Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Subgame-in-a-Rule contest vote open!
On 10/10/2019 4:04 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> But I do like all of them a great deal and would be delighted if
> they were _all_ enacted. Especially if it meant we could have contracts or
> pledges affecting more than one of them simultaneously. ("A party to this
> contract CAN, by at least 5 days' Predeclaration, act on behalf of any
> party who is looking at em to Reach into the Past...")
That would be way cool if we get enough officers!
Nothing stopping all of these being proposed at once - the only
limit from my perspective was I promised to run the winning one if the
author didn't want to/have time, and I couldn't run then all.
-G.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Subgame-in-a-Rule contest vote open!
On 10/10/19 7:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I think this one has a (fixable) bootstrap issue. Because this is backwards-phrased, Predeclarations could be published ahead of the proposal adoption. If the Assessor does this, e can win, because e can choose the date of resolution and get the Fruits right after resolving the decision. -G. Dang it, I was planning to do that. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Subgame-in-a-Rule contest vote open!
On 10/9/2019 11:38 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Create a new Power-0.3 rule, "Fruits of Persistence and Patience": [snip] > If the rules specify that an action CAN be taken by N days' > Predeclaration, a player CAN take that action by announcement as long > as e published a valid Predeclaration describing that action, and the > current date, at least N and at most 21 days ago; I think this one has a (fixable) bootstrap issue. Because this is backwards-phrased, Predeclarations could be published ahead of the proposal adoption. If the Assessor does this, e can win, because e can choose the date of resolution and get the Fruits right after resolving the decision. -G.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Subgame-in-a-Rule contest vote open!
On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 6:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Unofficial CONTEST: Subgame in a Rule.
>
> Ranked-choice voting (ballot should be a list), options are (full
> submissions below):
>
> - ais523 (Fruits of Persistence and Patience)
> - Falsifian (Clairvoyant Roshambo)
> - Jason Cobb (The Watch)
> - G. (Hot Potato)
>
> MAIN CRITERION: "In order, which of these concepts would you most
> like to play, starting next month?" PLEASE ASSUME that
> relatively-trivial bugs would be fixed in any final proposed draft.
>
> Note: Vote is advisory. If there's no clear consensus, I might
> discuss ways to break ties (e.g. please include votes for your own,
> but I may discard self-votes). No Zombie votes please - won't count
> those.
{Fruits of Persistence and Patience, Hot Potato, Clairvoyant Roshambo, The
Watch}. Based purely on imagining us playing them and seeing how much I enjoyed
coming up with strategies.
But I do like all of them a great deal and would be delighted if they were
_all_ enacted. Especially if it meant we could have contracts or pledges
affecting more than one of them simultaneously. ("A party to this contract CAN,
by at least 5 days' Predeclaration, act on behalf of any party who is looking
at em to Reach into the Past...")
-twg
DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie life cycle
On Wednesday, October 9, 2019 1:59 PM, James Cook wrote: > On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 12:08, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 12:21 AM, James Cook jc...@cs.berkeley.edu > > wrote: > > > > > I intend, with notice, to flip Jacob Arduino's master switch to Agora. > > > I intend, with notice, to deregister Jacob Arduino. > > > > Well remembered! > > > > I cause Jacob Arduino to give me all eir coins. > > I'm not sure whether that worked. R2466 requires you to "uniquely > identify the principal and that the action is being taken on behalf of > that person". You uniquely identified the principale, but I'm not sure > whether you identified that the action is being taken on behalf of em. > The wording of that rule is a little funny, but it might be intended > to mean you need to explicitly say you're acting on behalf. > > -- > - Falsifian I agree with your interpretation of the rule's intention, but I would argue that "to cause to do " is unambiguously synonymous with "to act on 's behalf to do ". D. Margaux used to use that syntax all the time [1] and nobody batted an eyelid. -twg [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/search?a=1&l=agora-business%40agoranomic.org&haswords=cause&from=D.+Margaux
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Unoffical contest: subgame in a rule
On 10/9/2019 7:24 AM, James Cook wrote: > * R2518 says a value is indeterminate if it can't be reasonably > determined from information reasonably available. Does that mean it > must be possible for anyone to determine it, or just for someone (the > Watchman) to? If the former, then Look Target will stay at the > default. I wonder if there's precedent on this. All the precedents I know cover situations where all the relevant actions must be public/by-announcement to succeed in doing anything. AFAICT have a big hole (uncertain law) for situations where the rules state that actions CAN be communicated privately (also a problem with contract actions). There's an ancient precedent that actions that CAN be communicated privately are SUCCESSFUL if sent to either the PF or to the required recipient's registered email address, but not to the DF (because the recipient is not required to be subscribed to that). Which leaves a weird gap where the information is clearly "available" to anyone who reads the main DF, but not "formally" available to the recipient. (this makes some practical sense because e.g. the IRC channel is a DF that most people aren't tracking). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Unoffical contest: subgame in a rule
On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 8:34 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> On 10/9/19 10:24 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > * R2518 says a value is indeterminate if it can't be reasonably
> > determined from information reasonably available. Does that mean it
> > must be possible for anyone to determine it, or just for someone (the
> > Watchman) to? If the former, then Look Target will stay at the
> > default. I wonder if there's precedent on this.
>
>
> To this end, I submit the following proposal:
>
>
> Title: Possibly-Indeterminate Switches
>
> AI: 3
>
> Text:
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2162 ("Switches") by replacing the paragraph beginning "If an
> action or set of actions" with the following:
>
> If a type of switch is not explicitly designated as
> "possibly-indeterminate" by the rule that defines it, and if an
> action or set of actions would cause the value of an instance of
> that type of switch to become indeterminate, that instance instead
> takes on its last determinate and possible value, if any, otherwise
> it takes on its default value.
>
>
> [Provides an escape hatch so that rules can allow their switches to have
> indeterminate values. This has come up in protos by both me and
> Falsifian. It is useful to have these possibly-indeterminate properties
> be switches, since switches have useful properties and precedent, so the
> always-determinate system cuts off some use-cases.]
>
> }
Would you drop the quotes around "possibly-indeterminate"? Looking at
other similar cases in the rules, the quotes are unconventional. I
have trouble saying exactly why, but the minor breach of convention
really bothers me.
-Aris
