Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
No On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 2:42 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > So would I face prejudice if I were to open the exact same CFJs again > later once we actually get CHoJ fixed? > > Jason Cobb > > On 7/3/19 12:38 AM, omd wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 7:49 PM Jason Cobb > wrote: > >> Dang it; you are absolutely right, and I didn't consider that. > >> > >> Note to judge omd: this applies just as well to CFJ 3743. > >> Jason Cobb > >> > >> On 7/2/19 10:45 PM, James Cook wrote: > >>> Gratuitous argument: > >>> > >>> As far as I know, finger-pointing still isn't fixed. CFJ 3736 > >>> determined that the Referee CANNOT levy a fine. > >>> > >>> Proposal 8181 is supposed to fix it, but D. Margaux's attempt to > >>> resolve it on June 22 failed because it didn't list Telnaior's votes, > >>> as G. noted in a CoE a few hours later. > > Does Proposal 8181 actually fix it? Rule 2557 still needs a "by > announcement". > > > > In any case, it seems to be true that Proposal 8181 hasn't even been > adopted. > > > > I judge both CFJ 3743 and CFJ 3753 FALSE, with the above-quoted > > messages as evidence. > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201
Your proposal numbers have some off-by-100 errors. Greetings, Ørjan. On Wed, 3 Jul 2019, James Cook wrote: Votes inline. IDAuthor(s) AITitle --- 8196 Jason Cobb, Falsifian 1.7 Perfecting pledges (v1.2) I vote AGAINST Proposal 8296. (per Jason Cobb) 8197 G. none no power is all powerful If I can vote on Proposal 8297, I vote AGAINST it. 8198 Jason Cobb 1.0 Be gone, foul demon! I vote FOR Proposal 8198. 8199 Jason Cobb 3.0 Fixing instant runoff I vote AGAINST Proposal 8199. 8200 Aris, G. 3.0 Sane AI Defaulting On Proposal 8200, I vote conditionally: AGAINST if a Notice of Veto has been published specifying any provision within Proposal 8200, otherwise FOR. 8201 Aris 3.0 Just Make Them Write It Out On Proposal 8201, I vote conditionally: AGAINST if a Notice of Veto has been published specifying any provision within Proposal 8201, otherwise FOR.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201
On Mon, 1 Jul 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:
Amend item 3 of the only list of Rule 2528 ("Voting Methods") to read:
3. For an instant runoff decision, non-empty ordered lists for which
each element is a valid option.
The current "entities" text was introduced on purpose in 2017 by Alexis's
proposal 7922 (Clarity Act). To quote its comment:
[This splits off the portion of 955 that isn't actually related to
resolution. The definition of instant runoff is changed to evaluate
validity of options at the end of the voting period, and avoid
retroactively invalidating votes if an option drops out.]
Greetings,
Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Fwd: Re: BUS: Kwang
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 03:33, Edward Murphy wrote: > There was a past rule and/or CFJ to the effect that this type of > ambiguous ordering is still effective, provided that the choice > doesn't make any substantive difference to the gamestate. (In this > case, either order would lead to D. Margaux earning a total of 10 > coins. Contrast e.g. a hypothetical rule where the judge's first > salary of the week also gave some coins to the submitter of the > relevant case.) Thanks. I'll assume it worked, then, though I'm curious about the reasoning. - Falsifian
Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: DIS: Proto: Moots are moot
Oh, sorry, didn't realize the first wasn't to the discussion forum. Jason Cobb On 7/2/19 11:34 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: I got the first one, if that helps in any way. Jason Cobb On 7/2/19 11:33 PM, Edward Murphy wrote: Forwarded Message Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: DIS: Proto: Moots are moot Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 20:32:12 -0700 From: Edward Murphy To: Jason Cobb Jason Cobb wrote: I'm not sure that the outcome of the Agoran Decision includes the margin by which it was made, so the "less than a 2/3 majority" clause might not be effective. (Also, minor nitpick: 2/3 is a supermajority, not a majority.) Also, this makes it even more likely that a vote might get split between REMAND and REMIT and end up giving it to AFFIRM (or LOGJAMMED), although I'm not sure how much of a concern that really is (I just hate first past the post for more than 2 options). The intent is that the effect on the case would depend on the outcome of the decision, but not /just/ on the outcome; it would also depend on the margin of victory. If votes were (say) AFFIRM 5 / REMAND 2 / REMIT 2, it would say "nope, not enough consensus, case is LOGJAMMED". (It would still use the decision mechanics because some parts, e.g. the length of the voting period, would still make sense and thus wouldn't need to be reinvented.)
Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: DIS: Proto: Moots are moot
I got the first one, if that helps in any way. Jason Cobb On 7/2/19 11:33 PM, Edward Murphy wrote: Forwarded Message Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: DIS: Proto: Moots are moot Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 20:32:12 -0700 From: Edward Murphy To: Jason Cobb Jason Cobb wrote: I'm not sure that the outcome of the Agoran Decision includes the margin by which it was made, so the "less than a 2/3 majority" clause might not be effective. (Also, minor nitpick: 2/3 is a supermajority, not a majority.) Also, this makes it even more likely that a vote might get split between REMAND and REMIT and end up giving it to AFFIRM (or LOGJAMMED), although I'm not sure how much of a concern that really is (I just hate first past the post for more than 2 options). The intent is that the effect on the case would depend on the outcome of the decision, but not /just/ on the outcome; it would also depend on the margin of victory. If votes were (say) AFFIRM 5 / REMAND 2 / REMIT 2, it would say "nope, not enough consensus, case is LOGJAMMED". (It would still use the decision mechanics because some parts, e.g. the length of the voting period, would still make sense and thus wouldn't need to be reinvented.)
DIS: Fwd: Re: BUS: Kwang
I didn't get back a copy of this message in a timely fashion, so I suspect the munging is indeed not working yet. Forwarded Message Subject: Re: BUS: Kwang Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 20:20:03 -0700 From: Edward Murphy To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org Falsifian wrote: On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 06:37, D. Margaux wrote: I earn 10 coins total (5 for each of my two most recent CFJs) I think this didn't work, since the order of these two actions is ambiguous. R478 requires actions by announcement to be unambigious, and also says the actions take place in the order they appear in the message. Let me know if you think I'm mistaken; for now I'll assume as Treasuror that it didn't work. There was a past rule and/or CFJ to the effect that this type of ambiguous ordering is still effective, provided that the choice doesn't make any substantive difference to the gamestate. (In this case, either order would lead to D. Margaux earning a total of 10 coins. Contrast e.g. a hypothetical rule where the judge's first salary of the week also gave some coins to the submitter of the relevant case.)
DIS: Re: BUS: Kwang
Falsifian wrote: On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 06:37, D. Margaux wrote: I earn 10 coins total (5 for each of my two most recent CFJs) I think this didn't work, since the order of these two actions is ambiguous. R478 requires actions by announcement to be unambigious, and also says the actions take place in the order they appear in the message. Let me know if you think I'm mistaken; for now I'll assume as Treasuror that it didn't work. There was a past rule and/or CFJ to the effect that this type of ambiguous ordering is still effective, provided that the choice doesn't make any substantive difference to the gamestate. (In this case, either order would lead to D. Margaux earning a total of 10 coins. Contrast e.g. a hypothetical rule where the judge's first salary of the week also gave some coins to the submitter of the relevant case.)
Re: DIS: DMARC bounces (attn Murphy)
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 at 02:08, omd wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 6:30 PM James Cook wrote: > > (I'm not suggesting we use Discourse, just that maybe similar options are > > available with the current software.) > > It seems Mailman does support something like that: > > https://wiki.list.org/DEV/DMARC > https://www.gnu.org/software/mailman/mailman-admin/sender-filters.html > > ...Okay, I've gone ahead and set dmarc_moderation_action to "Munge > From" on all three lists. Changing the From address is annoying > (sorry Murphy), but it only applies to messages from domains with > p=reject DMARC entries, and the alternative is for those messages to > not be deliverable properly. > > Incidentally, Gmail seems to accept such messages but send them to > Spam. I set my Agora filter to never send to Spam, so I get a banner > saying "This message was not sent to Spam because of a filter you > created." I'm not sure this worked. Two pieces of evidence: 0. I didn't get Murphy's July 2 Metareport (yet?). 1. Murphy's 2019-06-17 Metareport appears in my inbox as "From: Edward Murphy "... did e manually add "OFF:" to the subject? Can anyone else confirm this change working or not working? - Falsifian
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3750 Assigned to twg
Gratuitous: I don't think I understood G.'s argument. As far as I can tell, this is straightforward. R2579 says "To perform a fee-based action, an entity ... must announce", and later "Upon such an announcement". I think the first excerpt is clearly only talking about fee-based actions, and the second excerpt refers to the first and so is also only talking about fee-based actions. As G. points out in eir original argument, this is not a fee-based action. So R2579 does not define any mechanism for G. to destroy a Coin when no fee-based action is involved. On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 00:56, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > The below CFJ is 3750. I assign it to twg. > > > === CFJ 3750 === > >In this message, G. destroyed a coin. > > == > > Caller:G. > > Judge: twg > > == > > History: > > Called by G.: 01 Jul 2019 15:29:30 > Assigned to twg: [now] > > == > > Caller's Arguments: > > The award in question is not a fee-based action at all. R2579 specifies > that if a *correct* fee-announcement is (but e.g. the actor does not have > the fee) then no asset holdings are changed. In the case of an > "incorrect" fee-announcement, there's no fail-safe that I can find one > way or the other - do the assets change? > > -- > > Caller's Evidence: > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 8:29 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I award myself the Patent Title "nouveau riche" by paying a fee of 1 > > Coin for this sole purpose. > > == >
DIS: Re: BUS: ADoP Deputisation
In the ongoing election for ADoP, I vote [Murphy]. On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 02:00, Rebecca wrote: > > Having intended to do so days ago, I deputise for ADoP to initiate an > agoran decision for the election of the position of ADoP. The voting method > is instant run-off, the ADoP is the vote collector, the valid options are > myself, Murphy, and any other persons that may nominate emselves as > candidates after the initiation of this agoran decision. The quorum is > seven. > > -- > From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3753 Assigned to omd
Dang it; you are absolutely right, and I didn't consider that.
Note to judge omd: this applies just as well to CFJ 3743.
Jason Cobb
On 7/2/19 10:45 PM, James Cook wrote:
Gratuitous argument:
As far as I know, finger-pointing still isn't fixed. CFJ 3736
determined that the Referee CANNOT levy a fine.
Proposal 8181 is supposed to fix it, but D. Margaux's attempt to
resolve it on June 22 failed because it didn't list Telnaior's votes,
as G. noted in a CoE a few hours later.
On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 01:00, Kerim Aydin wrote:
The below is CFJ 3753. I assign it to omd.
=== CFJ 3753 ===
The investigator of the Finger-pointing done in this message CAN
impose a fine on Jason Cobb for the Crime of Oathbreaking for the
pledge in evidence.
==
Caller:Jason Cobb
Judge: omd
==
History:
Called by Jason Cobb: 02 Jul 2019 22:32:03
Assigned to omd: [now]
==
Caller's Evidence:
My previous message:
I pledge, under penalty of a Class "I'm a string!" Crime, not to
make any pledges for the next 24 hours
Excerpt from this message [sent after previous message]:
I pledge, under penalty of a Class "I'm a string!" Crime, not to
make any pledges for the next 24 hours.
I fully admit that I am guilty of the above accusation.
Excerpt from Rule 2450 ("Pledges"):
If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform
(or refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the
pledge within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of
Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states
otherwise. The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless the
pledge explicitly states otherwise.
Excerpt from Rule 2557 ("Vigilante Justice"):
When the rules authorize an investigator to impose the Cold Hand
of Justice for a violation, e CAN do so by levying a fine on the
perp with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 2x the base value of
the violation, within the following guidelines: - If the
violation is described by the rules as a Class N crime, then N
is the base value; otherwise the base value is 2.
--
Caller's Arguments:
Assume that I am guilty of the crime (which is a different CFJ);
otherwise, this is clearly FALSE.
Because I am guilty of a class "I'm a string!" crime, the investigator
CAN impose a fine on me. As specified by Rule 2557, the base value of
the crime is "I'm a string!". Thus, the investigator of this crime CAN
impose a fine not less than 1 (Blot) and not more than 2 * ("I'm a
string!") (Blots), whatever that means. I argue that any attempt to
assign a numeric value to "I'm a string!" (besides perhaps the number 0)
would be arbitrary and without textual backing. If the number 0 were to
be assigned, then the investigator would have to impose a fine upon me
with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 0 on me, which is the subject of
CFJ 3743.
My arguments here are effectively the same as CFJ 3743: only one of
TRUE, FALSE, and PARADOXICAL is appropriate. TRUE doesn't really work,
because there is no numeric value for which the investigator physically
can fine me. FALSE doesn't really work because the Rules explicitly
state that the Investigator CAN do so. PARADOXICAL is what's left, and
thus might be the only one appropriate.
==
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8180-8187
I don't think so. On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 06:08, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Did the below proposals ever get resolved? -G. > > On 6/22/2019 4:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > CoE: This leaves out my votes on Telnaior's behalf, which change the > > outcome of at least one proposal I think (8184). > > > > On 6/22/2019 11:43 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > >> I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals. Each > >> player has voting strength 3 unless otherwise noted. Murphy and omd sent > >> messages that contained what appeared to be votes, but did not state that > >> they did in fact cast those votes, so I have not counted them. > >> > >> > >> PROPOSAL 8180 (Paying our Assessor) > >> > >> FOR: R. Lee#, D. Margaux, L, Aris, Owen, Falsifian, Jason Cobb, Walker, G. > >> > >> AGAINST: > >> > >> PRESENT: > >> > >> INEXTRICABLE: twg*+ > >> > >> AI (F/A): 26/0 (AI=1) > >> > >> BALLOTS: 9 (quorum 9) > >> > >> OUTCOME: ADOPTED > >> > >> > >> PROPOSAL 8181 (Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1)) > >> > >> FOR: R. Lee#, D. Margaux, L, Aris, Falsifian, Jason Cobb, G., twg+ > >> > >> AGAINST: Walker > >> > >> PRESENT: Owen > >> > >> AI (F/A): 21/3 (AI=1.7) > >> > >> BALLOTS: 10 (quorum 9) > >> > >> OUTCOME: ADOPTED > >> > >> > >> PROPOSAL 8182 (Add value to zombies) > >> > >> FOR: R. Lee#, D. Margaux, L, Aris, Owen, Falsifian, Jason Cobb, twg+ > >> > >> AGAINST: Walker > >> > >> PRESENT: G. > >> > >> AI (F/A): 21/3 (AI=3.0) > >> > >> BALLOTS: 10 (quorum 9) > >> > >> OUTCOME: ADOPTED > >> > >> > >> PROPOSAL 8183 (Regulated Actions Reform) > >> > >> FOR: R. Lee#, D. Margaux, L, Aris > >> > >> AGAINST: Owen, Falsifian, Walker, G., twg+ > >> > >> PRESENT: Jason Cobb > >> > >> AI (F/A): 11/13 (AI=3.0) > >> > >> BALLOTS: 10 (quorum 9) > >> > >> OUTCOME: REJECTED > >> > >> > >> PROPOSAL 8184 (power-limit precedence) > >> > >> FOR: Aris, Owen, Falsifian, Walker, G., twg+ > >> > >> AGAINST: D. Margaux, L > >> > >> PRESENT: R. Lee#, Jason Cobb > >> > >> AI (F/A): 16/6 (AI=3.0) > >> > >> BALLOTS: 10 (quorum 9) > >> > >> OUTCOME: REJECTED > >> > >> > >> PROPOSAL 8185 (OUGHT we?) > >> > >> FOR: Aris, Jason Cobb, G. > >> > >> AGAINST: R. Lee#, D. Margaux, L, Owen, Falsifian, Walker > >> > >> PRESENT: > >> > >> INEXTRICABLE: twg*+ > >> > >> AI (F/A): 9/16 (AI=3.0) > >> > >> BALLOTS: 9 (quorum 9) > >> > >> OUTCOME: REJECTED > >> > >> > >> PROPOSAL 8186 (Minor currency fixes) > >> > >> FOR: D. Margaux, L, Aris, Owen, Falsifian, Jason Cobb, Walker, G., twg+ > >> > >> AGAINST: > >> > >> PRESENT: R. Lee# > >> > >> AI (F/A): 25/0 (AI=3.0) > >> > >> BALLOTS: 10 (quorum 9) > >> > >> OUTCOME: ADOPTED > >> > >> > >> PROPOSAL 8187 (Not so indestructible now, eh?) > >> > >> FOR: R. Lee#, D. Margaux, L, Aris, Owen, Falsifian, Jason Cobb, Walker, G., > >> twg+ > >> > >> AGAINST: > >> > >> PRESENT: > >> > >> AI (F/A): 27/0 (AI=3.0) > >> > >> BALLOTS: 10 (quorum 9) > >> > >> OUTCOME: ADOPTED > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> * Vote is inextricable because it ENDORSED a non-voter. > >> > >> # Voting strength is 2 > >> > >> + Voting strength is 1 > >> > >> > >> > >> The full text of the ADOPTED proposals are included below. > >> > >> > >> // > >> > >> ID: 8180 > >> > >> Title: Paying our Assessor > >> > >> Adoption index: 1.0 > >> > >> Author: Trigon > >> > >> Co-authors: D Margaux > >> > >> > >> > >> [ Comment: This is something I didn't include from the version of > >> > >> Rule 2496 that I didn't include for whatever reason. ] > >> > >> > >> To Rule 2496 "Rewards" add the following bullet point after the third > >> > >> one: > >> > >>"Resolving an Agoran Decision on whether to adopt a proposal, > >> > >>provided that no other Agoran Decision on whether to adopt that or any > >> > >>other proposal had been resolved earlier in that Agoran week: 5 coins." > >> > >> > >> // > >> > >> ID: 8181 > >> > >> Title: Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1) > >> > >> Adoption index: 1.7 > >> > >> Author: D Margaux > >> > >> Co-authors: Falsifian, twg > >> > >> > >> > >> Amend Rule 2478 to replace this text: > >> > >> > >>“When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate the > >> > >>allegation and, in a timely fashion, SHALL conclude the investigation > >> by:” > >> > >> > >> With this text: > >> > >> > >>“When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate the > >> > >>allegation and CAN, and in a timely fashion SHALL, conclude the > >> investigation > >> > >>by:” > >> > >> > >> // > >> > >> ID: 8182 > >> > >> Title: Add value to zombies > >> > >> Adoption index: 3.0 > >> > >> Author: Jason Cobb > >> > >> Co-authors: > >> > >> > >> > >> Amend Rule 2574 as follows: > >> > >> > >>Replace the text > >> > >> "Resale is a secured natural switch for zombies" > >> > >>with the text >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3752 Assigned to omd
But what if I think strings are just /better/ than numbers?
Jason Cobb
On 7/2/19 9:09 PM, Rebecca wrote:
Gratuitious: the caller emself admits that N is obviously intended to mean
a number. One meaning of N in this specialised context is to stand in for
a number. This isn't even a policy argument, this would be a perfectly
textual holding.
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:56 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
The below CFJ is 3752. I assign it to omd.
=== CFJ 3752 ===
Jason Cobb is guilty of the Class "I'm a string!" Crime of
Oathbreaking.
==
Caller:Jason Cobb
Judge: omd
==
History:
Called by Jason Cobb: 02 Jul 2019 22:32:03
Assigned to omd: [now]
==
Caller's Evidence:
My previous message:
I pledge, under penalty of a Class "I'm a string!" Crime, not to
make any pledges for the next 24 hours
Excerpt from this message [sent after previous message]:
I pledge, under penalty of a Class "I'm a string!" Crime, not to
make any pledges for the next 24 hours.
I fully admit that I am guilty of the above accusation.
Excerpt from Rule 2450 ("Pledges"):
If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform
(or refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the
pledge within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of
Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states
otherwise. The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless the
pledge explicitly states otherwise.
--
Caller's Arguments:
This is so blatantly contrary to intent (especially since Rule 2557
uses "Class N Crime", where N is obviously intended to be a number),
but appears consistent with the wording, so I think this should be TRUE.
==
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3752 Assigned to omd
Gratuitious: the caller emself admits that N is obviously intended to mean
a number. One meaning of N in this specialised context is to stand in for
a number. This isn't even a policy argument, this would be a perfectly
textual holding.
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 10:56 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> The below CFJ is 3752. I assign it to omd.
>
>
> === CFJ 3752 ===
>
>Jason Cobb is guilty of the Class "I'm a string!" Crime of
>Oathbreaking.
>
> ==
>
> Caller:Jason Cobb
>
> Judge: omd
>
> ==
>
> History:
>
> Called by Jason Cobb: 02 Jul 2019 22:32:03
> Assigned to omd: [now]
>
> ==
>
> Caller's Evidence:
>
> My previous message:
>
> I pledge, under penalty of a Class "I'm a string!" Crime, not to
> make any pledges for the next 24 hours
>
> Excerpt from this message [sent after previous message]:
>
> I pledge, under penalty of a Class "I'm a string!" Crime, not to
> make any pledges for the next 24 hours.
>
> I fully admit that I am guilty of the above accusation.
>
> Excerpt from Rule 2450 ("Pledges"):
>
> If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform
> (or refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the
> pledge within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of
> Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states
> otherwise. The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless the
> pledge explicitly states otherwise.
>
> --
>
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> This is so blatantly contrary to intent (especially since Rule 2557
> uses "Class N Crime", where N is obviously intended to be a number),
> but appears consistent with the wording, so I think this should be TRUE.
>
> ==
>
>
--
>From R. Lee
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
I'd just like to apologize to omd, who managed to get all 3 of my Oathbreaking CFJs... Jason Cobb On 7/2/19 9:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: [Quick! While it's still current!] Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASE --- 3741 Murphy 3745 D. Margaux 3746 R. Lee 3748 G. 3749 Trigon 3751 Falsifian 3753 omd OPEN CASES --- 3753 Assigned to omd [Due Wed 10 Jul 2019 00:56:18] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3753 The investigator of the Finger-pointing done in this message CAN impose a fine on Jason Cobb for the Crime of Oathbreaking for the pledge in evidence. 3752 Assigned to omd [Due Wed 10 Jul 2019 00:54:31] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3752 Jason Cobb is guilty of the Class "I'm a string!" Crime of Oathbreaking. 3751 Assigned to Falsifian [Due Wed 10 Jul 2019 00:53:46] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3751 A player who quotes the number and title of a proposal followed by "FOR" thereby votes FOR that proposal, provided that e is otherwise able to do so. 3750 Assigned to twg [Due Wed 10 Jul 2019 00:52:46] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3750 In this message, G. destroyed a coin. 3749 Assigned to Trigon [Due Wed 10 Jul 2019 00:52:04] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3749 The ordered list [Agora] is a valid vote in the ongoing ADoP election. 3747 Assigned to Aris [Due Sun 07 Jul 2019 20:03:52] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3747 Jason Cobb made an announcement of intent to banish the Ritual with 2.1 Agoran Consent that meets the clarity standards of R2595/0. 3743 Assigned to omd [Due Sun 07 Jul 2019 20:01:15] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3743 The investigator of the Finger-pointing done in this message CAN impose a fine on Jason Cobb for the Crime of Oathbreaking. RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES --- 3748 Judged FALSE by G. [Sun 30 Jun 2019] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3748 Jason Cobb is guilty of the crime of Oathbreaking for the pledge that was made in this message. 3746 Judged FALSE by R. Lee [Mon 01 Jul 2019] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3746 An Agoran decision to select the winner of the election has a voting method of AI-Majority. 3745 Judged FALSE by D. Margaux [Mon 01 Jul 2019] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3745 There exists an Agoran Decision to adopt a proposal with the title 'It's caused enough trouble already' and with a valid adoption index. 3744 Judged TRUE by D. Margaux [Mon 01 Jul 2019] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3744 There exists a proposal with the title 'It's caused enough trouble already' and with a valid adoption index. ---
Re: DIS: "Class-N Crime" or "Class N Crime"
This would be a good candidate for a cleanup. I think the dash is more correct as its an adjectival phrase as it were? On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 8:51 AM Jason Cobb wrote: > Just to be stylistically consistent, which one should I prefer? The > Rules use both, although "Class N" is more common than "Class-N". > > -- > Jason Cobb > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:08 AM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:00 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:57 AM Aris Merchant >> wrote: >> > > > 8201 Aris 3.0 Just Make Them Write It Out >> > > AGAINST. The fix above (8200) does a better job at the fix. >> > > >> > >> > Please read the comment; this fixes a different problem, not the same >> one. >> >> I sympathize with the comment - working similarly in Arbitor-world >> it's a bear when people don't clearly label arguments/evidence etc. >> But I'd still prefer to leave those fields optional. Proposing is >> something newer players struggle with and the added little kick of "we >> don't let you rely defaults, you have to re-submit" should be avoided. >> (Personally, I would prefer pending proposals cost something as a >> voluntary quality control rather than relying on exact inclusion of >> all the data all the time, but I know I'm in the minority on that >> right now). > > > > Actually, I think this would help new players. In particular, new players > tend not to understand the power/AI system, and thus tend to submit > proposals that have defaulted AI even when that isn’t actually correct. > Let’s face it, most proposals need an AI greater than 1.0. I think it’s > more user-friendly for that just to fail than to say “now you’ve not only > got to remember to fix it, but also retract the existing version”. If they > don’t resubmit their proposal is just going to stay broken, and then people > will vote against it, which is IMO stronger negative feedback than it just > telling them “that didn’t work because you left out a mandatory field”. > Titles are less of an issue in someways, but if someone leaves out a title > they’re just going to confuse anyone. If we could set defaults that worked > most of the time, then it would make sense to have defaults. As it is, we > have defaults that are either often broken (1.0 AI) or terribly bad > practice and as likely as not to annoy everyone (empty title). Making them > mandatory helps everyone get it right, including new players. > > -Aris > >> >> I’m pretty convinced this is a good idea, and if you (the PM) and your zombie both vote against it it doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of passing at AI 3.0. -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 11:00 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:57 AM Aris Merchant > wrote: > > > > 8201 Aris 3.0 Just Make Them Write It Out > > > AGAINST. The fix above (8200) does a better job at the fix. > > > > > > > Please read the comment; this fixes a different problem, not the same > one. > > I sympathize with the comment - working similarly in Arbitor-world > it's a bear when people don't clearly label arguments/evidence etc. > But I'd still prefer to leave those fields optional. Proposing is > something newer players struggle with and the added little kick of "we > don't let you rely defaults, you have to re-submit" should be avoided. > (Personally, I would prefer pending proposals cost something as a > voluntary quality control rather than relying on exact inclusion of > all the data all the time, but I know I'm in the minority on that > right now). Actually, I think this would help new players. In particular, new players tend not to understand the power/AI system, and thus tend to submit proposals that have defaulted AI even when that isn’t actually correct. Let’s face it, most proposals need an AI greater than 1.0. I think it’s more user-friendly for that just to fail than to say “now you’ve not only got to remember to fix it, but also retract the existing version”. If they don’t resubmit their proposal is just going to stay broken, and then people will vote against it, which is IMO stronger negative feedback than it just telling them “that didn’t work because you left out a mandatory field”. Titles are less of an issue in someways, but if someone leaves out a title they’re just going to confuse anyone. If we could set defaults that worked most of the time, then it would make sense to have defaults. As it is, we have defaults that are either often broken (1.0 AI) or terribly bad practice and as likely as not to annoy everyone (empty title). Making them mandatory helps everyone get it right, including new players. -Aris > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 9:57 AM Aris Merchant wrote: > > > 8201 Aris 3.0 Just Make Them Write It Out > > AGAINST. The fix above (8200) does a better job at the fix. > > > > Please read the comment; this fixes a different problem, not the same one. I sympathize with the comment - working similarly in Arbitor-world it's a bear when people don't clearly label arguments/evidence etc. But I'd still prefer to leave those fields optional. Proposing is something newer players struggle with and the added little kick of "we don't let you rely defaults, you have to re-submit" should be avoided. (Personally, I would prefer pending proposals cost something as a voluntary quality control rather than relying on exact inclusion of all the data all the time, but I know I'm in the minority on that right now).
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8196-8201
Uh, doesn't distributing with an incorrect AI listed invalidate the decision if the lack of correct essential parameter is noted? (we just discussed that I think? Maybe I missed part of that.) CoE: the Proposal Pool is not empty, it contains the proposal noted below. Also, in R107, the ancient "lack is correctly identified" text (that predates the current CoE rules) doesn't have a public requirement. On 7/1/2019 10:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: Accepted, revision: The AI of proposal 8197 is none, but the AI of the decision on whether to adopt that proposal is 1.0. -Aris On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 9:14 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: On 7/1/2019 6:55 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: 8197 G. none no power is all powerful CoE: The AI of the Decision to Adopt Proposal 8197 is 1.0, not 'none'. In R1607: > Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For > this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the adoption > index is initially the adoption index of the proposal, or 1.0 if > the proposal does not have one The standing precedent is that "proposal does not have an AI" is equivalent to "Proposal has AI=none", so the Decision AI is set to 1.0.
Re: Fwd: Re: DIS: Proto: Moots are moot
I'm not sure that the outcome of the Agoran Decision includes the margin by which it was made, so the "less than a 2/3 majority" clause might not be effective. (Also, minor nitpick: 2/3 is a supermajority, not a majority.) Also, this makes it even more likely that a vote might get split between REMAND and REMIT and end up giving it to AFFIRM (or LOGJAMMED), although I'm not sure how much of a concern that really is (I just hate first past the post for more than 2 options). Jason Cobb On 7/2/19 12:21 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: Forwarded Message Subject: Re: DIS: Proto: Moots are moot Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 21:08:27 -0700 From: Edward Murphy To: ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk ais523 wrote: This doesn't actually allow indefinite motions to reconsider (e.g. in cases where a judge is repeatedly insisting on a particular judgement with everyone else disagreeing with them), thus meaning that LOGJAMMED is never appropriate. Point, so this'll need a re-think of some sort. There probably needs to be some way to forcibly change a CFJ's judge. Depends on the numbers. If it's "Bob judges TRUE, everyone else insists FALSE", then presumably the sequence of events would be: * Group reconsideration, Bob judges TRUE again * Moot, REMIT, Bob is replaced by Charlie * Charlie judges FALSE, Bob lacks support for reconsideration Where it breaks down, as I understand it, is when there are two or more groups of roughly equal size who strongly disagree on the judgement, and thus the Moot probably doesn't get a /clear/ majority (especially as it has three options, AFFIRM/REMAND/REMIT). Revised proto: Amend Rule 591 (Delivering Judgements) by appending this text: * LOGJAMMED, appropriate if it is assigned as the outcome of a Moot. LOGJAMMED is not appropriate otherwise. Amend Rule 911 (Motions and Moots) by replacing this text: - AFFIRM, FAILED QUORUM: The judgement is reassigned to the case, and cannot be entered into Moot again. this text: - FAILED QUORUM, or less than a 2/3 majority: The case is assigned a judgement of LOGJAMMED and CANNOT be entered into Moot again (the issue should instead be resolved via proposal), and the remainder of this list does not apply. - AFFIRM: The judgement is reassigned to the case, and CANNOT be entered into Moot again.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8180-8187
Did the below proposals ever get resolved? -G.
On 6/22/2019 4:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
CoE: This leaves out my votes on Telnaior's behalf, which change the
outcome of at least one proposal I think (8184).
On 6/22/2019 11:43 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
I hereby resolve the Agoran decisions to adopt the below proposals. Each
player has voting strength 3 unless otherwise noted. Murphy and omd sent
messages that contained what appeared to be votes, but did not state that
they did in fact cast those votes, so I have not counted them.
PROPOSAL 8180 (Paying our Assessor)
FOR: R. Lee#, D. Margaux, L, Aris, Owen, Falsifian, Jason Cobb, Walker, G.
AGAINST:
PRESENT:
INEXTRICABLE: twg*+
AI (F/A): 26/0 (AI=1)
BALLOTS: 9 (quorum 9)
OUTCOME: ADOPTED
PROPOSAL 8181 (Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1))
FOR: R. Lee#, D. Margaux, L, Aris, Falsifian, Jason Cobb, G., twg+
AGAINST: Walker
PRESENT: Owen
AI (F/A): 21/3 (AI=1.7)
BALLOTS: 10 (quorum 9)
OUTCOME: ADOPTED
PROPOSAL 8182 (Add value to zombies)
FOR: R. Lee#, D. Margaux, L, Aris, Owen, Falsifian, Jason Cobb, twg+
AGAINST: Walker
PRESENT: G.
AI (F/A): 21/3 (AI=3.0)
BALLOTS: 10 (quorum 9)
OUTCOME: ADOPTED
PROPOSAL 8183 (Regulated Actions Reform)
FOR: R. Lee#, D. Margaux, L, Aris
AGAINST: Owen, Falsifian, Walker, G., twg+
PRESENT: Jason Cobb
AI (F/A): 11/13 (AI=3.0)
BALLOTS: 10 (quorum 9)
OUTCOME: REJECTED
PROPOSAL 8184 (power-limit precedence)
FOR: Aris, Owen, Falsifian, Walker, G., twg+
AGAINST: D. Margaux, L
PRESENT: R. Lee#, Jason Cobb
AI (F/A): 16/6 (AI=3.0)
BALLOTS: 10 (quorum 9)
OUTCOME: REJECTED
PROPOSAL 8185 (OUGHT we?)
FOR: Aris, Jason Cobb, G.
AGAINST: R. Lee#, D. Margaux, L, Owen, Falsifian, Walker
PRESENT:
INEXTRICABLE: twg*+
AI (F/A): 9/16 (AI=3.0)
BALLOTS: 9 (quorum 9)
OUTCOME: REJECTED
PROPOSAL 8186 (Minor currency fixes)
FOR: D. Margaux, L, Aris, Owen, Falsifian, Jason Cobb, Walker, G., twg+
AGAINST:
PRESENT: R. Lee#
AI (F/A): 25/0 (AI=3.0)
BALLOTS: 10 (quorum 9)
OUTCOME: ADOPTED
PROPOSAL 8187 (Not so indestructible now, eh?)
FOR: R. Lee#, D. Margaux, L, Aris, Owen, Falsifian, Jason Cobb, Walker, G.,
twg+
AGAINST:
PRESENT:
AI (F/A): 27/0 (AI=3.0)
BALLOTS: 10 (quorum 9)
OUTCOME: ADOPTED
* Vote is inextricable because it ENDORSED a non-voter.
# Voting strength is 2
+ Voting strength is 1
The full text of the ADOPTED proposals are included below.
//
ID: 8180
Title: Paying our Assessor
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Trigon
Co-authors: D Margaux
[ Comment: This is something I didn't include from the version of
Rule 2496 that I didn't include for whatever reason. ]
To Rule 2496 "Rewards" add the following bullet point after the third
one:
"Resolving an Agoran Decision on whether to adopt a proposal,
provided that no other Agoran Decision on whether to adopt that or any
other proposal had been resolved earlier in that Agoran week: 5 coins."
//
ID: 8181
Title: Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1)
Adoption index: 1.7
Author: D Margaux
Co-authors: Falsifian, twg
Amend Rule 2478 to replace this text:
“When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate the
allegation and, in a timely fashion, SHALL conclude the investigation by:”
With this text:
“When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate the
allegation and CAN, and in a timely fashion SHALL, conclude the
investigation
by:”
//
ID: 8182
Title: Add value to zombies
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2574 as follows:
Replace the text
"Resale is a secured natural switch for zombies"
with the text
"Resale value is a secured natural switch for zombies".
Replace the text "Resale value" in the third item of the only list
with the text "resale value".
//
ID: 8186
Title: Minor currency fixes
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors:
Amend Rule 2578 ("Currencies") as follows:
Replace all instances of the text '"Agora's official currency"' with
the text "the official currency of Agora". [Note: this strikes the
quotation marks]
Amend Rule 2549 ("Auction Initiation") as follows:
Replace all instances of the text "Agora's official currency" with
the text "the official currency of Agora".
Amend Rule 2483 ("Economics") as follows:
Replace the text "Coins are the official currency of Agora tracked
by the Treasuror." with the text "Coins are the official currency of
Agora and are tracked by the Treasuror."
//
ID: 8187
Title: Not so indestructible now, eh?
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: Resolving Prime Minister election
On 7/1/2019 10:54 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: What would people feel about bringing that requirement back? I’d make it a Class 1 crime, not committable more than once in a week, and with exceptions for emails sent primarily in an official or judicial capacity. Why don't we just make it a "should" please and point it out to new players. Maybe we should should bottom-posting while we're at it - our current practices mix styles and is terribly confusing. -G.
