Re: DIS: Since we're doing fancy contracts...
No one ever said the last bit. We simply decided that the previous system was too complicated, and we wanted something lighter weight. -Aris On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 9:17 PM Reuben Staley wrote: > It was decided the current system was too complicated for how many use > cases it was applicable in do Aris made proposals to simplify it and get > rid of the Notary. They are now meant to be more short-term and to serve a > single purpose. > > On Sat, Oct 27, 2018, 21:18 Gaelan Steele wrote: > > > (Recent) history question: why did contracts stop being entities that > show > > up in a report? > > > > Gaelan > > > > > On Oct 27, 2018, at 5:15 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > > ...here's another idea I've been toying with for a while: > > > > > > > > > This document is a contract between twg (the "Game Master" or "GM") and > > one or more other parties (the "Competitors"). Any player can become a > > Competitor and any Competitor can cease to be a party to this contract. > The > > GM cannot cease to be a party. > > > > > > The text of this document is divided into two sections: the "Immutable > > Rules" and the "Mutable Rules". The Immutable Rules are the portion of > the > > text up to and including the first paragraph, other than this one, that > > contains the phrase "The Mutable Rules begin here." The Mutable Rules are > > the portion of the text that is not the Immutable Rules. > > > > > > The GM SHALL make reasonable efforts to ensure that e remains in > > possession of a full and complete copy of this document, and that its > > contents are not deleted, destroyed, corrupted, stolen, irreversibly > > encrypted, or otherwise placed beyond eir capability to read. The GM > SHALL > > NOT disclose substantial portions of the Mutable Rules to other players, > > except that should a player Point eir Finger citing an alleged failure to > > act in accordance with this contract, the GM MAY and SHOULD privately > > disclose portions of the Mutable Rules to the investigator of that Finger > > Pointing, as necessary for the investigator to perform eir investigation. > > The GM is ENCOURAGED to maintain a public version of this document that > has > > each paragraph of the Mutable Rules replaced by its SHA-512 hash. > > > > > > Any party to this contract CAN, With Agoran Consent from Competitors > and > > Without Objection from the GM, modify this contract by altering the > > Immutable Rules. The GM SHOULD NOT object to an announcement of intent > to > > modify this contract unless e believes that the modification would be > > significantly detrimental to its correct functioning. > > > > > > Any party to this contract CAN, With Agoran Consent from Competitors, > > modify this contract by performing any number of the following > alterations, > > in a specific order, to the Mutable Rules: > > > - Adding, at a specific position of eir choice, a paragraph whose text > > has been disclosed to the GM and whose text has been uniquely identified > > (for example, by means of a SHA-512 hash) as part of the announcement of > > intent to modify the contract. > > > - Removing a specific paragraph. > > > - Replacing all occurrences of a specific word or phrase with a > > different specific word or phrase. > > > > > > The Mutable Rules begin here. > > > > > > > > > -twg > > > > >
Re: DIS: Since we're doing fancy contracts...
It was decided the current system was too complicated for how many use cases it was applicable in do Aris made proposals to simplify it and get rid of the Notary. They are now meant to be more short-term and to serve a single purpose. On Sat, Oct 27, 2018, 21:18 Gaelan Steele wrote: > (Recent) history question: why did contracts stop being entities that show > up in a report? > > Gaelan > > > On Oct 27, 2018, at 5:15 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > ...here's another idea I've been toying with for a while: > > > > > > This document is a contract between twg (the "Game Master" or "GM") and > one or more other parties (the "Competitors"). Any player can become a > Competitor and any Competitor can cease to be a party to this contract. The > GM cannot cease to be a party. > > > > The text of this document is divided into two sections: the "Immutable > Rules" and the "Mutable Rules". The Immutable Rules are the portion of the > text up to and including the first paragraph, other than this one, that > contains the phrase "The Mutable Rules begin here." The Mutable Rules are > the portion of the text that is not the Immutable Rules. > > > > The GM SHALL make reasonable efforts to ensure that e remains in > possession of a full and complete copy of this document, and that its > contents are not deleted, destroyed, corrupted, stolen, irreversibly > encrypted, or otherwise placed beyond eir capability to read. The GM SHALL > NOT disclose substantial portions of the Mutable Rules to other players, > except that should a player Point eir Finger citing an alleged failure to > act in accordance with this contract, the GM MAY and SHOULD privately > disclose portions of the Mutable Rules to the investigator of that Finger > Pointing, as necessary for the investigator to perform eir investigation. > The GM is ENCOURAGED to maintain a public version of this document that has > each paragraph of the Mutable Rules replaced by its SHA-512 hash. > > > > Any party to this contract CAN, With Agoran Consent from Competitors and > Without Objection from the GM, modify this contract by altering the > Immutable Rules. The GM SHOULD NOT object to an announcement of intent to > modify this contract unless e believes that the modification would be > significantly detrimental to its correct functioning. > > > > Any party to this contract CAN, With Agoran Consent from Competitors, > modify this contract by performing any number of the following alterations, > in a specific order, to the Mutable Rules: > > - Adding, at a specific position of eir choice, a paragraph whose text > has been disclosed to the GM and whose text has been uniquely identified > (for example, by means of a SHA-512 hash) as part of the announcement of > intent to modify the contract. > > - Removing a specific paragraph. > > - Replacing all occurrences of a specific word or phrase with a > different specific word or phrase. > > > > The Mutable Rules begin here. > > > > > > -twg > >
Re: DIS: Since we're doing fancy contracts...
(Recent) history question: why did contracts stop being entities that show up in a report? Gaelan > On Oct 27, 2018, at 5:15 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > ...here's another idea I've been toying with for a while: > > > This document is a contract between twg (the "Game Master" or "GM") and one > or more other parties (the "Competitors"). Any player can become a Competitor > and any Competitor can cease to be a party to this contract. The GM cannot > cease to be a party. > > The text of this document is divided into two sections: the "Immutable Rules" > and the "Mutable Rules". The Immutable Rules are the portion of the text up > to and including the first paragraph, other than this one, that contains the > phrase "The Mutable Rules begin here." The Mutable Rules are the portion of > the text that is not the Immutable Rules. > > The GM SHALL make reasonable efforts to ensure that e remains in possession > of a full and complete copy of this document, and that its contents are not > deleted, destroyed, corrupted, stolen, irreversibly encrypted, or otherwise > placed beyond eir capability to read. The GM SHALL NOT disclose substantial > portions of the Mutable Rules to other players, except that should a player > Point eir Finger citing an alleged failure to act in accordance with this > contract, the GM MAY and SHOULD privately disclose portions of the Mutable > Rules to the investigator of that Finger Pointing, as necessary for the > investigator to perform eir investigation. The GM is ENCOURAGED to maintain a > public version of this document that has each paragraph of the Mutable Rules > replaced by its SHA-512 hash. > > Any party to this contract CAN, With Agoran Consent from Competitors and > Without Objection from the GM, modify this contract by altering the Immutable > Rules. The GM SHOULD NOT object to an announcement of intent to modify this > contract unless e believes that the modification would be significantly > detrimental to its correct functioning. > > Any party to this contract CAN, With Agoran Consent from Competitors, modify > this contract by performing any number of the following alterations, in a > specific order, to the Mutable Rules: > - Adding, at a specific position of eir choice, a paragraph whose text has > been disclosed to the GM and whose text has been uniquely identified (for > example, by means of a SHA-512 hash) as part of the announcement of intent to > modify the contract. > - Removing a specific paragraph. > - Replacing all occurrences of a specific word or phrase with a different > specific word or phrase. > > The Mutable Rules begin here. > > > -twg
Re: DIS: Since we're doing fancy contracts...
I'd probably participate in this. One thing worth noting is that, don't quote me on this, but I don't think parties are a rule-defined term anymore. On 10/27/2018 8:15 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: ...here's another idea I've been toying with for a while: This document is a contract between twg (the "Game Master" or "GM") and one or more other parties (the "Competitors"). Any player can become a Competitor and any Competitor can cease to be a party to this contract. The GM cannot cease to be a party. The text of this document is divided into two sections: the "Immutable Rules" and the "Mutable Rules". The Immutable Rules are the portion of the text up to and including the first paragraph, other than this one, that contains the phrase "The Mutable Rules begin here." The Mutable Rules are the portion of the text that is not the Immutable Rules. The GM SHALL make reasonable efforts to ensure that e remains in possession of a full and complete copy of this document, and that its contents are not deleted, destroyed, corrupted, stolen, irreversibly encrypted, or otherwise placed beyond eir capability to read. The GM SHALL NOT disclose substantial portions of the Mutable Rules to other players, except that should a player Point eir Finger citing an alleged failure to act in accordance with this contract, the GM MAY and SHOULD privately disclose portions of the Mutable Rules to the investigator of that Finger Pointing, as necessary for the investigator to perform eir investigation. The GM is ENCOURAGED to maintain a public version of this document that has each paragraph of the Mutable Rules replaced by its SHA-512 hash. Any party to this contract CAN, With Agoran Consent from Competitors and Without Objection from the GM, modify this contract by altering the Immutable Rules. The GM SHOULD NOT object to an announcement of intent to modify this contract unless e believes that the modification would be significantly detrimental to its correct functioning. Any party to this contract CAN, With Agoran Consent from Competitors, modify this contract by performing any number of the following alterations, in a specific order, to the Mutable Rules: - Adding, at a specific position of eir choice, a paragraph whose text has been disclosed to the GM and whose text has been uniquely identified (for example, by means of a SHA-512 hash) as part of the announcement of intent to modify the contract. - Removing a specific paragraph. - Replacing all occurrences of a specific word or phrase with a different specific word or phrase. The Mutable Rules begin here. -twg
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] space i guess?
Comments on comments below, but in a nutshell: Stuff will get fixed next
draft.
On 10/27/2018 7:27 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
Feedback inline. I wrote most of the proposal feedback before reading other
comments, so some of this may be duplicated.
On Oct 15, 2018, at 6:13 PM, ATMunn wrote:
so basically this is super clunky and probably not going to work, but if
you think there's any hope for it then please say so :)
Title: "spaaace?"
AI: 1
Author: ATMunn
Co-author(s): Aris
Enact a new rule entitled "Spaceships", with the following text:
{
Spaceships are indestructible fixed assets. Ownership of Spaceships
is restricted to players. Players CANNOT own more than one
Spaceship.
This seems like it could be problematic. What happens if someone gets a second
spaceship? Is it destroyed (in the “stops existing” sense)? Is the original one
destroyed? Is the action that transferred it INEFFECTIVE?
Doesn't matter, spaceships are becoming not assets in the next draft.
Each Spaceship has a Sector switch, with possible values
being I, II, III, and IV, defaulting to I; a Destroyed switch, a
boolean switch defaulting to False; and a Power switch, with
possible values being any integer in the range of 0-20
Inclusive or exclusive?
Inclusive.
, defaulting
to 10.
Any player CAN, by announcement, flip eir Spaceship's Sector switch
to any other value at any time, decreasing the Spaceship's Power
switch by one, as long as e has not done so within the last 24
hours. If a Spaceship's Power is 0, its Sector CANNOT be flipped.
If a Spaceship is Destroyed, its Sector switch CANNOT be flipped. At
least 24 hours after a Spaceship's Destroyed switch becomes True,
its owner CAN flip its Destroyed switch back to False by
announcement. [todo: some way to make this not flippable except
after a space battle, not sure how to word that]
I imagine that at some point in the near future, we’ll end up with a scam
involving a rule that forgets to check the Destroyed switch. I wonder if we can
make this the default—something like “if a rule refers to spaceships, it refers
only to spaceships with a Destroyed switch set to False, unless the rule
specifies otherwise”? Or make it so that when destroyed, a spaceship becomes a
different asset (Debris?) that can be converted back into a spaceship?
Again, this is an issue that will be fixed in the next draft. As it
stands right now, there will be an Armor switch, and when it hits 0, the
player is considered Defeated until they repair their armor.
Any player CAN, by announcement, increase eir Spaceship's Power by
N, where N is the number of hours since the player last increased
the Spaceship's Power, divided by two. If doing so would put the
Power at a value greater than 20, then the Power switch is simply
set to 20.
Can we make this automatic? Seems a little pointless, especially because it
will change often enough that there isn’t much point in record keeping.
This is going to be modified a bit in the next draft. But actually, it
may be a good idea to make it automatic still. Didn't consider that.
}
Enact a new rule entitled "Space Battles", with the following text:
{
If two Spaceships have the same Sector value, and neither of them
are Destroyed, then the owner of either CAN, by announcement, start
a Space Battle with the other. During a Space Battle, both
Spaceships involved CANNOT have any of their switches flipped.
Once a Space Battle has begun, each player CAN, and SHALL in a
timely fashion, specify by announcement an amount of Power e wishes
to spend. This value CAN be 0, and CANNOT exceed that player's
Spaceship's current Power value. After both players have done the
above, then either player CAN, by announcement, increase the amount
of Power e wishes to spend.
Once 48 hours have passed since the beginning of the Space Battle,
players can no longer increase the amount of Power they wish to
spend, and either player CAN Resolve the Battle by announcement, and
at least one of them SHALL in a timely fashion. Upon doing so, both
players' Spaceships lose the amount of Power equal to the last
specified amount of Power, and, the one which lost more Power is
deemed the Winner of that Space Battle, and the other is the Loser.
If the lost Power values are equal, both Spaceships are Winners. The
Loser in a Space Battle, if there is one, has its Destroyed value
set to True.
This’ll result in sniping attempts at the end of the window. Probably a good
idea to have bids increase the window (proportionally to the size of the
increase maybe?)
I'm planning to overhaul this to a completely different system, where
each player only gets one bid.
}
Enact a new rule entitled "Fame", with the following text:
{
Every player has a Fame switch, with possible values being all
integers between -10 and
DIS: Re: proto-Agoran People’s Party
Thank you for the helpful comments. I clarify below. On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 8:34 PM Gaelan Steele wrote: > Feedback inline > > Gaelan > > > > 103. Joining the Party. Any active player CAN become a Member: > > > > (a) by announcement consenting to be bound by this Charter, if the > Party has 3 or fewer Members; or > > > > (b) if the Party has 4 or more Members, by announcement Without X > Active Member Objections consenting to be bound by this Charter, where X is > equal to 1/2 the total number of active Members rounded down to the nearest > integer. > > Ambiguity: are the objecting members consenting, or is the new member? > Also, I don’t think you need to say “by announcement without > objection”—just “without objection” > Good point. It is the joining member consenting to be bound. I’ll clarify and omit the announcement language. > > > 106. Effective Date. The provisions of this Charter become EFFECTIVE on > the day that 3 players have become Members by announcement pursuant to § > 102(a) (the "Effective Date”). > > If it isn’t effective, how does 103(a) work? > Thanks, yes—probably only Article 2 should go into effect on the Effective Date, and Article 1 go into effect immediately. > > 201. Party Intents. The Agoran rules regarding the announcement of > intent apply to announcements of intent under this Charter. For clarity’s > sake, this Charter uses the phrase “Without N Active Member Objections” to > refer to an intent to act Without N Objections where the eligible objectors > are active Members. > > What’s an active member? > A non-zombie member. I’ll clarify. If a member becomes a zombie, they no longer vote in the Party decisions, but the Party will continue to control their votes in Agora decisions, is the idea. > > > > 202. Party Decisions. The Agoran rules relating to Agoran decisions > apply to Party decisions under this Charter, except that notwithstanding > any Agoran rule: (a) only active Members CAN cast valid votes in a Party > Decision; (b) each active Member’s vote has a strength equal to 1; and (c) > a Party Decision resolves to FAILED QUORUM unless a majority of all active > Members cast the same valid unrescinded vote on that Party Decision. > > I think you need an “unless and only unless” here (or some better > phrasing), or you could make an argument that a FAILED QUORUM also happens > according to the normal Agoran rules (I.e. all players) > Yes, thank you. > > > > 203. Determining the Opinion of the Party. > > > > (a) Any Member may by announcement make a Motion to Determine the > Opinion of the Party (“Motion”), specifying either (i) an Agoran decision > for which at least 5 days remain for voting on the Agoran decision or (ii) > a submitted proposal on which an Agoran decision has not yet begun. > > Support dependent actions too? I tried to draft this but it was harder than I thought. I think I will leave this for a later possible Amendment if the charter actually gets any members and becomes operational. > > > > > (f) If there is an Opinion of the Party regarding an Agoran decision > or proposal, a Member SHALL NOT cast on behalf of emself or eir zombie any > unrescinded vote on that Agoran decision or proposal except for a vote > identical to the Opinion of the Party. Each Member authorizes each other > Member to act on eir behalf and on behalf of eir zombie to vote in > accordance with the Opinion of the Party on any Agoran decision for which > the Party has an Opinion. > > I don’t think you can authorize acting on behalf of the zombies—you need > to authorize other Members to act on behalf of the zombie holder to act on > behalf of the zombies. > Yes will reword it that way.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: There really, really, is nothing to see here this time
No—I would have barred him. Gaelan > On Oct 27, 2018, at 5:28 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > I am tempted to assign this to G., so that e is required to give a verdict > that compiles with No Faking. Any reason why I shouldn’t do that? > > On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 8:22 PM Gaelan Steele wrote: > >> I CFJ “By sending a message at 3:35 PM Pacific on October 27, G. performed >> one or more regulated actions.” >> >> I encourage G. to submit an argument. >> >> [CFJs aren’t really binding, but if G allows this to be judged false, it >> would make the argument that this message did something less valid] >> >> Gaelan >> >>> On Oct 27, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >>> >>> If the quoted message contains any announcements of intent to perform a >> dependent action, I object to them all. >>> >>> -twg >>> >>> >>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >>> On Saturday, October 27, 2018 10:32 PM, Kerim Aydin < >> ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >> >>
DIS: Re: proto-Agoran People’s Party
Feedback inline Gaelan > On Oct 27, 2018, at 5:10 PM, D Margaux wrote: > > I had an idea for a perhaps fun game-within-a-game. Was curious what everyone > thinks. > > The idea is to have a contractual voting bloc or political party (different > from the political parties pun subgame of course). > > Under the contract, people could join the party by announcement and leave > with, say, 10 days notice. There would be a voting procedure for determining > the Opinion of the Party with respect to a particular Agoran decision. (Maybe > voting on the party’s Opinion on a proposal could be permitted to begin > before the Agoran decision itself is distributed so that there’s sufficient > time to determine what the Opinion is.) > > If the party has an Opinion, the contract would provide that the members > SHALL vote in accordance with the opinion and that the members authorize each > other to vote on their behalf in accordance with the Opinion of the Party (if > there is one). > > > So with that in mind, here’s a proto contract. I’m sure it has lots of bugs. > But I welcome any comments! > > DMx > > * > > THE CHARTER OF THE AGORAN PEOPLE’S PARTY > > > Article 1 - Establishment of The Agoran People’s Party > > 101. Nature of This Instrument. This instrument (the “Charter”) is a > contract. It is binding upon the parties to the Charter (the “Members”). > > 102. The Party. This Charter establishes an entity to be known as the > Agoran People’s Party (the “Party”). The Party is a political organization > and voting bloc comprised of Members for the advancement of eir own interests > if not the interests of Agora as a whole. The Party SHOULD be treated Pretty > Good For a Long Time. > > 103. Joining the Party. Any active player CAN become a Member: > > (a) by announcement consenting to be bound by this Charter, if the Party > has 3 or fewer Members; or > > (b) if the Party has 4 or more Members, by announcement Without X Active > Member Objections consenting to be bound by this Charter, where X is equal to > 1/2 the total number of active Members rounded down to the nearest integer. Ambiguity: are the objecting members consenting, or is the new member? Also, I don’t think you need to say “by announcement without objection”—just “without objection” > > 104. Leaving the Party. A Member CAN cease to be a Member: > > (a) by announcement with 10 days’ Notice: > > (b) by announcement, if the Party has 3 or fewer active Members; or > > (c) Without X Active Members Objections, where X is equal to 1/2 the > total number of active Members and the eligible objectors are all active > Members rounded down to the nearest integer. > > 105. Expulsion from the Party. A Member CAN cause another active Member to > cease to be a Member by announcement Without X Active Member Objections, > where X is 1/4 of the number of active Members rounded up to the nearest > integer. > > 106. Effective Date. The provisions of this Charter become EFFECTIVE on the > day that 3 players have become Members by announcement pursuant to § 102(a) > (the "Effective Date”). If it isn’t effective, how does 103(a) work? > > 107. Termination. This Charter will terminate automatically 90 days after > the Effective Date. > > 108. Amendments. This Charter CAN be amended by the unanimous consent of the > active Members expressed by announcement. Notwithstanding any other > provision, the Party CANNOT have any Opinion regarding the adoption of any > amendment to the Charter. > > Article 2 - Decisions and The Opinion of the Party. > > 201. Party Intents. The Agoran rules regarding the announcement of intent > apply to announcements of intent under this Charter. For clarity’s sake, this > Charter uses the phrase “Without N Active Member Objections” to refer to an > intent to act Without N Objections where the eligible objectors are active > Members. What’s an active member? > > 202. Party Decisions. The Agoran rules relating to Agoran decisions apply to > Party decisions under this Charter, except that notwithstanding any Agoran > rule: (a) only active Members CAN cast valid votes in a Party Decision; (b) > each active Member’s vote has a strength equal to 1; and (c) a Party Decision > resolves to FAILED QUORUM unless a majority of all active Members cast the > same valid unrescinded vote on that Party Decision. I think you need an “unless and only unless” here (or some better phrasing), or you could make an argument that a FAILED QUORUM also happens according to the normal Agoran rules (I.e. all players) > > 203. Determining the Opinion of the Party. > > (a) Any Member may by announcement make a Motion to Determine the Opinion > of the Party (“Motion”), specifying either (i) an Agoran decision for which > at least 5 days remain for voting on the Agoran decision or (ii) a submitted > proposal on which an Agoran decision has not yet
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: There really, really, is nothing to see here this time
E could recuse, find it INSUFFICENT, publish a disclaimer with the ruling, or probably get out of it in several other ways that I haven’t thought of. -Aris On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 5:29 PM D. Margaux wrote: > I am tempted to assign this to G., so that e is required to give a verdict > that compiles with No Faking. Any reason why I shouldn’t do that? > > On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 8:22 PM Gaelan Steele wrote: > > > I CFJ “By sending a message at 3:35 PM Pacific on October 27, G. > performed > > one or more regulated actions.” > > > > I encourage G. to submit an argument. > > > > [CFJs aren’t really binding, but if G allows this to be judged false, it > > would make the argument that this message did something less valid] > > > > Gaelan > > > > > On Oct 27, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > > If the quoted message contains any announcements of intent to perform a > > dependent action, I object to them all. > > > > > > -twg > > > > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > On Saturday, October 27, 2018 10:32 PM, Kerim Aydin < > > ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: There really, really, is nothing to see here this time
I am tempted to assign this to G., so that e is required to give a verdict that compiles with No Faking. Any reason why I shouldn’t do that? On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 8:22 PM Gaelan Steele wrote: > I CFJ “By sending a message at 3:35 PM Pacific on October 27, G. performed > one or more regulated actions.” > > I encourage G. to submit an argument. > > [CFJs aren’t really binding, but if G allows this to be judged false, it > would make the argument that this message did something less valid] > > Gaelan > > > On Oct 27, 2018, at 4:49 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > If the quoted message contains any announcements of intent to perform a > dependent action, I object to them all. > > > > -twg > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Saturday, October 27, 2018 10:32 PM, Kerim Aydin < > ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > >> > > > > > >
DIS: Since we're doing fancy contracts...
...here's another idea I've been toying with for a while: This document is a contract between twg (the "Game Master" or "GM") and one or more other parties (the "Competitors"). Any player can become a Competitor and any Competitor can cease to be a party to this contract. The GM cannot cease to be a party. The text of this document is divided into two sections: the "Immutable Rules" and the "Mutable Rules". The Immutable Rules are the portion of the text up to and including the first paragraph, other than this one, that contains the phrase "The Mutable Rules begin here." The Mutable Rules are the portion of the text that is not the Immutable Rules. The GM SHALL make reasonable efforts to ensure that e remains in possession of a full and complete copy of this document, and that its contents are not deleted, destroyed, corrupted, stolen, irreversibly encrypted, or otherwise placed beyond eir capability to read. The GM SHALL NOT disclose substantial portions of the Mutable Rules to other players, except that should a player Point eir Finger citing an alleged failure to act in accordance with this contract, the GM MAY and SHOULD privately disclose portions of the Mutable Rules to the investigator of that Finger Pointing, as necessary for the investigator to perform eir investigation. The GM is ENCOURAGED to maintain a public version of this document that has each paragraph of the Mutable Rules replaced by its SHA-512 hash. Any party to this contract CAN, With Agoran Consent from Competitors and Without Objection from the GM, modify this contract by altering the Immutable Rules. The GM SHOULD NOT object to an announcement of intent to modify this contract unless e believes that the modification would be significantly detrimental to its correct functioning. Any party to this contract CAN, With Agoran Consent from Competitors, modify this contract by performing any number of the following alterations, in a specific order, to the Mutable Rules: - Adding, at a specific position of eir choice, a paragraph whose text has been disclosed to the GM and whose text has been uniquely identified (for example, by means of a SHA-512 hash) as part of the announcement of intent to modify the contract. - Removing a specific paragraph. - Replacing all occurrences of a specific word or phrase with a different specific word or phrase. The Mutable Rules begin here. -twg
DIS: proto-Agoran People’s Party
I had an idea for a perhaps fun game-within-a-game. Was curious what everyone thinks. The idea is to have a contractual voting bloc or political party (different from the political parties pun subgame of course). Under the contract, people could join the party by announcement and leave with, say, 10 days notice. There would be a voting procedure for determining the Opinion of the Party with respect to a particular Agoran decision. (Maybe voting on the party’s Opinion on a proposal could be permitted to begin before the Agoran decision itself is distributed so that there’s sufficient time to determine what the Opinion is.) If the party has an Opinion, the contract would provide that the members SHALL vote in accordance with the opinion and that the members authorize each other to vote on their behalf in accordance with the Opinion of the Party (if there is one). So with that in mind, here’s a proto contract. I’m sure it has lots of bugs. But I welcome any comments! DMx * THE CHARTER OF THE AGORAN PEOPLE’S PARTY Article 1 - Establishment of The Agoran People’s Party 101. Nature of This Instrument. This instrument (the “Charter”) is a contract. It is binding upon the parties to the Charter (the “Members”). 102. The Party. This Charter establishes an entity to be known as the Agoran People’s Party (the “Party”). The Party is a political organization and voting bloc comprised of Members for the advancement of eir own interests if not the interests of Agora as a whole. The Party SHOULD be treated Pretty Good For a Long Time. 103. Joining the Party. Any active player CAN become a Member: (a) by announcement consenting to be bound by this Charter, if the Party has 3 or fewer Members; or (b) if the Party has 4 or more Members, by announcement Without X Active Member Objections consenting to be bound by this Charter, where X is equal to 1/2 the total number of active Members rounded down to the nearest integer. 104. Leaving the Party. A Member CAN cease to be a Member: (a) by announcement with 10 days’ Notice: (b) by announcement, if the Party has 3 or fewer active Members; or (c) Without X Active Members Objections, where X is equal to 1/2 the total number of active Members and the eligible objectors are all active Members rounded down to the nearest integer. 105. Expulsion from the Party. A Member CAN cause another active Member to cease to be a Member by announcement Without X Active Member Objections, where X is 1/4 of the number of active Members rounded up to the nearest integer. 106. Effective Date. The provisions of this Charter become EFFECTIVE on the day that 3 players have become Members by announcement pursuant to § 102(a) (the "Effective Date"). 107. Termination. This Charter will terminate automatically 90 days after the Effective Date. 108. Amendments. This Charter CAN be amended by the unanimous consent of the active Members expressed by announcement. Notwithstanding any other provision, the Party CANNOT have any Opinion regarding the adoption of any amendment to the Charter. Article 2 - Decisions and The Opinion of the Party. 201. Party Intents. The Agoran rules regarding the announcement of intent apply to announcements of intent under this Charter. For clarity’s sake, this Charter uses the phrase “Without N Active Member Objections” to refer to an intent to act Without N Objections where the eligible objectors are active Members. 202. Party Decisions. The Agoran rules relating to Agoran decisions apply to Party decisions under this Charter, except that notwithstanding any Agoran rule: (a) only active Members CAN cast valid votes in a Party Decision; (b) each active Member’s vote has a strength equal to 1; and (c) a Party Decision resolves to FAILED QUORUM unless a majority of all active Members cast the same valid unrescinded vote on that Party Decision. 203. Determining the Opinion of the Party. (a) Any Member may by announcement make a Motion to Determine the Opinion of the Party (“Motion”), specifying either (i) an Agoran decision for which at least 5 days remain for voting on the Agoran decision or (ii) a submitted proposal on which an Agoran decision has not yet begun. (b) Making a Motion immediately initiates a Party Decision to determine the Opinion of the Party on the specified Agoran decision or proposal. Only one Motion CAN be made with respect to any single Agoran decision or proposal. The time for voting is 4 days. Notwithstanding any Agoran rule, the voting period for a Motion CANNOT be extended. (c) The vote collector is by default the Member that makes the Motion; however, another Member CAN become vote collector by announcement if fewer than 2 hours remain in the time period for voting on the Agoran decision or proposal that is the subject of the Motion. (d) The valid votes for a Motion are identical to the valid votes for th
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Weekly report: Delenda fuit
Yep, G. pointed this out too. Sorry for the misclassification - I've fixed it for the next report (which will be in less than a week so no need to bother posting a revision now). -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, October 27, 2018 6:58 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > CoE: I’m not a zombie. > > > On Oct 27, 2018, at 7:33 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > > COIN BALANCES > > > > == > > > > Rules summary: > > > > - You earn coins when your proposal is adopted; when you judge a CFJ; > > and at Paydays. > > > > - You lose coins when your proposal is rejected and when a proposal that > > you didn't vote on fails quorum. > > Coins Active player > > > > 12 ATMunn > > 18 Aris > > 1 Corona > > 9 CuddleBeam > > 611 D. Margaux > > 412 G. > > 10 Hālian > > 10 L. > > 14 Murphy > > 6 omd > > 8 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > 10 Trigon > > 44 twg > > Coins Zombie > > > > 0Gaelan > > 0nichdel > > 4pokes > > 0Telnaior > > 3天火狐 > > > > > > 14 V.J. Rada > > Coins Non-player entity > > > > 1097 Agora > > 12 Lost and Found Department > > > > > > RECORDKEEPOR INDEX > > > > === > > > > Asset class Recordkeepor > > > > Coins Treasuror > > Blots Referee > > > > RECENT CHANGES > > > > === > > > > All times are in UTC. % marks an entry new since the last report. > > Saturday, October 27, 2018 > > % 14:26 Proposal 8110, "Delenda Est", is adopted, destroying all > > ore, stones, lumber, apples, cotton, corn, papers, fabric > > and steel. > > Monday, October 22, 2018 > > % 00:00 Start of a new week; assets are created in facilities. > > Saturday, October 20, 2018 > > % 14:02 Hālian receives a Welcome Package of 10 coins, 5 lumber, > > 5 stones, 10 apples, 3 paper and 5 steel. L. receives a > > Welcome Package of 10 coins, 5 lumber, 5 stones, 10 apples, > > 3 paper and 5 steel. > > Tuesday, October 16, 2018 > > 00:15 o, Kenyon, Quazie and Ouri are deregistered and their > > assets become property of the Lost and Found Department. > > Monday, October 15, 2018 > > 00:00 Start of a new week; assets are created in facilities. > > Thursday, October 11, 2018 > > 23:42 The First Bank of Agora is terminated and its assets become > > property of the Lost and Found Department. G. transfers > > 1006 coins from the Lost and Found Department to emself. > > G. transfers 606 coins to D. Margaux. > > Monday, October 8, 2018 > > 00:00 Start of a new week; assets are created in facilities. > > Sunday, October 7, 2018 > > 23:45 The Cartographor's weekly report of September 30, 2018 > > self-ratifies. D. Margaux's orchard at (-3, 1) is destroyed. > > Tuesday, October 2, 2018 > > 17:45 twg eats 12 apples. twg collects 45 corn from eir farm at > > (6, -2). twg eats 126 corn. > > 14:29 D. Margaux transfers 1 coin to nichdel. nichdel pays Agora > > 1 coin for a land unit. > > Monday, October 1, 2018 > > 00:50 A batch of proposals are adopted. > > - 8080 "From each according to eir means v3": Gaelan > > transfers 10 coins to G. nichdel transfers 10 coins to > > D. Margaux. Telnaior transfers 30 coins to Aris. ATMunn > > loses 102 coins. Aris loses 154 coins. Corona loses 9 > > coins. D. Margaux loses 49 coins. G. loses 100 coins. > > Murphy loses 122 coins. omd loses 54 coins. Publius > > Scribonius Scholasticus loses 65 coins. Trigon loses > > 84 coins. twg loses 396 coins. V.J. Rada loses 121 > > coins. Kenyon loses 9 coins. o loses 36 coins. Ouri > > loses 27 coins. pokes loses 36 coins. Quazie loses 36 > > coins. 天火狐は27コインを失う。 > > - 8082 "Gamestate correction for July 2018": 54 apples > > and 54 lumber are created in Corona's possession. > > 00:00 Start of a new week; assets are created in facilities. > > 00:00 Upkeep costs are due. No facilities are destroyed. > > 00:00 Payday! All players receive 10 coins, 5 apples and 2 papers. > > The following officers each receive 5 coins and 1 corn: > > - Associate Director of Personnel (Murphy) > > - Arbitor (Murphy) > > - Assessor (twg) > > - Cartographor (Trigon) > > - Distributor (omd) > > - Prime Minister (Aris) > > - Promotor (Aris) > > - Referee (D. Margaux) > > - Registrar (G.) > > - Tailor (twg) > > - Treasuror (twg) > > Sunday, September 30, 2018 > > 23:05 D. Margaux transfers 30 coins to nichdel. D. Margaux > > transfers 606 coins to the First Bank of Agora. nichdel > > transfers 30 coins to D. Margaux. > > 23:02 G. transfers 400 coins to the First Bank of Agora. > > Saturday, September 29, 2018 > > 23:40 D. Margaux pays 23 apples to move and collects > > 180 stones, 116 ore, 352 apples, 352 lumber, 78 corn and > > 72 cotton from eir facilities at (2, 2), (2, 1), (2, -1), > > (2, -2), (1, -2), (-2, 0), (-3, 0), (-4, 0) and (-5, 0). > > 12:34 D. Margaux pays 2 apples to move and collects 416 coins > > from eir refinery at (0, 2). D. Margaux pays 3 steel, 7 > > lumber and 15 stones in up
Re: DIS: private contract powers
On Sat, 2018-10-27 at 19:35 -0400, D. Margaux wrote: > UNDEAD seems super interesting. I just looked at a bunch of emails > from the archive, but how did that end up? Was the contract ever > revealed? It fizzled due to being excessively cautious. Given how it was determined to not reveal any details about itself, it couldn't have any actual influence on how the game was played (at least for non-members), so everyone just ignored it after a while. Sure, it's possible that the UNDEAD members had some sort of conspiracy going on, but you could do that even /without/ a contract (which would be an ever surer way to keep the membership hidden!). Additionally, I've been involved with the majority of coordinated scam attempts that were made while I was a player (especially given that I was well-known to generally be up for that sort of thing), and I wasn't and never have been an UNDEAD member, so if they did have some sort of conspiratorial or scamming basis, it was only a minor proportion of the actual scamming that was going on. -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: There really, really, is nothing to see here this time
Huh. Nothing of interest in headers that I could see, and no unicode anywhere in the message. If this is hiding something, it’s doing a damn good job. Maybe it’s a test for a timing scam? I’m intrigued, yet worried. Gaelan > On Oct 27, 2018, at 3:32 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >
Re: DIS: private contract powers
UNDEAD seems super interesting. I just looked at a bunch of emails from the archive, but how did that end up? Was the contract ever revealed? > On Oct 27, 2018, at 6:54 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: >>> On Sat, 2018-10-27 at 15:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: On another subject, since ATMunn's judgement brought it up, I've been thinking since our previous contract about what would happen if we put out a hashed contract, with one of the clauses being "the parties won't reveal the text of this contract", then claiming in public that it gives various powers etc. Worth testing? >> >> That would presumably be similar to the old UNDEAD contract. >> >> Presumably, you're still unwilling to reveal the details of what it >> entailed. If so, that would imply that it's still being treated as >> binding by its participants, so maybe it's once again a contract in the >> Agoran-legal sense. (This argument might break down, though, e.g. >> perhaps you'd keep it secret not because you had to, but because the >> sense of mystery surrounding it is more interesting than the fairly >> banal truth behind it.) > > Sorta similar! Not quite though. > > The UNDEAD contract doesn't do anything that outsiders needed to track > directly, such as whether the contract grants any act-on-behalf powers. > (I think I'm allowed to make general statements like that - I hope so!) > It governs members' actions and membership is secret, so when it came > out it was sorta like a game of werewolf (e.g. "which one of us is a > member? is that person doing those actions to support the UNDEAD > agenda"?) IIRC no-one with standing (i.e. no member) ever brought a > breach-of-contract case against another member. > > So in that sense it tested whether the Courts of the time could compel > the revelation of a private agreement (which they couldn't), but didn't > test whether Rules-granted abilities that impacted a recordkeepor (like > act-on-behalf) required transparency to be effective. > > >
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] space i guess?
> On Oct 16, 2018, at 5:36 PM, ATMunn wrote:
>
> Thank you for the feedback! Comments on comments below.
>
> On 10/16/2018 2:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Some hopefully-helpful comments...
>>> Spaceships are indestructible fixed assets. Ownership of Spaceships
>>> is restricted to players.
>>> If a Spaceship is Destroyed, its Sector switch CANNOT be flipped. At
>>> least 24 hours after a Spaceship's Destroyed switch becomes True,
>>> its owner CAN flip its Destroyed switch back to False by
>>> announcement. [todo: some way to make this not flippable except
>>> after a space battle, not sure how to word that]
>> So ... there's no particular reason for Spaceships to be assets (there's
>> basically one permanently per player). And these two bits together don't
>> work, because when you destroy an asset (as defined elsewhere), it
>> ceases to exist, as do all its switches. Redefining "destroy" for a
>> particular asset as being a Switch, when there's already a higher-powered
>> definition of what "destroying" an asset, is quite messy!
>> I'd suggest saying "each player has a set of Switches, collectively known
>> as Spaceship switches" and avoid the "spaceship=asset" all together?
>
> Sounds like a good idea. I think it ended up this way because of how I was
> originally thinking it would work, but as I went along I added more switches
> (I originally just had Sector) and never considered that issue.
Actually, spaceship trading sounds kind of fun—can we have multiple spaceships,
but only one active one? Maybe I’m overcomplicating though
>
>> > (actually, better make it "each active player", this game is trivial if
>> you're allowed to fight against your zombie).
> oh yeah, zombies.
>>> Once 48 hours have passed since the beginning of the Space Battle,
>>> players can no longer increase the amount of Power they wish to
>>> spend,
>> So this game is basically an "whomever posts last before the deadline
>> has the advantage" game. I generally think games that come down to that
>> sort of race condition don't work particularly well. This is a really
>> good place for a Hash/secret move: each player submits a single, hashed
>> power they want to use, then reveal it after it can't be changed.
>
> I had considered that, but decided against it because I wasn't exactly sure
> how to do it. The main problem I considered is that especially sneaky players
> could memorize or have a list of the hashes that correspond to certain
> numbers. I could just say something like "players are ENCOURAGED to add extra
> elements to the message before hashing," as a sort of salt.
>
>> Another possibility is to make this a "finite hand set" game (there's
>> probably a better term for this mechanic). By that I mean, the sort
>> of game where you start with a set of Cards (e.g. 1-10) and have to
>> decide which card to play, so you aren't left later on with only low
>> numbers.
>
> I like that idea, and I think it's a good one, but I'm not totally sure how
> to do that with rules. I think I'll try the hash thing and come back to this
> later if it doesn't work.
>
>> Also, "power" is used elsewhere in the rules so it would be better to
>> find a different term.
>
> oops.
>
>>> either player CAN Resolve the Battle by announcement, and
>>> at least one of them SHALL in a timely fashion.
>> This sort of joint-responsibility for doing something is kind of hard
>> to enforce? Maybe make the challenger responsible for resolving.
>
> Sure.
>
>>> Enact a new rule entitled "Fame", with the following text:
>>> {
>>> Every player has a Fame switch, with possible values being all
>>> integers between -10 and 10. Players with positive Fame are Famous,
>>> and those with negative Fame are Infamous.
>>>
>>> If a player is the Winner in a Space Battle against an Infamous
>>> player, eir Fame is increased by 1. Likewise, if a player is the
>>> Winner in a Space Battle against a Famous player or one with a Fame
>>> of 0, eir Fame is decreased by 1.
>>> }
>> I like the concept of fame for dogfights, but please tie to an end goal
>> of actually Winning the Game! For that, I might do something like "wins
>> the game when Fame has been 10 continuously for a week, with Notice".
>> This means, when someone has enough Fame to win, others get warned and
>> have a chance to challenge the leader.
>
> Yeah, I wasn't sure what rewards I wanted, so I just didn't include anything.
> The only potential problem is that I wanted fame and infamy to both be
> rewarding, not just fame. However, that was back before I simplified
> everything a lot, so maybe just being 10 or -10 could work as the win
> condition.
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] space i guess?
Feedback inline. I wrote most of the proposal feedback before reading other
comments, so some of this may be duplicated.
> On Oct 15, 2018, at 6:13 PM, ATMunn wrote:
>
> so basically this is super clunky and probably not going to work, but if
> you think there's any hope for it then please say so :)
>
> Title: "spaaace?"
> AI: 1
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-author(s): Aris
>
> Enact a new rule entitled "Spaceships", with the following text:
> {
>Spaceships are indestructible fixed assets. Ownership of Spaceships
>is restricted to players. Players CANNOT own more than one
>Spaceship.
This seems like it could be problematic. What happens if someone gets a second
spaceship? Is it destroyed (in the “stops existing” sense)? Is the original one
destroyed? Is the action that transferred it INEFFECTIVE?
>Each Spaceship has a Sector switch, with possible values
>being I, II, III, and IV, defaulting to I; a Destroyed switch, a
>boolean switch defaulting to False; and a Power switch, with
>possible values being any integer in the range of 0-20
Inclusive or exclusive?
> , defaulting
>to 10.
>
>Any player CAN, by announcement, flip eir Spaceship's Sector switch
>to any other value at any time, decreasing the Spaceship's Power
>switch by one, as long as e has not done so within the last 24
>hours. If a Spaceship's Power is 0, its Sector CANNOT be flipped.
>
>If a Spaceship is Destroyed, its Sector switch CANNOT be flipped. At
>least 24 hours after a Spaceship's Destroyed switch becomes True,
>its owner CAN flip its Destroyed switch back to False by
>announcement. [todo: some way to make this not flippable except
>after a space battle, not sure how to word that]
I imagine that at some point in the near future, we’ll end up with a scam
involving a rule that forgets to check the Destroyed switch. I wonder if we can
make this the default—something like “if a rule refers to spaceships, it refers
only to spaceships with a Destroyed switch set to False, unless the rule
specifies otherwise”? Or make it so that when destroyed, a spaceship becomes a
different asset (Debris?) that can be converted back into a spaceship?
>
>Any player CAN, by announcement, increase eir Spaceship's Power by
>N, where N is the number of hours since the player last increased
>the Spaceship's Power, divided by two. If doing so would put the
>Power at a value greater than 20, then the Power switch is simply
>set to 20.
Can we make this automatic? Seems a little pointless, especially because it
will change often enough that there isn’t much point in record keeping.
> }
>
> Enact a new rule entitled "Space Battles", with the following text:
> {
>If two Spaceships have the same Sector value, and neither of them
>are Destroyed, then the owner of either CAN, by announcement, start
>a Space Battle with the other. During a Space Battle, both
>Spaceships involved CANNOT have any of their switches flipped.
>
>Once a Space Battle has begun, each player CAN, and SHALL in a
>timely fashion, specify by announcement an amount of Power e wishes
>to spend. This value CAN be 0, and CANNOT exceed that player's
>Spaceship's current Power value. After both players have done the
>above, then either player CAN, by announcement, increase the amount
>of Power e wishes to spend.
>
>Once 48 hours have passed since the beginning of the Space Battle,
>players can no longer increase the amount of Power they wish to
>spend, and either player CAN Resolve the Battle by announcement, and
>at least one of them SHALL in a timely fashion. Upon doing so, both
>players' Spaceships lose the amount of Power equal to the last
>specified amount of Power, and, the one which lost more Power is
>deemed the Winner of that Space Battle, and the other is the Loser.
>If the lost Power values are equal, both Spaceships are Winners. The
>Loser in a Space Battle, if there is one, has its Destroyed value
>set to True.
This’ll result in sniping attempts at the end of the window. Probably a good
idea to have bids increase the window (proportionally to the size of the
increase maybe?)
> }
>
> Enact a new rule entitled "Fame", with the following text:
> {
>Every player has a Fame switch, with possible values being all
>integers between -10 and 10. Players with positive Fame are Famous,
>and those with negative Fame are Infamous.
Default?
>
>If a player is the Winner in a Space Battle against an Infamous
>player, eir Fame is increased by 1. Likewise, if a player is the
>Winner in a Space Battle against a Famous player or one with a Fame
>of 0, eir Fame is decreased by 1.
> }
>
> [things that still need to be done:
> - make a recordkeepor of things
> - make space battles simpler probably
> - make everything less confusing
> - ???]
Other thoughts:
Would be interesting if during your “resp
Re: DIS: private contract powers
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > On Sat, 2018-10-27 at 15:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On another subject, since ATMunn's judgement brought it up, I've been > > > thinking since our previous contract about what would happen if we put > > > out a hashed contract, with one of the clauses being "the parties won't > > > reveal the text of this contract", then claiming in public that it > > > gives various powers etc. > > > > > > Worth testing? > > That would presumably be similar to the old UNDEAD contract. > > Presumably, you're still unwilling to reveal the details of what it > entailed. If so, that would imply that it's still being treated as > binding by its participants, so maybe it's once again a contract in the > Agoran-legal sense. (This argument might break down, though, e.g. > perhaps you'd keep it secret not because you had to, but because the > sense of mystery surrounding it is more interesting than the fairly > banal truth behind it.) Sorta similar! Not quite though. The UNDEAD contract doesn't do anything that outsiders needed to track directly, such as whether the contract grants any act-on-behalf powers. (I think I'm allowed to make general statements like that - I hope so!) It governs members' actions and membership is secret, so when it came out it was sorta like a game of werewolf (e.g. "which one of us is a member? is that person doing those actions to support the UNDEAD agenda"?) IIRC no-one with standing (i.e. no member) ever brought a breach-of-contract case against another member. So in that sense it tested whether the Courts of the time could compel the revelation of a private agreement (which they couldn't), but didn't test whether Rules-granted abilities that impacted a recordkeepor (like act-on-behalf) required transparency to be effective.
Re: DIS: private contract powers
On Sat, 2018-10-27 at 15:30 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On another subject, since ATMunn's judgement brought it up, I've been > > thinking since our previous contract about what would happen if we put > > out a hashed contract, with one of the clauses being "the parties won't > > reveal the text of this contract", then claiming in public that it > > gives various powers etc. > > > > Worth testing? That would presumably be similar to the old UNDEAD contract. Presumably, you're still unwilling to reveal the details of what it entailed. If so, that would imply that it's still being treated as binding by its participants, so maybe it's once again a contract in the Agoran-legal sense. (This argument might break down, though, e.g. perhaps you'd keep it secret not because you had to, but because the sense of mystery surrounding it is more interesting than the fairly banal truth behind it.) -- ais523
DIS: private contract powers
(oops, replied to the wrong thread obviously... changing the subject line here to avoid confusion in case there's more discussion) On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On another subject, since ATMunn's judgement brought it up, I've been > thinking since our previous contract about what would happen if we put > out a hashed contract, with one of the clauses being "the parties won't > reveal the text of this contract", then claiming in public that it > gives various powers etc. > > Worth testing?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3665 and 3666 judged TRUE
Apologies Aris - I too was focused on the coins, and agree with you on the "binding" part. -G. On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote: > Aris, sorry, I should have been clearer in my email. > > I do agree with you about the contract existence and effect part. I think a > contract with secret text can be binding, have mint authority, and do > anything a contract can do. It would be hard to enforce any contract > obligations until the contract text is known to the referee or the CFJ judge > who is asked to enforce the contract (at a minimum), but I don’t see any > reason why a contract transmutes from one thing into something else entirely > when the text is published. > > I was more referring to the plausibility of the idea that a contract can > receive coins. On that issue, I think I could go either way. > > > > On Oct 27, 2018, at 2:55 PM, Aris Merchant > > wrote: > > > > You know, I’m prepared to believe ATMunn's interpretation on the ownership > > thing, but I’d like to hear why my arguments are wrong or inapplicable > > here. On the first thing though, the “contracts are binding” one, I don’t > > see how the proposed interpretation could possibly be correct. > > Straightforward application of the rules text, AFAICT, deterimines that my > > position is correct. So I’d really like to see that overturned or an > > explanation for exactly what I’m missing (I’m not infallible). > > > > -Aris > > > >> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 6:31 AM D. Margaux wrote: > >> > >> I think both ATMunn’s and Aris’s opinions are plausible, and I will try to > >> offer a more spirited defense of ATMunn’s when I have time. However, since > >> we brought up the expressio unius and surplusage canons. > >> > >> I am currently at (0, 0). The Rule says I CAN destroy a coin to throw it > >> into the fountain. It doesn’t say *whose* coins. And it would be surplusage > >> if it were limited only to my coins, because I can destroy my own coins > >> already under Rule 2577. Therefore, under the surplusage canon, I take the > >> following action: > >> > >> I destroy all coins possessed by any player other than myself to throw > >> them into the fountain. > >> > >> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly report: Delenda fuit
On another subject, since ATMunn's judgement brought it up, I've been thinking since our previous contract about what would happen if we put out a hashed contract, with one of the clauses being "the parties won't reveal the text of this contract", then claiming in public that it gives various powers etc. Worth testing? On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Yup - if you've been sold at least once you're eligible (because the buyer > probably looted you). Last paragraph of R2532. > > On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote: > > I think a player who de-zombified emself is eligible for a welcome package > > again. > > > > On 10/27/2018 3:02 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > > Can you? I’ve been a player for a while. > > > > > > Gaelan > > > > > > > On Oct 27, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh! And I award Gaelan a welcome package. > > > > > > > > > On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think it self-ratifies due to your report, but in case it > > > > > does: CoE: Gaelan is no longer a zombie. > > > > > > > > > > >CoinsZombie > > > > > >--- > > > > > >0Gaelan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly report: Delenda fuit
Yup - if you've been sold at least once you're eligible (because the buyer probably looted you). Last paragraph of R2532. On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote: > I think a player who de-zombified emself is eligible for a welcome package > again. > > On 10/27/2018 3:02 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > Can you? I’ve been a player for a while. > > > > Gaelan > > > > > On Oct 27, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh! And I award Gaelan a welcome package. > > > > > > > On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think it self-ratifies due to your report, but in case it > > > > does: CoE: Gaelan is no longer a zombie. > > > > > > > > >CoinsZombie > > > > >--- > > > > >0Gaelan > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] space i guess?
On 10/27/2018 4:07 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:
ATMunn wrote:
Enact a new rule entitled "Fame", with the following text:
{
Every player has a Fame switch, with possible values being all
integers between -10 and 10. Players with positive Fame are Famous,
and those with negative Fame are Infamous.
If a player is the Winner in a Space Battle against an Infamous
player, eir Fame is increased by 1. Likewise, if a player is the
Winner in a Space Battle against a Famous player or one with a Fame
of 0, eir Fame is decreased by 1.
}
* Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an Infamous player CANNOT win
the game.
My original intent was that both infamy and fame are viable routes.
* If Fame would otherwise be decreased to a lower value than allowed,
it is instead set to the lowest value allowed.
Yeah, this is necessary.
* If Fame would otherwise be increased to a higher value than allowed,
it is instead set to the lowest value allowed. No one likes a bully.
Interesting idea, but again, see above.
* A player with Fame 10 CAN win by announcement, upon which eir Fame
is set to 0.
This was already planned for the next draft. :)
* Create N spaceships in the possession of each player. Add them to
the Welcome Package and possibly officer/judge salaries. (Side
idea: define 'a Bundle' as X coins + Y spaceships, then re-define
other stuff in terms of Z bundles.)
See other messages, but spaceships are going to be player switches in
the next draft, not assets. Also, every player only gets one spaceship.
Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] space i guess?
ATMunn wrote:
Enact a new rule entitled "Fame", with the following text:
{
Every player has a Fame switch, with possible values being all
integers between -10 and 10. Players with positive Fame are Famous,
and those with negative Fame are Infamous.
If a player is the Winner in a Space Battle against an Infamous
player, eir Fame is increased by 1. Likewise, if a player is the
Winner in a Space Battle against a Famous player or one with a Fame
of 0, eir Fame is decreased by 1.
}
* Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an Infamous player CANNOT win
the game.
* If Fame would otherwise be decreased to a lower value than allowed,
it is instead set to the lowest value allowed.
* If Fame would otherwise be increased to a higher value than allowed,
it is instead set to the lowest value allowed. No one likes a bully.
* A player with Fame 10 CAN win by announcement, upon which eir Fame
is set to 0.
* Create N spaceships in the possession of each player. Add them to
the Welcome Package and possibly officer/judge salaries. (Side
idea: define 'a Bundle' as X coins + Y spaceships, then re-define
other stuff in terms of Z bundles.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3665 and 3666 judged TRUE
Yeah, that bit was a bit iffy. But again, it seemed to kinda make sense and I just wanted the CFJ to get judged, so that was what went in. On 10/27/2018 3:06 PM, D. Margaux wrote: Aris, sorry, I should have been clearer in my email. I do agree with you about the contract existence and effect part. I think a contract with secret text can be binding, have mint authority, and do anything a contract can do. It would be hard to enforce any contract obligations until the contract text is known to the referee or the CFJ judge who is asked to enforce the contract (at a minimum), but I don’t see any reason why a contract transmutes from one thing into something else entirely when the text is published. I was more referring to the plausibility of the idea that a contract can receive coins. On that issue, I think I could go either way. On Oct 27, 2018, at 2:55 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: You know, I’m prepared to believe ATMunn's interpretation on the ownership thing, but I’d like to hear why my arguments are wrong or inapplicable here. On the first thing though, the “contracts are binding” one, I don’t see how the proposed interpretation could possibly be correct. Straightforward application of the rules text, AFAICT, deterimines that my position is correct. So I’d really like to see that overturned or an explanation for exactly what I’m missing (I’m not infallible). -Aris On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 6:31 AM D. Margaux wrote: I think both ATMunn’s and Aris’s opinions are plausible, and I will try to offer a more spirited defense of ATMunn’s when I have time. However, since we brought up the expressio unius and surplusage canons. I am currently at (0, 0). The Rule says I CAN destroy a coin to throw it into the fountain. It doesn’t say *whose* coins. And it would be surplusage if it were limited only to my coins, because I can destroy my own coins already under Rule 2577. Therefore, under the surplusage canon, I take the following action: I destroy all coins possessed by any player other than myself to throw them into the fountain.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly report: Delenda fuit
I think a player who de-zombified emself is eligible for a welcome package again. On 10/27/2018 3:02 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: Can you? I’ve been a player for a while. Gaelan On Oct 27, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Oh! And I award Gaelan a welcome package. On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: I don't think it self-ratifies due to your report, but in case it does: CoE: Gaelan is no longer a zombie. CoinsZombie --- 0Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3665 and 3666 judged TRUE
Aris, sorry, I should have been clearer in my email. I do agree with you about the contract existence and effect part. I think a contract with secret text can be binding, have mint authority, and do anything a contract can do. It would be hard to enforce any contract obligations until the contract text is known to the referee or the CFJ judge who is asked to enforce the contract (at a minimum), but I don’t see any reason why a contract transmutes from one thing into something else entirely when the text is published. I was more referring to the plausibility of the idea that a contract can receive coins. On that issue, I think I could go either way. > On Oct 27, 2018, at 2:55 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > You know, I’m prepared to believe ATMunn's interpretation on the ownership > thing, but I’d like to hear why my arguments are wrong or inapplicable > here. On the first thing though, the “contracts are binding” one, I don’t > see how the proposed interpretation could possibly be correct. > Straightforward application of the rules text, AFAICT, deterimines that my > position is correct. So I’d really like to see that overturned or an > explanation for exactly what I’m missing (I’m not infallible). > > -Aris > >> On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 6:31 AM D. Margaux wrote: >> >> I think both ATMunn’s and Aris’s opinions are plausible, and I will try to >> offer a more spirited defense of ATMunn’s when I have time. However, since >> we brought up the expressio unius and surplusage canons. >> >> I am currently at (0, 0). The Rule says I CAN destroy a coin to throw it >> into the fountain. It doesn’t say *whose* coins. And it would be surplusage >> if it were limited only to my coins, because I can destroy my own coins >> already under Rule 2577. Therefore, under the surplusage canon, I take the >> following action: >> >> I destroy all coins possessed by any player other than myself to throw >> them into the fountain. >> >>
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly report: Delenda fuit
Can you? I’ve been a player for a while. Gaelan > On Oct 27, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Oh! And I award Gaelan a welcome package. > >> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> >> I don't think it self-ratifies due to your report, but in case it >> does: CoE: Gaelan is no longer a zombie. >> >>> CoinsZombie >>> --- >>> 0Gaelan >> >> >> >> >
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3665 and 3666 judged TRUE
You know, I’m prepared to believe ATMunn's interpretation on the ownership thing, but I’d like to hear why my arguments are wrong or inapplicable here. On the first thing though, the “contracts are binding” one, I don’t see how the proposed interpretation could possibly be correct. Straightforward application of the rules text, AFAICT, deterimines that my position is correct. So I’d really like to see that overturned or an explanation for exactly what I’m missing (I’m not infallible). -Aris On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 6:31 AM D. Margaux wrote: > I think both ATMunn’s and Aris’s opinions are plausible, and I will try to > offer a more spirited defense of ATMunn’s when I have time. However, since > we brought up the expressio unius and surplusage canons. > > I am currently at (0, 0). The Rule says I CAN destroy a coin to throw it > into the fountain. It doesn’t say *whose* coins. And it would be surplusage > if it were limited only to my coins, because I can destroy my own coins > already under Rule 2577. Therefore, under the surplusage canon, I take the > following action: > > I destroy all coins possessed by any player other than myself to throw > them into the fountain. > >
DIS: Re: BUS: adop deputy
G. wrote: I intend to deputise for the ADoP to publish the ADoP's weekly Report. I'll be caught up with this one within a few minutes.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report
Did you mean to put this as a reply to your last report? On 10/27/2018 2:35 PM, D. Margaux wrote: The Police Blotter (Referee's Weekly Report) Date of this report: 27 Oct 2018 Date of last report: 20 Oct 2018 BLOT HOLDINGS (asset record - self-ratifying) PersonBlots - Corona 10 Kenyon 7 V.J. Rada6 Murphy 7 PSS* 3 CuddleBeam 2 L1 RECENT BLOT HISTORY PersonChange Date Reason -- - --- Trigon +2(S,D) 01 Sep 2018 Late Cartographor Weekly Aris +2(S,D) 09 Sep 2018 Late Promotor Weekly V.J. Rada +2(S) 09 Sep 2018 Late CFJ Murphy +2(S) 09 Sep 2018 Late CFJ PSS* +2(S,D) 14 Sep 2018 Late Herald Weekly VJ Rada+1(f) 16 Sep 2018 Late CFJ Corona +1(f) 16 Sep 2018 Late CFJ Kenyon -1 16 Sep 2018 Expunged Kenyon -1 17 Sep 2018 Expunged Aris -1 20 Sep 2018 Expunged Aris -1 24 Sep 2018 Expunged Corona +2(S) 28 Sep 2018 Late CFJ Kenyon -1 28 Sep 2018 Expunged Trigon -1 04 Oct 2018 Expunged Trigon -1 09 Oct 2018 Expunged ATMunn -1 11 Oct 2018 Expunged CuddleBeam +2 20 Oct 2018 Late CFJ L +1 20 Oct 2018 Late CFJ twg+1 20 Oct 2018 Late CFJ Murphy +2(D) 20 Oct 2018 Late CFJ Reassignments twg-1 23 Oct 2018 Expunged (f)=forgivable by R2557 (D)=loses monthly salary for noted office by R2559 (S)=Summary Judgement by R2479 *PSS = Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Prime Minister Election begins its nomination period
On the contrary, if I become elected, I will do everything within my power to prevent any form of dictatorship, benevolent or not. So, pro-dictatorships can vote D. Margaux; anti-dictatorships can vote me. Neutrals can vote G., I guess. On 10/27/2018 12:52 PM, D. Margaux wrote: I suppose I’ll bite because why not. I announce candidacy for Prime Minister. If elected, I will use the powers of office to try to get myself or someone else installed as a benevolent dictator, if I can think of a good scam to accomplish that goal (haven’t thought of one yet though). On Oct 25, 2018, at 1:55 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Having received 2 support, I initiate an Election for Prime Minister. The Nomination Period lasts for 4 days. As required, I become a candidate. Players are Encouraged to nominate themselves - the perks of the extra vote are great! The work is almost nonexistent. As a minor encouragement of competition, I pledge that the first-ranked choice in my vote will be neither myself nor the current incumbent (unless e and I are the only two candidates).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3665 and 3666 judged TRUE
Thank you. This makes sense to me. Always appreciate the Agoran history lessons by the way—they’re fascinating. > On Oct 27, 2018, at 1:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote: >> Basically, the lack of the phrase “by announcement” removes a limitation >> on the method of achieving the action; it doesn’t prevent the action from >> being successful if attempted by announcement. I think. > > This used to be true, and was found in court to be true. However, this > was then legislatively fixed by adding "methods explicitly specified" > to the following text in R2125 (Regulated Actions): > A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the > Rules,and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules > for performing the given action. > > If there's no method "explicitly described in the rules" for the given > action (such as "by announcement" or something that explicitly leads > to "by announcement") there's no way to do it. > > There's a few arguments you can use to make the case: > > 1. R2125 requires an explicit method, and beats out R2152 (Mother May > I) due to having same power and lower Rule ID. > > 2. It comes down to the interpretation of "attempt" in R2152. If I > said "hey, yesterday I attempted to destroy a coin by telling my friend > in person that I did it" then no one would find that an acceptable > attempt - attempt means invoking the explicitly-supplied method as > required in R2125. > > 3. (not preferred, but worth a note if 1 and 2 are not persuasive) > Since there was an explicit legislative solution made following a court > case on the matter, some deference should be given the legislative > solution if both interpretations are otherwise plausible. > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3665 and 3666 judged TRUE
On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote: > Basically, the lack of the phrase “by announcement” removes a limitation > on the method of achieving the action; it doesn’t prevent the action from > being successful if attempted by announcement. I think. This used to be true, and was found in court to be true. However, this was then legislatively fixed by adding "methods explicitly specified" to the following text in R2125 (Regulated Actions): A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the Rules,and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules for performing the given action. If there's no method "explicitly described in the rules" for the given action (such as "by announcement" or something that explicitly leads to "by announcement") there's no way to do it. There's a few arguments you can use to make the case: 1. R2125 requires an explicit method, and beats out R2152 (Mother May I) due to having same power and lower Rule ID. 2. It comes down to the interpretation of "attempt" in R2152. If I said "hey, yesterday I attempted to destroy a coin by telling my friend in person that I did it" then no one would find that an acceptable attempt - attempt means invoking the explicitly-supplied method as required in R2125. 3. (not preferred, but worth a note if 1 and 2 are not persuasive) Since there was an explicit legislative solution made following a court case on the matter, some deference should be given the legislative solution if both interpretations are otherwise plausible.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3665 and 3666 judged TRUE
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 9:41 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Actually, the coin-into-fountain rule (R2572) is missing a > By Announcement. So that rule doesn't enable it. > > The only thing that enables asset destruction is in R2577, which > specifies "by its owner". Not sure I understand this argument. R2572 says that a player “CAN destroy a coin to Throw A Coin into the fountain.” Under Mother May I, CAN means that “Attempts to perform the described action are successful.” I believe my message was an “attempt to perform the described action,” and is therefore successful. The Fountain rule doesn’t say “by announcement,” but I don’t see how that prevents the “attempt” from being “successful.” If anything, it means I could maybe “attempt” to perform the action by other methods in addition to “by announcement” (if any such methods exist, which maybe they don’t). Basically, the lack of the phrase “by announcement” removes a limitation on the method of achieving the action; it doesn’t prevent the action from being successful if attempted by announcement. I think.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly report: Delenda fuit
Well, none of the report actually self-ratifies at the moment because of the bug I pointed out last week, but zombie status wouldn't do anyway, no. I'll fix this for next week's report and publish it as a revision to this one. Sorry Gaelan. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, October 27, 2018 2:59 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I don't think it self-ratifies due to your report, but in case it > does: CoE: Gaelan is no longer a zombie. > > > Coins Zombie > > > >0Gaelan > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3665 and 3666 judged TRUE
Really good point! I hadn't thought of that in specific context of language usage versus diversity of thought. More generally: because "reasonable people may differ" and also because we want to encourage everyone to judge and to become more comfortable judging (and judging is hard work), there's a tradition of deferring to the original judge as much as possible, unless their opinion is clearly out-to-lunch. Part of the reward of judging is being able to influence the direction of gameplay (even if it's not the judgement others would have chosen) as long as it's not completely outlandish. We seem to be in a phase of roleplaying legal proceedings atm, it's plenty acceptable to judge more informally (e.g. just saying "yeah, that sounds right: TRUE and let's get on with the game" or whatever). On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote: > > On Oct 27, 2018, at 9:31 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > You might > > decide to change it, but it's a well-argued judgement and an > > interpretation that's reasonable, despite not containing any fancy Latin. > > Incidentally, this touches on one reason why I personally wouldn’t want to > privilege interpretations, meanings, or usages from any particular > discipline(s) (law, mathematics, or anything else). We all come to Agora with > different backgrounds, and I don’t think any particular interpretive > discipline should take precedence except to the extent it is also able to > persuade people outside that background. Similarly, the canons like > “expressio unius,” “avoid surplusage” and so forth may or may not persuade > people. > > This isn’t meant to be directed specifically at Aris, in part because I > actually do think it’s quite reasonable to employ those canons in this Bank > of Agora case, and because Aris rightly acknowledged that the canons aren’t > absolute and that there can be reasons not to apply them in particular > instances. This is more just a general observation that was occasioned by > this exchange.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3665 and 3666 judged TRUE
> On Oct 27, 2018, at 9:31 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > You might > decide to change it, but it's a well-argued judgement and an > interpretation that's reasonable, despite not containing any fancy Latin. Incidentally, this touches on one reason why I personally wouldn’t want to privilege interpretations, meanings, or usages from any particular discipline(s) (law, mathematics, or anything else). We all come to Agora with different backgrounds, and I don’t think any particular interpretive discipline should take precedence except to the extent it is also able to persuade people outside that background. Similarly, the canons like “expressio unius,” “avoid surplusage” and so forth may or may not persuade people. This isn’t meant to be directed specifically at Aris, in part because I actually do think it’s quite reasonable to employ those canons in this Bank of Agora case, and because Aris rightly acknowledged that the canons aren’t absolute and that there can be reasons not to apply them in particular instances. This is more just a general observation that was occasioned by this exchange.
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3665 and 3666 judged TRUE
Actually, the coin-into-fountain rule (R2572) is missing a By Announcement. So that rule doesn't enable it. The only thing that enables asset destruction is in R2577, which specifies "by its owner". On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Oh well we can't have that. I destroy all coins possessed by > D. Marguax to throw them into the fountain. > > > On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote: > > I think both ATMunn’s and Aris’s opinions are plausible, and I will try to > > offer a more spirited defense of ATMunn’s when I have time. However, since > > we brought up the expressio unius and surplusage canons. > > > > I am currently at (0, 0). The Rule says I CAN destroy a coin to throw it > > into the fountain. It doesn’t say *whose* coins. And it would be surplusage > > if it were limited only to my coins, because I can destroy my own coins > > already under Rule 2577. Therefore, under the surplusage canon, I take the > > following action: > > > > I destroy all coins possessed by any player other than myself to throw them > > into the fountain. > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3665 and 3666 judged TRUE
Just to say that this was discussed at the time, and at least two others (other than myself) agreed with the judgement you actually gave (I was initially in Aris's camp personally but now I see it both ways). I'm particularly interested in twg's opinion, which was pretty firmly in line with yours even though e was firmly "against" the scam. You might decide to change it, but it's a well-argued judgement and an interpretation that's reasonable, despite not containing any fancy Latin. On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote: > Honestly, I really wasn't that interested in these CFJs, but they were > assigned to me so I had to judge them. I've only judged one or two CFJs > before, so I'm not the best at rules interpretation. I wanted to get the CFJ > off my back in time (but still put in effort, I wasn't about to go "I judge > this CFJ TRUE because I'm too lazy to look into it"). > > You arguments make perfect sense to me. I think I will hold off on the motion > to reconsider for the moment, in case someone else disagrees with your > arguments (but they seem pretty strong, so that probably won't be the case). > If nobody else has said anything by later today then I will go ahead and > reconsider. > > By the way, what do those Latin phrases mean? (I assume they're Latin, anyway) > > On 10/26/2018 9:58 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > I disagree in several respects. > > > > First, I disagree with the sentence "It seems logical that the > > contract does indeed exist, as a contract is simply an agreement; > > however, it has no binding power." I request a rule citation for this > > highly confusing claim. Rule 1742 explicitly states that _all_ > > contracts have binding power, in that "Parties to a contract governed > > by the rules SHALL act in accordance with that contract." Either this > > is a contract governed by the rules, in which case that provision > > applies, or it isn't one, in which case it isn't a contract at all > > (unless you're claiming that it's some other form of contract, which > > is IMHO equally absurd). Whether or not it can be enforced is entirely > > separate question, and one defined by practicality. > > > > Second, I disagree with the paragraph "But, upon further inspection, > > Rule 2483 only says that Agora, players, and facilities can own coins. > > It does not seem to necessarily 'restrict its ownership,' but rather > > expand ownership. This would mean that contracts actually can own > > coins, as by default they can own all assets. Therefore, the First > > Bank of Agora contract can own coins, meaning G. and D. Margaux's > > attempts to transfer coins to it is EFFECTIVE." > > > > Three points: > > 1. What does the word "default" mean in the sentence "By default, > > ownership of an asset is restricted to Agora, players, and > > contracts.", if not that any other definition implicitly overrides > > this one? (I am compelled to admit that I know of another plausible > > reading for this one, but not for the others below. Also, I can tell > > you that this was what I intended when I wrote the rule, not that that > > has jurisprudential weight.) > > 2. Why does Rule 2483 restate that players can own coins if it is > > already specified by default? What would be the point, in a purely > > expansive rule, of restating a previously known fact? > > > > In both these cases, the canon against surplusage strongly implies > > that the list is exclusive. > > 3. The canon exclusio unius est exclusio alterius states that in the > > absence of a word such as "include", an enumeration is generally > > exclusive. I see no grounds for overturning this presumption here, > > based on the rule text, and quite a few reasons for following it. > > > > In short, there a great many reasons why I disagree with your reading, > > and I intend, with 2 support, to file a motion to reconsider (you can > > do so on your own initiative by announcement if you wish to). If my > > reasoning is wrong, I would like to know why. Also, please note that I > > ruled in CFJs 3611-3612 that canons of construction adopted in other > > jurisdictions can be used to disambiguate rules here, provided that > > the rule is ambiguous in the first place. In Agora, we tend to prefer > > literal readings when possible, but I believe that even here exclusio > > unius est exclusio alterius is almost always followed. > > > > -ArisOn Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 5:21 PM ATMunn wrote: > > > > > > Here is my judgement on CFJs 3665 and 3666. Hopefully my logic makes > > > sense and works. If not, though, I am open to changing my judgement. It > > > might be smart for me to put up some sort of proto-judgement first, but > > > it's too late now. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > > > > > > CFJ 3665 AND CFJ 3666 = > > > > > > 3665 called 30 September 2018 by D. Margaux, assigned to ATMunn 20 > > > October 2018: "D. Margaux’s attempt in this message to transfer coins > > > to the contract between em and G. is EFFECTIVE.
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3665 and 3666 judged TRUE
Honestly, I really wasn't that interested in these CFJs, but they were assigned to me so I had to judge them. I've only judged one or two CFJs before, so I'm not the best at rules interpretation. I wanted to get the CFJ off my back in time (but still put in effort, I wasn't about to go "I judge this CFJ TRUE because I'm too lazy to look into it"). You arguments make perfect sense to me. I think I will hold off on the motion to reconsider for the moment, in case someone else disagrees with your arguments (but they seem pretty strong, so that probably won't be the case). If nobody else has said anything by later today then I will go ahead and reconsider. By the way, what do those Latin phrases mean? (I assume they're Latin, anyway) On 10/26/2018 9:58 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: I disagree in several respects. First, I disagree with the sentence "It seems logical that the contract does indeed exist, as a contract is simply an agreement; however, it has no binding power." I request a rule citation for this highly confusing claim. Rule 1742 explicitly states that _all_ contracts have binding power, in that "Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in accordance with that contract." Either this is a contract governed by the rules, in which case that provision applies, or it isn't one, in which case it isn't a contract at all (unless you're claiming that it's some other form of contract, which is IMHO equally absurd). Whether or not it can be enforced is entirely separate question, and one defined by practicality. Second, I disagree with the paragraph "But, upon further inspection, Rule 2483 only says that Agora, players, and facilities can own coins. It does not seem to necessarily 'restrict its ownership,' but rather expand ownership. This would mean that contracts actually can own coins, as by default they can own all assets. Therefore, the First Bank of Agora contract can own coins, meaning G. and D. Margaux's attempts to transfer coins to it is EFFECTIVE." Three points: 1. What does the word "default" mean in the sentence "By default, ownership of an asset is restricted to Agora, players, and contracts.", if not that any other definition implicitly overrides this one? (I am compelled to admit that I know of another plausible reading for this one, but not for the others below. Also, I can tell you that this was what I intended when I wrote the rule, not that that has jurisprudential weight.) 2. Why does Rule 2483 restate that players can own coins if it is already specified by default? What would be the point, in a purely expansive rule, of restating a previously known fact? In both these cases, the canon against surplusage strongly implies that the list is exclusive. 3. The canon exclusio unius est exclusio alterius states that in the absence of a word such as "include", an enumeration is generally exclusive. I see no grounds for overturning this presumption here, based on the rule text, and quite a few reasons for following it. In short, there a great many reasons why I disagree with your reading, and I intend, with 2 support, to file a motion to reconsider (you can do so on your own initiative by announcement if you wish to). If my reasoning is wrong, I would like to know why. Also, please note that I ruled in CFJs 3611-3612 that canons of construction adopted in other jurisdictions can be used to disambiguate rules here, provided that the rule is ambiguous in the first place. In Agora, we tend to prefer literal readings when possible, but I believe that even here exclusio unius est exclusio alterius is almost always followed. -ArisOn Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 5:21 PM ATMunn wrote: Here is my judgement on CFJs 3665 and 3666. Hopefully my logic makes sense and works. If not, though, I am open to changing my judgement. It might be smart for me to put up some sort of proto-judgement first, but it's too late now. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ CFJ 3665 AND CFJ 3666 = 3665 called 30 September 2018 by D. Margaux, assigned to ATMunn 20 October 2018: "D. Margaux’s attempt in this message to transfer coins to the contract between em and G. is EFFECTIVE." 3666 called 30 September 2018 by D. Margaux, assigned to ATMunn 20 October 2018: "G.’s attempt in the message quoted below to transfer coins to the contract between em and D. Margaux is EFFECTIVE." = SHORT RULING = I judge CFJ 3665 TRUE because the rule defining coins does not restrict their ownership, but rather expands it to include facilities, leaving contracts still able to own coins. I judge CFJ 3666 TRUE because of the same reasons. == DETAILED JUDGEMENT == The first issue that must be addressed in judging these CFJs is whether or not the contract they mention exists. Obviously, if it does not exist, there is no way assets can be transferred to it. According to the rule defining contracts, R
