Re: DIS: [Proposals] Office and Switch Patches
Sorry, hit send to soon. My suggestion is something like: "If a
default isn't specified, then RttCN 'null' is a possible value
for the switch, and is the default."
On Sun, 8 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I don't think Less Critical Patching is a good idea. Specifically,
> we had a plague of switch indeterminacy/uncertainty some (long) time
> ago, which is exactly why the "would otherwise fail... it comes to
> have its default value" clause exists in the first place (especially
> whenever Paradox wins exist).
>
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > I like these in general, but I think that Less Critical Patching
> > should address what occurs if there is no default value. Currently, I
> > don't think that switches can lack a value.
> > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 7:15 PM Aris Merchant
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Title: Office Patch
> > > Adoption index: 3.0
> > > Author: Aris
> > > Co-authors: G., P.S.S
> > >
> > >
> > > Amend Rule 1006, "Offices", by changing the first sentence to read:
> > > Officeholder is an office switch tracked by the ADoP, with possible
> > > values
> > > of any person or "vacant" (default).
> > >
> > > Change the gamestate to whatever it would be if officeholder had been a
> > > switch
> > > for as long as it has been described as such by the rules, with "vacant"
> > > as
> > > its default value.
> > >
> > > Make omd the Distributor.
> > >
> > >
> > > Title: Less Critical Patching
> > > Adoption index: 3.0
> > > Author: Aris
> > > Co-authors:
> > >
> > > Amend Rule 2162, "Switches", by {
> > >
> > > * Changing item 2 of the numbered list to read
> > > "One or more possible values for instances of that switch,
> > >exactly one of which can be designated as the default.
> > >No values other than those listed are possible for
> > >instances of that switch. One of the values SHOULD
> > >always be designated as the default."
> > >
> > > * Changing text "otherwise it takes on its default value" to read
> > > "otherwise it takes on its default value, if any".
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > Increase the power of Rule 2162 to 3.0.
> >
>
>
Re: DIS: [Proposals] Office and Switch Patches
I don't think Less Critical Patching is a good idea. Specifically,
we had a plague of switch indeterminacy/uncertainty some (long) time
ago, which is exactly why the "would otherwise fail... it comes to
have its default value" clause exists in the first place (especially
whenever Paradox wins exist).
On Sun, 8 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> I like these in general, but I think that Less Critical Patching
> should address what occurs if there is no default value. Currently, I
> don't think that switches can lack a value.
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 7:15 PM Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> >
> > Title: Office Patch
> > Adoption index: 3.0
> > Author: Aris
> > Co-authors: G., P.S.S
> >
> >
> > Amend Rule 1006, "Offices", by changing the first sentence to read:
> > Officeholder is an office switch tracked by the ADoP, with possible values
> > of any person or "vacant" (default).
> >
> > Change the gamestate to whatever it would be if officeholder had been a
> > switch
> > for as long as it has been described as such by the rules, with "vacant" as
> > its default value.
> >
> > Make omd the Distributor.
> >
> >
> > Title: Less Critical Patching
> > Adoption index: 3.0
> > Author: Aris
> > Co-authors:
> >
> > Amend Rule 2162, "Switches", by {
> >
> > * Changing item 2 of the numbered list to read
> > "One or more possible values for instances of that switch,
> >exactly one of which can be designated as the default.
> >No values other than those listed are possible for
> >instances of that switch. One of the values SHOULD
> >always be designated as the default."
> >
> > * Changing text "otherwise it takes on its default value" to read
> > "otherwise it takes on its default value, if any".
> >
> > }
> >
> > Increase the power of Rule 2162 to 3.0.
>
Re: DIS: [Proposals] Office and Switch Patches
I like these in general, but I think that Less Critical Patching
should address what occurs if there is no default value. Currently, I
don't think that switches can lack a value.
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 7:15 PM Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> Title: Office Patch
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors: G., P.S.S
>
>
> Amend Rule 1006, "Offices", by changing the first sentence to read:
> Officeholder is an office switch tracked by the ADoP, with possible values
> of any person or "vacant" (default).
>
> Change the gamestate to whatever it would be if officeholder had been a switch
> for as long as it has been described as such by the rules, with "vacant" as
> its default value.
>
> Make omd the Distributor.
>
>
> Title: Less Critical Patching
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors:
>
> Amend Rule 2162, "Switches", by {
>
> * Changing item 2 of the numbered list to read
> "One or more possible values for instances of that switch,
>exactly one of which can be designated as the default.
>No values other than those listed are possible for
>instances of that switch. One of the values SHOULD
>always be designated as the default."
>
> * Changing text "otherwise it takes on its default value" to read
> "otherwise it takes on its default value, if any".
>
> }
>
> Increase the power of Rule 2162 to 3.0.
DIS: [Proposals] Office and Switch Patches
Title: Office Patch
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: G., P.S.S
Amend Rule 1006, "Offices", by changing the first sentence to read:
Officeholder is an office switch tracked by the ADoP, with possible values
of any person or "vacant" (default).
Change the gamestate to whatever it would be if officeholder had been a switch
for as long as it has been described as such by the rules, with "vacant" as
its default value.
Make omd the Distributor.
Title: Less Critical Patching
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2162, "Switches", by {
* Changing item 2 of the numbered list to read
"One or more possible values for instances of that switch,
exactly one of which can be designated as the default.
No values other than those listed are possible for
instances of that switch. One of the values SHOULD
always be designated as the default."
* Changing text "otherwise it takes on its default value" to read
"otherwise it takes on its default value, if any".
}
Increase the power of Rule 2162 to 3.0.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: partial relief
I have a strong memory of you agreeing with this argument the last time this came up, but I could always be wrong. The basic point is that the report ratifies, but none of its text would be any truer or more accurate by being a complete list rather than an incomplete one, so the ratification doesn't affect anything. -Aris On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 3:28 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Sorry, R2162 is pretty clear here: > That officer's (weekly, if not specified > otherwise) report includes the value of each instance of that > switch whose value is not its default value; a public document > purporting to be this portion of that officer's report is > self-ratifying, and implies that other instances are at their > default value. > > On Sun, 8 Jul 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > We could pull out the old trick where the document ratifying doesn't > > change anything, because the document doesn't *explicitly* say that > > there are no other offices. > > > > -Aris > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 3:17 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > *sigh* nvm there was an ADoP published to BAK on June 17, which was > > > just after the proposal made omd the Distributor, so that was the > > > one that would have self-ratified (unless someone CoE'd on that one). > > > > > > On Sun, 8 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Actually, we've got a few hours to spare on this part, it hasn't > > > > self-ratified quite yet: > > > > > > > > Claim of Error on the ADoP Report that was published on July 2 (UTC): > > > > Distributor is an Office with an officholder of omd. > > > > > > > > > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Getting started on this land thing
Yeah, I'm not going to even try to keep track of this
On Sun, Jul 8, 2018, 17:07 Corona wrote:
> (You might think this is more of running the economy into the ground on my
> part, but everyone's still doing things despite the "crisis", so I can't
> afford to stay behind, can I?)
>
> I act on behalf of
>
> 天火狐
> to transfer all liquid assets from the facility at (-3,0) to
>
> 天火狐, and then transfer all of these assets to me.
>
>
> I transfer all liquid assets from the facility at (3,1) to me.
> I
>
> destroy 1 apple to move to (2,1).
> I transfer all liquid assets from the facility at (2,1) to me.
> I destroy 1 apple to move to (2,2).
> I transfer all liquid assets from the facility at (2,2) to me.
> I destroy 1 apple to move to (1,2).
> I destroy
>
> 1 apple to move to (0,2).
>
> I increase the rank of the refinery at (0,2) to
> 3 by destroying 6 coins, 4 lumber
> and
> 4 stones
> .
>
> I increase the rank of the refinery at (0,2) to 4 by destroying 7 coins, 4
> lumber, 3 stones
> and
> 3 fabric
> .
>
>
> I increase the rank of the refinery at (0,2) to 5 by destroying 8 coins, 6
> lumber, 6 stones
> and
> 4 fabric
> . (Ta-dah! The feared lv5 refinery is here, as I promised last week)
>
>
> I transfer all my ore to the refinery at (0,2).
>
> In each ongoing land auction, I bid 40 coins.
>
> I transfer 22 stones, 14 coins and 2 apples to 天火狐.
>
> I act on behalf of 天火狐 to do all of the following:{
> Destroy 1 apple to move to (-4,0).
> Destroy 5 stones to build an orchard at (-4,0).
> Increase the rank of that orchard to 2 by destroying 3 coins and 2 stones.
> Increase the rank of that orchard to 3 by destroying 4 coins and 4 stones.
>
> D
> estroy 1 apple to move to (-5,0).
> Destroy 5 stones to build an orchard at (-5,0).
> Increase the rank of that orchard to 2 by destroying 3 coins and 2 stones.
> Increase the rank of that orchard to 3 by destroying 4 coins and 4 stones.
> }
>
>
>
> ~Corona
>
> On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 10:30 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:
>
> > I destroy the minimum required number of apples to move as follows. I
> > think this is 1 apple per move. Types are advisory only.
> >
> > (0, 0) -> (+1, 0) (Gray -> Black)
> > (+1, 0) -> (+2, 0) (Black -> Black)
> > (+2, 0) -> (+3, 0) (Black -> Black)
> > (+3, 0) -> (+4, 0) (Black -> Black)
> > (+4, 0) -> (+5, 0) (Black -> Black)
> > (+5, 0) -> (+6, 0) (Black -> Black)
> > (+6, 0) -> (+6, +1) (Black -> Black)
> >
> > I destroy 5 lumber to create a Mine at (+6, +1).
> >
> > I destroy the minimum required number of apples to move as follows. I
> > think this is 1 apple per move. Types are advisory only.
> >
> > (+6, +1) -> (+6, +2) (Black -> Black)
> >
> > I destroy 5 stones to create an Orchard at (+6, +2).
> >
> >
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
And, er, taking this to its conclusion: If Officeholder is a switch without a default value, then a Weekly Report can't imply that any switches left off the list are at their default value (because there is no default value). Therefore such a document isn't purporting to be a a list of switches, it's purporting to be a partial list of switches. Therefore, it was never subject to self- ratification. And in a poof of technical-correctness the crisis entirely disappears... On Sun, 8 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > This is a very interesting case. I'm not sure your logic works > because R2162 contains the *definition* of a switch, and rules that > use terms defined elsewhere (like R1006) inherently *defer* to their > definitions if the definitions are of the same power. (combo of R1030 > and R217). > > Think about it this way, for this exact situation: what exactly has > the Distributor officeholder switch self-ratified as? The switch rule > states that report, by not containing "Distributor" officeholder switch, > implies that Distributor is at its "default value". But no default is > defined so... what did it ratify to? If you don't use the R2162 > definition, you get some kind of indeterminate/unknown value...? > > On Sun, 8 Jul 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > It's rule 1006, "Offices", that says Officeholder is a switch, and it's > > rule 2162, "Switches", that (indirectly) says it's not. Rule 1030, > > "Precedence between Rules", gives a handy algorithm for resolving > > contradictions between rules: > > - Compare their powers (Not useful, they're both power 2.0) > > - Do they both defer to a different rule for determining precedence? (No, > > not as far as I can see) > > - Does one rule state that it defers to the other? (No) > > - Compare their ID numbers (So rule 1006 takes precedence over rule 2162.) > > > > Since the "Offices" rule takes precedence, Officeholder is a switch, > > regardless of what the "Switches" rule has to say about it. At least I > > think that's how it works. Someone should probably check my logic. > > > > (Of course, we should probably remove the contradiction - and probably > > increase the power of 2162 because this seems like a prolific source of > > loopholes - but I don't believe there's anything to immediately panic > > about.) > > > > -twg > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > On July 8, 2018 9:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Erk. > > > > > > If the July 1 ADoP Report self-ratified, then ratification beats the > > > > > > Distributor rule in ratifying the Distributor officeholder at its default > > > > > > value. > > > > > > EXCEPT. Double-erk. R1006 doesn't explicitly define a default value for > > > > > > Officeholder switches. Either we indirectly infer "vacant" as the > > > > > > default (questionable), or Officeholder isn't a Switch at all, because by > > > > > > R2162(2), a switch must designate a default value in order to be a switch. > > > > > > Dunno if I'm missing something basic ... but if Officeholder isn't > > > > > > actually a switch ---ok Aris, now that's the sort of thing you can call > > > > > > a crisis. > > > > > > On Sun, 8 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > > > > > > CoE: The Distributor is an office. > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 5:26 PM Edward Murphy emurph...@zoho.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > =Metareport= > > > > > > > > > > You can find an up-to-date version of this report at > > > > > > > > > > http://zenith.homelinux.net/adop/report.php > > > > > > > > > > Date of last report: 2018-07-02 > > > > > > > > > > Date of this report: 2018-07-08 > > > > > > > > > > MISCELLANEOUS INFO > > > > > > > > > > Filled offices: 10/13 (76.92%) > > > > > > > > > > Total officers: 7 > > > > > > > > > > Consolidation[1]: 1.43 > > > > > > > > > > Late reports: 3/10 (30.00%) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > [1] This is the number of filled offices divided by the number of > > > > > > > > > > officers. At 1, this means that all offices are filled by different > > > > > > > > > > players; if it reached the number of filled offices, that would mean > > > > > > > > > > that all offices are filled by one player. > > > > > > > > > > OFFICES > > > > > > > > > > Office Holder[1] Since Last Election > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ADoP Murphy 2018-01-18 2018-01-18 > > > > > > > > > > Arbitor Murphy 2018-01-28 2018-01-28 > > > > > > > > > > Assessor G. 2018-02-06 2018-02-27 > > > > > > > > > > Cartographor Trigon 2018-02-24 (never) > > > > > > > > > > Herald *G. 2018-06-25 (ongoing) > > > > > > > > > > Prime Minister *(vacant) 2018-07-05[2] (ongoing) > > > > > > > > > > Promotor Aris 2016-10-21 2017-09-21 > > > > > > > > > > Referee VJ Rada 2018-07-02 2018-07-02 > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
This is a very interesting case. I'm not sure your logic works because R2162 contains the *definition* of a switch, and rules that use terms defined elsewhere (like R1006) inherently *defer* to their definitions if the definitions are of the same power. (combo of R1030 and R217). Think about it this way, for this exact situation: what exactly has the Distributor officeholder switch self-ratified as? The switch rule states that report, by not containing "Distributor" officeholder switch, implies that Distributor is at its "default value". But no default is defined so... what did it ratify to? If you don't use the R2162 definition, you get some kind of indeterminate/unknown value...? On Sun, 8 Jul 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > It's rule 1006, "Offices", that says Officeholder is a switch, and it's rule > 2162, "Switches", that (indirectly) says it's not. Rule 1030, "Precedence > between Rules", gives a handy algorithm for resolving contradictions between > rules: > - Compare their powers (Not useful, they're both power 2.0) > - Do they both defer to a different rule for determining precedence? (No, not > as far as I can see) > - Does one rule state that it defers to the other? (No) > - Compare their ID numbers (So rule 1006 takes precedence over rule 2162.) > > Since the "Offices" rule takes precedence, Officeholder is a switch, > regardless of what the "Switches" rule has to say about it. At least I think > that's how it works. Someone should probably check my logic. > > (Of course, we should probably remove the contradiction - and probably > increase the power of 2162 because this seems like a prolific source of > loopholes - but I don't believe there's anything to immediately panic about.) > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On July 8, 2018 9:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > Erk. > > > > If the July 1 ADoP Report self-ratified, then ratification beats the > > > > Distributor rule in ratifying the Distributor officeholder at its default > > > > value. > > > > EXCEPT. Double-erk. R1006 doesn't explicitly define a default value for > > > > Officeholder switches. Either we indirectly infer "vacant" as the > > > > default (questionable), or Officeholder isn't a Switch at all, because by > > > > R2162(2), a switch must designate a default value in order to be a switch. > > > > Dunno if I'm missing something basic ... but if Officeholder isn't > > > > actually a switch ---ok Aris, now that's the sort of thing you can call > > > > a crisis. > > > > On Sun, 8 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > > > > CoE: The Distributor is an office. > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 5:26 PM Edward Murphy emurph...@zoho.com wrote: > > > > > > > =Metareport= > > > > > > > > You can find an up-to-date version of this report at > > > > > > > > http://zenith.homelinux.net/adop/report.php > > > > > > > > Date of last report: 2018-07-02 > > > > > > > > Date of this report: 2018-07-08 > > > > > > > > MISCELLANEOUS INFO > > > > > > > > Filled offices: 10/13 (76.92%) > > > > > > > > Total officers: 7 > > > > > > > > Consolidation[1]: 1.43 > > > > > > > > Late reports: 3/10 (30.00%) > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > [1] This is the number of filled offices divided by the number of > > > > > > > > officers. At 1, this means that all offices are filled by different > > > > > > > > players; if it reached the number of filled offices, that would mean > > > > > > > > that all offices are filled by one player. > > > > > > > > OFFICES > > > > > > > > Office Holder[1] Since Last Election > > > > > > > > > > > > ADoP Murphy 2018-01-18 2018-01-18 > > > > > > > > Arbitor Murphy 2018-01-28 2018-01-28 > > > > > > > > Assessor G. 2018-02-06 2018-02-27 > > > > > > > > Cartographor Trigon 2018-02-24 (never) > > > > > > > > Herald *G. 2018-06-25 (ongoing) > > > > > > > > Prime Minister *(vacant) 2018-07-05[2] (ongoing) > > > > > > > > Promotor Aris 2016-10-21 2017-09-21 > > > > > > > > Referee VJ Rada 2018-07-02 2018-07-02 > > > > > > > > Registrar *(vacant) 2018-07-01[2] (ongoing) > > > > > > > > Rulekeepor *(vacant) 2018-07-01[2] 2018-07-08 > > > > > > > > Speaker G. 2018-07-02 2014-04-21 > > > > > > > > Tailor ATMunn 2018-05-09 2018-05-09 > > > > > > > > Treasuror twg 2018-06-24 2018-06-24 > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: partial relief
Sorry, R2162 is pretty clear here: That officer's (weekly, if not specified otherwise) report includes the value of each instance of that switch whose value is not its default value; a public document purporting to be this portion of that officer's report is self-ratifying, and implies that other instances are at their default value. On Sun, 8 Jul 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > We could pull out the old trick where the document ratifying doesn't > change anything, because the document doesn't *explicitly* say that > there are no other offices. > > -Aris > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 3:17 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > *sigh* nvm there was an ADoP published to BAK on June 17, which was > > just after the proposal made omd the Distributor, so that was the > > one that would have self-ratified (unless someone CoE'd on that one). > > > > On Sun, 8 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Actually, we've got a few hours to spare on this part, it hasn't > > > self-ratified quite yet: > > > > > > Claim of Error on the ADoP Report that was published on July 2 (UTC): > > > Distributor is an Office with an officholder of omd. > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: partial relief
We could pull out the old trick where the document ratifying doesn't change anything, because the document doesn't *explicitly* say that there are no other offices. -Aris On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 3:17 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > *sigh* nvm there was an ADoP published to BAK on June 17, which was > just after the proposal made omd the Distributor, so that was the > one that would have self-ratified (unless someone CoE'd on that one). > > On Sun, 8 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Actually, we've got a few hours to spare on this part, it hasn't > > self-ratified quite yet: > > > > Claim of Error on the ADoP Report that was published on July 2 (UTC): > > Distributor is an Office with an officholder of omd. > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
I think that does work, so then we just need to ratify that omd is the holder. On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 6:19 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > It's rule 1006, "Offices", that says Officeholder is a switch, and it's rule > 2162, "Switches", that (indirectly) says it's not. Rule 1030, "Precedence > between Rules", gives a handy algorithm for resolving contradictions between > rules: > - Compare their powers (Not useful, they're both power 2.0) > - Do they both defer to a different rule for determining precedence? (No, not > as far as I can see) > - Does one rule state that it defers to the other? (No) > - Compare their ID numbers (So rule 1006 takes precedence over rule 2162.) > > Since the "Offices" rule takes precedence, Officeholder is a switch, > regardless of what the "Switches" rule has to say about it. At least I think > that's how it works. Someone should probably check my logic. > > (Of course, we should probably remove the contradiction - and probably > increase the power of 2162 because this seems like a prolific source of > loopholes - but I don't believe there's anything to immediately panic about.) > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On July 8, 2018 9:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > Erk. > > > > If the July 1 ADoP Report self-ratified, then ratification beats the > > > > Distributor rule in ratifying the Distributor officeholder at its default > > > > value. > > > > EXCEPT. Double-erk. R1006 doesn't explicitly define a default value for > > > > Officeholder switches. Either we indirectly infer "vacant" as the > > > > default (questionable), or Officeholder isn't a Switch at all, because by > > > > R2162(2), a switch must designate a default value in order to be a switch. > > > > Dunno if I'm missing something basic ... but if Officeholder isn't > > > > actually a switch ---ok Aris, now that's the sort of thing you can call > > > > a crisis. > > > > On Sun, 8 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > > > > CoE: The Distributor is an office. > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 5:26 PM Edward Murphy emurph...@zoho.com wrote: > > > > > > > =Metareport= > > > > > > > > You can find an up-to-date version of this report at > > > > > > > > http://zenith.homelinux.net/adop/report.php > > > > > > > > Date of last report: 2018-07-02 > > > > > > > > Date of this report: 2018-07-08 > > > > > > > > MISCELLANEOUS INFO > > > > > > > > Filled offices: 10/13 (76.92%) > > > > > > > > Total officers: 7 > > > > > > > > Consolidation[1]: 1.43 > > > > > > > > Late reports: 3/10 (30.00%) > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > [1] This is the number of filled offices divided by the number of > > > > > > > > officers. At 1, this means that all offices are filled by different > > > > > > > > players; if it reached the number of filled offices, that would mean > > > > > > > > that all offices are filled by one player. > > > > > > > > OFFICES > > > > > > > > Office Holder[1] Since Last Election > > > > > > > > > > > > ADoP Murphy 2018-01-18 2018-01-18 > > > > > > > > Arbitor Murphy 2018-01-28 2018-01-28 > > > > > > > > Assessor G. 2018-02-06 2018-02-27 > > > > > > > > Cartographor Trigon 2018-02-24 (never) > > > > > > > > Herald *G. 2018-06-25 (ongoing) > > > > > > > > Prime Minister *(vacant) 2018-07-05[2] (ongoing) > > > > > > > > Promotor Aris 2016-10-21 2017-09-21 > > > > > > > > Referee VJ Rada 2018-07-02 2018-07-02 > > > > > > > > Registrar *(vacant) 2018-07-01[2] (ongoing) > > > > > > > > Rulekeepor *(vacant) 2018-07-01[2] 2018-07-08 > > > > > > > > Speaker G. 2018-07-02 2014-04-21 > > > > > > > > Tailor ATMunn 2018-05-09 2018-05-09 > > > > > > > > Treasuror twg 2018-06-24 2018-06-24 > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > [1] * = Interim office (vacant or holder not elected) > > > > > > > > [2] Vacant since this date > > > > > > > > [3] Currently imposed > > > > > > > > WEEKLY REPORTS > > > > > > > > Office Report Last Published Late[1] > > > > > > > > > > > > ADoP Offices 2018-07-02[2] > > > > > > > > Arbitor Judicial matters 2018-07-08 > > > > > > > > Cartographor Land of Arcadia 2018-07-02 > > > > > > > > Herald Matters of Honour 2018-07-05 > > > > > > > > Promotor Proposal pool 2018-07-05 > > > > > > > > Referee Rule violations 2018-06-24 ! > > > > > > > > Registrar Players, Fora
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
It's rule 1006, "Offices", that says Officeholder is a switch, and it's rule 2162, "Switches", that (indirectly) says it's not. Rule 1030, "Precedence between Rules", gives a handy algorithm for resolving contradictions between rules: - Compare their powers (Not useful, they're both power 2.0) - Do they both defer to a different rule for determining precedence? (No, not as far as I can see) - Does one rule state that it defers to the other? (No) - Compare their ID numbers (So rule 1006 takes precedence over rule 2162.) Since the "Offices" rule takes precedence, Officeholder is a switch, regardless of what the "Switches" rule has to say about it. At least I think that's how it works. Someone should probably check my logic. (Of course, we should probably remove the contradiction - and probably increase the power of 2162 because this seems like a prolific source of loopholes - but I don't believe there's anything to immediately panic about.) -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On July 8, 2018 9:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Erk. > > If the July 1 ADoP Report self-ratified, then ratification beats the > > Distributor rule in ratifying the Distributor officeholder at its default > > value. > > EXCEPT. Double-erk. R1006 doesn't explicitly define a default value for > > Officeholder switches. Either we indirectly infer "vacant" as the > > default (questionable), or Officeholder isn't a Switch at all, because by > > R2162(2), a switch must designate a default value in order to be a switch. > > Dunno if I'm missing something basic ... but if Officeholder isn't > > actually a switch ---ok Aris, now that's the sort of thing you can call > > a crisis. > > On Sun, 8 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > > CoE: The Distributor is an office. > > > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 5:26 PM Edward Murphy emurph...@zoho.com wrote: > > > > > =Metareport= > > > > > > You can find an up-to-date version of this report at > > > > > > http://zenith.homelinux.net/adop/report.php > > > > > > Date of last report: 2018-07-02 > > > > > > Date of this report: 2018-07-08 > > > > > > MISCELLANEOUS INFO > > > > > > Filled offices: 10/13 (76.92%) > > > > > > Total officers: 7 > > > > > > Consolidation[1]: 1.43 > > > > > > Late reports: 3/10 (30.00%) > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > [1] This is the number of filled offices divided by the number of > > > > > > officers. At 1, this means that all offices are filled by different > > > > > > players; if it reached the number of filled offices, that would mean > > > > > > that all offices are filled by one player. > > > > > > OFFICES > > > > > > Office Holder[1] Since Last Election > > > > > > > > > ADoP Murphy 2018-01-18 2018-01-18 > > > > > > Arbitor Murphy 2018-01-28 2018-01-28 > > > > > > Assessor G. 2018-02-06 2018-02-27 > > > > > > Cartographor Trigon 2018-02-24 (never) > > > > > > Herald *G. 2018-06-25 (ongoing) > > > > > > Prime Minister *(vacant) 2018-07-05[2] (ongoing) > > > > > > Promotor Aris 2016-10-21 2017-09-21 > > > > > > Referee VJ Rada 2018-07-02 2018-07-02 > > > > > > Registrar *(vacant) 2018-07-01[2] (ongoing) > > > > > > Rulekeepor *(vacant) 2018-07-01[2] 2018-07-08 > > > > > > Speaker G. 2018-07-02 2014-04-21 > > > > > > Tailor ATMunn 2018-05-09 2018-05-09 > > > > > > Treasuror twg 2018-06-24 2018-06-24 > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > [1] * = Interim office (vacant or holder not elected) > > > > > > [2] Vacant since this date > > > > > > [3] Currently imposed > > > > > > WEEKLY REPORTS > > > > > > Office Report Last Published Late[1] > > > > > > > > > ADoP Offices 2018-07-02[2] > > > > > > Arbitor Judicial matters 2018-07-08 > > > > > > Cartographor Land of Arcadia 2018-07-02 > > > > > > Herald Matters of Honour 2018-07-05 > > > > > > Promotor Proposal pool 2018-07-05 > > > > > > Referee Rule violations 2018-06-24 ! > > > > > > Registrar Players, Fora 2018-06-24 (vacant) > > > > > > Rulekeepor Short Logical Ruleset 2018-06-12 (vacant) > > > > > > Treasuror Coins, other currencies 2018-07-04 > > > > > > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: partial relief
*sigh* nvm there was an ADoP published to BAK on June 17, which was just after the proposal made omd the Distributor, so that was the one that would have self-ratified (unless someone CoE'd on that one). On Sun, 8 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Actually, we've got a few hours to spare on this part, it hasn't > self-ratified quite yet: > > Claim of Error on the ADoP Report that was published on July 2 (UTC): > Distributor is an Office with an officholder of omd.
DIS: Re: BUS: partial relief
Slight problem: It wasn't listed in any of the earlier Metareports.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
Well, I didn't realise how large of a problem this was, but that is very problematic. On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 5:45 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Erk. > > If the July 1 ADoP Report self-ratified, then ratification beats the > Distributor rule in ratifying the Distributor officeholder at its default > value. > > EXCEPT. Double-erk. R1006 doesn't explicitly define a default value for > Officeholder switches. Either we indirectly infer "vacant" as the > default (questionable), or Officeholder isn't a Switch at all, because by > R2162(2), a switch must designate a default value in order to be a switch. > > Dunno if I'm missing something basic ... but if Officeholder isn't > actually a switch ---ok Aris, now *that's* the sort of thing you can call > a crisis. > > On Sun, 8 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > CoE: The Distributor is an office. > > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 5:26 PM Edward Murphy wrote: > > > > > > =Metareport= > > > You can find an up-to-date version of this report at > > > http://zenith.homelinux.net/adop/report.php > > > > > > Date of last report: 2018-07-02 > > > Date of this report: 2018-07-08 > > > > > > > > > MISCELLANEOUS INFO > > > > > > > > > Filled offices: 10/13 (76.92%) > > > Total officers: 7 > > > Consolidation[1]: 1.43 > > > Late reports: 3/10 (30.00%) > > > > > > [1] This is the number of filled offices divided by the number of > > > officers. At 1, this means that all offices are filled by different > > > players; if it reached the number of filled offices, that would mean > > > that all offices are filled by one player. > > > > > > > > > OFFICES > > > > > > Office Holder[1] Since Last Election > > > - > > > ADoP Murphy 2018-01-182018-01-18 > > > ArbitorMurphy 2018-01-282018-01-28 > > > Assessor G. 2018-02-062018-02-27 > > > Cartographor Trigon 2018-02-24(never) > > > Herald*G. 2018-06-25(ongoing) > > > Prime Minister*(vacant) 2018-07-05[2] (ongoing) > > > Promotor Aris 2016-10-212017-09-21 > > > RefereeVJ Rada2018-07-022018-07-02 > > > Registrar *(vacant) 2018-07-01[2] (ongoing) > > > Rulekeepor*(vacant) 2018-07-01[2] 2018-07-08 > > > SpeakerG. 2018-07-022014-04-21 > > > Tailor ATMunn 2018-05-092018-05-09 > > > Treasuror twg2018-06-242018-06-24 > > > > > > [1] * = Interim office (vacant or holder not elected) > > > [2] Vacant since this date > > > [3] Currently imposed > > > > > > > > > WEEKLY REPORTS > > > > > > Office ReportLast Published Late[1] > > > > > > ADoP Offices 2018-07-02[2] > > > ArbitorJudicial matters 2018-07-08 > > > Cartographor Land of Arcadia 2018-07-02 > > > Herald Matters of Honour 2018-07-05 > > > Promotor Proposal pool 2018-07-05 > > > RefereeRule violations 2018-06-24 ! > > > Registrar Players, Fora 2018-06-24 (vacant) > > > Rulekeepor Short Logical Ruleset 2018-06-12 (vacant) > > > Treasuror Coins, other currencies 2018-07-04 > > > > > > [1] ! = 1 period missed, !! = 2, !!! = 3+ > > > [2] Not including this report > > > > > > MONTHLY REPORTS > > > > > > Office ReportLast Published Late > > > > > > Herald Patent titles 2018-06-10 > > > Registrar Player history2018-06-12 (vacant) > > > Rulekeepor Full Logical Ruleset 2018-06-06 (vacant) > > > Tailor Ribbons 2018-06-12 > > > > > > > > > > > > ELECTIONS > > > > > > Office Initiated Phase Candidates > > > > > > Herald 2018-07-02 Voting Corona, G., PSS > > > Prime Minister 2018-07-05 Nominating Aris, Corona > > > Registrar 2018-07-02 Voting Corona, PSS > > > > > > > > > UPCOMING ELECTIONS[1] > > > > > > Office Days Until Last Election > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
Erk. If the July 1 ADoP Report self-ratified, then ratification beats the Distributor rule in ratifying the Distributor officeholder at its default value. EXCEPT. Double-erk. R1006 doesn't explicitly define a default value for Officeholder switches. Either we indirectly infer "vacant" as the default (questionable), or Officeholder isn't a Switch at all, because by R2162(2), a switch must designate a default value in order to be a switch. Dunno if I'm missing something basic ... but if Officeholder isn't actually a switch ---ok Aris, now *that's* the sort of thing you can call a crisis. On Sun, 8 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > CoE: The Distributor is an office. > On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 5:26 PM Edward Murphy wrote: > > > > =Metareport= > > You can find an up-to-date version of this report at > > http://zenith.homelinux.net/adop/report.php > > > > Date of last report: 2018-07-02 > > Date of this report: 2018-07-08 > > > > > > MISCELLANEOUS INFO > > > > > > Filled offices: 10/13 (76.92%) > > Total officers: 7 > > Consolidation[1]: 1.43 > > Late reports: 3/10 (30.00%) > > > > [1] This is the number of filled offices divided by the number of > > officers. At 1, this means that all offices are filled by different > > players; if it reached the number of filled offices, that would mean > > that all offices are filled by one player. > > > > > > OFFICES > > > > Office Holder[1] Since Last Election > > - > > ADoP Murphy 2018-01-182018-01-18 > > ArbitorMurphy 2018-01-282018-01-28 > > Assessor G. 2018-02-062018-02-27 > > Cartographor Trigon 2018-02-24(never) > > Herald*G. 2018-06-25(ongoing) > > Prime Minister*(vacant) 2018-07-05[2] (ongoing) > > Promotor Aris 2016-10-212017-09-21 > > RefereeVJ Rada2018-07-022018-07-02 > > Registrar *(vacant) 2018-07-01[2] (ongoing) > > Rulekeepor*(vacant) 2018-07-01[2] 2018-07-08 > > SpeakerG. 2018-07-022014-04-21 > > Tailor ATMunn 2018-05-092018-05-09 > > Treasuror twg2018-06-242018-06-24 > > > > [1] * = Interim office (vacant or holder not elected) > > [2] Vacant since this date > > [3] Currently imposed > > > > > > WEEKLY REPORTS > > > > Office ReportLast Published Late[1] > > > > ADoP Offices 2018-07-02[2] > > ArbitorJudicial matters 2018-07-08 > > Cartographor Land of Arcadia 2018-07-02 > > Herald Matters of Honour 2018-07-05 > > Promotor Proposal pool 2018-07-05 > > RefereeRule violations 2018-06-24 ! > > Registrar Players, Fora 2018-06-24 (vacant) > > Rulekeepor Short Logical Ruleset 2018-06-12 (vacant) > > Treasuror Coins, other currencies 2018-07-04 > > > > [1] ! = 1 period missed, !! = 2, !!! = 3+ > > [2] Not including this report > > > > MONTHLY REPORTS > > > > Office ReportLast Published Late > > > > Herald Patent titles 2018-06-10 > > Registrar Player history2018-06-12 (vacant) > > Rulekeepor Full Logical Ruleset 2018-06-06 (vacant) > > Tailor Ribbons 2018-06-12 > > > > > > > > ELECTIONS > > > > Office Initiated Phase Candidates > > > > Herald 2018-07-02 Voting Corona, G., PSS > > Prime Minister 2018-07-05 Nominating Aris, Corona > > Registrar 2018-07-02 Voting Corona, PSS > > > > > > UPCOMING ELECTIONS[1] > > > > Office Days Until Last Election > > > > Promotor 00 Days 2017-09-21 > > ADoP 00 Days 2018-01-18 > > Arbitor00 Days 2018-01-28 > > Assessor 00 Days 2018-02-27 > > Tailor 29 Days 2018-05-09 > >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
V.J. Rada wrote: Also, please take Gaelan off the list Done, looks like e hasn't posted to a-b at all since late April.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land Auctions for July week 1
G. wrote: It took - hmm, a few months play, a coin/corn bug, and a big payroll from zombies to open up the board (for everyone) and get some land enough to get to this point. At this point - with several land - I'm starting to get into the worker placement and currency budgeting part and it's kind of interesting. I'm even willing to keep trying for a little bit as-is. But I'm not keen enough to do a reset and go through all that again over months to get to this point. Rather than a reset to zero, what about randomly giving everyone X units of land with a mix of random facilities? (Maybe weighted toward mines and orchards, which produce what you need to build more facilities. Or maybe not.)
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [FRC] Court Proceedings for July 6
A clerk could be created... Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 8, 2018, at 11:33 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 6 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> Just a quick question, where does my rule bind the court? The only >> binding statement was on the submitter of rules. > > "bind" was probably the wrong word. In character, it was a judicial > "harumph, the Counsellor expects me to track multiple dockets now, what > am I, my own Clerk?" (all style points are in-character, validity isn't). > > >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [FRC] Court Proceedings for July 6
On Fri, 6 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > Just a quick question, where does my rule bind the court? The only > binding statement was on the submitter of rules. "bind" was probably the wrong word. In character, it was a judicial "harumph, the Counsellor expects me to track multiple dockets now, what am I, my own Clerk?" (all style points are in-character, validity isn't).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Initiating elections
I do think that it works, other issues with the ACORN notwithstanding. On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 11:27 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Cool! Those were some of the same ideas I had... but I just took the job > for the tournament really, so a question: The Herald is the one who had > to start the tournament. But in the regs, I named "G." as the gamemaster > such that if I stop being Herald, it's still my job, as G., not as the > Herald, to finish the tournament. Do you agree that I got that right and > it works (i.e. that if Herald changes hands now it won't screw up the > tournament)? > > On Sat, 7 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > > If I become Herald, I do not plan to do anything especially > > interesting with Karma. I might as well be up front about that. > > However, I plan to start using more patent titles. I also plan to > > begin a more organized process of collecting and organizing Agoran > > records from the various websites across the internet and from current > > and former players. I hope that this will allow a greater level of > > historical knowledge and thus fuel scholarship and more insightful > > play. > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:40 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I nominate myself for Herald. -G. > > > > > > Nomination statement: It's time to revive a few good titles. > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 1 Jul 2018, Edward Murphy wrote: > > > > For each of the following interim offices, as ADoP, I initiate an > > > > election for it: > > > > > > > > Herald (G. deputised to propose Birthday Tournament Regulations) > > > > Registrar (vacant) > > > > Rulekeepor (vacant) > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Initiating elections
Cool! Those were some of the same ideas I had... but I just took the job for the tournament really, so a question: The Herald is the one who had to start the tournament. But in the regs, I named "G." as the gamemaster such that if I stop being Herald, it's still my job, as G., not as the Herald, to finish the tournament. Do you agree that I got that right and it works (i.e. that if Herald changes hands now it won't screw up the tournament)? On Sat, 7 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > If I become Herald, I do not plan to do anything especially > interesting with Karma. I might as well be up front about that. > However, I plan to start using more patent titles. I also plan to > begin a more organized process of collecting and organizing Agoran > records from the various websites across the internet and from current > and former players. I hope that this will allow a greater level of > historical knowledge and thus fuel scholarship and more insightful > play. > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:40 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > I nominate myself for Herald. -G. > > > > Nomination statement: It's time to revive a few good titles. > > > > > > On Sun, 1 Jul 2018, Edward Murphy wrote: > > > For each of the following interim offices, as ADoP, I initiate an > > > election for it: > > > > > > Herald (G. deputised to propose Birthday Tournament Regulations) > > > Registrar (vacant) > > > Rulekeepor (vacant) > > > > > > > > >
