Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Testo Testerino

2018-06-23 Thread Aris Merchant
I didn't get it from OFF, but did from the other two.

-Aris

On Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 10:45 PM Corona  wrote:

> This was delivered to me from all three lists. Does Official work again?
>
> ~Corona
>
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 5:20 AM, Ned Strange 
> wrote:
>
> > Test
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
> >
>


DIS: Re: BUS: Testo Testerino

2018-06-23 Thread Corona
This was delivered to me from all three lists. Does Official work again?

~Corona

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 5:20 AM, Ned Strange 
wrote:

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


DIS: Testo Testerino

2018-06-23 Thread Ned Strange
Test

-- 
>From V.J. Rada


Re: DIS: I'm no longer getting BUS messages

2018-06-23 Thread Ned Strange
I think it might be time to start using the method of doing actions by
directly messaging each player

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 11:55 AM, Ned Strange  wrote:
> I am getting BUS including your tests
>
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>
>>
>> I haven't received anything from BUS in my inbox for 48 hours.
>> It's clear froM DIS that others have, I'm missing major threads.
>> Is anyone else NOT receiving from BUS (but is from DIS?)  Never
>> had this issue before.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada


Re: DIS: I'm no longer getting BUS messages

2018-06-23 Thread Ned Strange
I am getting BUS including your tests

On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 10:49 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> I haven't received anything from BUS in my inbox for 48 hours.
> It's clear froM DIS that others have, I'm missing major threads.
> Is anyone else NOT receiving from BUS (but is from DIS?)  Never
> had this issue before.
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election update

2018-06-23 Thread Ørjan Johansen

On Sat, 23 Jun 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


- In terms of automation, a system would have to distinguish initial
reports from replies-to-the-report both in subject lines or in messages.
This is why I said the [officer] had to be the first thing on the
subject line (to prevent "Re:" messages from being taken as reports).


Don't forget the list prefix. There are some people (ais523?) who have to 
add it manually to avoid the message getting caught by that annoying 
verification thing with the acronym I cannot remember.


Greetings,
Ørjan.


DIS: Re: BUS: the second test

2018-06-23 Thread Kerim Aydin



On Sat, 23 Jun 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 
> blip
>

yah, so my subscription was disabled.  Fixed, but I'm 99.999% sure
that it wasn't something that was set on my end.





DIS: I'm no longer getting BUS messages

2018-06-23 Thread Kerim Aydin



I haven't received anything from BUS in my inbox for 48 hours.
It's clear froM DIS that others have, I'm missing major threads.
Is anyone else NOT receiving from BUS (but is from DIS?)  Never
had this issue before.





Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8054-8057

2018-06-23 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Actually, I wonder if the problems mightn't run even deeper than that. I don't 
think "I do the same thing as the last X people in this thread" necessarily 
implies "I do the same thing as the last X people in this thread _did in this 
thread_". Aris, V.J. Rada and I have all previously performed actions other 
than voting on these proposals, and "the same thing" (singular) is too 
ambiguous to distinguish any of those actions from the votes. So I would argue 
neither ATMunn nor Trigon, let alone Corona, have voted on these five proposals.

​​-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 23, 2018 9:33 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> On Sat, 2018-06-23 at 23:25 +0200, Corona wrote:
> 
> > I'm not using infinite regression. I'm basing my vote on the next
> > 
> > (hypothetical) player to vote, who would vote "I do the same as the last
> > 
> > six people in this thread", the six people being Aris, VJ Rada, twg,
> > 
> > ATMunn, Trigon (who all voted FOR all proposals) and me.
> > 
> > Thus the only way for their conditional vote to resolve as FOR all
> > 
> > proposals is for my conditional vote to resolve as FOR all proposals (if I
> > 
> > voted differently, their conditional vote would be indeterminate and
> > 
> > default to PRESENT).
> 
> Either you've done the same thing as the other people or you've done
> 
> something different.
> 
> If we're assuming that you've done something different, "I do the same
> 
> as the last six people in the thread" won't do anything because it's
> 
> too ambiguous.
> 
> If we're assuming that you've done something that's the same, then
> 
> you've made a conditional vote. So the next person, who's doing
> 
> something the same as everyone else (including you) is therefore making
> 
> a conditional vote, based on the hypothetical person after them.
> 
> If you're arguing "but it's only me who made a conditional vote, the
> 
> other people didn't!" then you're arguing that you've done something
> 
> that's relevantly different from the other people in the thread, and as
> 
> such your hypothetical can't possibly succeed.
> 
> 
> -
> 
> ais523




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8054-8057

2018-06-23 Thread Alex Smith
On Sat, 2018-06-23 at 23:25 +0200, Corona wrote:
> I'm not using infinite regression. I'm basing my vote on the next
> (hypothetical) player to vote, who would vote "I do the same as the last
> six people in this thread", the six people being Aris, VJ Rada, twg,
> ATMunn, Trigon (who all voted FOR all proposals) and me.
> 
> Thus the only way for their conditional vote to resolve as FOR all
> proposals is for my conditional vote to resolve as FOR all proposals (if I
> voted differently, their conditional vote would be indeterminate and
> default to PRESENT).

Either you've done the same thing as the other people or you've done
something different.

If we're assuming that you've done something different, "I do the same
as the last six people in the thread" won't do anything because it's
too ambiguous.

If we're assuming that you've done something that's the same, then
you've made a conditional vote. So the next person, who's doing
something the same as everyone else (including you) is therefore making
a conditional vote, based on the hypothetical person after them.

If you're arguing "but it's only me who made a conditional vote, the
other people didn't!" then you're arguing that you've done something
that's relevantly different from the other people in the thread, and as
such your hypothetical can't possibly succeed.

-- 
ais523


DIS: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8054-8057

2018-06-23 Thread Corona
​I'm not using infinite regression. I'm basing my vote on the next
(hypothetical) player to vote, who would vote "I do the same as the last
six people in this thread", the six people being Aris, VJ Rada, twg,
ATMunn, Trigon (who all voted FOR all proposals) and me.

Thus the only way for their conditional vote to resolve as FOR all
proposals is for my conditional vote to resolve as FOR all proposals (if I
voted differently, their conditional vote would be indeterminate and
default to PRESENT).

~Corona

On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 8:18 PM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Sat, 2018-06-23 at 18:36 +0200, Corona wrote:
> >  I CFJ: My conditional vote in the appended message evaluates to FOR each
> > proposal.
> >
> > Caller's arguments: while this contains a conditional referring a
> > hypothetical future situation, that situation is not indeterminate, as I
> > specified "in the next instant, before any other process regulated by the
> > ruleset of Agora takes place", meaning it can be unambiguously logically
> > derived from the present situation (that is, the present situation - my
> > first message and the withdrawal + my second message = the hypothetical
> > future situation).
>
> Gratuitous arguments: Agora does not have infinitely many players, nor
> is it reasonable to believe that it could have infinitely many players
> without a change to the rules.
>
> If other people are doing the same thing as you, then they're making
> the same conditional, and at some point the conditional will talk about
> an event that can't possibly occur (someone else voting) and thus fail
> to evaluate. I think that makes the whole thing collapse.
>
> --
> ais523
>


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election update

2018-06-23 Thread Kerim Aydin



On Fri, 22 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 11:06 AM Alex Smith 
> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2018-06-22 at 09:48 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > Historically we've aggressively avoided mandating format, but I for
> > > one have no problem mandating that for a Report to be a Report it must
> > > have an [Officer] tag as the first thing in the subject line (might also
> > > help with all those "is this really a report/'purporting' to be a
> > report?"
> > > questions).  One reason we've avoided format mandates is because we
> > > don't want people to have to re-post reports several times to fix trivial
> > > formatting errors, but this pattern is so well-established I think
> > > errors would be infrequent.
> >
> > You'd need some way to handle deputisation (where the pattern has
> > historically been less rigid), but apart from that it makes sense.
> >
> > It would ideally be optimal to define a format that doesn't assume
> > email, but good wording can probably deal with that.
> >
> > --
> > ais523
> >
> I'd phrase this as a requirement to place it in a conspicuous location on
> the message, to maintain medium independence. Other than that, looks good.

That maintained flexibility would defeat the purpose in two ways:
- Manually, it was meant as a way for the Referee or ADoP to quickly 
scan Subject Lines to see if a report was made, so putting it in the
message doesn't help.
- In terms of automation, a system would have to distinguish initial
reports from replies-to-the-report both in subject lines or in messages.  
This is why I said the [officer] had to be the first thing on the
subject line (to prevent "Re:" messages from being taken as reports).





Re: DIS: Draft contract for playing chess on the map

2018-06-23 Thread ATMunn

On 6/23/2018 6:07 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Any party to this contract MAY, by announcement, move a chess
piece.

I think in place of MAY you want "CAN, subject to the restrictions
of this contract,"

Ah, I hadn't read rule 2152 carefully enough - I hadn't realised MAY
and CAN were subtly different. Thanks for pointing that out. I
believe the clause "subject to the restrictions of this contract" is
covered by "Where this contract contradicts itself, later statements
take precedence over earlier ones." near the beginning. In my first
few drafts I did explicitly specify every time a statement overrode
another, but that got unwieldy quickly; this way, as long as the
paragraphs are ordered correctly, it can be parsed almost exactly the
same way as natural language.


Yes. CAN means "it is possible to do so." MAY means "even though under
some other condition this is prohibited, under this condition, it is
allowed."


Re: DIS: Draft contract for playing chess on the map

2018-06-23 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
On June 23, 2018 10:07 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> Ah, that's a misconception I hadn't realised I had - that switches are 
> necessarily tracked by the same person as their entities. Looking over this 
> that's actually the root cause of many of the other problems with this. I'll 
> read the rules about switches more carefully and rephrase to accommodate 
> them. Really

Please ignore the "Really", it was the first part of a sentence I (intended to) 
cut out during editing.

-twg


Re: DIS: Draft contract for playing chess on the map

2018-06-23 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Awesome, thanks for the feedback!

On June 21, 2018 1:59 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> Define who tracks these switches or are they untracked? (being the
> recordkeepor for chess pieces doesn't mean recordkeepor for the switches).
Ah, that's a misconception I hadn't realised I had - that switches are 
necessarily tracked by the same person as their entities. Looking over this 
that's actually the root cause of many of the other problems with this. I'll 
read the rules about switches more carefully and rephrase to accommodate them. 
Really

> More generally, this puts a burden on the Cartographer. And this also
> implies that if the Cartographer isn't a party, there's no recordkeepor?
My intention was that the Cartographor could choose, by becoming a party to the 
contract or not, whether to bother spending time trying to keep track of the 
pieces (actually the switches, see above). Mainly, it was just a way to keep up 
the "we are actually playing on the map" metaphor going. I don't think it would 
be too difficult to keep track of the board even without a recordkeepor - 
correspondence chess players manage it in real life all the time - but if it 
were converted to a tournament, the gamemaster would be the obvious choice for 
recordkeepor.

> > (Parties to this contract are ENCOURAGED to vote for
> > any Proposal that would enable backing documents to define switches
> > possessed by the assets those backing documents define.)
> There are arguments for or against this but I'd cut this and advocate/
> propose it separately.
Oh, I do intend to propose it separately as well - after Aris's "Minimalist 
Contracts" has been passed/rejected, so I know what it is I'm proposing an 
amendment to. I modelled it after the sentence in V.J. Rada's contract 
competition: "If nobody does anything interesting, parties to this Contract and 
non-parties SHOULD vote to repeal Contracts ASAP." It's not a particularly 
important part and I'd happily cut it out if you think it wise.

> > Any party to this contract MAY, by announcement, move a chess piece.
> I think in place of MAY you want "CAN, subject to the restrictions of
> this contract,"
Ah, I hadn't read rule 2152 carefully enough - I hadn't realised MAY and CAN 
were subtly different. Thanks for pointing that out. I believe the clause 
"subject to the restrictions of this contract" is covered by "Where this 
contract contradicts itself, later statements take precedence over earlier 
ones." near the beginning. In my first few drafts I did explicitly specify 
every time a statement overrode another, but that got unwieldy quickly; this 
way, as long as the paragraphs are ordered correctly, it can be parsed almost 
exactly the same way as natural language.

> Turn-based games can sometimes stall out waiting for the other players'
> turn - what happens if you end up with only one person taking black and
> they don't respond? Maybe add a game clock: "if a move isn't made by
> X time, than [either a PASS or the other side can move that color]"
Allowing either side to pass would make the game nearly unwinnable. (Actually, 
that reminds me that I didn't put in any allowance for a draw.) I see two 
possibilities - either allow the other side to move the colour, like you 
suggested, or just forfeit the game, which would be less complicated: "If, 
after the current turn is flipped, no party to this contract moves a chess 
piece in a timely fashion, the White King is destroyed if it is White's turn, 
and the Black King is destroyed if it is Black's turn."

> The way this reads, a player moves the pawn (successfully), but if
> e fails to create a piece, then e breaks the terms of the contract (fails
> the MUST) but the pawn is still stuck in the last rank and can't be
> converted.
Good point. Another way of doing this would be to decouple the promotion from 
the act of moving the pawn - something like "If there is a Pawn at [...], a 
party to this contract CAN and SHOULD, by announcement, destroy the Pawn and 
create a Knight, Bishop, Rook or Queen..." (with a restriction to players of 
the same colour as the pawn). And require that to happen before the other side 
takes their turn. That way there's less scope for a move to fail without anyone 
noticing, which would be bad.

> I'd hard-code the reward a bit more. I'd suggest making this a Free
> Tournament (R2566) although I don't know if having this be Regulations
> rather than a Contract makes anything in here not work (e.g. you can't
> become "party" to a set of regulations I don't think). You could do it
> by reference though. Set up the Contract, then make a Tournament with a
> single regulation: "whomever wins the Contract wins the Tournament".
Yes, I agree this is probably more suited to a tournament. (I'm sure it could 
be slightly rephrased to remove references to "parties", which would make it 
considerably simpler to read anyway.) I don't want to distract from the 
birthday tournament, though, and it clearly needs more work 

DIS: Re: BUS: [Cartographor] Land auctions for June week 4

2018-06-23 Thread Corona
Getting into fractional reserve territory here, right?

~Corona

On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 1:16 AM, ATMunn  wrote:

> I bid 20 coins on each auction.
>
>
> On 6/22/2018 5:10 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
>> I bid 17 coins on auction 1.
>>
>> On 6/22/2018 2:59 PM, Corona wrote:
>>
>>> I bid 16 coins on auctions 1 and 2.
>>> I bid 18 coins on auctions 3-5.
>>>
>>> ~Corona
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 10:41 PM, ATMunn 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I bid 17 coins on auctions 3-5.


 On 6/22/2018 4:14 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:

 I bid 15 coins on auctions 1 and 2.
>
> On 6/22/2018 12:34 PM, Corona wrote:
>
> I bid 14 coins in each auction.
>>
>> ~Corona
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 4:26 PM, ATMunn 
>> wrote:
>>
>> I bid 6 coins in each auction.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6/22/2018 12:13 AM, Ned Strange wrote:
>>>
>>> I bid 5 coins in each auction
>>>

 On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 12:26 PM, Reuben Staley <
 reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
 wrote:

 There are currently more public, unpreserved, non-aether land units
 in

> existence than I care to count. 5 land units of my choice are put
> up
> for
> auction.
>
> For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the
> auctioneer,
> and the minimum bid is 1 coin, and the lots are as such:
>
> AUCTION 1: the land unit at (-2, -1)
> AUCTION 2: the land unit at ( 0, -3)
> AUCTION 3: the land unit at (-4,  0)
> AUCTION 4: the land unit at (-5,  0)
> AUCTION 5: the land unit at (-6,  0)
>
> --
> Trigon
>
>
>



 ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>> https://www.avg.com
>>
>>
>>
>
>>