Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Testo Testerino
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
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
Test -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: I'm no longer getting BUS messages
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 >> >> >> > >>