On the 27th, I initiated elections for Tailor and Assessor. I had
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> quorum at 2.0 but it was actually 8.0, I was right the first time.
>>> >> >> The
>>> >> >> incorrect statement changed nothing. Therefore, the election is
>>> >> >> extended by another 7 days. The votes currently stand at this:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> ===Tailor===
>>> >> >> Alexis: Alexis
>>> >> >> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
>>> >> >> Trigon: Alexis
>>> >> >> PSS: {Alexis, PSS}
>>> >> >> o. If Alexis votes, endorse Alexis.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> ===Assessor===
>>> >> >> Alexis: Endorse G.
>>> >> >> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
>>> >> >> Trigon: Endorse G.
>>> >> >> PSS: {PSS, G}
>>> >> >> o.: The first player to unconditionally vote themselves (that is
>>> >> >> currently PSS)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I issue Humiliating Public Reminders to myself (oh dear!), Aris,
>>> >> >> Murphy, 天火狐, Gaelan, Ienpw III, omd, Bayushi, nichdel, G,
>>> >> >> Cuddlebeam,
>>> >> >> ATMunn and ProofTechnique.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I also would like to use this platform to unofficially remind all
>>> >> >> you
>>> >> >> fools to donate to the Community Chest.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> From V.J. Rada
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > --
>>> >> > From V.J. Rada
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> From V.J. Rada
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Election Time Extension

[Rubin Stacy]

Fine. Then let my vote be retracted and replaced with {PSS, G.}. Does that
work?

--
Trigon
--

On Oct 5, 2017 1:04 AM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:

> I don't think either your vote here or Gaelan's vote worked. According
> to rule 955 as interpreted by Alexis's most recent CFJ, in this
> context "the valid votes are ordered lists of options". PRESENT is not
> an option in instant run-off votes as previously interpreted:
> therefore PRESENT votes are not valid. I'm not sure Gaelan's funny
> business works either. You guys need to list players or do nothing at
> all.
>
> Accordingly I change my Assessor vote to G.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Rubin Stacy 
> wrote:
> > In order to clear up any and all confusion, I retract my vote for Arbitor
> > and replace it with a PRESENT vote.
> >
> > --
> > Trigon
> > --
> >
> > On Oct 5, 2017 12:39 AM, "VJ Rada"  wrote:
> >>
> >> Addendum: ENDORSE votes not being votes apparently, I also publically
> >> shane Quazie, Trigon and Alexis,
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >> > I vote Alexis in the first election and PRESENT in the second.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:11 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >> >> On the 27th, I initiated elections for Tailor and Assessor. I had the
> >> >> quorum at 2.0 but it was actually 8.0, I was right the first time.
> The
> >> >> incorrect statement changed nothing. Therefore, the election is
> >> >> extended by another 7 days. The votes currently stand at this:
> >> >>
> >> >> ===Tailor===
> >> >> Alexis: Alexis
> >> >> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
> >> >> Trigon: Alexis
> >> >> PSS: {Alexis, PSS}
> >> >> o. If Alexis votes, endorse Alexis.
> >> >>
> >> >> ===Assessor===
> >> >> Alexis: Endorse G.
> >> >> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
> >> >> Trigon: Endorse G.
> >> >> PSS: {PSS, G}
> >> >> o.: The first player to unconditionally vote themselves (that is
> >> >> currently PSS)
> >> >>
> >> >> I issue Humiliating Public Reminders to myself (oh dear!), Aris,
> >> >> Murphy, 天火狐, Gaelan, Ienpw III, omd, Bayushi, nichdel, G, Cuddlebeam,
> >> >> ATMunn and ProofTechnique.
> >> >>
> >> >> I also would like to use this platform to unofficially remind all you
> >> >> fools to donate to the Community Chest.
> >> >>
> >> >> From V.J. Rada
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > From V.J. Rada
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> From V.J. Rada
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Election Time Extension

[Gaelan Steele]

I unconditionally vote for Assessor as follows: {Gaelan, PSS} followed by {all 
players nichdel votes for, in the order in which e votes for them, excluding 
Gaelan and PSS}.

I list performing exactly the above action (considering any changes to 
nichdel's vote) as Performable By Agency (GII).

That should work like a conditional vote as long as someone remembers to update 
it before Assessment.

Gaelan

> On Oct 4, 2017, at 11:52 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> 
> I conditionally vote for Assessor as follows: {Gaelan, PSS} followed by {all 
> players nichdel votes for, in the order in which e votes for them, excluding 
> Gaelan and PSS}
> 
> Gaelan
> 
>> On Oct 4, 2017, at 11:41 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> 
>> I shame them, rather than shaning them. And what I meant was I issue
>> them Humiliating Public Reminders.
>> 
>> I also clarify that I vote Alexis in the Tailor election and PRESENT
>> for Assessor.
>> 
>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:39 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> Addendum: ENDORSE votes not being votes apparently, I also publically
>>> shane Quazie, Trigon and Alexis,
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
 I vote Alexis in the first election and PRESENT in the second.
 
 On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:11 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> On the 27th, I initiated elections for Tailor and Assessor. I had the
> quorum at 2.0 but it was actually 8.0, I was right the first time. The
> incorrect statement changed nothing. Therefore, the election is
> extended by another 7 days. The votes currently stand at this:
> 
> ===Tailor===
> Alexis: Alexis
> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
> Trigon: Alexis
> PSS: {Alexis, PSS}
> o. If Alexis votes, endorse Alexis.
> 
> ===Assessor===
> Alexis: Endorse G.
> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
> Trigon: Endorse G.
> PSS: {PSS, G}
> o.: The first player to unconditionally vote themselves (that is 
> currently PSS)
> 
> I issue Humiliating Public Reminders to myself (oh dear!), Aris,
> Murphy, 天火狐, Gaelan, Ienpw III, omd, Bayushi, nichdel, G, Cuddlebeam,
> ATMunn and ProofTechnique.
> 
> I also would like to use this platform to unofficially remind all you
> fools to donate to the Community Chest.
> 
> From V.J. Rada
 
 
 
 --
 From V.J. Rada
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> From V.J. Rada
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> From V.J. Rada
> 

DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Election Time Extension

[VJ Rada]

They don't even count towards quorum. You need to make a definitive vote.

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:53 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> Conditional votes do not work, see Alexis's latest CFJ.
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> I conditionally vote for Assessor as follows: {Gaelan, PSS} followed by {all 
>> players nichdel votes for, in the order in which e votes for them, excluding 
>> Gaelan and PSS}
>>
>> Gaelan
>>
>>> On Oct 4, 2017, at 11:41 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>>
>>> I shame them, rather than shaning them. And what I meant was I issue
>>> them Humiliating Public Reminders.
>>>
>>> I also clarify that I vote Alexis in the Tailor election and PRESENT
>>> for Assessor.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:39 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
 Addendum: ENDORSE votes not being votes apparently, I also publically
 shane Quazie, Trigon and Alexis,

 On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> I vote Alexis in the first election and PRESENT in the second.
>
> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:11 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> On the 27th, I initiated elections for Tailor and Assessor. I had the
>> quorum at 2.0 but it was actually 8.0, I was right the first time. The
>> incorrect statement changed nothing. Therefore, the election is
>> extended by another 7 days. The votes currently stand at this:
>>
>> ===Tailor===
>> Alexis: Alexis
>> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
>> Trigon: Alexis
>> PSS: {Alexis, PSS}
>> o. If Alexis votes, endorse Alexis.
>>
>> ===Assessor===
>> Alexis: Endorse G.
>> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
>> Trigon: Endorse G.
>> PSS: {PSS, G}
>> o.: The first player to unconditionally vote themselves (that is 
>> currently PSS)
>>
>> I issue Humiliating Public Reminders to myself (oh dear!), Aris,
>> Murphy, 天火狐, Gaelan, Ienpw III, omd, Bayushi, nichdel, G, Cuddlebeam,
>> ATMunn and ProofTechnique.
>>
>> I also would like to use this platform to unofficially remind all you
>> fools to donate to the Community Chest.
>>
>> From V.J. Rada
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



 --
 From V.J. Rada
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Election Time Extension

[VJ Rada]

Conditional votes do not work, see Alexis's latest CFJ.


On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> I conditionally vote for Assessor as follows: {Gaelan, PSS} followed by {all 
> players nichdel votes for, in the order in which e votes for them, excluding 
> Gaelan and PSS}
>
> Gaelan
>
>> On Oct 4, 2017, at 11:41 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> I shame them, rather than shaning them. And what I meant was I issue
>> them Humiliating Public Reminders.
>>
>> I also clarify that I vote Alexis in the Tailor election and PRESENT
>> for Assessor.
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:39 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> Addendum: ENDORSE votes not being votes apparently, I also publically
>>> shane Quazie, Trigon and Alexis,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:12 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
 I vote Alexis in the first election and PRESENT in the second.

 On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:11 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> On the 27th, I initiated elections for Tailor and Assessor. I had the
> quorum at 2.0 but it was actually 8.0, I was right the first time. The
> incorrect statement changed nothing. Therefore, the election is
> extended by another 7 days. The votes currently stand at this:
>
> ===Tailor===
> Alexis: Alexis
> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
> Trigon: Alexis
> PSS: {Alexis, PSS}
> o. If Alexis votes, endorse Alexis.
>
> ===Assessor===
> Alexis: Endorse G.
> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
> Trigon: Endorse G.
> PSS: {PSS, G}
> o.: The first player to unconditionally vote themselves (that is 
> currently PSS)
>
> I issue Humiliating Public Reminders to myself (oh dear!), Aris,
> Murphy, 天火狐, Gaelan, Ienpw III, omd, Bayushi, nichdel, G, Cuddlebeam,
> ATMunn and ProofTechnique.
>
> I also would like to use this platform to unofficially remind all you
> fools to donate to the Community Chest.
>
> From V.J. Rada



 --
 From V.J. Rada
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration

[VJ Rada]

I am well aware of that :). G. has been around in various forms since
2002, right?

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> Of course, many of us (including me) have registered multiple times in the 
> past.
>
> Gaelan
>
>> On Oct 4, 2017, at 10:56 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 5, 2017, at 1:44 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>>
>>> Without objection, I intend to deregister our longest standing player, 
>>> Murphy.
>>>
>>> If this goes through every player will have joined this year I think.
>>> ais deregistered recently,
>>
>> omd has been continuously registered for longer than I’ve been a player.
>>
>> -o
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deregistration

[Gaelan Steele]

Of course, many of us (including me) have registered multiple times in the past.

Gaelan

> On Oct 4, 2017, at 10:56 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Oct 5, 2017, at 1:44 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> 
>> Without objection, I intend to deregister our longest standing player, 
>> Murphy.
>> 
>> If this goes through every player will have joined this year I think.
>> ais deregistered recently,
> 
> omd has been continuously registered for longer than I’ve been a player.
> 
> -o
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3569 assigned to Alexis

[VJ Rada]

So uh let's self-ratify my ADoP report? Because every election I have
ever resolved didn't work according to this.

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 19:00 Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > I CFJ on the following by paying a shiny:
>> > If grok had not deregistered, e would have issued trust tokens to
>> > both Aris and G. by eir vote on Proposal 7899.
>>
>>
>> This is CFJ 3569 - I assign it to Alexis.
>
>
> The question here hinges around the definition of "endorsed". Rule 2452
> states:
>
>When the Assessor resolves a Decision to adopt a proposal, then
>any player who cast a valid vote on the Decision and was
>endorsed by another player's valid vote on the Decision is
>issued a Trust Token by the endorsing player.
>
> As G. submitted, grok voted "Endorse Aris" on Proposal 7899 and Aris voted
> "Endorse the Arbitor". At all relevant times, G. was the Assessor and this
> is not in dispute.
>
> G. submitted arguments that could argue in favour of multiple
> interpretations, but ultimately, the first place to look is at the
> definition of a valid vote, found in Rule 955, since Rule 2452 requires
> endorsement "by another player's valid vote". It is clear that on any Agoran
> decision with an Adoption Index, including the one at issue, the valid votes
> are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT.
>
> How does this line up with conditional votes? Rule 2127 defines:
>
>   If a vote on an Agoran decision is submitted conditionally (e.g.
>   "FOR if  is true, otherwise AGAINST"), then the selected
>   option is evaluated based on the value of the condition(s) at
>   the end of the voting period, and, rules to the contrary
>   notwithstanding, is clearly specified if and only if the value
>   of the condition(s) is/are determinate at the end of the voting
>   period.  If the option cannot be clearly identified, a vote of
>   PRESENT is cast.
>
>   Casting a vote endorsing another voter is equivalent to
>   conditionally casting a vote whose value is the same as the most
>   common value (if any) among that voter's valid votes on that
>   decision.
>
> This presents some difficulty, as Rule 2127 does not actually expand the
> definition of a valid vote provided in Rule 955. As a result, a conditional
> vote cannot be considered to be a valid vote at the time that it is cast,
> although Rule 2127 indicates that it is evaluated to one at the end of the
> voting period.
>
> Unfortunately, there is an additional wrinkle. According to Rule 683:
>
>   An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran decision by publishing a
>   notice satisfying the following conditions:
>
>   [...]
>
>   4. The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by
>  the voting method.
>
> Per established precedent, the correctness of a ballot submission is
> evaluated at the time of its submission. grok's vote of "Endorse Aris" did
> not clearly identify any of the three valid options, to wit, FOR, AGAINST,
> or PRESENT. Therefore the ballot was not even valid to begin with, and so
> there is no way for it to have resulted in an award of Trust Tokens.
>
> Consequently, I judge CFJ 3569 FALSE, claim the CFJ Reward of 7 shinies for
> doing so, and Drop the Mic.
>
> -Alexis



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Secretary] Innocent Mistake Ratification

[Aris Merchant]

I don't buy this argument. "When a public document is ratified, rules
to the contrary notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified to what it
would be if, at the time the ratified document was published, the
gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified document as
true and accurate as possible." You can change the gamestate now the
same as it would have been if something had been true a certain time.
In your example, ratification would change the gamestate now to
whatever the gamestate would have been if the floating value had been
132 on October 3. It doesn't make it true, it makes it "as true and
accurate as possible". You can CFJ this if you like, but I think it's
pretty clear as a matter of game custom if nothing else.

-Aris

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-10-05 at 01:28 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> I intend, without objection, to ratify that, at the moment the
>> Secretary published eir purported Weekly Report on October 3rd, the
>> Floating Value was as follows:
>>
>> {
>>   Floating Value: 132
>> }
>>
>> (This is a portion of the Secretary’s report on that date.)
>
> I don't think this works; you ratify documents, not facts.
>
> Come to think of it, I don't think it's possible to ratify a statement
> about the past unless that statement was actually published on that
> date (possibly untruthfully). You can't change the present gamestate so
> as to cause a change in the past, after all; and ratification uses the
> time of publication of the document as the reference time to change to.
> So if you want to set the gamestate as though a change had become 132
> on October 3, you need to actually find a document published on October
> 3 that states that the Floating Value is 132. (If you attempt to ratify
> a document that says "The Floating Value was 132 on October 3", nothing
> changes, as there's no way to change the present gamestate to make that
> true.)
>
> I'm glad that ratification isn't more general than this; people have
> been trying to use it as a general solution to problems quite a bit
> recently, which it isn't really intended for. In particular, using
> ratification to bypass the proposal mechanism isn't really a great
> thing to do; we don't have a method of passing proposals without-
> objection for a reason, and attempts to add one have been shot down in
> the past.
>
> --
> ais523

Re: DIS: Archive implementation (was DIS: Re: BUS: Archival disclosure)

[Aris Merchant]

o, have you seen this?

-Aris

On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 12:28 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>>> This is the first stage of an attempt to create an annotation system 
>>> designed to formalize game state changes by attaching formal descriptions 
>>> of those changes to documents, represented by email messages. At this time, 
>>> I plan only to archive messages, but there will be a read element allowing 
>>> anonymous users to read and enumerate messages from the archive in the near 
>>> future.
>>
>> The broader scheme here is this:
>>
>> 1. A client app forwards public messages to the archive. They sit in an 
>> “unannotated messages” queue until someone - me, probably - picks them up 
>> and annotates them.
>>
>> 2. A user annotates each message with a short formal description of the 
>> game-state changes imposed by a message. These annotations are mutable, so 
>> mistaken annotations are not a permanent problem, and are versioned so that 
>> vandalism can be undone. I haven’t worked out the exact schema for these 
>> annotations, yet, but the concept I’m working with is loosely based on the 
>> RFC 6902 JSON Patch format, adapted for Agora’s specific needs. For example, 
>> an annotation transferring shinies might read, in YAML form for readability:
>>
>>> - op: event
>>>   office: Secretary
>>>   summary: o paid Ørjan 1 sh.
>>>
>>> - op: transfer
>>>   from: /Shinies/Player/o
>>>   to: /Shinies/Player/Ørjan
>>>   delta: 1
>>
>> Obviously, this is an awkward format, but it has some nice properties that I 
>> think make it worth building on. I’m still tweaking the actual format for 
>> annotaitons, and it’s likely I’ll add a UI or some variety of terse syntax 
>> so that it’s possible to write this kind of simple action in fewer than 
>> eight lines.
>>
>> 3. The archive exposes an API that can sum up the annotations, starting from 
>> the beginning of time, all the way up to a specific point in time, and then 
>> return the computed state of the game plus a list of events by office. My 
>> report scripts will become “query this API in a specific way, and feed the 
>> resulting data to a template to render it for email.”
>>
>> The idea is that instead of trying to reduce Agora to a set of formal 
>> actions, I instead want to keep the prose forms as the primary documents and 
>> allow formal note-taking alongside them. Many of Agora’s state changes are 
>> formalizable, and from there, those parts of Agora’s state are computable, 
>> so this could take a bunch of load off for computing those parts of the game.
>>
>> I’ve had some success with a reduced version of this approach for the office 
>> of Surveyor. All Surveyor’s reports have been generated by a 
>> built-to-purpose Python script that applies the same principles to a set of 
>> local YAML files instead of a web API.
>>
>> -o
>
> I love this idea. It seems very practical without sacrificing
> usability for the end users (i.e. the players). I have a few
> suggestions:
>
> 1. Who annotates. I think giving everyone access to the annotation
> interface would probably make sense. You can't personally annotate
> every message affecting the entire gamestate, and I'd love to help set
> the formats I'm consuming for Promotor. nichdel came up with a
> proposal format suggestion, and now that this has come along I'm
> modifying it to have more information for the Promotor side of the
> Promotor-Assessor pipeline. I'm sure other officers have input on how
> formalization for their parts of the gamestate should take place, and
> they have a unique understanding of what information is needed to do
> their jobs.
>
> 2. Annotation style. As you've mentioned, your format is a bit forced.
> You're doing a great job with what you have to work with, but I think
> the basic problem may be that you're trying to use markup to represent
> transactions. It works wonderfully for representing the data (and
> should probably be a base format for that), but poorly for
> representing things like conditional actions. You can add and add to
> the format, but you'll just be making it more complicated to use. I
> suggest you consider using programs (possibly with methods you
> provide) as annotations. It feels kind of intuitively weird to
> represent an annotation as a program, and they don't have the nice
> formal properties the data itself does (except maybe if you used
> Haskell or something), but I think it might be a lot more practical
> for actual use. Programs allow for loops, unrestricted conditionals,
> and the like, meaning that you don't have to work something out by
> hand or create a new transaction type just for one complicated
> transaction. They would work well for this because they take data and
> compute changes, which is exactly what our action system does. There
> is thus a neat one-to-one correspondence between an action and a
> program.
>
> o, 

DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Election Time Extension

[VJ Rada]

I vote Alexis in the first election and PRESENT in the second.

On Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 4:11 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> On the 27th, I initiated elections for Tailor and Assessor. I had the
> quorum at 2.0 but it was actually 8.0, I was right the first time. The
> incorrect statement changed nothing. Therefore, the election is
> extended by another 7 days. The votes currently stand at this:
>
> ===Tailor===
> Alexis: Alexis
> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
> Trigon: Alexis
> PSS: {Alexis, PSS}
> o. If Alexis votes, endorse Alexis.
>
> ===Assessor===
> Alexis: Endorse G.
> Quazie: Endorse G unless that would lead to a vote for Quazie
> Trigon: Endorse G.
> PSS: {PSS, G}
> o.: The first player to unconditionally vote themselves (that is currently 
> PSS)
>
> I issue Humiliating Public Reminders to myself (oh dear!), Aris,
> Murphy, 天火狐, Gaelan, Ienpw III, omd, Bayushi, nichdel, G, Cuddlebeam,
> ATMunn and ProofTechnique.
>
> I also would like to use this platform to unofficially remind all you
> fools to donate to the Community Chest.
>
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report (rev. 1)

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Oct 5, 2017, at 1:40 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> " Date of last report: Tue, 26 Sep 2017"
> 
> This is wrong, although it doesn't matter.

Is it? The last correct report, up to information known at the time of 
publication, was on that date. I actually picked that intentionally to 
acknowledge that this is not a new report, but a revision (plus time slew) of 
the previous report.

That’s not to say I think you’re _wrong_, and I didn’t do that consistently 
throughout the report - the events list still shows the “Last Report” line as 
if the Oct 3 report happened.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of proposal 7877

[Owen Jacobson]

On Oct 4, 2017, at 6:07 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> There’s also a message in the agora-business archive bearing
> 
> Date: some time near the end of July


On Oct 4, 2017, at 10:33 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> Who did that?

ais523. The headers as a whole are pretty amusing, actually:

From: ais523 
To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org
X-Mailer: Typed by hand over telnet because Yahoo thinks this is spam somehow
Date: some time near the end of July
Message-Id: <20090731172123.41e1881...@yzma.clarkk.net>
Subject: BUS: OFF: [Ambassador] Foreign Relations

The content, however, is perfectly mundane: it’s a report body, and doesn’t 
appear to have been subject to any major dispute or revision at the time. 
Interestingly, I can’t find it in any of mailman’s web archives.

-o


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP