DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2019-02-17 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 22:36 -0800, Aris Merchant wrote:
> To be honest, I can’t think of a way to block an activation of The
> Protocol after an intent has been announced. That said, the fact that
> I can’t think of a way to do something doesn’t mean it’s impossible.

Assuming that this is a dependent action, see the penultimate paragraph
of rule 2124. (Note that the Speaker can object repeatedly, as nothing 
prevents you double-objecting to an intent, although the double
objections don't count for any other purpose. I suspect that this was
intentional in the wording of the rule.)

If it isn't a dependent action, it's probably unblockable.

Note that the original definition of the Protocol was NTTPF; this may
have an effect on your plans.

-- 
ais523



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread James Cook
Would also add G as coauthor (thanks for help researching history of the
rule) and use the proper handle for ais523 (will double-check with earlier
email to make sure I have it right).

On Mon., Feb. 18, 2019, 00:58 James Cook  On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:08, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > On 2/17/2019 7:30 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > > I'm not familiar with the History of R2124. Do you know which proposal
> > > added #4, and whether there were any substantial changes to the rule
> > > after that?
> >
> > This was the change that added it:
> >  > Amended(19) by P7815 'Agencies' (Alexis, aranea), 28 Oct 2016
> >
> > the clause that added it was straightforward:
> >
> >  > Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by adding:
> >  >   (4) if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T
> Notice.
> >  > after bullet (3).
> >
> > The changes since then are unrelated.
>
> Thanks for looking into it!
>
> Also, I just noticed that Rule 1551 (Ratification) talks about "the
> gamestate", so now happy with D. Margaux's original approach.
>
> What would the AI of the proposal have to be? 3.05?
>
> Latest draft:
>
> Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 2
> Co-authors: ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk, D. Margaux
> Adoption Index: 3.05
> Text:
> The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken effect
> immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had been
> made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of Rule 2124 is now
> as described in the amendment, since the Rules are changed by this
> proposal as part of the gamestate.)
>
> The amendment is to replace the text of Rule 2124 with:
>
>   A Supporter of an intent to perform an action is an eligible
>   entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn.
>   "consent") for an announcement of that intent. An Objector to an
>   intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly
>   posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of
>   that intent.
>
>   The entities eligible to support or object to an intent to perform
>   an action are, by default, all players, subject to modification by
>   the document authorizing the dependent action. However, the
>   previous sentence notwithstanding, the initiator of the intent is
>   not eligible to support it.
>
>   Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
>   unless at least one of the following is true:
>
>   1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and there
>  are at least N Objectors to that intent.
>
>   2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are
>  fewer than than N Supporters of that intent.
>
>   3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the
>  number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N
>  times the number of Objectors to the intent.
>
>   The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and
>   an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within
>   the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent.
>
>   The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent
>   if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours.
>
>   A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent
>   before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same
>   type of response.
>


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:52, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> Here are the others since then:
>
>  > Amended(20) by R2430, 24 May 2017
> I don't know what this is - lots of rules have this comment but I can't find
> the event.

It's for cleaning rules. By design, I doubt the change could matter.
E.g. this SLR has a version of it:
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08000.html


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:08, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> On 2/17/2019 7:30 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > I'm not familiar with the History of R2124. Do you know which proposal
> > added #4, and whether there were any substantial changes to the rule
> > after that?
>
> This was the change that added it:
>  > Amended(19) by P7815 'Agencies' (Alexis, aranea), 28 Oct 2016
>
> the clause that added it was straightforward:
>
>  > Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by adding:
>  >   (4) if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice.
>  > after bullet (3).
>
> The changes since then are unrelated.

Thanks for looking into it!

Also, I just noticed that Rule 1551 (Ratification) talks about "the
gamestate", so now happy with D. Margaux's original approach.

What would the AI of the proposal have to be? 3.05?

Latest draft:

Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 2
Co-authors: ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk, D. Margaux
Adoption Index: 3.05
Text:
The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken effect
immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had been
made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of Rule 2124 is now
as described in the amendment, since the Rules are changed by this
proposal as part of the gamestate.)

The amendment is to replace the text of Rule 2124 with:

  A Supporter of an intent to perform an action is an eligible
  entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn.
  "consent") for an announcement of that intent. An Objector to an
  intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly
  posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of
  that intent.

  The entities eligible to support or object to an intent to perform
  an action are, by default, all players, subject to modification by
  the document authorizing the dependent action. However, the
  previous sentence notwithstanding, the initiator of the intent is
  not eligible to support it.

  Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
  unless at least one of the following is true:

  1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and there
 are at least N Objectors to that intent.

  2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are
 fewer than than N Supporters of that intent.

  3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the
 number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N
 times the number of Objectors to the intent.

  The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and
  an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within
  the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent.

  The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent
  if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours.

  A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent
  before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same
  type of response.


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin



Here are the others since then:

> Amended(20) by R2430, 24 May 2017
I don't know what this is - lots of rules have this comment but I can't find
the event.

> Amended(21) by P8017 'RTRW Cleanups' (Alexis), 06 Mar 2018
Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by replacing "the Executor of the
announcement of intent is not eligible" with "the initiator of the intent
is not eligible". [This deserves a note: we previously defined the Executor
of a message to be the player who sent it, but that definition disappeared
at some time. The effect was that if you were acting on behalf of someone
else to intend something, you couldn't support the intent. But this wording
accomplishes roughly the same effect, since under the old interpretation
you could just have the player you acted on behalf of to intend the intent
support it, seeing as there was no prohibition on it.]

> Amended(22) by P8017 'RTRW Cleanups' (Alexis), 06 Mar 2018
Amend Rules 1728 (Dependent Actions) and 2124, in that order, by replacing
each instance of "With N Supporters" (case-insensitive) with "With N
Support".




On 2/17/2019 9:37 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote:


This was the change that added it:

Amended(19) by P7815 'Agencies' (Alexis, aranea), 28 Oct 2016


the clause that added it was straightforward:


Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by adding:
  (4) if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice.
after bullet (3).


The changes since then are unrelated.


For the suggested retroactive "as if the rule had been all the time what 
we're currently amending it to", any changes in between could be 
problematic, even those unrelated to (4).


Greetings,
Ørjan.


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Ørjan Johansen

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote:


This was the change that added it:

Amended(19) by P7815 'Agencies' (Alexis, aranea), 28 Oct 2016


the clause that added it was straightforward:


Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by adding:
  (4) if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice.
after bullet (3).


The changes since then are unrelated.


For the suggested retroactive "as if the rule had been all the time what 
we're currently amending it to", any changes in between could be 
problematic, even those unrelated to (4).


Greetings,
Ørjan.


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin



On 2/17/2019 7:30 PM, James Cook wrote:

I'm not familiar with the History of R2124. Do you know which proposal
added #4, and whether there were any substantial changes to the rule
after that? 


This was the change that added it:
> Amended(19) by P7815 'Agencies' (Alexis, aranea), 28 Oct 2016

the clause that added it was straightforward:

> Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by adding:
>   (4) if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice.
> after bullet (3).

The changes since then are unrelated.


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More Politicking

2019-02-17 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 03:40, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
 wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 03:31 +, James Cook wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 00:31, D. Margaux 
> > wrote:
> > > I submit and pend this proposal:
> >
> > What does "pend" mean?
>
> Agora often has a mechanism via which proposals mustn't be distributed
> unless they're pending. Typically pending them, when a pending
> mechanism exists, requires a payment or is limited in how often you can
> do it. The idea is either to keep proposal distributions smaller, or
> encourage players to think before proposing. (The "pend" and "submit"
> actions are separate for safety reasons, in order to prevent Agora
> dying as a result of nobody being able to submit proposals; generally
> speaking, proposals that have been submitted but aren't pending CAN
> still be distributed, but the Promotor isn't supposed to do so.)
>
> All pending mechanisms seem to have been repealed as of October last
> year, though, so right now it's just a meaningless word.

Thanks!


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More Politicking

2019-02-17 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 03:31 +, James Cook wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 00:31, D. Margaux 
> wrote:
> > I submit and pend this proposal:
> 
> What does "pend" mean?

Agora often has a mechanism via which proposals mustn't be distributed
unless they're pending. Typically pending them, when a pending
mechanism exists, requires a payment or is limited in how often you can
do it. The idea is either to keep proposal distributions smaller, or
encourage players to think before proposing. (The "pend" and "submit"
actions are separate for safety reasons, in order to prevent Agora
dying as a result of nobody being able to submit proposals; generally
speaking, proposals that have been submitted but aren't pending CAN
still be distributed, but the Promotor isn't supposed to do so.)

All pending mechanisms seem to have been repealed as of October last
year, though, so right now it's just a meaningless word.

-- 
ais523



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More Politicking

2019-02-17 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 00:31, D. Margaux  wrote:
> I submit and pend this proposal:

What does "pend" mean?


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 01:00, D Margaux  wrote:
> > On Feb 17, 2019, at 5:11 PM, James Cook  wrote:
> > Is it easy to make that a separate proposal from my amendment
> > proposal? Or is that complicated to do?
>
> I think it would make the most sense to do it in one proposal if we could, 
> right?

I just thought it would be nice to keep the amendment proposal simple.
But now that you mention it, if the retroactive part got delayed for
some reason, it could be tricky to reason about the intervening time,
which trumps my aesthetic concern.

> I’m not sure what the right language would be. Maybe: “The gamestate is 
> changed as if the Rule amendments in this proposal had taken effect 
> immediately after the addition of the first paragraph in that Rule that has 
> the number 4, and as if no further changes had been made to that Rule since.”

Thanks for drafting it. I have a few questions:

I'm not familiar with the History of R2124. Do you know which proposal
added #4, and whether there were any substantial changes to the rule
after that? If there were later changes, I think we have to be more
careful. If we know the proposal, it would be good to name it
specifically. (I'm not sure what the best way to research these is ---
e.g. http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/rules_text.txt doesn't seem up
to date.)

Is there precedent for doing this? Is it clear what "gamestate" is?
The Rules refer to some physical entities that a proposal can't
control (persons (Rule 869), Fora (Rule 478)) so I worry there's
potential for ambiguity about what got changed and what didn't by the
proposal.

Here's another possible approach. It assuages my own concerns about
"gamestate" being vague, but "are considered to have been" might be
worse...

Any dependent actions that were attempted after Proposal P took effect
and before now, and that would have been effective if the amendment in
this proposal had been applied immediately after Proposal P, are
considered to have been effective for the purposes of the game, to the
extent possible: for example, the value of switches, the existence of
patent titles, etc, are now what they would have been in the amendment
had been applied immediately after Proposal P.

> Could we add that to the fix proposal?

Happy to add something like that, but would like your thoughts and/or
feedback from others.

> Not sure if that could break something else though...?

Alternative (not serious) proto-proposal:

Title: Saving the Game

Enact a new power-3 rule with the text:

Any player CAN Save a Game Backup by announcement, specifying a set of facts.

Any player CAN Load a Game Backup without objection, uniquely
specifying a previous backup. Upon doing so, all the facts specified
with the backup become true, to the extent possible.


DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3712 judgement

2019-02-17 Thread D Margaux



> On Feb 17, 2019, at 9:00 PM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
> 
> And y'all wonder why I've been falling behind on cases.

I was just being silly—I didn’t really plan to go forward with that motion :-)

Re: DIS: proto: communications redux

2019-02-17 Thread James Cook
> Enact the following clause (possibly in R859, but there might be
> a better place if we don't want to mess with R859):

Did you mean 478? I don't see a rule 859.

> Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing:
>by stating how many assets e earns as a result of this action.
> with:
>by announcement.

This could be interpreted as each time e {fulfills it by
announcement}, i.e. only pertaining to reward conditions fulfulled by
announcement. Maybe stick the "by announcement" before "exactly once"?


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

2019-02-17 Thread Ørjan Johansen

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Well, I'd like to make it clear that some scams might not be.  For example,
I'd love it if it said "Dictator scams" SHOULD only be used to earn this
Relic, the scammers should expect every other profit from a dictator scam to
be taken back.  I like that, because in particular if a Dictator uses a
Dictator Scam to remove the Dictator prohibition, we can have a nice long
philosophical argument about whether that's cool or not.


Cincinnatus Relic, check.

Greetings,
Ørjan.


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

2019-02-17 Thread Ørjan Johansen

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:


I think it's helpful to have such rules in the ruleset, because history
has shown that when we've been missing them, players with less-than-
dictatorship scams have caused widespread damage to unrelated parts of
the gamestate trying to finagle their scam into a win. (Remember the
"skunk" rule? That was part of the cleanup from one of those events.)


Win by Lightning Rod?

Greetings,
Ørjan.


DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Ørjan Johansen

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:


5. FORCE GAELAN AND ATMUNN TO SUPPORT GROUP-FILED RECONSIDERATION
// only works if intents are not broken

I intend with 2 support to move to reconsider the above-called CFJ.  I
cause ATMunn and Gaelan to support that intent.  I move to reconsider
that CFJ.


It may be a bit moot with all the other problems, but I distinctly recall 
discussing that support cannot be done on behalf because of the "consent" 
synonym (although was there ever a CFJ?)


Greetings,
Ørjan.


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Read the Ruleset week - summary of entries

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin



AFAICT it wasn't submitted during Read the Ruleset Week?

On 2/17/2019 4:36 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Ooh, in that case can we count my assertion that Rule 2571 is guilty of 
violating Rule 105? :P



I also kind of feel that scams that don't actually work (i.e. mine) should be 
disqualified by default.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, February 14, 2019 7:13 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:


Didn't notice that was meant as a specific entry as opposed to
follow-on conversation! The brief was "most interesting or fun
Rules loophole or unexpected Rules interaction" and this is definitely
an interesting and unexpected Rules interaction (and while it didn't
turn out to be dangerous, the result pointed out things like 'destroy
all contracts' that would be unexpectedly dangerous). Profit or scam
not necessary. And now I also notice that I said "whomever points
out" so you don't have to "officially enter" beyond pointing something
out.

So I'll add that one.

On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:00 AM Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com wrote:


Damn, I thought my Agora = Contract thing would count but it's true that it
doesn't really scam anything, it's just a perspective shift on the
Ruleset.
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 7:28 PM Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:


Read the Ruleset Week Contest - update
Before I give opinions or try to start a process to determine the
winner, here's a list of all the entries I saw (Telnaior, Gaelan,
CuddleBeam, twg, D. Margaux). Did I miss anyone?
Telnaior illustrating that contracts can make infinitely-rewarding reports:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039875.html
Gaelan's attempt to win by Apathy, by using two messages for the same
intent:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039934.html
CuddleBeam pointing out that space wins are infinite:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039895.html
twg attempt to use contracts to induct the unwilling:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039950.html
D. Margaux working on the same thing:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039896.html
(and when twg scooped em, followed up with a different approach):
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039953.html





Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread D Margaux



> On Feb 17, 2019, at 5:11 PM, James Cook  wrote:
> 
> Is it easy to make that a separate proposal from my amendment
> proposal? Or is that complicated to do?

I think it would make the most sense to do it in one proposal if we could, 
right? 

I’m not sure what the right language would be. Maybe: “The gamestate is changed 
as if the Rule amendments in this proposal had taken effect immediately after 
the addition of the first paragraph in that Rule that has the number 4, and as 
if no further changes had been made to that Rule since.”

Could we add that to the fix proposal?

Not sure if that could break something else though...?

DIS: Re: More Politicking

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:04 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:
> 
> I pay 2 COS favours to gain 3 influence over Ronald Ray Gun.

Oops; that was supposed to be 2:2, not 2:3... I think?

Don’t know if that makes it INEFFECTIVE, or what. But wanted to point it out 
for H. Clork’s benefit. 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:31 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> I'm not clear how your win attempt relies on it though. I understand that 
> you've arranged matters so that you only win* if intents are broken (because 
> otherwise the CFJ is eventually judged DISMISS), but not _why_ you've done 
> that. If you judged it PARADOXICAL again instead of DISMISS it would be 
> protected from motions to reconsider (either because these can only be done 
> once per CFJ, or because intents were broken) and from Moots (either via 
> Arbitor delays, or because intents were broken), leaving you with an 
> unpreventable win*. Also, since that works whether or not intents are broken, 
> you could have done this any time you liked, surely? As that would make the 
> mousetrap contract the only truly necessary component.

I think you’re right about this, but it relies on my abusing the office of 
Arbitor, and I’ve learned my lesson in that respect. My scam (would have) 
worked even if I act faithfully as Arbitor. But I messed it up. 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Read the Ruleset week - summary of entries

2019-02-17 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Ooh, in that case can we count my assertion that Rule 2571 is guilty of 
violating Rule 105? :P



I also kind of feel that scams that don't actually work (i.e. mine) should be 
disqualified by default.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, February 14, 2019 7:13 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> Didn't notice that was meant as a specific entry as opposed to
> follow-on conversation! The brief was "most interesting or fun
> Rules loophole or unexpected Rules interaction" and this is definitely
> an interesting and unexpected Rules interaction (and while it didn't
> turn out to be dangerous, the result pointed out things like 'destroy
> all contracts' that would be unexpectedly dangerous). Profit or scam
> not necessary. And now I also notice that I said "whomever points
> out" so you don't have to "officially enter" beyond pointing something
> out.
>
> So I'll add that one.
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:00 AM Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Damn, I thought my Agora = Contract thing would count but it's true that it
> > doesn't really scam anything, it's just a perspective shift on the
> > Ruleset.
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 7:28 PM Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
> >
> > > Read the Ruleset Week Contest - update
> > > Before I give opinions or try to start a process to determine the
> > > winner, here's a list of all the entries I saw (Telnaior, Gaelan,
> > > CuddleBeam, twg, D. Margaux). Did I miss anyone?
> > > Telnaior illustrating that contracts can make infinitely-rewarding 
> > > reports:
> > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039875.html
> > > Gaelan's attempt to win by Apathy, by using two messages for the same
> > > intent:
> > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039934.html
> > > CuddleBeam pointing out that space wins are infinite:
> > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039895.html
> > > twg attempt to use contracts to induct the unwilling:
> > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039950.html
> > > D. Margaux working on the same thing:
> > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039896.html
> > > (and when twg scooped em, followed up with a different approach):
> > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039953.html




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More Politicking

2019-02-17 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
And given the Politics system was written by Alexis, I reckon it's almost 
certainly intentional, although I can't figure out how it was meant to give em 
an advantage. I suppose the Clork could use it to autocratically decide every 
election, but Alexis wasn't the Clork first time around. Hmm.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 12:20 AM, D. Margaux  wrote:

>
>
> > On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:15 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> > Forgive me, but I can't seem to find the rule(s) where the action of 
> > "causing  to vote for  for " (presumably 
> > == "setting 's Vote for  switch to ") is 
> > defined or regulated.
>
> Lol bugged




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 7:34 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

>
>
> > On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:17 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> > Yes you did: (1) the power to assign a judge to a CFJ in the same message 
> > it's initiated; and (2) the power to personally select who judges a CFJ.
>
> Nope. I didn’t use any Arbitor power. I used the Prime Minister’s cabinet 
> order of certiorari, which I obtained by getting ATMunn to fall through the 
> trap door in our contract, or, alternatively, by deputising this week.
>
> If someone else were Arbitor, I could still use certiorari in the same 
> message and the scheme would succeed or fail just the same.

Ah, I see, I missed that bit. I think you may be splitting hairs though, as you 
don't _need_ to go through the rigmarole of executive orders - the same effect 
could easily be obtained just by assigning it to yourself as Arbitor. So a 
vulnerability exists, I think.


> > If my attempt to announce intent for a Moot was successful - there seems to 
> > be some question about this? - you would also have needed to use (3) the 
> > power to delay a Moot for up to a week (and/or its resolution for a further 
> > week).
>
> Yes, the moot may or may not succeed—regardless of how quickly it is 
> distributed. The whole idea behind this scheme is that intents (other than 
> with Notice) might be completely broken. That’s the question in CFJ 3712, 
> assigned to Trigon.

Ah ok, I haven't really been following the intents-being-broken thing.

I'm not clear how your win attempt relies on it though. I understand that 
you've arranged matters so that you only win* if intents are broken (because 
otherwise the CFJ is eventually judged DISMISS), but not _why_ you've done 
that. If you judged it PARADOXICAL again instead of DISMISS it would be 
protected from motions to reconsider (either because these can only be done 
once per CFJ, or because intents were broken) and from Moots (either via 
Arbitor delays, or because intents were broken), leaving you with an 
unpreventable win*. Also, since that works whether or not intents are broken, 
you could have done this any time you liked, surely? As that would make the 
mousetrap contract the only truly necessary component.

TL;DR: this topic is a source of eternal bafflement to me.

-twg


* Iff the CFJ weren't invalid for a Win by Paradox in the first place, per 
Telnaior.


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-17 Thread Reuben Staley

===
= = OFFICIAL IMPERIAL STATEMENT = =
===

I will not perform any actions that would unfairly benefit BlogNomic 
players coming from an Agoran invasion.


However, if it is decided that one of us should take over BlogNomic and 
declare an Agora-themed dynasty during the dynasty of whoever wins the 
First Dynasty of Trigon, I would be willing to assist in the overthrow.


-- Trigon, Emperor of BlogNomic

On 2/17/19 6:51 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Trigon is the current Emperor of BlogNomic, so depending on how corruptible e 
is we may have an in...

More seriously, the office of "Ambassador" (to other nomics) that apparently 
used to be a thing is mildly interesting:

https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg06285.html

(repealed here: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07140.html)

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 7:20 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:


It would’ve been pretty easy to win last dynasty with a coordinated team
(wealth was pretty unambiguous from the start in the form of Clues:
Emperor-given info on a series of data a la Cluedo; wealth could be easy
shared because you just needed to know it. Unsurprisingly, a team of two
players won.)

This dynasty isnt as obvious unfortunately but a teaming up/planning to
pool into a single person is very often super strong anyways.

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 07:45, Gaelan Steele g...@canishe.com wrote:


Consider me interested.
Gaelan


On Feb 16, 2019, at 10:33 PM, Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com wrote:
We could just win it in the normal way next time and declare an Agora
theme...
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 01:32, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote:


My reading justifies the Agoran invasion better.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:


I rather hoped the “mutatis mutandis” was implied.
-Aris
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no
wrote:


On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:


BlogNomic almost actually passed something like that once. We sent
someone
over to caution them that such an unfortunate plan would result in an
Agoran invasion (okay, ais actually did it sua sponte, but my version
sounds better).


Wait, BlogNomic legislated that Agora would be destroyed? I don't
think



that works.
Greetings,
Ørjan.


-Aris
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:56 PM Madeline j...@iinet.net.au wrote:


Obviously, I'm just talking in hypotheticals.
On 2019-02-16 09:55, Aris Merchant wrote:


No one is doing anything that has any meaningful chance of
destroying



Agora. If there’s a bug in your mechanism, the stakes go from it
being



broken to the game dying permanently.
-Aris
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:52 PM Madeline j...@iinet.net.au
wrote:



"If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other rules
notwithstanding,



Agora is destroyed."
(Would any other rule need to actually change for such a clause to
work



if an outside Power 3 rule is adjusting its power?)
On 2019-02-16 09:47, D. Margaux wrote:


Love it.
You could have a separate power 3 rule that (1) changes the power
of



the


Ritual rule and (2) causes itself to be repealed when the Ritual
rule



is


repealed.


And I’d love to see the power of the Ritual rule increase, too,
if



the


Rule is left unappeased... and maybe increase at a higher rate
than



it


can


be decreased?


On Feb 15, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
Actually I've been pondering something even fancier, like every
time



it's appeased it decreases in Power and the Power is linked to
the



Consent required. Or something. (of course you can't increase
power



in the same way).


On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:08 PM D. Margaux <
dmargaux...@gmail.com>



wrote:


Any chance we can have it repeal with Agoran Consent or
something



more


than notice? Or is that excessive? :-)


On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu
wrote:



Actually, one more time. Empty sacrifices are meaningless.
I withdraw my proposal, The Ritual.
I submit the following proposal, Ritual Sacrifice, AI-1:



Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the
following



text:

   Any player CAN perform The Ritual by paying a fee of 7



Coins,


thus appeasing
this Rule for a single instant. This Rule MUST be
appeased



at


least once


   in every Agoran week.

   If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5



successive


   Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule



(cause


it


to


   repeal itself) with Notice.




On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:12 PM Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu
wrote:



I withdraw the proposal I recently submitted, quoted below.
I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1:



Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the
following



text:

   Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement, thus



appeasing


   this Rule for a single instant.  

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More Politicking

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:15 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> Forgive me, but I can't seem to find the rule(s) where the action of "causing 
>  to vote for  for " (presumably == "setting 
> 's Vote for  switch to ") is defined or 
> regulated.

Lol bugged

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Madeline
What about making a safety clause that the caller of a CFJ cannot judge 
it (all else notwithstanding)?


On 2019-02-18 06:17, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

On Sunday, February 17, 2019 2:28 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

I purposefully didn’t use any of the powers of the Arbitor for this scam.

Yes you did: (1) the power to assign a judge to a CFJ in the same message it's 
initiated; and (2) the power to personally select who judges a CFJ. Both of 
these served to prevent anyone who might have given a fair judgement from 
having a chance to intervene. If my attempt to announce intent for a Moot was 
successful - there seems to be some question about this? - you would also have 
needed to use (3) the power to delay a Moot for up to a week (and/or its 
resolution for a further week).

I'm not really expecting you to be impeached; like I said in the original 
message, I was just throwing out relevant intents to start the 4-day (or 2-day) 
timers. The point being that someone else who's been paying more attention than 
me to this topic can do whatever they believe necessary to counterscam without 
having to delay too long. But saying that the win attempt didn't rely on your 
position as Arbitor is just plain false - hence the proposal I submitted, which 
neatly prevents this and all related scams. (Though it may need to be adjusted 
if temporary deputisation makes it into the ruleset.)

-twg





DIS: Re: BUS: More Politicking

2019-02-17 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
On Monday, February 18, 2019 12:04 AM, D. Margaux  wrote:
> I cause each of Ronald Ray-Gun, Politician McPoliticianface, Benjamin 
> Surreali, Lex Luthor, Loseston Churchvalley, Genghis Khaan, Hillary 
> Rodham Clinton, Zeno of Citium, Eric, and Xi Kingpin to vote for Ronald 
> Ray-Gun for Host.

Forgive me, but I can't seem to find the rule(s) where the action of "causing 
 to vote for  for " (presumably == "setting 
's Vote for  switch to ") is defined or 
regulated.

-twg


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 15:56 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Ok, are we talking about self-ratifying the fact that a certain Judge
> delivered a judgement of FALSE, or self-ratifying a document that
> states that the CFJ statement was, in fact, FALSE going forward?  (it
> sounds like the above discussion is mixing the two).

It looks like other people meant it as the first statement here, and I
misinterpreted it as the second.

I have no objection to ratifying the fact "player A judged CFJ B with
the result C", given that that fact has, in general, very little impact
on the gamestate.

-- 
ais523



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin



On 2/17/2019 3:49 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:

On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 15:43 -0800, Aris Merchant wrote:

CFJ findings probably should self-ratify, although they doesn’t really do
anything. Ruleset self-ratifications are incredibly dangerous (think of all
the scares people would try) so we only do them occasionally. We’re about
due for one now, as it happens. Patent titles are long term state that we
try to keep platonic, so no self ratification. Finding long-term errors is
part of the fun. So, basically, there are good reasons for not having them
self-ratify for most of them.


CFJ findings self-ratifying would be a very major shift in the way
Agora has worked for years. I don't think it would necessarily be a bad
thing – it'd be a change, or experiment – but it would be a rather
fundamental change to one of the rather fundamental parts of Agora.
Nomics which do have the equivalent of self-ratifying CFJs typically
have some sort of voting process accompanying them.


Ok, are we talking about self-ratifying the fact that a certain Judge
delivered a judgement of FALSE, or self-ratifying a document that states
that the CFJ statement was, in fact, FALSE going forward?  (it sounds like
the above discussion is mixing the two).

The first seems harmless, the second far too dangerous.

In my unfinished-project of filling in the missing 2013-2015 judgements in
the database, I found (in 2017 I think?) one that had never been delivered,
and assigned a very very late judgement of DISMISS.


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

2019-02-17 Thread Cuddle Beam
This and talking about BN on that other thread has reminded me that BN has
recently banned all non-Dynastic Rule scams (no Core Rule scams, etc) and
it makes me really sad lol.


On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 00:26, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> I’m not convinced that every conceivable scam needs an outlet—gaining an
> unfair advantage in the game by an abuse of the rules is part of what Nomic
> is about IMO. While scam outlets are a good tool when necessary, I believe
> that something like this would create a perception that any non-outlet
> scams are dishonorable, and I’m not a fan of that.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Feb 17, 2019, at 3:21 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:
> >
> > Greed relic— taking all of the coins of an active player against eir
> will (e.g. through a contract scam)
> >
> >> On Feb 17, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> >>
> >> The same applies to Ribbons. Raising a Banner (which just gives you a
> win)
> >> is harder than just winning (because it has as a prerequisite to win in
> the
> >> first place lol, to get the win-dependent ribbons).
> >>
> >> Relics would be in the same spirit as Ribbons.
> >>
> >> Anyways, proto:
> >>
> >> [Ribbon-like function stuff here or just editting the Ribbon rules
> somehow,
> >> whatever is more wordcount economic to the Ruleset]
> >>
> >> - Apathy Relic: yadda yadda apathy mechanic here.
> >> - Black Relic: There is no specified method for obtaining a Black Relic.
> >> - Pride Relic: [Escalation Scam stuff here. I don't know what an
> Escalation
> >> Scam is, please let me know lol]
> >> - Wrath Relic: When a person has an action cancelled via Rule 1698, that
> >> person earns a Wrath Relic.
> >>
> >> Rule 1698 is the anti-ossification rule by the way.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 11:06 PM Gaelan Steele 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Seems a little too difficult for me. Right now, generally the going
> rate
> >>> is “1 scam = 1 win”—asking that someone finds multiple scams, all of
> which
> >>> are fairly rare, just to get one win seems like it’s asking quite a
> lot.
> >>>
> >>> Gaelan
> >>>
>  On Feb 17, 2019, at 1:19 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
>  I heartily endorse this expansion.  It could soak up some other common
> >>> types
>  of scams (e.g. one for a "scam of power 3" provides an outlet for
> >>> escalation
>  scams).
> 
> >> On 2/17/2019 1:10 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 22:05 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >> Probably we could have something like this:
> >>
> >> "Relics are a Fixed Asset, limited to Persons, tracked by the
> Tailor.
> >>> Once
> >> a player has a Relic of all kinds, they can destroy all of their
> >>> Relics and
> >> declare victory. The following are the kinds of Relics:
> >> - Apathy Relic: yadda yadda apathy mechanic here.
> >> - Gluttony Relic: some other common scam outlet here"
> >>
> >> Like that, people would like to still get a victory by Apathy but
> it's
> >>> no
> >> longer as toxic as it could be. Once you have one, you simply can't
> get
> >> more until you cash them all in, which takes a while.
> > Like Ribbons but for scams?
> > We could move the scam half of the Black Ribbon over there, which
> might
> > make it less controversial, and replace the existing Black Ribbon
> with
> > something that was purchasable, or obtainable by proposal (so that
> > you'd bribe people to get one).
> >>>
> >>>
>
>


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Aris Merchant
On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 3:49 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 15:43 -0800, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > CFJ findings probably should self-ratify, although they doesn’t really do
> > anything. Ruleset self-ratifications are incredibly dangerous (think of
> all
> > the scares people would try) so we only do them occasionally. We’re about
> > due for one now, as it happens. Patent titles are long term state that we
> > try to keep platonic, so no self ratification. Finding long-term errors
> is
> > part of the fun. So, basically, there are good reasons for not having
> them
> > self-ratify for most of them.
>
> CFJ findings self-ratifying would be a very major shift in the way
> Agora has worked for years. I don't think it would necessarily be a bad
> thing – it'd be a change, or experiment – but it would be a rather
> fundamental change to one of the rather fundamental parts of Agora.
> Nomics which do have the equivalent of self-ratifying CFJs typically
> have some sort of voting process accompanying them.
>
> It's also worth noting that commonly a CFJ will sometimes find that
> something is broken, and suggest fixing it; ratifying the brokenness is
> probably not ideal in that situation.
>
> FWIW, I've thought about this, and my preferred fix is to require CFJ
> judges to submit proposals that would, if they had been adopted before
> the situation the CFJ is asking about arose, have made the outcome of
> the CFJ obvious. That would mean that all relevant precedents would be
> in the Ruleset already, without requiring players to know all the
> judicial precedent to apply rule 217 correctly. This is similar to
> self-ratification but more flexible (you can use your mandated proposal
> for a fix rather than for a clarification), less dangerous (as the
> rules/gamestate changnes are still going through the normal proposal
> process), and more general (it's hard to set up ongoing effects with a
> ratification, but a proposal can do it just fine).
>
> --
> ais523


While what you’re saying is quite interesting, you’re not understanding me
correctly. I was suggesting ratifying that the CFJ was judged TRUE, not the
actual truth of the statement judged. It wouldn’t have any effect, it would
just make sure the historical record of what the final judgement was is
clear. The idea of giving CFJ findings binding status fills me with dread.

-Aris

>
>
>


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin



I'm against ratifying the Patent Titles automatically.  It's our historical
record and there's no harm in fixing using historical records when needed,
and patent titles don't have follow-on effects.  That said, it's been
ratified about - I dunno - every other year manually.

I think Aris's draft of winning reforms had that Notices of Victory self-
ratify, that's a good idea, as uncertainty in winning leads to follow-up
uncertainty for Speakership, win resets, etc.

On 2/17/2019 3:38 PM, Madeline wrote:
What if we set up these things to self-ratify after, say, a quarter? That 
way we know we don't have to dig up years of history if something does go 
wrong, but we don't run the risk of getting into trouble with something 
important that just gets missed for a couple of weeks?


On 2019-02-18 10:28, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On 2/17/2019 2:11 PM, James Cook wrote:

Also, isn't most of the game state periodically ratified by official
reports? I don't have a firm grasp of what exactly this messes up, and
I haven't looked at the public messages much further back than than
the date I registered*.


The ruleset doesn't self-ratify, that has to be done manually (w/o
objection).  So if any past intents to clean rules or ratify the ruleset
didn't work, the ruleset is different than we think.  That's the main one.

The "fact that someone won" doesn't ratify (though some of the conditions
that determine the win would).  Nor do Patent Titles.  Since many of the
Patent Title awards were made with Consent, and Champion awards fail
automatically if someone didn't win, that could take some clean up.

Those are the ones I got - any others?





Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 15:43 -0800, Aris Merchant wrote:
> CFJ findings probably should self-ratify, although they doesn’t really do
> anything. Ruleset self-ratifications are incredibly dangerous (think of all
> the scares people would try) so we only do them occasionally. We’re about
> due for one now, as it happens. Patent titles are long term state that we
> try to keep platonic, so no self ratification. Finding long-term errors is
> part of the fun. So, basically, there are good reasons for not having them
> self-ratify for most of them.

CFJ findings self-ratifying would be a very major shift in the way
Agora has worked for years. I don't think it would necessarily be a bad
thing – it'd be a change, or experiment – but it would be a rather
fundamental change to one of the rather fundamental parts of Agora.
Nomics which do have the equivalent of self-ratifying CFJs typically
have some sort of voting process accompanying them.

It's also worth noting that commonly a CFJ will sometimes find that
something is broken, and suggest fixing it; ratifying the brokenness is
probably not ideal in that situation.

FWIW, I've thought about this, and my preferred fix is to require CFJ
judges to submit proposals that would, if they had been adopted before
the situation the CFJ is asking about arose, have made the outcome of
the CFJ obvious. That would mean that all relevant precedents would be
in the Ruleset already, without requiring players to know all the
judicial precedent to apply rule 217 correctly. This is similar to
self-ratification but more flexible (you can use your mandated proposal
for a fix rather than for a clarification), less dangerous (as the
rules/gamestate changnes are still going through the normal proposal
process), and more general (it's hard to set up ongoing effects with a
ratification, but a proposal can do it just fine).

-- 
ais523



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 10:38 +1100, Madeline wrote:
> What if we set up these things to self-ratify after, say, a quarter? 
> That way we know we don't have to dig up years of history if
> something does go wrong, but we don't run the risk of getting into
> trouble with something important that just gets missed for a couple
> of weeks?

Things like "the published ruleset is ossified and nobody noticed"
happen occasionally, I think. (IIRC it was a consequence of a
Rulekeepor error, not a broken proposal.)

Ruleset ratification is something we used to do every now and then, but
it needs a /very/ careful scam/bug sweep, and sometimes a sweep to
ensure that proposals were Rulekept correctly.

It might be interesting to have an essential/inessential rules split,
for which the essential rules were considered to be enough to "reboot"
Agora, or fix it in case of emergency, and the inessential rules were
everything else. Then we could have periodic ratifications of
inessential rules, and apply a very high level of scrutiny to
amendments to the essential rules. (Out of interest, would Agora with
only power 3+ rules be ossified?)

-- 
ais523



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Aris Merchant
CFJ findings probably should self-ratify, although they doesn’t really do
anything. Ruleset self-ratifications are incredibly dangerous (think of all
the scares people would try) so we only do them occasionally. We’re about
due for one now, as it happens. Patent titles are long term state that we
try to keep platonic, so no self ratification. Finding long-term errors is
part of the fun. So, basically, there are good reasons for not having them
self-ratify for most of them.

-Aris

On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 3:38 PM Madeline  wrote:

> What if we set up these things to self-ratify after, say, a quarter?
> That way we know we don't have to dig up years of history if something
> does go wrong, but we don't run the risk of getting into trouble with
> something important that just gets missed for a couple of weeks?
>
> On 2019-02-18 10:28, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On 2/17/2019 2:11 PM, James Cook wrote:
> >> Also, isn't most of the game state periodically ratified by official
> >> reports? I don't have a firm grasp of what exactly this messes up, and
> >> I haven't looked at the public messages much further back than than
> >> the date I registered*.
> >
> > The ruleset doesn't self-ratify, that has to be done manually (w/o
> > objection).  So if any past intents to clean rules or ratify the ruleset
> > didn't work, the ruleset is different than we think.  That's the main
> > one.
> >
> > The "fact that someone won" doesn't ratify (though some of the conditions
> > that determine the win would).  Nor do Patent Titles.  Since many of the
> > Patent Title awards were made with Consent, and Champion awards fail
> > automatically if someone didn't win, that could take some clean up.
> >
> > Those are the ones I got - any others?
> >
>
>


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Madeline
What if we set up these things to self-ratify after, say, a quarter? 
That way we know we don't have to dig up years of history if something 
does go wrong, but we don't run the risk of getting into trouble with 
something important that just gets missed for a couple of weeks?


On 2019-02-18 10:28, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On 2/17/2019 2:11 PM, James Cook wrote:

Also, isn't most of the game state periodically ratified by official
reports? I don't have a firm grasp of what exactly this messes up, and
I haven't looked at the public messages much further back than than
the date I registered*.


The ruleset doesn't self-ratify, that has to be done manually (w/o
objection).  So if any past intents to clean rules or ratify the ruleset
didn't work, the ruleset is different than we think.  That's the main 
one.


The "fact that someone won" doesn't ratify (though some of the conditions
that determine the win would).  Nor do Patent Titles.  Since many of the
Patent Title awards were made with Consent, and Champion awards fail
automatically if someone didn't win, that could take some clean up.

Those are the ones I got - any others?





Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin



Well, I'd like to make it clear that some scams might not be.  For example,
I'd love it if it said "Dictator scams" SHOULD only be used to earn this
Relic, the scammers should expect every other profit from a dictator scam to
be taken back.  I like that, because in particular if a Dictator uses a
Dictator Scam to remove the Dictator prohibition, we can have a nice long
philosophical argument about whether that's cool or not.

On 2/17/2019 3:26 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:

I’m not convinced that every conceivable scam needs an outlet—gaining an unfair 
advantage in the game by an abuse of the rules is part of what Nomic is about 
IMO. While scam outlets are a good tool when necessary, I believe that 
something like this would create a perception that any non-outlet scams are 
dishonorable, and I’m not a fan of that.

Gaelan


On Feb 17, 2019, at 3:21 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

Greed relic— taking all of the coins of an active player against eir will (e.g. 
through a contract scam)


On Feb 17, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

The same applies to Ribbons. Raising a Banner (which just gives you a win)
is harder than just winning (because it has as a prerequisite to win in the
first place lol, to get the win-dependent ribbons).

Relics would be in the same spirit as Ribbons.

Anyways, proto:

[Ribbon-like function stuff here or just editting the Ribbon rules somehow,
whatever is more wordcount economic to the Ruleset]

- Apathy Relic: yadda yadda apathy mechanic here.
- Black Relic: There is no specified method for obtaining a Black Relic.
- Pride Relic: [Escalation Scam stuff here. I don't know what an Escalation
Scam is, please let me know lol]
- Wrath Relic: When a person has an action cancelled via Rule 1698, that
person earns a Wrath Relic.

Rule 1698 is the anti-ossification rule by the way.







On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 11:06 PM Gaelan Steele  wrote:

Seems a little too difficult for me. Right now, generally the going rate
is “1 scam = 1 win”—asking that someone finds multiple scams, all of which
are fairly rare, just to get one win seems like it’s asking quite a lot.

Gaelan


On Feb 17, 2019, at 1:19 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:


I heartily endorse this expansion.  It could soak up some other common

types

of scams (e.g. one for a "scam of power 3" provides an outlet for

escalation

scams).


On 2/17/2019 1:10 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 22:05 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote:
Probably we could have something like this:

"Relics are a Fixed Asset, limited to Persons, tracked by the Tailor.

Once

a player has a Relic of all kinds, they can destroy all of their

Relics and

declare victory. The following are the kinds of Relics:
- Apathy Relic: yadda yadda apathy mechanic here.
- Gluttony Relic: some other common scam outlet here"

Like that, people would like to still get a victory by Apathy but it's

no

longer as toxic as it could be. Once you have one, you simply can't get
more until you cash them all in, which takes a while.

Like Ribbons but for scams?
We could move the scam half of the Black Ribbon over there, which might
make it less controversial, and replace the existing Black Ribbon with
something that was purchasable, or obtainable by proposal (so that
you'd bribe people to get one).







Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin



Oh!  How could I forget in the current scam - whether Moots or Motions for
CFJs worked, which might mean original judgements were still in place.

On 2/17/2019 3:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On 2/17/2019 2:11 PM, James Cook wrote:

Also, isn't most of the game state periodically ratified by official
reports? I don't have a firm grasp of what exactly this messes up, and
I haven't looked at the public messages much further back than than
the date I registered*.


The ruleset doesn't self-ratify, that has to be done manually (w/o
objection).  So if any past intents to clean rules or ratify the ruleset
didn't work, the ruleset is different than we think.  That's the main one.

The "fact that someone won" doesn't ratify (though some of the conditions
that determine the win would).  Nor do Patent Titles.  Since many of the
Patent Title awards were made with Consent, and Champion awards fail
automatically if someone didn't win, that could take some clean up.

Those are the ones I got - any others?



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin



On 2/17/2019 2:11 PM, James Cook wrote:

Also, isn't most of the game state periodically ratified by official
reports? I don't have a firm grasp of what exactly this messes up, and
I haven't looked at the public messages much further back than than
the date I registered*.


The ruleset doesn't self-ratify, that has to be done manually (w/o
objection).  So if any past intents to clean rules or ratify the ruleset
didn't work, the ruleset is different than we think.  That's the main one.

The "fact that someone won" doesn't ratify (though some of the conditions
that determine the win would).  Nor do Patent Titles.  Since many of the
Patent Title awards were made with Consent, and Champion awards fail
automatically if someone didn't win, that could take some clean up.

Those are the ones I got - any others?



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

2019-02-17 Thread Gaelan Steele
I’m not convinced that every conceivable scam needs an outlet—gaining an unfair 
advantage in the game by an abuse of the rules is part of what Nomic is about 
IMO. While scam outlets are a good tool when necessary, I believe that 
something like this would create a perception that any non-outlet scams are 
dishonorable, and I’m not a fan of that.

Gaelan

> On Feb 17, 2019, at 3:21 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:
> 
> Greed relic— taking all of the coins of an active player against eir will 
> (e.g. through a contract scam)
> 
>> On Feb 17, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>> 
>> The same applies to Ribbons. Raising a Banner (which just gives you a win)
>> is harder than just winning (because it has as a prerequisite to win in the
>> first place lol, to get the win-dependent ribbons).
>> 
>> Relics would be in the same spirit as Ribbons.
>> 
>> Anyways, proto:
>> 
>> [Ribbon-like function stuff here or just editting the Ribbon rules somehow,
>> whatever is more wordcount economic to the Ruleset]
>> 
>> - Apathy Relic: yadda yadda apathy mechanic here.
>> - Black Relic: There is no specified method for obtaining a Black Relic.
>> - Pride Relic: [Escalation Scam stuff here. I don't know what an Escalation
>> Scam is, please let me know lol]
>> - Wrath Relic: When a person has an action cancelled via Rule 1698, that
>> person earns a Wrath Relic.
>> 
>> Rule 1698 is the anti-ossification rule by the way.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 11:06 PM Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Seems a little too difficult for me. Right now, generally the going rate
>>> is “1 scam = 1 win”—asking that someone finds multiple scams, all of which
>>> are fairly rare, just to get one win seems like it’s asking quite a lot.
>>> 
>>> Gaelan
>>> 
 On Feb 17, 2019, at 1:19 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
 
 
 I heartily endorse this expansion.  It could soak up some other common
>>> types
 of scams (e.g. one for a "scam of power 3" provides an outlet for
>>> escalation
 scams).
 
>> On 2/17/2019 1:10 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
>> On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 22:05 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> Probably we could have something like this:
>> 
>> "Relics are a Fixed Asset, limited to Persons, tracked by the Tailor.
>>> Once
>> a player has a Relic of all kinds, they can destroy all of their
>>> Relics and
>> declare victory. The following are the kinds of Relics:
>> - Apathy Relic: yadda yadda apathy mechanic here.
>> - Gluttony Relic: some other common scam outlet here"
>> 
>> Like that, people would like to still get a victory by Apathy but it's
>>> no
>> longer as toxic as it could be. Once you have one, you simply can't get
>> more until you cash them all in, which takes a while.
> Like Ribbons but for scams?
> We could move the scam half of the Black Ribbon over there, which might
> make it less controversial, and replace the existing Black Ribbon with
> something that was purchasable, or obtainable by proposal (so that
> you'd bribe people to get one).
>>> 
>>> 



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux
Greed relic— taking all of the coins of an active player against eir will (e.g. 
through a contract scam)

> On Feb 17, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> The same applies to Ribbons. Raising a Banner (which just gives you a win)
> is harder than just winning (because it has as a prerequisite to win in the
> first place lol, to get the win-dependent ribbons).
> 
> Relics would be in the same spirit as Ribbons.
> 
> Anyways, proto:
> 
> [Ribbon-like function stuff here or just editting the Ribbon rules somehow,
> whatever is more wordcount economic to the Ruleset]
> 
> - Apathy Relic: yadda yadda apathy mechanic here.
> - Black Relic: There is no specified method for obtaining a Black Relic.
> - Pride Relic: [Escalation Scam stuff here. I don't know what an Escalation
> Scam is, please let me know lol]
> - Wrath Relic: When a person has an action cancelled via Rule 1698, that
> person earns a Wrath Relic.
> 
> Rule 1698 is the anti-ossification rule by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 11:06 PM Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> 
>> Seems a little too difficult for me. Right now, generally the going rate
>> is “1 scam = 1 win”—asking that someone finds multiple scams, all of which
>> are fairly rare, just to get one win seems like it’s asking quite a lot.
>> 
>> Gaelan
>> 
>>> On Feb 17, 2019, at 1:19 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I heartily endorse this expansion.  It could soak up some other common
>> types
>>> of scams (e.g. one for a "scam of power 3" provides an outlet for
>> escalation
>>> scams).
>>> 
> On 2/17/2019 1:10 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 22:05 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Probably we could have something like this:
> 
> "Relics are a Fixed Asset, limited to Persons, tracked by the Tailor.
>> Once
> a player has a Relic of all kinds, they can destroy all of their
>> Relics and
> declare victory. The following are the kinds of Relics:
> - Apathy Relic: yadda yadda apathy mechanic here.
> - Gluttony Relic: some other common scam outlet here"
> 
> Like that, people would like to still get a victory by Apathy but it's
>> no
> longer as toxic as it could be. Once you have one, you simply can't get
> more until you cash them all in, which takes a while.
 Like Ribbons but for scams?
 We could move the scam half of the Black Ribbon over there, which might
 make it less controversial, and replace the existing Black Ribbon with
 something that was purchasable, or obtainable by proposal (so that
 you'd bribe people to get one).
>> 
>> 


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

2019-02-17 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 00:02 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> - Wrath Relic: When a person has an action cancelled via Rule 1698,
> that person earns a Wrath Relic.
> 
> Rule 1698 is the anti-ossification rule by the way.

I wouldn't recommend this. Encouraging players to attempt to ossify
Agora seems like a bad idea, in case one of them succeeds; for example,
rule 1698 could potentially turn out to be broken. (Not everyone would
be courteous to, e.g., give a five-week process to escape from whatever
mess they're trying to create.)

-- 
ais523



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

2019-02-17 Thread Cuddle Beam
The same applies to Ribbons. Raising a Banner (which just gives you a win)
is harder than just winning (because it has as a prerequisite to win in the
first place lol, to get the win-dependent ribbons).

Relics would be in the same spirit as Ribbons.

Anyways, proto:

[Ribbon-like function stuff here or just editting the Ribbon rules somehow,
whatever is more wordcount economic to the Ruleset]

- Apathy Relic: yadda yadda apathy mechanic here.
- Black Relic: There is no specified method for obtaining a Black Relic.
- Pride Relic: [Escalation Scam stuff here. I don't know what an Escalation
Scam is, please let me know lol]
- Wrath Relic: When a person has an action cancelled via Rule 1698, that
person earns a Wrath Relic.

Rule 1698 is the anti-ossification rule by the way.






On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 11:06 PM Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> Seems a little too difficult for me. Right now, generally the going rate
> is “1 scam = 1 win”—asking that someone finds multiple scams, all of which
> are fairly rare, just to get one win seems like it’s asking quite a lot.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Feb 17, 2019, at 1:19 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> > I heartily endorse this expansion.  It could soak up some other common
> types
> > of scams (e.g. one for a "scam of power 3" provides an outlet for
> escalation
> > scams).
> >
> > On 2/17/2019 1:10 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> >> On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 22:05 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >>> Probably we could have something like this:
> >>>
> >>> "Relics are a Fixed Asset, limited to Persons, tracked by the Tailor.
> Once
> >>> a player has a Relic of all kinds, they can destroy all of their
> Relics and
> >>> declare victory. The following are the kinds of Relics:
> >>> - Apathy Relic: yadda yadda apathy mechanic here.
> >>> - Gluttony Relic: some other common scam outlet here"
> >>>
> >>> Like that, people would like to still get a victory by Apathy but it's
> no
> >>> longer as toxic as it could be. Once you have one, you simply can't get
> >>> more until you cash them all in, which takes a while.
> >> Like Ribbons but for scams?
> >> We could move the scam half of the Black Ribbon over there, which might
> >> make it less controversial, and replace the existing Black Ribbon with
> >> something that was purchasable, or obtainable by proposal (so that
> >> you'd bribe people to get one).
>
>


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-17 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 14:12 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> What if both nomics passed (matching) minigames themed around “combat
> with the other nomic”? We could write in rules to give the winning
> nomic dictatorship over the losing one, or just do it for bragging
> rights.

Both BlogNomic and Agora would be very averse to being dictated over by
a nomic that hasn't proven it respects the integrity/existence of the
other.

Actually, Agora normally only gets annoyed with BlogNomic when it does
something that looks potentially self-destructive. I'd like to think
they'd do the same for us (but they probably wouldn't notice).

-- 
ais523



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-17 Thread Gaelan Steele
What if both nomics passed (matching) minigames themed around “combat with the 
other nomic”? We could write in rules to give the winning nomic dictatorship 
over the losing one, or just do it for bragging rights.

Whatever the theme, I am very much in favor of inter-nomic interaction.

Gaelan

> On Feb 17, 2019, at 12:27 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 11:27 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> So we did this before.  I think ais523 led it, but several of us registered
>> and tried to drive a win, with the intent that the next dynasty be an Agoran
>> one.  (nothing more invasive, but we called it an invasion for fun).
> 
> Assuming this was the event I'm thinking of, I was playing both sides.
> I think it in was my interest for people at Agora to assume I was
> leading it, though, but I could see it would predictably lead to
> discontent from BlogNomic's point of view so I wasn't particularly
> intending for it to succeed.
> 
> The only sensible way to have workable cross-nomic interplay between
> BlogNomic and Agora, as far as I can see, would be for BlogNomic to
> invade Agora (rather than the other way round). Then we'd be justified
> in retaliating.
> 
> -- 
> ais523
> 



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 14:08, D. Margaux  wrote:
> Also... if intents are truly broken, that could lead to a lot of havoc in the 
> gamestate. It would be potentially impossible to sort out.
>
> Maybe the fix legislation could say something like, “upon enactment of this 
> proposal, the gamestate is changed to be what it would have been if the list 
> had always been written the correct way.”  Not sure how to make that language 
> work, but that would be the general idea.
>
> If it worked right, that would eliminate the below scam and also make sure 
> nothing else is broken because of this intent issue.

Is it easy to make that a separate proposal from my amendment
proposal? Or is that complicated to do?

Also, isn't most of the game state periodically ratified by official
reports? I don't have a firm grasp of what exactly this messes up, and
I haven't looked at the public messages much further back than than
the date I registered*.

*Okay, I'll let it be known that my message with the birthday attempt
was in fact the first time I registered. It seems so long ago
already...


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

2019-02-17 Thread Gaelan Steele
Dependent actions are critical enough that introducing a dependency on currency 
seems like a bad idea—if anything, I would want this to be a CAN but SHALL NOT 
sort of thing.

Gaelan

> On Feb 17, 2019, at 12:55 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 12:37 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On 2/17/2019 12:29 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 11:52 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
 I think this one's been driven into the ground as hard as it possibly
 can be.  Time for Agora move on.
>>> 
>>> Win by Apathy, in addition to being something you can aim for (which I
>>> agree has been run into the ground), is also there to give dependent
>>> action scams something simple they can accomplish without having to
>>> cause more widespread damage.
>> 
>> Yes, I know your logic, which is why I didn't propose this in the past.  But
>> this has just become too much of a target - in that the rule directly
>> encourages trying to scam it, and the constant stream of attempts is
>> positively annoying.  Gaelan had to specifically ask me to remove my
>> standard intent boilerplate, otherwise eir scam would have been trivially
>> stopped - any time someone's putting up a boilerplate to stop a constant
>> stream of scam attempts means it's become just too prevalent.  I'm really
>> ready to have stop being such a focus.
> 
> Theory: what about requiring a payment for dependent action intents in
> general or Apathy intents in particular?
> 
> This would discourage people from attempting them frivolously, and also
> make them harder to hide. (Of course, this might require a rewrite of
> the dependent action rules, but we're doing that anyway.)
> 
> -- 
> ais523
> 



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

2019-02-17 Thread Gaelan Steele
Seems a little too difficult for me. Right now, generally the going rate is “1 
scam = 1 win”—asking that someone finds multiple scams, all of which are fairly 
rare, just to get one win seems like it’s asking quite a lot.

Gaelan

> On Feb 17, 2019, at 1:19 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> I heartily endorse this expansion.  It could soak up some other common types
> of scams (e.g. one for a "scam of power 3" provides an outlet for escalation
> scams).
> 
> On 2/17/2019 1:10 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
>> On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 22:05 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>>> Probably we could have something like this:
>>> 
>>> "Relics are a Fixed Asset, limited to Persons, tracked by the Tailor. Once
>>> a player has a Relic of all kinds, they can destroy all of their Relics and
>>> declare victory. The following are the kinds of Relics:
>>> - Apathy Relic: yadda yadda apathy mechanic here.
>>> - Gluttony Relic: some other common scam outlet here"
>>> 
>>> Like that, people would like to still get a victory by Apathy but it's no
>>> longer as toxic as it could be. Once you have one, you simply can't get
>>> more until you cash them all in, which takes a while.
>> Like Ribbons but for scams?
>> We could move the scam half of the Black Ribbon over there, which might
>> make it less controversial, and replace the existing Black Ribbon with
>> something that was purchasable, or obtainable by proposal (so that
>> you'd bribe people to get one).



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Madeline

On 2019-02-18 09:00, D. Margaux wrote:

On Feb 17, 2019, at 4:54 PM, Madeline  wrote:

Yo, this doesn't get you a win regardless of what follows because the Win by Paradox rule 
only works for "a CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game action", 
which this is not.

Arg. Well played, Ruleset, well played.


The idea, of course, is that CFJs like "this CFJ is false" can just be 
judged PARADOXICAL and everyone can move on with their day with no problem.




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 17, 2019, at 4:54 PM, Madeline  wrote:
> 
> Yo, this doesn't get you a win regardless of what follows because the Win by 
> Paradox rule only works for "a CFJ about the legality or possibility of a 
> game action", which this is not.


Arg. Well played, Ruleset, well played. 

DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Madeline
Yo, this doesn't get you a win regardless of what follows because the 
Win by Paradox rule only works for "a CFJ about the legality or 
possibility of a game action", which this is not.


On 2019-02-18 00:08, D. Margaux wrote:

Intents may be completely broken, and if they are, then that will
eliminate the apathy win I've been angling to get for a while.  So, I
think it's only fair to try to run a new scam based on the broken
intents to get a win by paradox...

The CFJ called below will have the judgement PARADOXICAL if intents
(and therefore moots) are broken.  If intents aren't broken, then it
will have the judgement DISMISS.

  1. AMEND THE LIVING ZOMBIE CONTRACT TO MOUSETRAP GAELAN AND ATMUNN.

The parties to the Living Zombie contract are me, Gaelan and ATMunn.
I can mousetrap them without violating my pledge, because my pledge
has expired.

Pursuant to the Living Zombie contract and CFJ 3689, I amend the text
of the Living Zombie contract by deleting the text enclosed in
parentheses below:

//

The title of this contract is "Living Zombie."

This contract is EFFECTIVE only if D. Margaux and at least one other
player gave consent to it on 31 October 2018; otherwise it is
INEFFECTIVE.

Any party to this contract CAN use this contract to perform one or
more of the actions enclosed in brackets below:

{

(Any party to this contract CAN act on behalf of )D. Margaux( to take any
action on behalf of eir zombie permitted by the Rules,

Any party to this contract) CAN act on behalf of (D. Margaux to support
or object to a dependent action,

)Any party to this contract( CAN act on behalf of D. Margaux to withdraw
or change or cast a vote on an Agoran decision, which D. Margaux SHALL
NOT change).

}

Any party to this contract who attempts to publish a message that
exercises any power granted under this contract SHALL include in the
subject line of the message the word "SPOOKY," or else the attempt is
INEFFECTIVE.

On or after 7 November 2018, D. Margaux CAN terminate this contract by
announcement and CAN amend it by deleting any text enclosed within
brackets above, but not by the addition, substitution, or movement of
any text.

Any player CAN become a party to this contract by announcement.

//



As a result, the contract now reads:


//

The title of this contract is "Living Zombie."

This contract is EFFECTIVE only if D. Margaux and at least one other
player gave consent to it on 31 October 2018; otherwise it is
INEFFECTIVE.

Any party to this contract CAN use this contract to perform one or
more of the actions enclosed in brackets below:

{

D. Margaux CAN act on behalf of Any party to this contract.

}

Any party to this contract who attempts to publish a message that
exercises any power granted under this contract SHALL include in the
subject line of the message the word "SPOOKY," or else the attempt is
INEFFECTIVE.

On or after 7 November 2018, D. Margaux CAN terminate this contract by
announcement and CAN amend it by deleting any text enclosed within
brackets above, but not by the addition, substitution, or movement of
any text.

Any player CAN become a party to this contract by announcement.

//

  2. CALL A CFJ

I call the following CFJ:  "This CFJ is FALSE."

  3. USE CERTIORARI TO ASSIGN IT TO THE PRIME MINISTER

If I am Prime Minister, I issue the cabinet order of certiorari to
assign this CFJ to myself.

If ATMunn is Prime Minister, I use the Living Zombie contract to cause
em to issue the cabinet order of certiorari to assign this CFJ to
emself.

  4. JUDGE IT PARADOXICAL

Clearly the above-called CFJ is a paradox.

If I am the judge, I judge it PARADOXICAL, then self-file a motion for
reconsideration, then judge it PARADOXICAL again.

If ATMunn is the judge, I use the Living Zombie contract to cause em
to judge it PARADOXICAL, then cause em to self-file a motion for
reconsideration of that CFJ, then cause em to judge it PARADOXICAL
again.

  5. FORCE GAELAN AND ATMUNN TO SUPPORT GROUP-FILED RECONSIDERATION
// only works if intents are not broken

I intend with 2 support to move to reconsider the above-called CFJ.  I
cause ATMunn and Gaelan to support that intent.  I move to reconsider
that CFJ.

I note that the CFJ is not relevant to the game.  Therefore, if I am
the judge, I judge that CFJ DISMISS.  If ATMunn is the judge, I use
the Living Zombie contract to cause em to judge that CFJ DISMISS.





Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin



I heartily endorse this expansion.  It could soak up some other common types
of scams (e.g. one for a "scam of power 3" provides an outlet for escalation
scams).

On 2/17/2019 1:10 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:

On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 22:05 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote:

Probably we could have something like this:

"Relics are a Fixed Asset, limited to Persons, tracked by the Tailor. Once
a player has a Relic of all kinds, they can destroy all of their Relics and
declare victory. The following are the kinds of Relics:
- Apathy Relic: yadda yadda apathy mechanic here.
- Gluttony Relic: some other common scam outlet here"

Like that, people would like to still get a victory by Apathy but it's no
longer as toxic as it could be. Once you have one, you simply can't get
more until you cash them all in, which takes a while.


Like Ribbons but for scams?

We could move the scam half of the Black Ribbon over there, which might
make it less controversial, and replace the existing Black Ribbon with
something that was purchasable, or obtainable by proposal (so that
you'd bribe people to get one).



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

2019-02-17 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 22:05 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Probably we could have something like this:
> 
> "Relics are a Fixed Asset, limited to Persons, tracked by the Tailor. Once
> a player has a Relic of all kinds, they can destroy all of their Relics and
> declare victory. The following are the kinds of Relics:
> - Apathy Relic: yadda yadda apathy mechanic here.
> - Gluttony Relic: some other common scam outlet here"
> 
> Like that, people would like to still get a victory by Apathy but it's no
> longer as toxic as it could be. Once you have one, you simply can't get
> more until you cash them all in, which takes a while.

Like Ribbons but for scams?

We could move the scam half of the Black Ribbon over there, which might
make it less controversial, and replace the existing Black Ribbon with
something that was purchasable, or obtainable by proposal (so that
you'd bribe people to get one).

-- 
ais523



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

2019-02-17 Thread Cuddle Beam
Probably we could have something like this:

"Relics are a Fixed Asset, limited to Persons, tracked by the Tailor. Once
a player has a Relic of all kinds, they can destroy all of their Relics and
declare victory. The following are the kinds of Relics:
- Apathy Relic: yadda yadda apathy mechanic here.
- Gluttony Relic: some other common scam outlet here"

Like that, people would like to still get a victory by Apathy but it's no
longer as toxic as it could be. Once you have one, you simply can't get
more until you cash them all in, which takes a while.


On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:56 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
> I guess changing my boilerplate to "I intend to declare victory for
> myself" is a good approach, too.
>
> On 2/17/2019 12:52 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> > I understand your concerns fellow players but I believe that a good
> > sensible solution would be to something like something something text
> here.
> > Anyways, I intend to declare victory by apathy for myself.
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:44 PM D. Margaux 
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Feb 17, 2019, at 3:37 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Gaelan had to specifically ask me to remove my
> >>> standard intent boilerplate, otherwise eir scam would have been
> trivially
> >>> stopped
> >>
> >> But Gaelan’s scam did identify a dangerous flaw in the intent rules.
> Would
> >> you have noticed it and objected in time if, instead, e had intended
> >> without objection to ratify a document that, e.g., gave everyone 50
> blots?
>


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin



I guess changing my boilerplate to "I intend to declare victory for
myself" is a good approach, too.

On 2/17/2019 12:52 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:

I understand your concerns fellow players but I believe that a good
sensible solution would be to something like something something text here.
Anyways, I intend to declare victory by apathy for myself.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 9:44 PM D. Margaux  wrote:





On Feb 17, 2019, at 3:37 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

Gaelan had to specifically ask me to remove my
standard intent boilerplate, otherwise eir scam would have been trivially
stopped


But Gaelan’s scam did identify a dangerous flaw in the intent rules. Would
you have noticed it and objected in time if, instead, e had intended
without objection to ratify a document that, e.g., gave everyone 50 blots?


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin



We survived for a long time without that.

But if you really want it, please take it out of the wins at this point.
How about a new Patent Title ("A player CAN award emself the Patent Title
Sneaky without objection.")  It should also be for a person only - it's too
damn cheap if you can basically bribe half the players to keep silent by
including them in the set.

On 2/17/2019 12:44 PM, D. Margaux wrote:




On Feb 17, 2019, at 3:37 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

Gaelan had to specifically ask me to remove my
standard intent boilerplate, otherwise eir scam would have been trivially
stopped


But Gaelan’s scam did identify a dangerous flaw in the intent rules. Would you 
have noticed it and objected in time if, instead, e had intended without 
objection to ratify a document that, e.g., gave everyone 50 blots?



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

2019-02-17 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 12:37 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 2/17/2019 12:29 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> > On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 11:52 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > I think this one's been driven into the ground as hard as it possibly
> > > can be.  Time for Agora move on.
> > 
> > Win by Apathy, in addition to being something you can aim for (which I
> > agree has been run into the ground), is also there to give dependent
> > action scams something simple they can accomplish without having to
> > cause more widespread damage.
> 
> Yes, I know your logic, which is why I didn't propose this in the past.  But
> this has just become too much of a target - in that the rule directly
> encourages trying to scam it, and the constant stream of attempts is
> positively annoying.  Gaelan had to specifically ask me to remove my
> standard intent boilerplate, otherwise eir scam would have been trivially
> stopped - any time someone's putting up a boilerplate to stop a constant
> stream of scam attempts means it's become just too prevalent.  I'm really
> ready to have stop being such a focus.

Theory: what about requiring a payment for dependent action intents in
general or Apathy intents in particular?

This would discourage people from attempting them frivolously, and also
make them harder to hide. (Of course, this might require a rewrite of
the dependent action rules, but we're doing that anyway.)

-- 
ais523



Re: DIS: Call for Judges

2019-02-17 Thread Aris Merchant
You can put me on the day court for all cases through Friday. I’m
relatively free this week (vacation, although I do have other things to do
as well).

-Aris

On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 12:40 PM D. Margaux  wrote:

> To the People of Agora:
>
> Your humble Arbitor beseeches you to consider signing up as a Day or
> Weekend judge. We’ve had a glut of CFJs recently, and I think it may be
> worthwhile to spread the caseload out more in hopes of getting more
> diversity in judicial opinions and alleviating a little bit the per-judge
> caseload.
>
> -H. Arbitor


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 17, 2019, at 3:37 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> Gaelan had to specifically ask me to remove my
> standard intent boilerplate, otherwise eir scam would have been trivially
> stopped

But Gaelan’s scam did identify a dangerous flaw in the intent rules. Would you 
have noticed it and objected in time if, instead, e had intended without 
objection to ratify a document that, e.g., gave everyone 50 blots?

DIS: Call for Judges

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux
To the People of Agora:

Your humble Arbitor beseeches you to consider signing up as a Day or Weekend 
judge. We’ve had a glut of CFJs recently, and I think it may be worthwhile to 
spread the caseload out more in hopes of getting more diversity in judicial 
opinions and alleviating a little bit the per-judge caseload.

-H. Arbitor

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin



On 2/17/2019 12:29 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:

On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 11:52 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:

I think this one's been driven into the ground as hard as it possibly
can be.  Time for Agora move on.


Win by Apathy, in addition to being something you can aim for (which I
agree has been run into the ground), is also there to give dependent
action scams something simple they can accomplish without having to
cause more widespread damage.


Yes, I know your logic, which is why I didn't propose this in the past.  But
this has just become too much of a target - in that the rule directly
encourages trying to scam it, and the constant stream of attempts is
positively annoying.  Gaelan had to specifically ask me to remove my
standard intent boilerplate, otherwise eir scam would have been trivially
stopped - any time someone's putting up a boilerplate to stop a constant
stream of scam attempts means it's become just too prevalent.  I'm really
ready to have stop being such a focus.



DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

2019-02-17 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 11:52 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I think this one's been driven into the ground as hard as it possibly
> can be.  Time for Agora move on.

Win by Apathy, in addition to being something you can aim for (which I
agree has been run into the ground), is also there to give dependent
action scams something simple they can accomplish without having to
cause more widespread damage.

I think it's helpful to have such rules in the ruleset, because history
has shown that when we've been missing them, players with less-than-
dictatorship scams have caused widespread damage to unrelated parts of
the gamestate trying to finagle their scam into a win. (Remember the
"skunk" rule? That was part of the cleanup from one of those events.)

-- 
ais523



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-17 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 11:27 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> So we did this before.  I think ais523 led it, but several of us registered
> and tried to drive a win, with the intent that the next dynasty be an Agoran
> one.  (nothing more invasive, but we called it an invasion for fun).

Assuming this was the event I'm thinking of, I was playing both sides.
I think it in was my interest for people at Agora to assume I was
leading it, though, but I could see it would predictably lead to
discontent from BlogNomic's point of view so I wasn't particularly
intending for it to succeed.

The only sensible way to have workable cross-nomic interplay between
BlogNomic and Agora, as far as I can see, would be for BlogNomic to
invade Agora (rather than the other way round). Then we'd be justified
in retaliating.

-- 
ais523



Re: DIS: no penalty for inappropriate judgments?

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin



No worries - if it's missing it just points to another little gap to fill.

On 2/17/2019 12:12 PM, D. Margaux wrote:>> On Feb 17, 2019, at 3:03 PM, 
Kerim Aydin  wrote: We used to have a "the judge SHALL NOT 
knowingly assign an inappropriate>> judgement" (which is one reason 
"appropriate" is in all the judgement>> choices).  Looks like we lost that 
somewhere along the line?  Or am I missing it.> > I didn’t see anything like 
that either. If I did break a rule, I won’t declare
a paradox victory. I regret my last cheating victory, and don’t want to 
reprise it.




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin



Ah - gotcha.  That makes sense.  I don't begrudge the win, but you're right,
retroactive is pretty much needed here to prevent massive breakages if the
whole intent thing has been broken for a while.  Retroactive fixes have
been used many times when things have turned out to be broken, not just for
scams.  We used to do them a lot more when self-ratification wasn't a thing.

On 2/17/2019 12:09 PM, D. Margaux wrote:

On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:58 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:




On 2/17/2019 11:48 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
Anyhow, I don’t really expect this PARADOXICAL win (if it becomes a win) to be 
permanent.


Why wouldn't it be permanent?  Nothing takes away the win once the judgement
has been in place for 7 days, even if the judgement is overturned or
overruled later.


Here’s why: if intents are broken, we really need to fix them. And I _think_ we 
should fix them in a way that makes them _retroactively_ fixed—i.e., also 
change the gamestate by proposal so that it conforms to what it _would have 
been_ if intents had been fixed all along.

If we do that, then the paradox win disappears, because the attempt I already 
made to change the judgement to DISMISS will be made EFFECTIVE retroactively.

This idea occurred to me based on what you did, G., years ago when you 
deregistered everyone and then retroactively patched it. (Spent some time 
randomly going through the archives a few days ago.)



Re: DIS: no penalty for inappropriate judgments?

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 17, 2019, at 3:03 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> We used to have a "the judge SHALL NOT knowingly assign an inappropriate
> judgement" (which is one reason "appropriate" is in all the judgement
> choices).  Looks like we lost that somewhere along the line?  Or am I missing 
> it.

I didn’t see anything like that either. If I did break a rule, I won’t declare 
a paradox victory. I regret my last cheating victory, and don’t want to reprise 
it.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:58 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 2/17/2019 11:48 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> Anyhow, I don’t really expect this PARADOXICAL win (if it becomes a win) to 
>> be permanent. 
> 
> Why wouldn't it be permanent?  Nothing takes away the win once the judgement
> has been in place for 7 days, even if the judgement is overturned or
> overruled later.

Here’s why: if intents are broken, we really need to fix them. And I _think_ we 
should fix them in a way that makes them _retroactively_ fixed—i.e., also 
change the gamestate by proposal so that it conforms to what it _would have 
been_ if intents had been fixed all along.

If we do that, then the paradox win disappears, because the attempt I already 
made to change the judgement to DISMISS will be made EFFECTIVE retroactively.  

This idea occurred to me based on what you did, G., years ago when you 
deregistered everyone and then retroactively patched it. (Spent some time 
randomly going through the archives a few days ago.)

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette (v1)

2019-02-17 Thread Reuben Staley
I'm sorry, but this week has been the busiest and most tiring I've had in
quite a while. I will deliver judgements for all the cases I'm currently
assigned to in a few hours.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 12:48 Kerim Aydin 
> Trigon,
>
> Are you actually judging stuff?  I know you stepped away from a couple
> cases
> and timed-out on others, and a couple of these still on your docket are
> looking time-sensitive...
>
> -G.
>
> On 2/17/2019 8:24 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
> > Work and life have both been busy this week, and I unfortunately haven't
> had time to update the context/arguements/evidence section below.  Very
> sorry. I hope to have time to update it in a revised version at some point
> this week.
> >
> > I publish this report:
> >
> > COURT GAZETTE (Arbitor's weekly report)
> >
> > Date of last report:07 Feb 2019
> > Date of this report:17 Feb 2019
> > Version of this report: 1
> >
> > Disclaimer:  Informational only. No actions are contained in this
> report. Information in this report is not self-ratifying. The
> context/arguements/evidence section is in need of updating, and will
> hopefully be updated in a forthcoming revised version.
> >
> >
> > Open cases (CFJs)
> > -
> >
> > 3701 called 01 February 2019 by G., assigned 03 February 2019 to Trigon,
> reassigned 17 February 2019 to D. Margaux: "If the definition of quanging a
> player had not been explicitly included in the message in evidence, the
> attempt to transfer currencies on behalf of Tenhigitsune would have failed."
> >
> > 3704 called 05 February 2019 by D. Margaux, assigned 07 February 2019 to
> Murphy, Murphy recused 10 February 2019, reassigned to Trigon 10 February
> 2019: "There were no objections made to D. Margaux’s January 29 intent to
> transfer to players other than emself and eir zombie the spaceships in the
> lost & found department."
> >
> > *3712 called 14 February 2019 by Falsifian, assigned 15 February 2019 to
> Trigon: "Agora is not Satisfied with an intent to perform an action unless
> it is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. In particular, Gaelan's
> recent attempt to Declare Apathy on February 7, 2019 was ineffective, and
> D. Margaux's dependent actions in their recent message that starts 'I
> thought for sure people would object...' were ineffective."
> >
> > Highest numbered case: 3715
> >
> > Context/arguments/evidence are included at the bottom of this report.
> >
> >
> > Recently-delivered verdicts and implications
> > 
> >
> > 3700 called 01 February 2019 by G., assigned 03 February 2019 to Trigon,
> judged TRUE 06 February 2019 by Trigon, self-filed motion for
> reconsideration and recusal 07 February 2019 by Trigon, reassigned 07
> February 2019 to Murphy, judged TRUE 10 February 2019 by Murphy: "In the
> message quoted in evidence, D. Margaux earned at least 1 coin."
> >
> > 3702 called 01 February 2019 by Cuddle Beam, assigned 03 February 2019
> to ATMunn, reassigned 12 February 2019 to D. Margaux, judged TRUE 12
> February 2019 by D. Margaux: "Gaelan's (only) ship is at Sector 4."
> >
> > 3703 called 6 February 2019 by twg, assigned 6 February 2019 to Murphy,
> judged IRRELEVANT 10 February 2019 by Murphy: "If and when -N (negative N)
> coins are revoked from an entity, where N is a natural number, that
> entity's coin balance increases by N."
> >
> > *3705 called 9 February 2019 by twg, assigned 10 February 2019 to G.,
> judged FALSE 10 February 2019 by G.: "I own an Indigo Ribbon."
> >
> > *3706 called 9 February 2019 by twg, assigned 10 February 2019 to G.,
> judged TRUE 14 February 2019 by G.: "All Players are parties to the Rules
> as a contract."
> >
> > *3707 called 9 February 2019 by twg, assigned 10 February 2019 to G.,
> judged DISMISS 11 February 2019 by G.: "The Ruleset (as a contract) now has
> 1 coin."
> >
> > *3708 called 10 February 2019 by D. Margaux, assigned 10 February 2019
> to G., judged FALSE 13 February 2019 by G.: "The parties to an existing
> contract CAN agree to amend it by adding additional players as parties,
> even if those additional players did not expressly agree to be party to
> that contract apart from agreeing to be bound by the Rules generally."
> >
> > *3709 called 7 February 2019 by Gaelan, assigned 7 February 2019 to
> Aris, judged FALSE 7 February 2019 by Aris, motion for reconsideration
> filed 7 February 2019 by G., judged TRUE 14 February 2019 by Aris: "Gaelan
> won the game by one of the above declarations of apathy."
> >
> > *3710 called 7 February 2019 by Gaelan, assigned 7 February 2019 to
> Aris, judged FALSE 7 February 2019 by Aris, motion for reconsideration
> filed 7 February 2019 by G., judged TRUE 14 February 2019 by Aris: "Gaelan
> won the game twice by the above declarations of apathy."
> >
> > *3711 called 12 February 2019 by Falsifian, assigned 12 February 2019 to
> D. Margaux, judged FALSE 13 February 2019 by D. Margaux: "It is Falsifian's
> Agoran Birthday today (the day 

DIS: no penalty for inappropriate judgments?

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin



We used to have a "the judge SHALL NOT knowingly assign an inappropriate
judgement" (which is one reason "appropriate" is in all the judgement
choices).  Looks like we lost that somewhere along the line?  Or am I 
missing it.


It also used to say specifically that motions and moots were to overturn
"inappropriate" judgements - looks like that's gone too.




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin




On 2/17/2019 11:48 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
Anyhow, I don’t really expect this PARADOXICAL win (if it becomes a win) to be permanent. 


Why wouldn't it be permanent?  Nothing takes away the win once the judgement
has been in place for 7 days, even if the judgement is overturned or
overruled later.


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux
I think maybe there is some confusion about how this scheme is meant to 
operate. Hopefully this clarifies it:

The idea here isn’t to abuse the Arbitor’s power to call or assess votes in 
moots. The idea is to take advantage of the fact that intents might be broken, 
so it might be _impossible_ to seek group-filed reconsideration or call a moot 
until intents are fixed by proposal. 

Indeed, the easy way to counter the scam (if intents _aren’t_ broken) is simply 
to file a group motion for reconsideration on Saturday, which would break up 
the 7 days, while also pursuing a moot. Which I’m happy to facilitate as best I 
can. 

But that’s basically unnecessary because (1) if it’s possible, then I already 
achieved that outcome in the original scam message by group-filing 
reconsideration and assigning the CFJ a judgement of DISMISS; and (2) if it’s 
impossible, then the scam can’t be countered except by proposal and the 
judgement will stay PARADOXICAL until a proposal passes to fix intents. 

Anyhow, I don’t really expect this PARADOXICAL win (if it becomes a win) to be 
permanent. Either Trigon will decide that intents aren’t broken (in which case, 
the PARADOXICAL verdict was already changed to DISMISS), or we will need to fix 
it by proposal, which I think _should_ include a provision to change the 
gamestate to what it would have been if intents had been fixed all along (so 
that the PARADOXICAL judgement would go away too).

Hope that all makes sense. 


On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:34 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

>> If my attempt to announce intent for a Moot was successful - there seems to 
>> be some question about this? - you would also have needed to use (3) the 
>> power to delay a Moot for up to a week (and/or its resolution for a further 
>> week).
> 
> 
> Yes, the moot may or may not succeed—regardless of how quickly it is 
> distributed. The whole idea behind this scheme is that intents (other than 
> with Notice) might be completely broken. That’s the question in CFJ 3712, 
> assigned to Trigon. 
> 
> If intents _are_ broken, then the moot simply can’t be called by anyone until 
> it’s fixed (because it requires Agoran Consent).
> 
> If intents _aren’t_ broken, then the last stage of the scam, where I used 
> reconsideration with 2 support, already changed the verdict to DISMISS—so 
> there’s no need to moot. 
> 
> But as I said, I’m happy to facilitate (and provide support for) any moot 
> that people want to try.


DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette (v1)

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin



Trigon,

Are you actually judging stuff?  I know you stepped away from a couple cases
and timed-out on others, and a couple of these still on your docket are
looking time-sensitive...

-G.

On 2/17/2019 8:24 AM, D. Margaux wrote:

Work and life have both been busy this week, and I unfortunately haven't had 
time to update the context/arguements/evidence section below.  Very sorry. I 
hope to have time to update it in a revised version at some point this week.

I publish this report:

COURT GAZETTE (Arbitor's weekly report)

Date of last report:07 Feb 2019
Date of this report:17 Feb 2019
Version of this report: 1

Disclaimer:  Informational only. No actions are contained in this report. 
Information in this report is not self-ratifying. The 
context/arguements/evidence section is in need of updating, and will hopefully 
be updated in a forthcoming revised version.


Open cases (CFJs)
-

3701 called 01 February 2019 by G., assigned 03 February 2019 to Trigon, reassigned 17 
February 2019 to D. Margaux: "If the definition of quanging a player had not been 
explicitly included in the message in evidence, the attempt to transfer currencies on 
behalf of Tenhigitsune would have failed."

3704 called 05 February 2019 by D. Margaux, assigned 07 February 2019 to Murphy, Murphy 
recused 10 February 2019, reassigned to Trigon 10 February 2019: "There were no 
objections made to D. Margaux’s January 29 intent to transfer to players other than emself 
and eir zombie the spaceships in the lost & found department."

*3712 called 14 February 2019 by Falsifian, assigned 15 February 2019 to Trigon: 
"Agora is not Satisfied with an intent to perform an action unless it is to be 
performed With Notice or With T Notice. In particular, Gaelan's recent attempt to Declare 
Apathy on February 7, 2019 was ineffective, and D. Margaux's dependent actions in their 
recent message that starts 'I thought for sure people would object...' were 
ineffective."

Highest numbered case: 3715

Context/arguments/evidence are included at the bottom of this report.


Recently-delivered verdicts and implications


3700 called 01 February 2019 by G., assigned 03 February 2019 to Trigon, judged TRUE 06 
February 2019 by Trigon, self-filed motion for reconsideration and recusal 07 February 
2019 by Trigon, reassigned 07 February 2019 to Murphy, judged TRUE 10 February 2019 by 
Murphy: "In the message quoted in evidence, D. Margaux earned at least 1 coin."

3702 called 01 February 2019 by Cuddle Beam, assigned 03 February 2019 to ATMunn, 
reassigned 12 February 2019 to D. Margaux, judged TRUE 12 February 2019 by D. Margaux: 
"Gaelan's (only) ship is at Sector 4."

3703 called 6 February 2019 by twg, assigned 6 February 2019 to Murphy, judged IRRELEVANT 
10 February 2019 by Murphy: "If and when -N (negative N) coins are revoked from an 
entity, where N is a natural number, that entity's coin balance increases by N."

*3705 called 9 February 2019 by twg, assigned 10 February 2019 to G., judged FALSE 10 
February 2019 by G.: "I own an Indigo Ribbon."

*3706 called 9 February 2019 by twg, assigned 10 February 2019 to G., judged TRUE 14 
February 2019 by G.: "All Players are parties to the Rules as a contract."

*3707 called 9 February 2019 by twg, assigned 10 February 2019 to G., judged DISMISS 11 
February 2019 by G.: "The Ruleset (as a contract) now has 1 coin."

*3708 called 10 February 2019 by D. Margaux, assigned 10 February 2019 to G., judged 
FALSE 13 February 2019 by G.: "The parties to an existing contract CAN agree to 
amend it by adding additional players as parties, even if those additional players did 
not expressly agree to be party to that contract apart from agreeing to be bound by the 
Rules generally."

*3709 called 7 February 2019 by Gaelan, assigned 7 February 2019 to Aris, judged FALSE 7 
February 2019 by Aris, motion for reconsideration filed 7 February 2019 by G., judged 
TRUE 14 February 2019 by Aris: "Gaelan won the game by one of the above declarations 
of apathy."

*3710 called 7 February 2019 by Gaelan, assigned 7 February 2019 to Aris, judged FALSE 7 
February 2019 by Aris, motion for reconsideration filed 7 February 2019 by G., judged 
TRUE 14 February 2019 by Aris: "Gaelan won the game twice by the above declarations 
of apathy."

*3711 called 12 February 2019 by Falsifian, assigned 12 February 2019 to D. Margaux, 
judged FALSE 13 February 2019 by D. Margaux: "It is Falsifian's Agoran Birthday 
today (the day beginning at midnight UTC on February 13, 2019)."

*3713 called 13 February 2019 by twg, assigned 13 February 2019 to G., judged FALSE 15 
February 2019 by G.: "Gaelan is impure."

*3714 called 30 January 2019 by G., assigned 15 February 2019 to D. Margaux, judged 
DISMISS 15 February 2019 by D. Margaux: "Prior to calling this CFJ, G. earned 5 
coins for judging CFJ 3698."

*3715 called 17 February 2019 by D. Margaux, assigned 17 February 2019 to 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:17 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> Yes you did: (1) the power to assign a judge to a CFJ in the same message 
> it's initiated; and (2) the power to personally select who judges a CFJ.

Nope. I didn’t use any Arbitor power. I used the Prime Minister’s cabinet order 
of certiorari, which I obtained by getting ATMunn to fall through the trap door 
in our contract, or, alternatively, by deputising this week. 

If someone else were Arbitor, I could still use certiorari in the same message 
and the scheme would succeed or fail just the same.

> If my attempt to announce intent for a Moot was successful - there seems to 
> be some question about this? - you would also have needed to use (3) the 
> power to delay a Moot for up to a week (and/or its resolution for a further 
> week).


Yes, the moot may or may not succeed—regardless of how quickly it is 
distributed. The whole idea behind this scheme is that intents (other than with 
Notice) might be completely broken. That’s the question in CFJ 3712, assigned 
to Trigon. 

If intents _are_ broken, then the moot simply can’t be called by anyone until 
it’s fixed (because it requires Agoran Consent).

If intents _aren’t_ broken, then the last stage of the scam, where I used 
reconsideration with 2 support, already changed the verdict to DISMISS—so 
there’s no need to moot. 

But as I said, I’m happy to facilitate (and provide support for) any moot that 
people want to try. 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin



So we did this before.  I think ais523 led it, but several of us registered
and tried to drive a win, with the intent that the next dynasty be an Agoran
one.  (nothing more invasive, but we called it an invasion for fun).

It really pissed everyone off over there.  They united against us and we
lost, and it was Not Fun in that they didn't take to the spirit of it, just
got mad.  This was even though a good percentage of the participants were
regulars over there. That's how these things tend to go (the crossfighting
with B-Nomic was the same way) so I'm personally not keen in participating.

On 2/17/2019 5:51 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Trigon is the current Emperor of BlogNomic, so depending on how corruptible e 
is we may have an in...

More seriously, the office of "Ambassador" (to other nomics) that apparently 
used to be a thing is mildly interesting:

https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg06285.html

(repealed here: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07140.html)

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 7:20 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:


It would’ve been pretty easy to win last dynasty with a coordinated team
(wealth was pretty unambiguous from the start in the form of Clues:
Emperor-given info on a series of data a la Cluedo; wealth could be easy
shared because you just needed to know it. Unsurprisingly, a team of two
players won.)

This dynasty isnt as obvious unfortunately but a teaming up/planning to
pool into a single person is very often super strong anyways.

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 07:45, Gaelan Steele g...@canishe.com wrote:


Consider me interested.
Gaelan


On Feb 16, 2019, at 10:33 PM, Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com wrote:
We could just win it in the normal way next time and declare an Agora
theme...
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 01:32, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote:


My reading justifies the Agoran invasion better.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:


I rather hoped the “mutatis mutandis” was implied.
-Aris
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no
wrote:


On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:


BlogNomic almost actually passed something like that once. We sent
someone
over to caution them that such an unfortunate plan would result in an
Agoran invasion (okay, ais actually did it sua sponte, but my version
sounds better).


Wait, BlogNomic legislated that Agora would be destroyed? I don't
think



that works.
Greetings,
Ørjan.


-Aris
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:56 PM Madeline j...@iinet.net.au wrote:


Obviously, I'm just talking in hypotheticals.
On 2019-02-16 09:55, Aris Merchant wrote:


No one is doing anything that has any meaningful chance of
destroying



Agora. If there’s a bug in your mechanism, the stakes go from it
being



broken to the game dying permanently.
-Aris
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:52 PM Madeline j...@iinet.net.au
wrote:



"If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other rules
notwithstanding,



Agora is destroyed."
(Would any other rule need to actually change for such a clause to
work



if an outside Power 3 rule is adjusting its power?)
On 2019-02-16 09:47, D. Margaux wrote:


Love it.
You could have a separate power 3 rule that (1) changes the power
of



the


Ritual rule and (2) causes itself to be repealed when the Ritual
rule



is


repealed.


And I’d love to see the power of the Ritual rule increase, too,
if



the


Rule is left unappeased... and maybe increase at a higher rate
than



it


can


be decreased?


On Feb 15, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
Actually I've been pondering something even fancier, like every
time



it's appeased it decreases in Power and the Power is linked to
the



Consent required. Or something. (of course you can't increase
power



in the same way).


On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:08 PM D. Margaux <
dmargaux...@gmail.com>



wrote:


Any chance we can have it repeal with Agoran Consent or
something



more


than notice? Or is that excessive? :-)


On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu
wrote:



Actually, one more time. Empty sacrifices are meaningless.
I withdraw my proposal, The Ritual.
I submit the following proposal, Ritual Sacrifice, AI-1:



Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the
following



text:

   Any player CAN perform The Ritual by paying a fee of 7



Coins,


thus appeasing
this Rule for a single instant. This Rule MUST be
appeased



at


least once


   in every Agoran week.

   If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5



successive


   Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule



(cause


it


to


   repeal itself) with Notice.




On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:12 PM Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu
wrote:



I withdraw the proposal I recently submitted, quoted below.
I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1:



Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the
following




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 2:28 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:
> I purposefully didn’t use any of the powers of the Arbitor for this scam.

Yes you did: (1) the power to assign a judge to a CFJ in the same message it's 
initiated; and (2) the power to personally select who judges a CFJ. Both of 
these served to prevent anyone who might have given a fair judgement from 
having a chance to intervene. If my attempt to announce intent for a Moot was 
successful - there seems to be some question about this? - you would also have 
needed to use (3) the power to delay a Moot for up to a week (and/or its 
resolution for a further week).

I'm not really expecting you to be impeached; like I said in the original 
message, I was just throwing out relevant intents to start the 4-day (or 2-day) 
timers. The point being that someone else who's been paying more attention than 
me to this topic can do whatever they believe necessary to counterscam without 
having to delay too long. But saying that the win attempt didn't rely on your 
position as Arbitor is just plain false - hence the proposal I submitted, which 
neatly prevents this and all related scams. (Though it may need to be adjusted 
if temporary deputisation makes it into the ruleset.)

-twg


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-17 Thread Cuddle Beam
OK I overlooked the “more seriously (...)” lmao. Sorry for getting so
heated up.

Yeah, having Ambassadors again would be cool. Aside from BN there are two
active Discord nomics right now, Infinite Nomic (on the which I made a win
happen after months of play on the same day I joined, I’m pretty proud lf
that lol) and Now We Nomic, could be curious to try.

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 16:09, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> Trigon might want to but any late thematic changes now to their dynasty
> would heavily rely on the current players to pass, and I suspect that a
> sudden Agora takeover would be met with more snickering than we can deal
> with and would fail.
>
> There’s a lot more social power and percieved legitimacy in an Ascencion
> Adress and instating an Agora theme that way.
>
> Heck, its how anyone imposes the theme they want. It’s how things are
> supposed to be. It’s how we can put an Agora theme without needing to
> resort to play Palpatine or twist moustaches deviously.
>
> Just winning the game as usual!
>
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 14:51, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
>
>> Trigon is the current Emperor of BlogNomic, so depending on how
>> corruptible e is we may have an in...
>>
>> More seriously, the office of "Ambassador" (to other nomics) that
>> apparently used to be a thing is mildly interesting:
>>
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg06285.html
>>
>> (repealed here:
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07140.html)
>>
>> -twg
>>
>>
>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Sunday, February 17, 2019 7:20 AM, Cuddle Beam 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > It would’ve been pretty easy to win last dynasty with a coordinated team
>> > (wealth was pretty unambiguous from the start in the form of Clues:
>> > Emperor-given info on a series of data a la Cluedo; wealth could be easy
>> > shared because you just needed to know it. Unsurprisingly, a team of two
>> > players won.)
>> >
>> > This dynasty isnt as obvious unfortunately but a teaming up/planning to
>> > pool into a single person is very often super strong anyways.
>> >
>> > On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 07:45, Gaelan Steele g...@canishe.com wrote:
>> >
>> > > Consider me interested.
>> > > Gaelan
>> > >
>> > > > On Feb 16, 2019, at 10:33 PM, Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>> > > > We could just win it in the normal way next time and declare an
>> Agora
>> > > > theme...
>> > > > On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 01:32, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > My reading justifies the Agoran invasion better.
>> > > > > Greetings,
>> > > > > Ørjan.
>> > > > > On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > I rather hoped the “mutatis mutandis” was implied.
>> > > > > > -Aris
>> > > > > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen
>> oer...@nvg.ntnu.no
>> > > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > BlogNomic almost actually passed something like that once.
>> We sent
>> > > > > > > > someone
>> > > > > > > > over to caution them that such an unfortunate plan would
>> result in an
>> > > > > > > > Agoran invasion (okay, ais actually did it sua sponte, but
>> my version
>> > > > > > > > sounds better).
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Wait, BlogNomic legislated that Agora would be destroyed? I
>> don't
>> > > > > > > think
>> > > >
>> > > > > > > that works.
>> > > > > > > Greetings,
>> > > > > > > Ørjan.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > -Aris
>> > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:56 PM Madeline j...@iinet.net.au
>> wrote:
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Obviously, I'm just talking in hypotheticals.
>> > > > > > > > > On 2019-02-16 09:55, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > No one is doing anything that has any meaningful chance
>> of
>> > > > > > > > > > destroying
>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Agora. If there’s a bug in your mechanism, the stakes
>> go from it
>> > > > > > > > > > being
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > broken to the game dying permanently.
>> > > > > > > > > > -Aris
>> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:52 PM Madeline
>> j...@iinet.net.au
>> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > "If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other
>> rules
>> > > > > > > > > > > notwithstanding,
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Agora is destroyed."
>> > > > > > > > > > > (Would any other rule need to actually change for
>> such a clause to
>> > > > > > > > > > > work
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > if an outside Power 3 rule is adjusting its power?)
>> > > > > > > > > > > On 2019-02-16 09:47, D. Margaux wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Love it.
>> > > > > > > > > > > > You could have a separate power 3 rule that (1)
>> changes the power
>> > > > > > > > > > > > of
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Ritual rule and (2) causes itself to be repealed when
>> the Ritual
>> > > 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-17 Thread Cuddle Beam
Trigon might want to but any late thematic changes now to their dynasty
would heavily rely on the current players to pass, and I suspect that a
sudden Agora takeover would be met with more snickering than we can deal
with and would fail.

There’s a lot more social power and percieved legitimacy in an Ascencion
Adress and instating an Agora theme that way.

Heck, its how anyone imposes the theme they want. It’s how things are
supposed to be. It’s how we can put an Agora theme without needing to
resort to play Palpatine or twist moustaches deviously.

Just winning the game as usual!

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 14:51, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

> Trigon is the current Emperor of BlogNomic, so depending on how
> corruptible e is we may have an in...
>
> More seriously, the office of "Ambassador" (to other nomics) that
> apparently used to be a thing is mildly interesting:
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg06285.html
>
> (repealed here:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07140.html)
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Sunday, February 17, 2019 7:20 AM, Cuddle Beam 
> wrote:
>
> > It would’ve been pretty easy to win last dynasty with a coordinated team
> > (wealth was pretty unambiguous from the start in the form of Clues:
> > Emperor-given info on a series of data a la Cluedo; wealth could be easy
> > shared because you just needed to know it. Unsurprisingly, a team of two
> > players won.)
> >
> > This dynasty isnt as obvious unfortunately but a teaming up/planning to
> > pool into a single person is very often super strong anyways.
> >
> > On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 07:45, Gaelan Steele g...@canishe.com wrote:
> >
> > > Consider me interested.
> > > Gaelan
> > >
> > > > On Feb 16, 2019, at 10:33 PM, Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > > > We could just win it in the normal way next time and declare an Agora
> > > > theme...
> > > > On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 01:32, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > My reading justifies the Agoran invasion better.
> > > > > Greetings,
> > > > > Ørjan.
> > > > > On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I rather hoped the “mutatis mutandis” was implied.
> > > > > > -Aris
> > > > > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen
> oer...@nvg.ntnu.no
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > BlogNomic almost actually passed something like that once.
> We sent
> > > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > > over to caution them that such an unfortunate plan would
> result in an
> > > > > > > > Agoran invasion (okay, ais actually did it sua sponte, but
> my version
> > > > > > > > sounds better).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wait, BlogNomic legislated that Agora would be destroyed? I
> don't
> > > > > > > think
> > > >
> > > > > > > that works.
> > > > > > > Greetings,
> > > > > > > Ørjan.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -Aris
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:56 PM Madeline j...@iinet.net.au
> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Obviously, I'm just talking in hypotheticals.
> > > > > > > > > On 2019-02-16 09:55, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No one is doing anything that has any meaningful chance
> of
> > > > > > > > > > destroying
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Agora. If there’s a bug in your mechanism, the stakes go
> from it
> > > > > > > > > > being
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > broken to the game dying permanently.
> > > > > > > > > > -Aris
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:52 PM Madeline
> j...@iinet.net.au
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > "If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other rules
> > > > > > > > > > > notwithstanding,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Agora is destroyed."
> > > > > > > > > > > (Would any other rule need to actually change for such
> a clause to
> > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > if an outside Power 3 rule is adjusting its power?)
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2019-02-16 09:47, D. Margaux wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Love it.
> > > > > > > > > > > > You could have a separate power 3 rule that (1)
> changes the power
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Ritual rule and (2) causes itself to be repealed when
> the Ritual
> > > > > > > > > > > rule
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > repealed.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > And I’d love to see the power of the Ritual rule
> increase, too,
> > > > > > > > > > > > if
> > > >
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Rule is left unappeased... and maybe increase at a
> higher rate
> > > > > > > > > > > than
> > > >
> > > > > it
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > be decreased?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 

DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 1:08 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:
> I call the following CFJ: "This CFJ is FALSE."

I intend, with 2 support, to enter the judgement of this CFJ into Moot.

I intend to deputise for the Arbitor to initiate the Agoran decision to 
determine public confidence in the judgement of this CFJ.

I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to impeach the Arbitor.

(no idea how many, if any, of these will stick, or work, or even be a good idea 
in the first place, but I figure prompt announcements of intent keep our 
options open)

I submit the following proposal:

//
Title: Forward Logic Preservation Act
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: twg
Co-authors:


Amend Rule 2553, "Win by Paradox", by appending the following text
immediately after the second comma:

   and the case's initiator has not held the office of Arbitor at any
  point within the last 7 days,

and by changing the last occurrence of the phrase "the case's
initiator" to the word "e".

//

-twg


DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux
Also... if intents are truly broken, that could lead to a lot of havoc in the 
gamestate. It would be potentially impossible to sort out. 

Maybe the fix legislation could say something like, “upon enactment of this 
proposal, the gamestate is changed to be what it would have been if the list 
had always been written the correct way.”  Not sure how to make that language 
work, but that would be the general idea. 

If it worked right, that would eliminate the below scam and also make sure 
nothing else is broken because of this intent issue. 


> On Feb 17, 2019, at 8:08 AM, D. Margaux  wrote:
> 
> Intents may be completely broken, and if they are, then that will
> eliminate the apathy win I've been angling to get for a while.  So, I
> think it's only fair to try to run a new scam based on the broken
> intents to get a win by paradox...
> 
> The CFJ called below will have the judgement PARADOXICAL if intents
> (and therefore moots) are broken.  If intents aren't broken, then it
> will have the judgement DISMISS.
> 
> 1. AMEND THE LIVING ZOMBIE CONTRACT TO MOUSETRAP GAELAN AND ATMUNN.
> 
> The parties to the Living Zombie contract are me, Gaelan and ATMunn.
> I can mousetrap them without violating my pledge, because my pledge
> has expired.
> 
> Pursuant to the Living Zombie contract and CFJ 3689, I amend the text
> of the Living Zombie contract by deleting the text enclosed in
> parentheses below:
> 
> //
> 
> The title of this contract is "Living Zombie."
> 
> This contract is EFFECTIVE only if D. Margaux and at least one other
> player gave consent to it on 31 October 2018; otherwise it is
> INEFFECTIVE.
> 
> Any party to this contract CAN use this contract to perform one or
> more of the actions enclosed in brackets below:
> 
> {
> 
> (Any party to this contract CAN act on behalf of )D. Margaux( to take any
> action on behalf of eir zombie permitted by the Rules,
> 
> Any party to this contract) CAN act on behalf of (D. Margaux to support
> or object to a dependent action,
> 
> )Any party to this contract( CAN act on behalf of D. Margaux to withdraw
> or change or cast a vote on an Agoran decision, which D. Margaux SHALL
> NOT change).
> 
> }
> 
> Any party to this contract who attempts to publish a message that
> exercises any power granted under this contract SHALL include in the
> subject line of the message the word "SPOOKY," or else the attempt is
> INEFFECTIVE.
> 
> On or after 7 November 2018, D. Margaux CAN terminate this contract by
> announcement and CAN amend it by deleting any text enclosed within
> brackets above, but not by the addition, substitution, or movement of
> any text.
> 
> Any player CAN become a party to this contract by announcement.
> 
> //
> 
> 
> 
> As a result, the contract now reads:
> 
> 
> //
> 
> The title of this contract is "Living Zombie."
> 
> This contract is EFFECTIVE only if D. Margaux and at least one other
> player gave consent to it on 31 October 2018; otherwise it is
> INEFFECTIVE.
> 
> Any party to this contract CAN use this contract to perform one or
> more of the actions enclosed in brackets below:
> 
> {
> 
> D. Margaux CAN act on behalf of Any party to this contract.
> 
> }
> 
> Any party to this contract who attempts to publish a message that
> exercises any power granted under this contract SHALL include in the
> subject line of the message the word "SPOOKY," or else the attempt is
> INEFFECTIVE.
> 
> On or after 7 November 2018, D. Margaux CAN terminate this contract by
> announcement and CAN amend it by deleting any text enclosed within
> brackets above, but not by the addition, substitution, or movement of
> any text.
> 
> Any player CAN become a party to this contract by announcement.
> 
> //
> 
> 2. CALL A CFJ
> 
> I call the following CFJ:  "This CFJ is FALSE."
> 
> 3. USE CERTIORARI TO ASSIGN IT TO THE PRIME MINISTER
> 
> If I am Prime Minister, I issue the cabinet order of certiorari to
> assign this CFJ to myself.
> 
> If ATMunn is Prime Minister, I use the Living Zombie contract to cause
> em to issue the cabinet order of certiorari to assign this CFJ to
> emself.
> 
> 4. JUDGE IT PARADOXICAL
> 
> Clearly the above-called CFJ is a paradox.
> 
> If I am the judge, I judge it PARADOXICAL, then self-file a motion for
> reconsideration, then judge it PARADOXICAL again.
> 
> If ATMunn is the judge, I use the Living Zombie contract to cause em
> to judge it PARADOXICAL, then cause em to self-file a motion for
> reconsideration of that CFJ, then cause em to judge it PARADOXICAL
> again.
> 
> 5. FORCE GAELAN AND ATMUNN TO SUPPORT GROUP-FILED RECONSIDERATION
> // only works if intents are not broken
> 
> I intend with 2 support to move to reconsider the above-called CFJ.  I
> cause ATMunn and Gaelan to support that intent.  I move to reconsider
> that CFJ.
> 
> I note that the CFJ is not relevant to the game.  Therefore, if I am
> the judge, I judge that CFJ DISMISS.  If ATMunn is the judge, I use
> the Living 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-17 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Trigon is the current Emperor of BlogNomic, so depending on how corruptible e 
is we may have an in...

More seriously, the office of "Ambassador" (to other nomics) that apparently 
used to be a thing is mildly interesting:

https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg06285.html

(repealed here: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07140.html)

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 7:20 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> It would’ve been pretty easy to win last dynasty with a coordinated team
> (wealth was pretty unambiguous from the start in the form of Clues:
> Emperor-given info on a series of data a la Cluedo; wealth could be easy
> shared because you just needed to know it. Unsurprisingly, a team of two
> players won.)
>
> This dynasty isnt as obvious unfortunately but a teaming up/planning to
> pool into a single person is very often super strong anyways.
>
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 07:45, Gaelan Steele g...@canishe.com wrote:
>
> > Consider me interested.
> > Gaelan
> >
> > > On Feb 16, 2019, at 10:33 PM, Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > We could just win it in the normal way next time and declare an Agora
> > > theme...
> > > On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 01:32, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote:
> > >
> > > > My reading justifies the Agoran invasion better.
> > > > Greetings,
> > > > Ørjan.
> > > > On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I rather hoped the “mutatis mutandis” was implied.
> > > > > -Aris
> > > > > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > BlogNomic almost actually passed something like that once. We sent
> > > > > > > someone
> > > > > > > over to caution them that such an unfortunate plan would result 
> > > > > > > in an
> > > > > > > Agoran invasion (okay, ais actually did it sua sponte, but my 
> > > > > > > version
> > > > > > > sounds better).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wait, BlogNomic legislated that Agora would be destroyed? I don't
> > > > > > think
> > >
> > > > > > that works.
> > > > > > Greetings,
> > > > > > Ørjan.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Aris
> > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:56 PM Madeline j...@iinet.net.au wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Obviously, I'm just talking in hypotheticals.
> > > > > > > > On 2019-02-16 09:55, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No one is doing anything that has any meaningful chance of
> > > > > > > > > destroying
> > >
> > > > > > > > > Agora. If there’s a bug in your mechanism, the stakes go from 
> > > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > being
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > broken to the game dying permanently.
> > > > > > > > > -Aris
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:52 PM Madeline j...@iinet.net.au
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > > > > > "If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other rules
> > > > > > > > > > notwithstanding,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Agora is destroyed."
> > > > > > > > > > (Would any other rule need to actually change for such a 
> > > > > > > > > > clause to
> > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > if an outside Power 3 rule is adjusting its power?)
> > > > > > > > > > On 2019-02-16 09:47, D. Margaux wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Love it.
> > > > > > > > > > > You could have a separate power 3 rule that (1) changes 
> > > > > > > > > > > the power
> > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Ritual rule and (2) causes itself to be repealed when the 
> > > > > > > > > > Ritual
> > > > > > > > > > rule
> > > > >
> > > > > > is
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > repealed.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > And I’d love to see the power of the Ritual rule 
> > > > > > > > > > > increase, too,
> > > > > > > > > > > if
> > >
> > > > > > the
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Rule is left unappeased... and maybe increase at a higher 
> > > > > > > > > > rate
> > > > > > > > > > than
> > >
> > > > it
> > > >
> > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > be decreased?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu 
> > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Actually I've been pondering something even fancier, 
> > > > > > > > > > > > like every
> > > > > > > > > > > > time
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > it's appeased it decreases in Power and the Power is 
> > > > > > > > > > > > linked to
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Consent required. Or something. (of course you can't 
> > > > > > > > > > > > increase
> > > > > > > > > > > > power
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > in the same way).
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:08 PM D. Margaux <
> > > > > > > > > > > > > dmargaux...@gmail.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 

DIS: Re: BUS: last in a series (I hope!)

2019-02-17 Thread Cuddle Beam
Just a side comment but I find it fascinating how the rules governing the
rules is a tautology lol. Although I guess it’s the same as:

“And the stuff this contract is governed by (the rules) is the stuff this
contract ia governed by (the rules)”

I dunno. It’s amusing in a way lol.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 01:15, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
> [Please tell me this is my last one and I can finish up the Read the
> Ruleset
> contest instead of judging stuff tomorrow].
>
>
> > CFJ 3706:  "All Players are parties to the Rules as a contract."
>
> I deliver the following judgement in CFJ 3706:
>
> - First and foremost, Agora is [an instance of] a game of Nomic (R101,
> R1698).  As this is specified in some of our highest-precedence rules,
> anything that conflicts with Agora being a game would be overruled.
>
> - An instance of game, by societal convention (i.e. social contract), is
> an agreement of a set of persons (players, or parties) to abide by a
> certain set of rules when interacting in contexts covered by those
> rules.  This agreement includes the rules text and a set of persons who
> are playing.
>
> - Players of games, by societal convention, are “bound” to those rules –
> in the sense that it’s considered rude to pick up your ball and go home
> before the rules say the game is over.  Furthermore, the agreement-
> nature of the game (including polite ways to leave the agreement) is
> explicitly contained in R869.
>
> - The rules are governed by the rules.  This is a tautology.
>
> - Therefore the “binding agreement to abide by the rules, as governed by
> the rules” is a consequence of Agora’s “game nature”. It is a single
> entity; e.g. the assets of “Agora as game” and “Agora as agreement” are
> the same (R1586).
>
> - R1742 states that “Any group of two or more consenting persons (the
> parties) may make an agreement among themselves with the intention that
> it be binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement
> is known as a contract.”  This simply applied the label “contract” to
> this type of agreement.
>
> - Therefore, the “contract” label applies to Agora.
>
> - But importantly, since the agreement is a consequence of Agora’s
> game-nature in addition to R869, Agora is not “just” a contract.  If the
> definition of the label in R1742 is repealed, Agora continues to exist as a
> game (R1586).
>
> - If the label is used to grant abilities or limitations to inheritors
> of that label (e.g. “a contract CAN”), then those abilities or
> limitations are also granted to Agora, but are (by agreement) subject to
> the usual rules for precedence, power, etc.
>
> - However, an explicit statement using the label (e.g. “All contracts
> are destroyed”) would include “Agora is destroyed” as part of its
> effects, to be applied to whatever power the statement is given (see CFJ
> 3580).
>
> - So beware of blanket directives applied to Contracts at power-3.
>
> - The current definition of Contract in R1742 was adopted on 01-Jul-18
> (Proposal 8054).  Prior to that, the definition for “Contract” was such
> that it did not apply to Agora.  The previous definition (R2520)
> included “An entity can only become a contract through the appropriate
> ruleset defined procedures” and the defined procedures never occurred
> for Agora.  So the power-3 clause in Proposal 8054 (“Destroy all
> contracts.”) did not apply to Agora.
>
> - Phew!
>
> - Rules currently applying to contracts (as a label) thus have the
> effect of applying those rules to Agora, subject to the relative
> precedence of those rules.
>
> - Now, before final judgement, some due diligence.  If “contracts”
> includes Agora, are any rules-references to contracts dangerous to
> Agora?  Here's the list:
>
> 1.  “A contract may be modified, including by changing the set of
> parties, by agreement between all existing parties.”  (R1742)  Yes, it
> can – “without objection” is a rules agreed-to method of determining
> unanimous consent.  By agreeing to the rules, the parties have already
> agreed that other methods, such as everyone saying “I agree”, don’t
> work for Agora, due to power/precedence/etc. of this clause relative to
> others.
>
> 2.  “A contract may also terminate by agreement between all parties.”
> (R1742) Some hoops would have to be jumped through as part of the
> agreement-to-terminate (e.g. repealing the protective rules) but again,
> this is fine, putting it here does not override existing higher-power
> protections.
>
> 3. “A contract automatically terminates if the number of parties to it
> falls below two.” (R1742) This one is interesting, as it adds a stealth
> protection – the second-to-last person in Agora may be prevented from
> deregistering due to R1698.  (that might not be the exact mechanism, but
> R1698-effectsd would overrule any termination implied by R1742).
>
> 4.  “A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions as
> permitted by the contract's text:...” (R1742).  Yup, if the rules
> permit, the