Re: DIS: ayy i made a code thing

This was sent to my spam filter for some reason On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 12:59 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > I mentioned a while ago that I spent a lot of time on Saturday working on > my Cartographor automation. And since PAoaM is still gonna take a while to > be passed, I

DIS: ayy i made a code thing

I mentioned a while ago that I spent a lot of time on Saturday working on my Cartographor automation. And since PAoaM is still gonna take a while to be passed, I figured I'd just show y'all. http://github.com/AgoraNomic/Cartographor generate.py makes htmls and (soon) text files that hold all

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

G. wrote: On Sun, 11 Feb 2018, Edward Murphy wrote: ArbitorMurphy 2018-01-28(ongoing) 2 Did someone re-start this election after winning it? This is one that was confusing me earlier. No, that's incorrect data, will fix shortly.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fact-Checker's Guild

You still need another supporter. Gaelan > On Feb 11, 2018, at 8:49 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > Yes, that's a bit the intent. > > A bit of a ridiculous way to make someone lose some shinies because the > Auction is underway but oh well lol *dabs* > >> On Mon, Feb 12,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fact-Checker's Guild

Yes, that's a bit the intent. A bit of a ridiculous way to make someone lose some shinies because the Auction is underway but oh well lol *dabs* On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 5:40 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I object. Consent requires 50-50, and unless you can convince someone else

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fact-Checker's Guild

Oops—meant to say that consent requires 51%. > On Feb 11, 2018, at 8:40 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > I object. Consent requires 50-50, and unless you can convince someone else to > support this, I’m safe. Besides, even if you get a co-conspirator, I’m > automatically kicked

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fact-Checker's Guild

Random FYI: some of your emails are displayed as Madeline , while rest are Telnaior . That’s probably worth fixing to avoid confusion (signing your emails is also a good habit to get into as well). Gaelan > On Feb 11, 2018, at 7:49 PM, Madeline

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fact-Checker's Guild

Muphry's Law strikes again~ On 2018-02-12 14:45, Gaelan Steele wrote: In intend, without objection, to rename this guild to “The Fact-Checkers’ Guild”. This is embarrassing. Gaelan On Feb 11, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: I throw a shiny at Agora and create the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fact-Checker's Guild

Does it even have a title? It looks to me like it has no title and a first line of text that is grammatically incorrect. On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 22:45, Gaelan Steele wrote: > In intend, without objection, to rename this guild to “The Fact-Checkers’ > Guild”. > > This is

DIS: Re: BUS: Fact-Checker's Guild

In intend, without objection, to rename this guild to “The Fact-Checkers’ Guild”. This is embarrassing. Gaelan > On Feb 11, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > I throw a shiny at Agora and create the following contract: > > { > THE FACT-CHECKER’S GUILD > > This

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8010-8014

Burma shave On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 22:23, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Browsing the Archives > Is much easier for me > If binned into months > > On Sun, 11 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > Mailman is mean > > And requires a password > > Use Mail-Archive > > > > (Please) >

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8010-8014

Browsing the Archives Is much easier for me If binned into months On Sun, 11 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Mailman is mean > And requires a password > Use Mail-Archive > > (Please) > > Gaelan > > > On Feb 11, 2018, at 6:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > >

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8010-8014

Mailman is mean And requires a password Use Mail-Archive (Please) Gaelan > On Feb 11, 2018, at 6:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 11 Feb 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: >> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, > > I don't mean to fuss and I don't mean to

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8010-8014

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, I don't mean to fuss and I don't mean to bug But you swept this proposal under a rug: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-February/037795.html

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018, Edward Murphy wrote: > ArbitorMurphy 2018-01-28(ongoing) 2 Did someone re-start this election after winning it? This is one that was confusing me earlier.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

Which is the summary and which is the main though? On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:34 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > The list of changes may be a summary that is ignored ("if such a document > can be divided into a summary section and a main section, where the only > purpose of the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

The list of changes may be a summary that is ignored ("if such a document can be divided into a summary section and a main section, where the only purpose of the summary section is to summarize information in the main section, and the main section is internally consistent, ratification of the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

Alternate alternate: a document purporting to be values from a year ago is no more purporting to hold the actual report then if someone published "Here's what the switches were last year" On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote: > Or, alternate argument: such a document would fail to be "the

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

Actions have consequences, my friend. Gaelan > On Feb 11, 2018, at 5:36 PM, Madeline wrote: > > And why do you make it sound like I'm not going to be Tailor anymore... :(

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

Or, alternate argument: such a document would fail to be "the value of each instance of that switch whose value is not its default value;" and therefore fail to even satisfy the reporting requirement. On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 21:22, Alexis Hunt wrote: > I don't think

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

I don't think self-ratification would work that way, though. Self-ratification is clearly limited in scope to the listings themselves. I don't think any surrounding disclaimers or the like are included. On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 21:21, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > The ratified

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

The ratified report in man also has 2017. I'm sure that ratification works that way if you explicitly write "The following holding were true on 'date'" because we've done that before. The question in my mind is whether a less directed "Date of this report" has the same effect. On Mon, 12 Feb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

The transaction dates aren't self-ratifying, just the ribbon holdings I think? On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I'm pretty sure that the date of the report is part of the report. > > But, you do have information from the future in that report, which seems > absurd, but we have

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

Reports as a whole don't ratify, though. Only parts of them do, and the date is, as far as I know, not a part of it. On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 21:16, Cuddle Beam wrote: > I'm pretty sure that the date of the report is part of the report. > > But, you do have information from

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

I'm pretty sure that the date of the report is part of the report. But, you do have information from the future in that report, which seems absurd, but we have ratified (deliberately!!!) absurdities before, so I don't think it matters. What's there is there. On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:14 AM,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

It... might be the case, but then I'm pretty certain it'd override the previous self-ratifications and just make it so that everyone's had these ribbons for a year. Also, the rules are very strict on "nothing self-ratifies unless we explicitly say it does", and nowhere does it say the date of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

> Remember, we apply very strict scrutiny to scams and tiny errors are enough to stop it. To further support this, I believe scams rely precisely on a pedantic reading of the rules and content, to have your "scam content" be impervious to it would be special pleading. To support Tel's Ribbon, we

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

The ratified report was correct though, wasn't it? In any case, I'm not sure ratification works that way, but I'm not sure it can't either. I don't recall any precedent about it, though. On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 21:07, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > When you ratify a report

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

When you ratify a report that includes a specific "this is the date this report is for", my understanding is that this modifies the values for that date. Just like my recent attempt to ratify "On (date) there were no elections". In this case, you would have ratified everyone's ribbon holdings

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I don't think this will work, but let's do some rule science to find out

I'd try to claim dibbs on this too but I already have one pending lol On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:03 AM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I favor this CFJ. > > -Aris > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 6:00 PM, ATMunn wrote: > > I do not consent to

DIS: Re: BUS: I don't think this will work, but let's do some rule science to find out

I favor this CFJ. -Aris On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 6:00 PM, ATMunn wrote: > I do not consent to abiding by any rule stating that I cannot register as a > player. > > I register as a player. > > I free-CFJ on the following statement: "ATMunn is a player." > > Arguments: > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

Occasional profanity is PG-13 so no worries lol On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 2:41 AM, ATMunn wrote: > pls no swearing kthxbye > > > On 2/11/2018 7:19 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > >> Oh shit, true. Well, OK. >> >> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:17 AM, Aris Merchant < >>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

The way the rule is written, I don't think it is a relative duration...? On 2018-02-12 12:40, Alexis Hunt wrote: "These definitions do not apply to relative durations (e.g. "within days after ")." On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 20:39, Madeline wrote: I put in a CFJ earlier, I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

pls no swearing kthxbye On 2/11/2018 7:19 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: Oh shit, true. Well, OK. On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:17 AM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: It was in eir previous report. -Aris On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 4:15 PM Cuddle Beam

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

"These definitions do not apply to relative durations (e.g. "within days after ")." On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 20:39, Madeline wrote: > I put in a CFJ earlier, I think right now self-ratification requires a > full Agoran week (which is why I waited this long). > > On 2018-02-12

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

I put in a CFJ earlier, I think right now self-ratification requires a full Agoran week (which is why I waited this long). On 2018-02-12 12:37, Alexis Hunt wrote: The date is still off, though---it happened one week after the previous report. On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 19:19, Cuddle Beam

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

The date is still off, though---it happened one week after the previous report. On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 19:19, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Oh shit, true. Well, OK. > > On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:17 AM, Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It was in

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

Pfft, and here I thought I'd survived the new year without accidentally dating something 2017. And why do you make it sound like I'm not going to be Tailor anymore... :( On 2018-02-12 12:32, Gaelan Steele wrote: This report is dated 2017. Don’t believe that changes anything, but the future

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: campaign against campaigns

On Sun, 11 Feb 2018, Edward Murphy wrote: > G. wrote: > > > Actually, from what I can tell the issue is the accuracy/timeliness of the > > recent > > Metareport, > > I've finished writing the record-event code, I'm just about to > start testing it. Hopefully things will be caught up within the

DIS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

This report is dated 2017. Don’t believe that changes anything, but the future Tailor should probably fix it. Gaelan > On Feb 11, 2018, at 4:06 PM, Telnaior wrote: > > TAILOR'S RIBBON REPORT > -- > > Date of this report: 2017-02-12 > Date of last

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: campaign against campaigns

G. wrote: Actually, from what I can tell the issue is the accuracy/timeliness of the recent Metareport, I've finished writing the record-event code, I'm just about to start testing it. Hopefully things will be caught up within the next few hours.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

Proto: ---*--- Anti-Corruption: With 3 Agoran Consent, a player can target an honor (a ribbon, a win, etc) that has been granted to another player within the past year (365 Agoran Days) as Corrupt, along pointing out where public trust in an Office has been breached to accomplish gaining

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

I'd keep the ribbon and adjust the Black Ribbon rules, it's too much of an incentive to abuse trust in an official position and I believe a better direction would be for it to be rewarded for non-social mechanical artistry (as non-social as it can be...). On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:56 AM, Kerim

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alex Smith wrote: > On Sun, 2018-02-11 at 16:48 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alex Smith wrote: > > > On Sun, 2018-02-11 at 16:41 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > > > This change, mind you, would make G win. > > > > > > Well, it's one of the more

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

On Sun, 2018-02-11 at 16:48 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Sun, 2018-02-11 at 16:41 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > > This change, mind you, would make G win. > > > > Well, it's one of the more ingenious ways to deal with a missing black > > ribbon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

Honestly I doubt that the pink slip would be a punishment at all because support to replace you likely wouldn't exist. On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote: > It's hard to deny that... > > On 2018-02-12 11:40, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Pink slip is most appropriate however. > > > > On Mon,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

Yeah that was me when I had tailor and was pondering it. Not 100% clear that works it's an uncertain CFJ to be sure. (I published a hash of a denial at the time but then went for that proposal that failed on a technicality instead). On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote: > It's worth noting

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

It's worth noting someone (Murphy?) mentioned a couple of months ago that the real scam is that you don't have to deny the CoE publicly, which would allow it to work even if someone noticed. On 2018-02-12 11:48, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alex Smith wrote: On Sun, 2018-02-11 at

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

(Because scams are a big part of nomic and it wouldn't be "complete" without it) On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:49 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Scams ARE the method. > > I find that ribbons are a bit like the Nomic Decathlon of Agora, and Black > Ribbons are the scam challenge. It

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

Scams ARE the method. I find that ribbons are a bit like the Nomic Decathlon of Agora, and Black Ribbons are the scam challenge. It would feel a lot less Decathlon-like if we removed that challenge. On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:44 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Sorry, I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alex Smith wrote: > On Sun, 2018-02-11 at 16:41 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > This change, mind you, would make G win. > > Well, it's one of the more ingenious ways to deal with a missing black > ribbon that I've seen. Eh it's pretty darn obvious and dull if your tailor

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

Sorry, I meant to say give an earnable method (that I'm no closer to that anyone) for black. Disliked them for at least a year when I was nowhere near winning. On Sun, 11 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote: > This change, mind you, would make G win. > > Gaelan > > > On Feb 11, 2018, at 4:39 PM,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

If that were the case, I just wouldn't have come clean about it... On 2018-02-12 11:42, Cuddle Beam wrote: I think the challenge should be to get Black Ribbons without getting cards. On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:39 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: How about we get rid of black

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

On Sun, 2018-02-11 at 16:41 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote: > This change, mind you, would make G win. Well, it's one of the more ingenious ways to deal with a missing black ribbon that I've seen. It was intended to be mostly economic (bribe people to vote for your proposal to give you one), but

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

It's hard to deny that... On 2018-02-12 11:40, Kerim Aydin wrote: Pink slip is most appropriate however. On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote: I would request "not a pink slip please" on the grounds that I won't do it again (not that I have a reason to at this point, and now that reports

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

I think the challenge should be to get Black Ribbons without getting cards. On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:39 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > How about we get rid of black ribbons altogether I loathe them > (And am certainly not willing to make a rules exception for them). > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

This change, mind you, would make G win. Gaelan > On Feb 11, 2018, at 4:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > How about we get rid of black ribbons altogether I loathe them > (And am certainly not willing to make a rules exception for them). > > On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alex

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

Pink slip is most appropriate however. On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote: > I would request "not a pink slip please" on the grounds that I won't do it > again (not that I have a reason to at this point, and now that reports aren't > protected I think it's possible to contract to ensure I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

How about we get rid of black ribbons altogether I loathe them (And am certainly not willing to make a rules exception for them). On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 00:35 +, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Sun, 2018-02-11 at 16:32 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > As

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 00:35 +, Alex Smith wrote: > On Sun, 2018-02-11 at 16:32 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > As referee I'm conflicted. On one hand this is blatant use > > of office for personal gain, on the other hand I convinced myself > > when I was Tailor that the nature/ expectation of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

I already did that D: On 2018-02-12 11:35, Gaelan Steele wrote: I point my finger at Telnaior for violation of rule 2143/26, third to last paragraph. If we don’t want to punish for this, we should codify it in the rules. Gaelan On Feb 11, 2018, at 4:32 PM, Kerim Aydin

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

I would request "not a pink slip please" on the grounds that I won't do it again (not that I have a reason to at this point, and now that reports aren't protected I think it's possible to contract to ensure I couldn't) (plus now that I've got it I don't need to be looking for ways to get it,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

On Sun, 2018-02-11 at 16:32 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > As referee I'm conflicted. On one hand this is blatant use > of office for personal gain, on the other hand I convinced myself > when I was Tailor that the nature/ expectation of Black ribbons made > this particular scam expected/ok. I look

DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

As referee I'm conflicted. On one hand this is blatant use of office for personal gain, on the other hand I convinced myself when I was Tailor that the nature/ expectation of Black ribbons made this particular scam expected/ok. On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Telnaior wrote: > This is a Notice of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

Oh shit, true. Well, OK. On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:17 AM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > It was in eir previous report. > > -Aris > > On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 4:15 PM Cuddle Beam wrote: > > > CoE: > > > > 2018-02-12 Telnaior+K

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

Check the last report. On 2018-02-12 11:15, Cuddle Beam wrote: CoE: 2018-02-12 Telnaior+K (self-ratification) You haven't earned it YET, self-ratification is after its undoubted for a week, as per R2201. On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:06 AM, Telnaior wrote:

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

It was in eir previous report. -Aris On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 4:15 PM Cuddle Beam wrote: > CoE: > > 2018-02-12 Telnaior+K (self-ratification) > > You haven't earned it YET, self-ratification is after its undoubted for a > week, as per R2201. > > On Mon, Feb 12,

DIS: Re: BUS: PAoaM v7: "Screw you, Aris" edition

We'd probably need some kind of win condition with resources I believe, otherwise they're just cool numbers dancing around without much apparent "game" purpose. So, PROTO: * If nobody else has done so current the current Agoran Month, a player may Do a Parade by announcement and

DIS: Temporary HLR

I’ve ported the HLR generation code to Haskell and submitted it as a PR to the AgoraNomic/Ruleset repository. In the time being, I’ve generated a copy of the HLR from the latest ruleset files; it is available at https://gaelan.keybase.pub/hlr.html . Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: campaign against campaigns

It says they're "ongoing" weeks ago. I'll be resigning assessor rather than resolve these - thx. On Sun, 11 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 14:28, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > I intend to ratify the following {}-delimited document without

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] required deregistrations intents

Note I'm required to start a zombie auction for omd soon. (Overdue actually) On Sun, 11 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote: > I support the intents for o and Quazie, but object to the intent for omd. > > > On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 11:14, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > I

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8008-8009

*cries because I spent literally hours today making the automation because I thought it was going to be enacted tomorrow without any problems.* On Feb 11, 2018 01:46, "Aris Merchant" wrote: > On Mon, Feb 5, 2018 at 7:02 PM Edward Murphy