Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Distributor] about agora-official
Agreed. I don't really like the THAN thing though. How about something brand new. Technomancer? Forumkeeper? Something with a ring to it. -Aris On Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 10:20 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I would happily endorse such a thing. In addition to a special title, > a HAN is appropriate I think. > > On Sun, 24 Jun 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > I would like to express my sincere thanks to omd for eir continued > > support of the mailing lists. I hope that everyone recognizes what > > hard work it is to manage web servers. I would be interested in > > awarding them the patent title, "Technical Hero of Agora" or a lesser > > patent title, if a heroic title could not be agreed upon. What do > > others think on the matter? > > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 8:23 PM, comex wrote: > > > So, 11 days ago I received an email from Ørjan saying that the lists > > > weren't working. As I responded at the time (and e then forwarded to > > > a-d): > > > > > >> Some Python processes were in an infinite loop eating all the CPU. > > >> Bizarrely, I think the cause is some kind of bug in Debian's patched > > >> Python, as the symptoms seem similar to > > >> https://bugs.python.org/issue14903… apparently it can be caused by a > > >> transient out-of-memory condition. > > >> > > >> I'm not really sure how to deal with this. For now, I killed the > > >> processes, so hopefully things should respond again… > > > > > > Yesterday I got another email from Ørjan saying that agora-official > > > wasn't working, which I managed to forget to act on until P. > > > Scholasticus sent me a separate message an hour ago about the same > > > issue. Once again, sorry about the delay. > > > > > > As it turned out, agora-official was in an… interesting state. The > > > configuration seemed to have reverted to 2013, when I took over the > > > lists from Taral. The admin password didn't work, the owner email was > > > set to tar...@gmail.com, and the member list was missing new players. > > > Also, the list URL had reverted to www.agoranomic.org from > > > mailman.agoranomic.org, which explains P. Scholasticus's observation > > > that agora-official didn't appear in the list of mailing lists > > > (https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo): that page > > > has a filter based on whether the request URL matches the list domain. > > > > > > How could this be? Well, when I took over the lists I installed a > > > slightly newer version of Mailman than Taral had been using, which > > > switched the format and name of its list configuration files, from > > > "config.db" to "config.pck". Whenever Mailman runs, it preferentially > > > tries to load config.pck; if config.pck isn't valid but config.db is > > > valid, it automatically converts the data to the new format and writes > > > that out as config.pck, but doesn't delete config.db. Somehow, the > > > bugged Python processes must have corrupted config.pck, causing > > > Mailman to re-migrate the config.db that had been sitting unmodified > > > in the configuration directory since 2013. (What a great database > > > format, that can get corrupted by one process getting wedged, > > > apparently without being provoked by any hardware failure.) > > > > > > Good thing I have backups… > > > > > > …or so I thought, until I learned that backups had stopped working > > > almost exactly a year ago, when as part of a system upgrade, the duply > > > package was updated to a version with a backwards-incompatible change > > > [1] to the configuration format. …Oops. I really, really need to set > > > up some kind of status dashboard for my personal servers, so I can get > > > notified when things go wrong, rather than at best having the cron > > > daemon send a message to a mailbox I don't read. > > > > > > So this is bona fide data loss. Luckily, the list *archives* for > > > agora-official seem to be intact; only the configuration and member > > > list is affected. (But anyone who subscribed since 2013 would have > > > found themselves unable to log in to the archives.) I should be able > > > to copy the configuration from agora-business, at the cost of messing > > > up anyone who had a different subscription state on agora-official and > > > agora-business. However, I haven't done that yet; for now I've just > > > disabled agora-official. (Right now I have something I need to do, > > > but I should have time to finish ealing with this soon.) > > > > > > This shouldn't have affected agora-business or agora-discussion (other > > > than the initial unresponsiveness caused by the Python processes > > > spinning, which should have stopped when I killed them), so if there > > > have been delivery problems with those lists, they had a different > > > cause. I will investigate this too when I have a chance. > > > > > > I apologize for letting everyone down. > > > > > > [1] > https://www.guyrutenberg.com/2017/10/12/duply-credential-error-when-using-amazon-s3/ > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Distributor] about agora-official
I would happily endorse such a thing. In addition to a special title, a HAN is appropriate I think. On Sun, 24 Jun 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > I would like to express my sincere thanks to omd for eir continued > support of the mailing lists. I hope that everyone recognizes what > hard work it is to manage web servers. I would be interested in > awarding them the patent title, "Technical Hero of Agora" or a lesser > patent title, if a heroic title could not be agreed upon. What do > others think on the matter? > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 8:23 PM, comex wrote: > > So, 11 days ago I received an email from Ørjan saying that the lists > > weren't working. As I responded at the time (and e then forwarded to > > a-d): > > > >> Some Python processes were in an infinite loop eating all the CPU. > >> Bizarrely, I think the cause is some kind of bug in Debian's patched > >> Python, as the symptoms seem similar to > >> https://bugs.python.org/issue14903… apparently it can be caused by a > >> transient out-of-memory condition. > >> > >> I'm not really sure how to deal with this. For now, I killed the > >> processes, so hopefully things should respond again… > > > > Yesterday I got another email from Ørjan saying that agora-official > > wasn't working, which I managed to forget to act on until P. > > Scholasticus sent me a separate message an hour ago about the same > > issue. Once again, sorry about the delay. > > > > As it turned out, agora-official was in an… interesting state. The > > configuration seemed to have reverted to 2013, when I took over the > > lists from Taral. The admin password didn't work, the owner email was > > set to tar...@gmail.com, and the member list was missing new players. > > Also, the list URL had reverted to www.agoranomic.org from > > mailman.agoranomic.org, which explains P. Scholasticus's observation > > that agora-official didn't appear in the list of mailing lists > > (https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo): that page > > has a filter based on whether the request URL matches the list domain. > > > > How could this be? Well, when I took over the lists I installed a > > slightly newer version of Mailman than Taral had been using, which > > switched the format and name of its list configuration files, from > > "config.db" to "config.pck". Whenever Mailman runs, it preferentially > > tries to load config.pck; if config.pck isn't valid but config.db is > > valid, it automatically converts the data to the new format and writes > > that out as config.pck, but doesn't delete config.db. Somehow, the > > bugged Python processes must have corrupted config.pck, causing > > Mailman to re-migrate the config.db that had been sitting unmodified > > in the configuration directory since 2013. (What a great database > > format, that can get corrupted by one process getting wedged, > > apparently without being provoked by any hardware failure.) > > > > Good thing I have backups… > > > > …or so I thought, until I learned that backups had stopped working > > almost exactly a year ago, when as part of a system upgrade, the duply > > package was updated to a version with a backwards-incompatible change > > [1] to the configuration format. …Oops. I really, really need to set > > up some kind of status dashboard for my personal servers, so I can get > > notified when things go wrong, rather than at best having the cron > > daemon send a message to a mailbox I don't read. > > > > So this is bona fide data loss. Luckily, the list *archives* for > > agora-official seem to be intact; only the configuration and member > > list is affected. (But anyone who subscribed since 2013 would have > > found themselves unable to log in to the archives.) I should be able > > to copy the configuration from agora-business, at the cost of messing > > up anyone who had a different subscription state on agora-official and > > agora-business. However, I haven't done that yet; for now I've just > > disabled agora-official. (Right now I have something I need to do, > > but I should have time to finish ealing with this soon.) > > > > This shouldn't have affected agora-business or agora-discussion (other > > than the initial unresponsiveness caused by the Python processes > > spinning, which should have stopped when I killed them), so if there > > have been delivery problems with those lists, they had a different > > cause. I will investigate this too when I have a chance. > > > > I apologize for letting everyone down. > > > > [1] > > https://www.guyrutenberg.com/2017/10/12/duply-credential-error-when-using-amazon-s3/ >
DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, Rebecca wrote: I do so. You were too late as proposal 8050 passed, and pledges are no longer retractable. Fortunately that doesn't matter, as all your pledges were older than 60 days. Greetings, Ørjan. On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Ned Strange wrote: Without objection I intend to retract each pledge I own. On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 8:20 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: The below pledge list from the June 3 Referee Report self-ratified prior to Proposal 8050 taking effect. The pledge dates (date tracking now required by the Notary) don't self-ratify, but I did go back and confirm. Searching for 'pledge' in public archives back to March revealed no other recent pledges. Pledges older than 60 days no longer require tracking. =the Referee, whose next report will be shorter= PLEDGES (self-ratifying list of assets) == Trigon - Created 01 Jun 2018 07:35:31 I pledge to use as much integrity as is possible whenever I generate random numbers. == Corona - Created 27 May 2018 17:29:28 I pledge to do all of the following in Blognomic's current dynasty: -always ahoy Gams -call hunts most of the time -not change derrick’s or Cuddlebeam’s position if they perform their duties adequately (scrubbing, joining hunts if healthy…) -scrub the decks whenever I am online and can do so -generally work toward the preservation of the ship and the lives of sailors, and maximizing profits == G. - Created 10 May 2018 15:39:57 I pledge that I will not make any bids on behalf of zombies in the May 2018 zombie auction. ===(below pledges were created prior to 01 Apr 2018)=== Quazie - I pledge to give 1 Shiny to the first person who can, correctly, with e-mail citations, explain what I did wrong on Jan 20th 2009 that has since led to me being a fugitive. For the explanation to be valid for this pledge, it should be fully self contained, I should not have to go look up past rules in order to understand the explanation (So please, include all source info in the explanation). V.J Rada - I pledge not to make any thread titles completely unrelated to the email's content, nor use any agency or other mechanism to attempt to gain control of any player at the exclusion of all other players. Gaelan (14 Sep 2017) - I pledge to, for at least the next month, vote AGAINST any proposal that amends rules by providing new text in full unless the text of the rule is nearly entirely changed. nichdel - I pledge to vote AGAINST on all proposals created or pended by Cuddle Beam. nichdel - I pledge to Object to all intentions by Cuddle Beam that I can object to. nichdel - I pledge to give a trust token and 5 shinies (as soon as possible) to any other player who also performs the above three pledges, except Cuddle Beam. nichdel - I pledge to not refer to 天火狐 as Josh or Josh T. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus - I too pledge to not refer to 天火狐 as Josh or Josh T. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus - I...pledge to fix the margins, if the issue is explained to me. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus - I pledge to deputize for the rulekeepor on October 19, 2017, if it is still possible. Cuddlebeam - I pledge to hook people up in a reasonable amount of time, according to the message above, during what's left of the current month and November. [Referee's note: This pledge refers to the message listed athttps://www.mail-archive.com/agora business at agoranomic.org/msg30230.html] V.J. Rada - I pledge to give a win and a black ribbon to everyone who votes for "hopefully you guys all vote for this" if that passes. o - (Nov 7, '17) I pledge to pay 5 sh. to the first person to publicly identify the specific bug I fixed in the Surveyor’s report this week, provided their answer includes either the word, some synonym for the word, or some observation related to the word, whose sha256 hash is e2c2bf1fdea49d1d90f7e17ac158016862f213b42f88b760aee47f697205d83a, and that I will disclose the word as part of the reward if it is collected. o - I pledge to distribute the payment in a timely fashion if the CFJ finds that CuddleBeam’s payment did, in fact, occur. [Referee's note: e's referring to a payment made by Cuddlebeam in accordance with the rule "Poetry Duel Challenge Writ", which is the subject of a currently unnassigned CFJ. I would appreciate it if you guys created pledges with the context included in them.] Trigon - I pledge that if I do not win the election for Rulekeepor, I will put myself up as a candidate for this election. [Referee's note: E's referring to the Fearmongor election on 6 Nov 2017] V.J. Rada - I pledge to, weekly, if I am Referee, publish a document called "Pledges you should withdraw", listing pledges that have already been completed or are impossible. V.J. Rada - I pledge not to point any fingers Alexis - I pledge to transfer 5 shinies to the author of the first proposal that gives the Rulekeepor authority, under Cleanup Time, to additionally correct, at least: missing periods at the end of sentences,
DIS: Re: BUS: [Distributor] about agora-official
I would like to express my sincere thanks to omd for eir continued support of the mailing lists. I hope that everyone recognizes what hard work it is to manage web servers. I would be interested in awarding them the patent title, "Technical Hero of Agora" or a lesser patent title, if a heroic title could not be agreed upon. What do others think on the matter? On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 8:23 PM, comex wrote: > So, 11 days ago I received an email from Ørjan saying that the lists > weren't working. As I responded at the time (and e then forwarded to > a-d): > >> Some Python processes were in an infinite loop eating all the CPU. >> Bizarrely, I think the cause is some kind of bug in Debian's patched >> Python, as the symptoms seem similar to >> https://bugs.python.org/issue14903… apparently it can be caused by a >> transient out-of-memory condition. >> >> I'm not really sure how to deal with this. For now, I killed the >> processes, so hopefully things should respond again… > > Yesterday I got another email from Ørjan saying that agora-official > wasn't working, which I managed to forget to act on until P. > Scholasticus sent me a separate message an hour ago about the same > issue. Once again, sorry about the delay. > > As it turned out, agora-official was in an… interesting state. The > configuration seemed to have reverted to 2013, when I took over the > lists from Taral. The admin password didn't work, the owner email was > set to tar...@gmail.com, and the member list was missing new players. > Also, the list URL had reverted to www.agoranomic.org from > mailman.agoranomic.org, which explains P. Scholasticus's observation > that agora-official didn't appear in the list of mailing lists > (https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo): that page > has a filter based on whether the request URL matches the list domain. > > How could this be? Well, when I took over the lists I installed a > slightly newer version of Mailman than Taral had been using, which > switched the format and name of its list configuration files, from > "config.db" to "config.pck". Whenever Mailman runs, it preferentially > tries to load config.pck; if config.pck isn't valid but config.db is > valid, it automatically converts the data to the new format and writes > that out as config.pck, but doesn't delete config.db. Somehow, the > bugged Python processes must have corrupted config.pck, causing > Mailman to re-migrate the config.db that had been sitting unmodified > in the configuration directory since 2013. (What a great database > format, that can get corrupted by one process getting wedged, > apparently without being provoked by any hardware failure.) > > Good thing I have backups… > > …or so I thought, until I learned that backups had stopped working > almost exactly a year ago, when as part of a system upgrade, the duply > package was updated to a version with a backwards-incompatible change > [1] to the configuration format. …Oops. I really, really need to set > up some kind of status dashboard for my personal servers, so I can get > notified when things go wrong, rather than at best having the cron > daemon send a message to a mailbox I don't read. > > So this is bona fide data loss. Luckily, the list *archives* for > agora-official seem to be intact; only the configuration and member > list is affected. (But anyone who subscribed since 2013 would have > found themselves unable to log in to the archives.) I should be able > to copy the configuration from agora-business, at the cost of messing > up anyone who had a different subscription state on agora-official and > agora-business. However, I haven't done that yet; for now I've just > disabled agora-official. (Right now I have something I need to do, > but I should have time to finish ealing with this soon.) > > This shouldn't have affected agora-business or agora-discussion (other > than the initial unresponsiveness caused by the Python processes > spinning, which should have stopped when I killed them), so if there > have been delivery problems with those lists, they had a different > cause. I will investigate this too when I have a chance. > > I apologize for letting everyone down. > > [1] > https://www.guyrutenberg.com/2017/10/12/duply-credential-error-when-using-amazon-s3/
Re: DIS: hmmm?
Must have been directly from em, because I didn't recieve the in between message. On 6/24/2018 5:08 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: Did you receive it directly from me or via discussion? Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 5:06 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Yes! What did you change? -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On June 24, 2018 8:58 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: Did you receive this? On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: I haven't, no. Very bizarre. I have been receiving email from other Gmail users like ATMunn and Corona, so I'm not sure what the problem might be. If it helps narrow anything down, the last email I received from you was on June 22, 2018 10:16 PM UTC, saying you liked Corona's suggestion of a hyperbolic map. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On June 24, 2018 6:08 PM, ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote: twg On 6/24/2018 12:55 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: This could be one of the infamous problems with gmail. Have you received this message? Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: I haven't received it, and I also haven't received any of PSS's messages to DIS that you're all replying to. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On June 24, 2018 4:20 PM, Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com wrote: Neither have I. ~Corona On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: I have not received it. --- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 10:28 AM, ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote: Nope, it was much later than that. On 6/24/2018 10:11 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: This? Publius Scribonius Scholasticus -- Forwarded message -- From: ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 11:09 AM Subject: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8054-8057 To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org I do the same as the last three people in this thread. On 6/23/2018 6:14 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I also vote FOR proposals 8053-8057. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On June 23, 2018 8:41 AM, Ned Strange edwardostra...@gmail.com wrote: I vote FOR each listed proposal On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Aris Merchant thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote: I vote as follows: ID Author(s) AI Title Pender 8053* G., Aris 1.0 patch patch patch G. [1] FOR 8054+ Aris, [2] 3.0 Minimalist Contracts v2 Aris FOR 8055+ Aris, G. 3.0 Distributed Assets v3 Aris FOR 8056+ Aris, G. 3.0 Deregulation Act v2 Aris FOR 8057* Corona 1.0 No quorum, no medal Corona [1] FOR -Aris -- From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resending the message because apparently nobody got it
Not about a missing email, no. Sorry if that was misunderstood. On 6/24/2018 2:51 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Is this case about a missing email, or about using "I do the same thing" to try and vote? If it's about the email problems, could you provide as Evidence the message from your Sent Mail or something, with headers? On Sun, 24 Jun 2018, ATMunn wrote: I CFJ on the following statement: Before the sending of this message, ATMunn voted FOR proposal 8053. No caller's arguments because I have no clue what I'd argue for and how. And just in case this ends up being FALSE, I vote FOR proposals 8053-8057. On 6/23/2018 6:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: 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: Judgement in CFJ 3646
On Mon, 25 Jun 2018, Rebecca wrote: > wasn't this overhauled? in a cfj by alexis banning future conditionals > in votes? i don't know where I am anymore. Proposal 7922 last October fixed the Rule to make it absolutely clear that it's evaluated at the end of the voting period. IIRC it was following alexis's cfj but the proposal fixed the problems so that cfj isn't relevant anymore. There was also a proposal by alexis to ban all conditionals but it failed.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 3646
wasn't this overhauled? in a cfj by alexis banning future conditionals in votes? i don't know where I am anymore. Situationally, though, it evaluates as FOR. ais's hypothetical situation in which infinite people vote that way means only that if infinite people voted with this conditional, the votes would evaluate as ambiguous. Ambiguity can still be resolved contextually on its own merits here. On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > Nope, votes are the exception to that. Votes are evaluated at the time > of resolution. > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 7:40 PM, Rebecca wrote: >> We evaluate votes at the time they are cast (iirc, unless we added >> future conditionals back in). This vote, under the circumstances, was >> a conditional with sufficient context within the game state. If >> somebody made a vote like this without any previous context, it may be >> ambiguous. Under these circumstances, the vote is trivially evaluable. >> And when the vote, as soon as it is cast, evaluates as FOR, a future >> user or any number of them could make similar conditionals counting on >> this vote as a FOR. Ambiguity is situational and a vote with this >> vote's text could be ambiguous at time (say, if one of the previous >> five voters voted AGAINST) but it's clear in this case that any >> reasonable reader of text would evaluate this as FOR when cast. >> >> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Alex Smith wrote: >>> On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 09:22 +1000, Rebecca wrote: Corona voted in this way "> I vote on these proposals in such a manner that, in a hypothetical > alternate gamestate identical to the current one except for me never > sending the message immediately before this one, and this message not > containing the withdrawal of my earlier vote, in case that in the next > instant, before any other process regulated by the ruleset of Agora takes > place, a player would respond to this thread with the message "I do the > same as the last six people in this thread", their vote on all of these > proposals would evaluate to FOR all of the aforementioned proposals." The question presented is whether this conditional vote evaluates FOR each proposal, where the previous five votes were FOR each proposal. I hold that it does. The intent of the conditional is clear. It wants to vote in such a way that if someone else voted the same as the previous voters including this one, they would vote FOR. That's basically the same thing as saying that Corona voted in the same way as five previous voters on the proposals, which is FOR. This text is not ambiguous, in that its aim is clear and no reasonable Agoran reading carefully over it would believe it to be anything but a vote FOR each proposal. The conditional is not inextricable, as the condition depends on one clearly defined occurrence with no intervening rules processes. This CFJ is TRUE >>> >>> I'm disappointed that you didn't at least address my arguments. A >>> direct vote clearly isn't equivalent to the conditional, because if >>> every eligible voter made the conditional, it would break down at some >>> point. Thus, if a future eligible voter tries to do the same as the >>> previous users, their action will fail due to ambiguity as it's trying >>> to do the same thing as each of two non-equivalent actions. >>> >>> -- >>> ais523 >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Regarding CFJ 3642
I am writing to let everyone know that my judgement on CFJ 3642 will be delayed, as I wait for some evidence from omd. I would also like to take this time to thank G. and omd for their cooperation in providing evidence for my judgement.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 3646
Nope, votes are the exception to that. Votes are evaluated at the time of resolution. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 7:40 PM, Rebecca wrote: > We evaluate votes at the time they are cast (iirc, unless we added > future conditionals back in). This vote, under the circumstances, was > a conditional with sufficient context within the game state. If > somebody made a vote like this without any previous context, it may be > ambiguous. Under these circumstances, the vote is trivially evaluable. > And when the vote, as soon as it is cast, evaluates as FOR, a future > user or any number of them could make similar conditionals counting on > this vote as a FOR. Ambiguity is situational and a vote with this > vote's text could be ambiguous at time (say, if one of the previous > five voters voted AGAINST) but it's clear in this case that any > reasonable reader of text would evaluate this as FOR when cast. > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Alex Smith wrote: >> On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 09:22 +1000, Rebecca wrote: >>> Corona voted in this way >>> "> I vote on these proposals in such a manner that, in a hypothetical >>> > alternate gamestate identical to the current one except for me never >>> > sending the message immediately before this one, and this message not >>> > containing the withdrawal of my earlier vote, in case that in the next >>> > instant, before any other process regulated by the ruleset of Agora takes >>> > place, a player would respond to this thread with the message "I do the >>> > same as the last six people in this thread", their vote on all of these >>> > proposals would evaluate to FOR all of the aforementioned proposals." >>> >>> The question presented is whether this conditional vote evaluates FOR >>> each proposal, where the previous five votes were FOR each proposal. I >>> hold that it does. The intent of the conditional is clear. It wants to >>> vote in such a way that if someone else voted the same as the previous >>> voters including this one, they would vote FOR. That's basically the >>> same thing as saying that Corona voted in the same way as five >>> previous voters on the proposals, which is FOR. This text is not >>> ambiguous, in that its aim is clear and no reasonable Agoran reading >>> carefully over it would believe it to be anything but a vote FOR each >>> proposal. The conditional is not inextricable, as the condition >>> depends on one clearly defined occurrence with no intervening rules >>> processes. >>> >>> This CFJ is TRUE >> >> I'm disappointed that you didn't at least address my arguments. A >> direct vote clearly isn't equivalent to the conditional, because if >> every eligible voter made the conditional, it would break down at some >> point. Thus, if a future eligible voter tries to do the same as the >> previous users, their action will fail due to ambiguity as it's trying >> to do the same thing as each of two non-equivalent actions. >> >> -- >> ais523 > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 3646
We evaluate votes at the time they are cast (iirc, unless we added future conditionals back in). This vote, under the circumstances, was a conditional with sufficient context within the game state. If somebody made a vote like this without any previous context, it may be ambiguous. Under these circumstances, the vote is trivially evaluable. And when the vote, as soon as it is cast, evaluates as FOR, a future user or any number of them could make similar conditionals counting on this vote as a FOR. Ambiguity is situational and a vote with this vote's text could be ambiguous at time (say, if one of the previous five voters voted AGAINST) but it's clear in this case that any reasonable reader of text would evaluate this as FOR when cast. On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 09:22 +1000, Rebecca wrote: >> Corona voted in this way >> "> I vote on these proposals in such a manner that, in a hypothetical >> > alternate gamestate identical to the current one except for me never >> > sending the message immediately before this one, and this message not >> > containing the withdrawal of my earlier vote, in case that in the next >> > instant, before any other process regulated by the ruleset of Agora takes >> > place, a player would respond to this thread with the message "I do the >> > same as the last six people in this thread", their vote on all of these >> > proposals would evaluate to FOR all of the aforementioned proposals." >> >> The question presented is whether this conditional vote evaluates FOR >> each proposal, where the previous five votes were FOR each proposal. I >> hold that it does. The intent of the conditional is clear. It wants to >> vote in such a way that if someone else voted the same as the previous >> voters including this one, they would vote FOR. That's basically the >> same thing as saying that Corona voted in the same way as five >> previous voters on the proposals, which is FOR. This text is not >> ambiguous, in that its aim is clear and no reasonable Agoran reading >> carefully over it would believe it to be anything but a vote FOR each >> proposal. The conditional is not inextricable, as the condition >> depends on one clearly defined occurrence with no intervening rules >> processes. >> >> This CFJ is TRUE > > I'm disappointed that you didn't at least address my arguments. A > direct vote clearly isn't equivalent to the conditional, because if > every eligible voter made the conditional, it would break down at some > point. Thus, if a future eligible voter tries to do the same as the > previous users, their action will fail due to ambiguity as it's trying > to do the same thing as each of two non-equivalent actions. > > -- > ais523 -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 3646
On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 09:22 +1000, Rebecca wrote: > Corona voted in this way > "> I vote on these proposals in such a manner that, in a hypothetical > > alternate gamestate identical to the current one except for me never > > sending the message immediately before this one, and this message not > > containing the withdrawal of my earlier vote, in case that in the next > > instant, before any other process regulated by the ruleset of Agora takes > > place, a player would respond to this thread with the message "I do the > > same as the last six people in this thread", their vote on all of these > > proposals would evaluate to FOR all of the aforementioned proposals." > > The question presented is whether this conditional vote evaluates FOR > each proposal, where the previous five votes were FOR each proposal. I > hold that it does. The intent of the conditional is clear. It wants to > vote in such a way that if someone else voted the same as the previous > voters including this one, they would vote FOR. That's basically the > same thing as saying that Corona voted in the same way as five > previous voters on the proposals, which is FOR. This text is not > ambiguous, in that its aim is clear and no reasonable Agoran reading > carefully over it would believe it to be anything but a vote FOR each > proposal. The conditional is not inextricable, as the condition > depends on one clearly defined occurrence with no intervening rules > processes. > > This CFJ is TRUE I'm disappointed that you didn't at least address my arguments. A direct vote clearly isn't equivalent to the conditional, because if every eligible voter made the conditional, it would break down at some point. Thus, if a future eligible voter tries to do the same as the previous users, their action will fail due to ambiguity as it's trying to do the same thing as each of two non-equivalent actions. -- ais523
Re: DIS: hmmm?
Did you receive it directly from me or via discussion? Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 5:06 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Yes! What did you change? > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On June 24, 2018 8:58 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > wrote: > >> >> >> Did you receive this? >> >> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: >> >> > I haven't, no. Very bizarre. I have been receiving email from other Gmail >> > users like ATMunn and Corona, so I'm not sure what the problem might be. >> > >> > If it helps narrow anything down, the last email I received from you was >> > on June 22, 2018 10:16 PM UTC, saying you liked Corona's suggestion of a >> > hyperbolic map. >> > >> > -twg >> > >> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> > >> > On June 24, 2018 6:08 PM, ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote: >> > >> > > twg >> > > >> > > On 6/24/2018 12:55 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> > > >> > > > This could be one of the infamous problems with gmail. Have you >> > > > >> > > > received this message? >> > > > >> > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >> > > > >> > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > I haven't received it, and I also haven't received any of PSS's >> > > > > messages to DIS that you're all replying to. >> > > > > >> > > > > -twg >> > > > > >> > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> > > > > >> > > > > On June 24, 2018 4:20 PM, Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Neither have I. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > ~Corona >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < >> > > > > > >> > > > > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I have not received it. >> > > > > > > --- >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 10:28 AM, ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Nope, it was much later than that. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On 6/24/2018 10:11 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > This? >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -- Forwarded message -- >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > From: ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 11:09 AM >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals >> > > > > > > > > 8054-8057 >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I do the same as the last three people in this thread. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On 6/23/2018 6:14 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I also vote FOR proposals 8053-8057. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > -twg >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On June 23, 2018 8:41 AM, Ned Strange >> > > > > > > > > > edwardostra...@gmail.com >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > I vote FOR each listed proposal >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Aris Merchant >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > I vote as follows: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > ID Author(s) AI Title Pender >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 8053* G., Aris 1.0 patch patch patch G. [1] >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > FOR >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 8054+ Aris, [2] 3.0 Minimalist Contracts v2 Aris >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > FOR >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 8055+ Aris, G. 3.0 Distributed Assets v3 Aris >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > FOR >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 8056+ Aris, G. 3.0 Deregulation Act v2 Aris >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > FOR >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > 8057* Corona 1.0 No quorum, no medal Corona [1] >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > FOR >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > -Aris >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > From V.J. Rada > >
Re: DIS: hmmm?
Did you receive this? On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > I haven't, no. Very bizarre. I have been receiving email from other Gmail > users like ATMunn and Corona, so I'm not sure what the problem might be. > > If it helps narrow anything down, the last email I received from you was on > June 22, 2018 10:16 PM UTC, saying you liked Corona's suggestion of a > hyperbolic map. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On June 24, 2018 6:08 PM, ATMunn wrote: > >> >> >> twg >> >> On 6/24/2018 12:55 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> >> > This could be one of the infamous problems with gmail. Have you >> > >> > received this message? >> > >> > >> > --- >> > >> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >> > >> > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: >> > >> > > I haven't received it, and I also haven't received any of PSS's messages >> > > to DIS that you're all replying to. >> > > >> > > -twg >> > > >> > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> > > >> > > On June 24, 2018 4:20 PM, Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com wrote: >> > > >> > > > Neither have I. >> > > > >> > > > ~Corona >> > > > >> > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < >> > > > >> > > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > I have not received it. >> > > > > --- >> > > > > >> > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >> > > > > >> > > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 10:28 AM, ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > > Nope, it was much later than that. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On 6/24/2018 10:11 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > This? >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -- Forwarded message -- >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > From: ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 11:09 AM >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Subject: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8054-8057 >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I do the same as the last three people in this thread. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > On 6/23/2018 6:14 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I also vote FOR proposals 8053-8057. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > -twg >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > On June 23, 2018 8:41 AM, Ned Strange edwardostra...@gmail.com >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > I vote FOR each listed proposal >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Aris Merchant >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I vote as follows: >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > ID Author(s) AI Title Pender >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > 8053* G., Aris 1.0 patch patch patch G. [1] >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > FOR >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > 8054+ Aris, [2] 3.0 Minimalist Contracts v2 Aris >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > FOR >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > 8055+ Aris, G. 3.0 Distributed Assets v3 Aris >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > FOR >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > 8056+ Aris, G. 3.0 Deregulation Act v2 Aris >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > FOR >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > 8057* Corona 1.0 No quorum, no medal Corona [1] >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > FOR >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > -Aris >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > From V.J. Rada > >
Re: DIS: hmmm?
I haven't, no. Very bizarre. I have been receiving email from other Gmail users like ATMunn and Corona, so I'm not sure what the problem might be. If it helps narrow anything down, the last email I received from you was on June 22, 2018 10:16 PM UTC, saying you liked Corona's suggestion of a hyperbolic map. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On June 24, 2018 6:08 PM, ATMunn wrote: > > > twg > > On 6/24/2018 12:55 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > > This could be one of the infamous problems with gmail. Have you > > > > received this message? > > > > > > --- > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > > > I haven't received it, and I also haven't received any of PSS's messages > > > to DIS that you're all replying to. > > > > > > -twg > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > > > On June 24, 2018 4:20 PM, Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > Neither have I. > > > > > > > > ~Corona > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > > > > > > > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I have not received it. > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 10:28 AM, ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Nope, it was much later than that. > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/24/2018 10:11 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > This? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 11:09 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8054-8057 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do the same as the last three people in this thread. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 6/23/2018 6:14 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also vote FOR proposals 8053-8057. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -twg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On June 23, 2018 8:41 AM, Ned Strange edwardostra...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I vote FOR each listed proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Aris Merchant > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I vote as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ID Author(s) AI Title Pender > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 8053* G., Aris 1.0 patch patch patch G. [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FOR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 8054+ Aris, [2] 3.0 Minimalist Contracts v2 Aris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FOR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 8055+ Aris, G. 3.0 Distributed Assets v3 Aris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FOR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 8056+ Aris, G. 3.0 Deregulation Act v2 Aris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FOR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 8057* Corona 1.0 No quorum, no medal Corona [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FOR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: Resending the message because apparently nobody got it
Is this case about a missing email, or about using "I do the same thing" to try and vote? If it's about the email problems, could you provide as Evidence the message from your Sent Mail or something, with headers? On Sun, 24 Jun 2018, ATMunn wrote: > I CFJ on the following statement: > >Before the sending of this message, ATMunn voted FOR proposal 8053. > > No caller's arguments because I have no clue what I'd argue for and how. > > And just in case this ends up being FALSE, I vote FOR proposals 8053-8057. > > On 6/23/2018 6:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > 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 > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Resending the message because apparently nobody got it
Gratituous arguments: You need to "publish a notice" to vote. R478/Fora says: 'A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to be public. [...] A person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message.' The message does not need to be sent to all players, it merely needs to be sent via a public forum, and presumably it doesn't need to be received by all players (excerpt from the same rule): 'Each player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum.' Clearly, the _receiving_ player is responsible for making sure e can receive messages, not the sender or the Registrar. ~Corona On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 8:09 PM, ATMunn wrote: > I CFJ on the following statement: > >Before the sending of this message, ATMunn voted FOR proposal 8053. > > No caller's arguments because I have no clue what I'd argue for and how. > > And just in case this ends up being FALSE, I vote FOR proposals 8053-8057. > > On 6/23/2018 6:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > 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: hmmm?
twg On 6/24/2018 12:55 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: This could be one of the infamous problems with gmail. Have you received this message? Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I haven't received it, and I also haven't received any of PSS's messages to DIS that you're all replying to. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On June 24, 2018 4:20 PM, Corona wrote: Neither have I. ~Corona On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: I have not received it. --- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 10:28 AM, ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote: Nope, it was much later than that. On 6/24/2018 10:11 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: This? Publius Scribonius Scholasticus -- Forwarded message -- From: ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 11:09 AM Subject: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8054-8057 To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org I do the same as the last three people in this thread. On 6/23/2018 6:14 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I also vote FOR proposals 8053-8057. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On June 23, 2018 8:41 AM, Ned Strange edwardostra...@gmail.com wrote: I vote FOR each listed proposal On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Aris Merchant thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote: I vote as follows: ID Author(s) AI Title Pender 8053* G., Aris 1.0 patch patch patch G. [1] FOR 8054+ Aris, [2] 3.0 Minimalist Contracts v2 Aris FOR 8055+ Aris, G. 3.0 Distributed Assets v3 Aris FOR 8056+ Aris, G. 3.0 Deregulation Act v2 Aris FOR 8057* Corona 1.0 No quorum, no medal Corona [1] FOR -Aris -- From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: hmmm?
This could be one of the infamous problems with gmail. Have you received this message? Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > I haven't received it, and I also haven't received any of PSS's messages to > DIS that you're all replying to. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On June 24, 2018 4:20 PM, Corona wrote: > >> >> >> Neither have I. >> >> ~Corona >> >> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < >> >> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> >> > I have not received it. >> > --- >> > >> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >> > >> > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 10:28 AM, ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote: >> > >> > > Nope, it was much later than that. >> > > >> > > On 6/24/2018 10:11 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> > > >> > > > This? >> > > > >> > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >> > > > >> > > > -- Forwarded message -- >> > > > >> > > > From: ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com >> > > > >> > > > Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 11:09 AM >> > > > >> > > > Subject: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8054-8057 >> > > > >> > > > To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org >> > > > >> > > > I do the same as the last three people in this thread. >> > > > >> > > > On 6/23/2018 6:14 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > I also vote FOR proposals 8053-8057. >> > > > > >> > > > > -twg >> > > > > >> > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> > > > > >> > > > > On June 23, 2018 8:41 AM, Ned Strange edwardostra...@gmail.com >> > > > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > >> > > > > > I vote FOR each listed proposal >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Aris Merchant >> > > > > > >> > > > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I vote as follows: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > ID Author(s) AI Title Pender >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 8053* G., Aris 1.0 patch patch patch G. [1] >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > FOR >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 8054+ Aris, [2] 3.0 Minimalist Contracts v2 Aris >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > FOR >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 8055+ Aris, G. 3.0 Distributed Assets v3 Aris >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > FOR >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 8056+ Aris, G. 3.0 Deregulation Act v2 Aris >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > FOR >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > 8057* Corona 1.0 No quorum, no medal Corona [1] >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > FOR >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > -Aris >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -- >> > > > > > >> > > > > > From V.J. Rada > >
Re: DIS: hmmm?
I haven't received it, and I also haven't received any of PSS's messages to DIS that you're all replying to. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On June 24, 2018 4:20 PM, Corona wrote: > > > Neither have I. > > ~Corona > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > I have not received it. > > --- > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 10:28 AM, ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > Nope, it was much later than that. > > > > > > On 6/24/2018 10:11 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > > > > > > This? > > > > > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > > > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > > > > > > > > From: ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 11:09 AM > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8054-8057 > > > > > > > > To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org > > > > > > > > I do the same as the last three people in this thread. > > > > > > > > On 6/23/2018 6:14 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > > > > > I also vote FOR proposals 8053-8057. > > > > > > > > > > -twg > > > > > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > > > > > > > On June 23, 2018 8:41 AM, Ned Strange edwardostra...@gmail.com > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I vote FOR each listed proposal > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Aris Merchant > > > > > > > > > > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I vote as follows: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ID Author(s) AI Title Pender > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 8053* G., Aris 1.0 patch patch patch G. [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FOR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 8054+ Aris, [2] 3.0 Minimalist Contracts v2 Aris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FOR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 8055+ Aris, G. 3.0 Distributed Assets v3 Aris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FOR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 8056+ Aris, G. 3.0 Deregulation Act v2 Aris > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FOR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 8057* Corona 1.0 No quorum, no medal Corona [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FOR > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: hmmm?
Neither have I. ~Corona On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I have not received it. > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 10:28 AM, ATMunn wrote: > > Nope, it was much later than that. > > > > > > On 6/24/2018 10:11 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > >> > >> This? > >> > >> > >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > >> > >> > >> > >> -- Forwarded message -- > >> From: ATMunn > >> Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 11:09 AM > >> Subject: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8054-8057 > >> To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org > >> > >> > >> I do the same as the last three people in this thread. > >> > >> > >> On 6/23/2018 6:14 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> I also vote FOR proposals 8053-8057. > >>> > >>> -twg > >>> > >>> > >>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > >>> > >>> On June 23, 2018 8:41 AM, Ned Strange > wrote: > >>> > > > I vote FOR each listed proposal > > On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Aris Merchant > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I vote as follows: > > > >> ID Author(s) AI Title Pender > >> > >> > >> 8053* G., Aris 1.0 patch patch patch G. [1] > >> > >> FOR > >> > >> 8054+ Aris, [2] 3.0 Minimalist Contracts v2 Aris > >> > >> FOR > >> > >> 8055+ Aris, G. 3.0 Distributed Assets v3 Aris > >> > >> FOR > >> > >> 8056+ Aris, G. 3.0 Deregulation Act v2 Aris > >> > >> FOR > >> > >> 8057* Corona 1.0 No quorum, no medal Corona [1] > >> > >> FOR > > > > > > > > -Aris > > > > -- > > From V.J. Rada > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > >
Re: DIS: hmmm?
I have not received it. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 10:28 AM, ATMunn wrote: > Nope, it was much later than that. > > > On 6/24/2018 10:11 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> >> This? >> >> >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >> >> >> >> -- Forwarded message -- >> From: ATMunn >> Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 11:09 AM >> Subject: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8054-8057 >> To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org >> >> >> I do the same as the last three people in this thread. >> >> >> On 6/23/2018 6:14 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >>> >>> >>> I also vote FOR proposals 8053-8057. >>> >>> -twg >>> >>> >>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >>> >>> On June 23, 2018 8:41 AM, Ned Strange wrote: >>> I vote FOR each listed proposal On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Aris Merchant thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote: > I vote as follows: > >> ID Author(s) AI Title Pender >> >> >> 8053* G., Aris 1.0 patch patch patch G. [1] >> >> FOR >> >> 8054+ Aris, [2] 3.0 Minimalist Contracts v2 Aris >> >> FOR >> >> 8055+ Aris, G. 3.0 Distributed Assets v3 Aris >> >> FOR >> >> 8056+ Aris, G. 3.0 Deregulation Act v2 Aris >> >> FOR >> >> 8057* Corona 1.0 No quorum, no medal Corona [1] >> >> FOR > > > > -Aris -- From V.J. Rada >>> >>> >>> >>> >
Re: DIS: hmmm?
Nope, it was much later than that. On 6/24/2018 10:11 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: This? Publius Scribonius Scholasticus -- Forwarded message -- From: ATMunn Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 11:09 AM Subject: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8054-8057 To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org I do the same as the last three people in this thread. On 6/23/2018 6:14 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I also vote FOR proposals 8053-8057. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On June 23, 2018 8:41 AM, Ned Strange wrote: I vote FOR each listed proposal On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Aris Merchant thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote: I vote as follows: ID Author(s) AI Title Pender 8053* G., Aris 1.0 patch patch patch G. [1] FOR 8054+ Aris, [2] 3.0 Minimalist Contracts v2 Aris FOR 8055+ Aris, G. 3.0 Distributed Assets v3 Aris FOR 8056+ Aris, G. 3.0 Deregulation Act v2 Aris FOR 8057* Corona 1.0 No quorum, no medal Corona [1] FOR -Aris -- From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: hmmm?
This? Publius Scribonius Scholasticus -- Forwarded message -- From: ATMunn Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 11:09 AM Subject: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8054-8057 To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org I do the same as the last three people in this thread. On 6/23/2018 6:14 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > I also vote FOR proposals 8053-8057. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On June 23, 2018 8:41 AM, Ned Strange wrote: > >> >> >> I vote FOR each listed proposal >> >> On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Aris Merchant >> >> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> I vote as follows: >>> ID Author(s) AI Title Pender 8053* G., Aris 1.0 patch patch patch G. [1] FOR 8054+ Aris, [2] 3.0 Minimalist Contracts v2 Aris FOR 8055+ Aris, G. 3.0 Distributed Assets v3 Aris FOR 8056+ Aris, G. 3.0 Deregulation Act v2 Aris FOR 8057* Corona 1.0 No quorum, no medal Corona [1] FOR >>> >>> >>> -Aris >> >> >> -- >> >> From V.J. Rada > > >
Re: DIS: hmmm?
It was just a reply. Probably 'BUS: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8054-8057' On 6/24/2018 10:05 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: What was it called? Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 10:04 AM, ATMunn wrote: I sent a message to BUS yesterday in the thread following the latest Promotor report. Did anyone get it? I don't seem to have gotten a copy myself, but that could just be my client.
Re: DIS: hmmm?
What was it called? Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 10:04 AM, ATMunn wrote: > I sent a message to BUS yesterday in the thread following the latest > Promotor report. Did anyone get it? I don't seem to have gotten a copy > myself, but that could just be my client.
DIS: hmmm?
I sent a message to BUS yesterday in the thread following the latest Promotor report. Did anyone get it? I don't seem to have gotten a copy myself, but that could just be my client.
DIS: Observation regarding OFF
Interestingly, looking at the list of mailing lists on the mailman instance, OFF does not appear: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Testo Testerino
I received it from BUS and DIS, but not OFF. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Received from business. > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 11:20 PM, Ned Strange > wrote: > > > Test > > > > -- > > From V.J. Rada > > >
Re: DIS: Testo Testerino
Received from discussion. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 11:20 PM, Ned Strange wrote: > Test > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
DIS: Re: BUS: Testo Testerino
Received from business. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 11:20 PM, Ned Strange wrote: > Test > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
Re: DIS: I'm no longer getting BUS messages
I don't think that that is necessary. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 9:55 PM, Ned Strange wrote: > 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 >
DIS: Re: BUS: test post pls ignore
received, if that helps. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 9:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > bloop > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8054-8057
I disagree. I think that the clear context resolves any ambiguity that may exist. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 6:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > 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: Testo Testerino
I also got it from OFF although I haven't been getting other messages from it. This shit gnarly man. We can officially designate anything as a public forum. Maybe we should start exploring options. On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jun 2018, Corona wrote: > >> This was delivered to me from all three lists. Does Official work again? > > > I didn't get the OFF one. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Testo Testerino
On Sun, 24 Jun 2018, Corona wrote: This was delivered to me from all three lists. Does Official work again? I didn't get the OFF one. Greetings, Ørjan.
