DIS: Re: BUS: Finger Pointing At Cuddlebeam

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 6:56 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> On 6/8/2020 6:45 PM, Rebecca via agora-business wrote:
> > I point my finger at Cuddlebeam
> >
> > Literally everything in eir most recent contract constitutes Faking,
> > specifically by intentionally  misleading Agorans into believing that eir
> > items would have any effect for profit.
>
> Gratuitous:  As a paying customer I am fully satisfied that my product
> worked wholly as expected.


Personally, I've been presuming it's a form of protection racket or
something. I expect to be spared from any of CuddleBeam's scams, and that I
will receive extra FOR votes from em on proposals. I'm perfectly happy to
pay eir low fees if e actually performs as promised. If e doesn't do
anything, I want my money back (metaphorically).

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer opens a humble agoran occult shop

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/8/20 9:38 PM, Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote:
> Unfortunately, the contract doesn't define CB as the recordkeepor, so I
> guess the Treasuror has to track these?


Nope, R2456 & R2483 are the only rules that define the responsibilities
of the Treasuror, and neither could possibly be construed to allow
mousetrapping em into tracking private assets.

-- 
Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer opens a humble agoran occult shop

[Rebecca via agora-discussion]

Unfortunately, the contract doesn't define CB as the recordkeepor, so I
guess the Treasuror has to track these?

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 11:25 AM Aris Merchant via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 6:07 PM Rebecca via agora-business
>  wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:55 AM Aris Merchant via agora-business <
> > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 8:28 AM Cuddle Beam via agora-business <
> > > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I create the following Contract titled "The Mystical Menagerie":
> > > >
> > > > .:*~*【THE MYSTICAL MENAGERIE】*~*:.
> > > > - humble agoran occult shop -
> > > >
> > > > Any player can Purchase a Product by announcement and transferring
> the
> > > > price of that Product to Cuddlebeam. Doing so creates an instance of
> that
> > > > Product in their ownership.
> > > >
> > > > Mystical Items and Spells are Products. The effects they deliver are
> > > > mystical in nature. Cuddlebeam is the only party to this Contract.
> > > >
> > > > MYSTICAL ITEMS:
> > > > A Mystical Item is a destructible asset that can be owned by any
> Player.
> > > > The following are the Mystical Items, their emoji representation,
> their
> > > > price in coins, and their mystical abilities.
> > > >
> > > > Scam Protection Charm [5 Coins]
> > > > This powerful seal inscribed by ancient monks contains a powerful
> astral
> > > > spell that will protect yourself and your assets from all scams.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I transfer 5 coins to CuddleBeam to purchase a Scam Protection Charm.
> If I
> > > need to write it out separately, I purchase a Scam Protection Charm.
> > >
> > > -Aris
> > >
> >
> > I purchase a crystal of fortune
>
>
> I transfer 5 coins to CuddleBeam and use them to purchase a Pendant of
> Proposaling. I need the extra votes.
>
> -Aris
>


-- 
>From R. Lee

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8405-8408

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 5:56 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business
 wrote:
>
>
>
> [Juggling three distributions in my mind at once pls send help]

My official efficiency is rapidly increasing. Thoughts on the idea of
moving to daily distributions? ;)

-Aris

Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 8:46 PM nch via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
>
> On 6/8/20 7:38 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 5:23 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
> >  wrote:
> >> Here's my draft.
> > Darn, I forgot to add in transmutation.
> >
> >
> > -Aris
> Transmutation was already distributed, 8421.
>

Due to an inconsistency in the distribution, the H. Promotor
determined that the distribution wasn't effective.

Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/8/20 7:38 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 5:23 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
>> Here's my draft.
> Darn, I forgot to add in transmutation.
>
>
> -Aris
Transmutation was already distributed, 8421.

Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 5:23 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> Here's my draft.

Darn, I forgot to add in transmutation.


-Aris

DIS: [Promotor] Draft

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

Here's my draft.

-Aris
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 7, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
conditional votes).

ID Author(s)AITitle
---
8431#  Aris, ais523 1.0   Proposal Reward Trimming
8432*  Aris, Alexis, Falsifian  3.0   The Administrative State
8433#  Aris, [1]1.5   Simpler Heraldry
8434#  Aris 1.0   Majoritarian Confidence
8435#  Aris, nch, Trigon1.0   No Confidence Isn't Personal
8436#  Aris 2.0   Stately Officiation
8437l  R. Lee, G.   1.0   Guilderoy Lockhart
8438e  R. Lee   1.0   Tailor Pay
8439#  P.S.S.   2.0   Termination of Candidacy
8440#  R. Lee, P.S.S.   1.7   0 blots patch

[1] Alexis, Jason, P.S.S.

Proposal pool report: At 05:00 UTC, Monday, June 8, the proposal pool
contained the proposals listed above.

Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
# : Ordinary proposal, unset chamber.
e : Economy ministry proposal.
f : Efficiency ministry proposal.
j : Justice ministry proposal.
l : Legislation ministry proposal.
p : Participation ministry proposal.


The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where
the information shown below differs from the information shown above,
the information shown above shall control.

//
ID: 8431
Title: Proposal Reward Trimming
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: ais523


[This reduces proposal rewards by removing AI from the calculation.
As it is, an extremely detailed and well developed AI 1.0 proposal
that is adopted unanimously gets fewer coins than an AI 3.0 bug fix.

Note for the Assessor: Since this proposal is AI 1.0, its
reward is the same in both the old and the new systems. Please adjust
your algorithms for future proposals if this passes.]

Amend Rule 2496, "Rewards", by replacing:

  Being the author of an adopted proposal: a number of coins equal to
  ((the total number of valid ballots cast FOR the decision - the total
  number of valid ballots cast AGAINST) times the adoption index of the
  result) rounded up

with:

  Being the author of an adopted proposal: a number of coins equal to
  (the total number of valid ballots cast FOR the decision - the total
  number of valid ballots cast AGAINST)

//
ID: 8432
Title: The Administrative State
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: Alexis, Falsifian


Amend Rule 1728, "Dependent Action Methods", by adding as new list item
after the third list item:

  3. with N official consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1
 with a minimum of 1 ("With official consent" is shorthand for this
 method with N = 1);
and renumbering the list accordingly.

Amend Rule 2595, "Performing a Dependent Action" by changing the text
"without N objections, with N Agoran consent," to read
"without N objections, with N Agoran consent, with N official consent,"

Amend Rule 2124, "Agoran Satisfaction", by adding as a new item at the end
of the list:

  4. The action is to be performed with N official consent, and the
 number of offices held by Supporters of the intent is less than or equal
 to N times the number of offices held by Objectors to the intent.
  5. The action is to be performed with N official consent, the Prime
 Minister is an Objector, and the Speaker is not a Supporter.

Enact a new power 2.0 rule entitled "The Administrative State", with the
following text:

  Each officer CAN, with 2 official consent, enact, amend, or repeal
  eir's own office's Administrative Regulations. Administrative Regulations
  have the following properties:

  1. An officer SHALL abide by eir office's administrative regulations in
 the discharge of eir office.
  2. Any player CAN act on behalf of an officer to exercise eir official
 powers as authorized by eir office's administrative regulations.
  3. All players SHOULD abide by an officer's administrative regulations
 in matters relating to eir area of responsibility.

//
ID: 8433
Title: Simpler Heraldry
Adoption index: 1.5
Author: Aris
Co-authors: Alexis, Jason, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus


Amend Rule 649, "Patent Titles", by appending to the last paragraph:

  Any player CAN award a specified Patent Title to a specified player,
  as authorized by the Herald's Administrative Regulations.

//
ID: 8434
Title: Majoritarian Confidence

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3841 Assigned to Jason

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 4:00 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> On 6/8/20 6:37 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On 6/8/2020 3:30 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:28 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>> On 6/8/2020 3:13 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>  The statement of the CFJ referenced by the statement of this CFJ is "En
>  la declaración anterior, transferí una moneda a Agora."
>  Machine-translation by Google Translate yields "In the statement above,
>  I transferred a coin to Agora.",
> >>> I don't think this explores enough due to the double-usage of "coin".
> >>> Specifically, An Agoran Coin is the proper name for a type of currency,
> >>> not the description of its physical form.
> >>>
> >>> In real life, the following conversation:  "Did you pay them?"  "Yes I
> >>> gave them a coin."would be ambiguous as to what was paid.  "I give you
> >>> a coin - it's a peso.  I give you a second coin - it's an Agoran Coin".
> >>>
> >>> The machine translation clearly applies to the term as a generic coin, but
> >>> doesn't clarify what kind of coin.  Furthermore, being a virtual currency,
> >>> the Agoran Coin is not necessarily even "a coin" in the generic sense.
> >>>
> >>> (not saying your ultimate conclusion is wrong...)
> >>
> >> I again point to the provision resolving ambiguous currency specifications
> >> in favor of the official currency of Agora.
> > This doesn't necessarily help in this particular situation (I'll reserve
> > reasons for a proto of other CFJ and leave that up to Judge Jason here,
> > because the situations are slightly different and I've thought about that
> > one more than this one).
> >
>
> Hmm.. good point about "coin". I'm still inclined to think the
> statement's TRUE, but I'll mull it over some more.
>
> Also, I don't think there's an explicit enough mention of assets or
> currencies to trigger R2578 para 2.

You're right (as is G.), I was just completely wrong. It resolves
ambiguity about which currency or asset was being referred to, not
whether a currency or asset is being referred to.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3841 Assigned to Jason

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/8/20 6:37 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/8/2020 3:30 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:28 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On 6/8/2020 3:13 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
 The statement of the CFJ referenced by the statement of this CFJ is "En
 la declaración anterior, transferí una moneda a Agora."
 Machine-translation by Google Translate yields "In the statement above,
 I transferred a coin to Agora.",
>>> I don't think this explores enough due to the double-usage of "coin".
>>> Specifically, An Agoran Coin is the proper name for a type of currency,
>>> not the description of its physical form.
>>>
>>> In real life, the following conversation:  "Did you pay them?"  "Yes I
>>> gave them a coin."would be ambiguous as to what was paid.  "I give you
>>> a coin - it's a peso.  I give you a second coin - it's an Agoran Coin".
>>>
>>> The machine translation clearly applies to the term as a generic coin, but
>>> doesn't clarify what kind of coin.  Furthermore, being a virtual currency,
>>> the Agoran Coin is not necessarily even "a coin" in the generic sense.
>>>
>>> (not saying your ultimate conclusion is wrong...)
>>
>> I again point to the provision resolving ambiguous currency specifications
>> in favor of the official currency of Agora.
> This doesn't necessarily help in this particular situation (I'll reserve
> reasons for a proto of other CFJ and leave that up to Judge Jason here,
> because the situations are slightly different and I've thought about that
> one more than this one).
>

Hmm.. good point about "coin". I'm still inclined to think the
statement's TRUE, but I'll mull it over some more.

Also, I don't think there's an explicit enough mention of assets or
currencies to trigger R2578 para 2.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3841 Assigned to Jason

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/8/2020 3:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On 6/8/2020 3:30 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:28 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On 6/8/2020 3:13 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
 The statement of the CFJ referenced by the statement of this CFJ is "En
 la declaración anterior, transferí una moneda a Agora."
 Machine-translation by Google Translate yields "In the statement above,
 I transferred a coin to Agora.",
>>>
>>> I don't think this explores enough due to the double-usage of "coin".
>>> Specifically, An Agoran Coin is the proper name for a type of currency,
>>> not the description of its physical form.
>>>
>>> In real life, the following conversation:  "Did you pay them?"  "Yes I
>>> gave them a coin."would be ambiguous as to what was paid.  "I give you
>>> a coin - it's a peso.  I give you a second coin - it's an Agoran Coin".
>>>
>>> The machine translation clearly applies to the term as a generic coin, but
>>> doesn't clarify what kind of coin.  Furthermore, being a virtual currency,
>>> the Agoran Coin is not necessarily even "a coin" in the generic sense.
>>>
>>> (not saying your ultimate conclusion is wrong...)
>>
>>
>> I again point to the provision resolving ambiguous currency specifications
>> in favor of the official currency of Agora.
> 
> This doesn't necessarily help in this particular situation (I'll reserve
> reasons for a proto of other CFJ and leave that up to Judge Jason here,
> because the situations are slightly different and I've thought about that
> one more than this one).
> 

Oh - sorry!  On re-read, Jason's proto finds that the subject of the
Spanish-language CFJ is the transfer of a coin, but it doesn't matter
whether it's an Agoran coin or a different type of coin for the judgement
to be TRUE.  So I was imposing thoughts about my case (where the type of
coin matters more) onto this case.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3841 Assigned to Jason

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/8/2020 3:30 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:28 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On 6/8/2020 3:13 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> The statement of the CFJ referenced by the statement of this CFJ is "En
>>> la declaración anterior, transferí una moneda a Agora."
>>> Machine-translation by Google Translate yields "In the statement above,
>>> I transferred a coin to Agora.",
>>
>> I don't think this explores enough due to the double-usage of "coin".
>> Specifically, An Agoran Coin is the proper name for a type of currency,
>> not the description of its physical form.
>>
>> In real life, the following conversation:  "Did you pay them?"  "Yes I
>> gave them a coin."would be ambiguous as to what was paid.  "I give you
>> a coin - it's a peso.  I give you a second coin - it's an Agoran Coin".
>>
>> The machine translation clearly applies to the term as a generic coin, but
>> doesn't clarify what kind of coin.  Furthermore, being a virtual currency,
>> the Agoran Coin is not necessarily even "a coin" in the generic sense.
>>
>> (not saying your ultimate conclusion is wrong...)
> 
> 
> I again point to the provision resolving ambiguous currency specifications
> in favor of the official currency of Agora.

This doesn't necessarily help in this particular situation (I'll reserve
reasons for a proto of other CFJ and leave that up to Judge Jason here,
because the situations are slightly different and I've thought about that
one more than this one).

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3841 Assigned to Jason

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:28 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> On 6/8/2020 3:13 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> > The statement of the CFJ referenced by the statement of this CFJ is "En
> > la declaración anterior, transferí una moneda a Agora."
> > Machine-translation by Google Translate yields "In the statement above,
> > I transferred a coin to Agora.",
>
> I don't think this explores enough due to the double-usage of "coin".
> Specifically, An Agoran Coin is the proper name for a type of currency,
> not the description of its physical form.
>
> In real life, the following conversation:  "Did you pay them?"  "Yes I
> gave them a coin."would be ambiguous as to what was paid.  "I give you
> a coin - it's a peso.  I give you a second coin - it's an Agoran Coin".
>
> The machine translation clearly applies to the term as a generic coin, but
> doesn't clarify what kind of coin.  Furthermore, being a virtual currency,
> the Agoran Coin is not necessarily even "a coin" in the generic sense.
>
> (not saying your ultimate conclusion is wrong...)


I again point to the provision resolving ambiguous currency specifications
in favor of the official currency of Agora.

-Aris

>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3841 Assigned to Jason

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/8/2020 3:13 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> The statement of the CFJ referenced by the statement of this CFJ is "En
> la declaración anterior, transferí una moneda a Agora."
> Machine-translation by Google Translate yields "In the statement above,
> I transferred a coin to Agora.", 

I don't think this explores enough due to the double-usage of "coin".
Specifically, An Agoran Coin is the proper name for a type of currency,
not the description of its physical form.

In real life, the following conversation:  "Did you pay them?"  "Yes I
gave them a coin."would be ambiguous as to what was paid.  "I give you
a coin - it's a peso.  I give you a second coin - it's an Agoran Coin".

The machine translation clearly applies to the term as a generic coin, but
doesn't clarify what kind of coin.  Furthermore, being a virtual currency,
the Agoran Coin is not necessarily even "a coin" in the generic sense.

(not saying your ultimate conclusion is wrong...)

-G.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3841 Assigned to Jason

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/7/20 1:29 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:
> The below CFJ is 3841.  I assign it to Jason.
>
> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3841
>
> ===  CFJ 3841  ===
>
>   In the above statement, I issued a Call for Judgement on whether I
>   transferred a coin to Agora in the statement preceding that one.
>
> ==


Draft judgement in CFJ 3841:

The evaluation of this statement requires two questions to be answered:

1. Did the caller (ATMunn) "issue" a Call for Judgement in the
referenced statement?

2. If so, is that Call for Judgement "on whether [e] transferred a coin
to Agora in the statement preceding" the statement in which e issued
that Call for Judgement.


In answer to the first question, I find that ATMunn did "issue" a CFJ in
the referenced statement. The minor wording difference between eir
"issue" and Rule 991/31's "initiate" is not significant - nobody would
bat an eye at a player saying "I issue a CFJ...". Second, the acronym
"CFJ" followed by a statement is commonly accepted to initiate a CFJ.
Rule 991 states that this is a by-announcement action, and Rule 478/38
sets a standard of "clearly specifying the action and announcing that e
performs it" for by-announcement actions. The caller's statement clearly
meets this standard, and the fact that the statement of the created CFJ
is in a foreign language is irrelevant by CFJ 3435 [0].

Now I move to the second question, which is likely the more significant
issue in this case. CFJ 3536 [1] used machine-translation to translate a
CFJ statement into a foreign language, and judged it DISMISS based on
the fact that the translated meaning of the statement was ill-formed,
rather than the statement itself being in a foreign language. This
implies that judges are permitted to inspect the platonic meaning of the
statement of a CFJ in a foreign language. As such, I will do so here.

The statement of the CFJ referenced by the statement of this CFJ is "En
la declaración anterior, transferí una moneda a Agora."
Machine-translation by Google Translate yields "In the statement above,
I transferred a coin to Agora.", which is abundantly clear, and is
confirmed by discussion on the mailing lists and my rudimentary Spanish
knowledge. Having determined unambiguously the meaning of the statement
of the previous CFJ, and finding it consistent with being "on whether
[the caller] transferred a coin to Agora" in the preceding CFJ, I find TRUE.


[0]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3535

[1]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3536

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: [CFJ] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer opens a humble agoran occult shop

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/8/20 4:51 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> 1 seems unconvincing. The NAX now requires simple majority for 
> amendments (meaning not all members need to publicly consent to the next 
> change), and I think everyone would accept that that mechanism works 
> because all members consented to the mechanism.
>

Sure. Only one of the conditions for consent in Rule 2519 has to be met.
A contract with an explicit amendment mechanism likely falls under
condition 2 or condition 4, but I don't think it falls under condition 1.

My reading of condition 1 is that the person had to explicitly consent
to that specific change, but a failure to do that doesn't necessarily
preclude the other conditions from saying e consented.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: [CFJ] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer opens a humble agoran occult shop

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/8/20 2:37 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> Rule 1742 reads: "A contract may be modified, including by changing the
> set of parties, with the consent of all existing parties."
>
> I don't believe CuddleBeam has consented to the amendment of this contract:
>
> 1. E has not publicly stated that e consented to its amendment at all
>
> 2. E is not party to a contract that states e consents to it.
>
> 3. E has created no promises.
>
> 4. It is likely that, even if the contract is a scam, CuddleBeam would
> prefer it to remain that way - even if e wanted it to be amended, it is
> certainly not "reasonably clear from context" that e wanted it to be.
>
> I argue for FALSE: e has not consented to the modification of the
> contract, so it has not been modified.

(I'm still setting thunderbird up so bear with any irregularities)

I find 4 the most convincing here. It's ambiguous whether the Scam 
Banishing Ritual can amend the contract, and it doesn't seem like CB 
intended it to. If the item was explicitly defined as being able to 
amend the contract, then I think it would do so without CB saying e 
directly consents to that because e would have consented to the contract 
that created the mechanism.

1 seems unconvincing. The NAX now requires simple majority for 
amendments (meaning not all members need to publicly consent to the next 
change), and I think everyone would accept that that mechanism works 
because all members consented to the mechanism.

Re: [CFJ] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer opens a humble agoran occult shop

[ATMunn via agora-discussion]

Gratuitous: the term "scam" isn't defined anywhere in the rules, nor in 
this contract. CuddleBeam can claim eir contract has fewer scams all e 
wants, but it won't change the text of the contract. FALSE, or possibly 
IRRELEVANT.


On 6/8/2020 2:23 PM, James Cook via agora-business wrote:

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 17:59, Cuddle Beam via agora-business
 wrote:

Alright, I Fulfill the Spell! Here we go!

 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈
EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA
暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈

AGORA SPIRIT OF THE GAME, I CALL UPON THEE, LISTEN TO ME EXCLAIM!!

 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈
EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA
暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈

SCAMS BEGONE FROM THIS PLACE, I BANISH THEE TO THE DARK NETHER FROM THE
WHICH YOU CAME!!

 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈
EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA EYA
暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈 暈

SCAMS BE GONE AND NEVER COME BACK, BURN FOREVER, DEPART WITH THIS FLAME!


WOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOO - BOOOSHA!




The ritual has been completed.
The scams have been banished from THE MYSTICAL MENAGERIE.

But, be careful, they may return. (In which case I recommend you buy more
banishment rituals).

Thank you for your patronage!



CFJ: In the message quoted above, Cuddle Beam altered the part of eir
MYSTICAL MENAGERIE contract describing "Scam Banishment Ritual" (where
for this purpose, deleting that section or destroying the whole contract
count as altering that part).


Arguments:

It is plain for anyone to see that the Scam Banishment Ritual is a scam.
Here I've quoted relevant parts of the contract:


Any player can Purchase a Product by announcement and transferring the
price of that Product to Cuddlebeam. Doing so creates an instance of that
Product in their ownership.


...


Spells are destructible assets that can be owned by any Player. Cuddlebeam
can Fulfill a Spell by announcement along mystical actions. Once Fulfilled,
the Spell is destroyed and its mystical effects will then benefit its owner
as described. The following are the Spells, their emoji representation,
their price in coins, and their mystical abilities.

龍 Scam Banishment Ritual [30 Coins]
A powerful rite which, when applied, it will mystically remove scams
present in a certain document by purifying it of evil, serving as an extra
safeguard against any possible rule-lawyering and legal debauchery. Can be
purchased and applied multiple times to further strengthen its purifying
effect.


A few minutes ago, Cuddle Beam Fulfilled the Spell that I bought by annoucement:


Alright, I Fulfill the Spell! Here we go!


As the only party to the MYSTICAL MENAGERIE contract, Cuddle Beam has
the ability to modify the contract. Therefore, e removed the scam when e
fulfilled the spell. So it should be TRUE.

But wait! If it worked, then it wasn't a scam after all! So, eir action
should not have affected it. So it should be FALSE.

But if it didn't do anything, we're back where we started: it's a scam
that doesn't actually have the power to purge all scams. So, again,
TRUE.

In conclusion, this should be judged PARADOXICAL.


- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer opens a humble agoran occult shop

[Nch via agora-discussion]

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, June 8, 2020 2:58 PM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business 
 wrote:

> Now, this might be unfair to Falsifan but I purchase an Inspiration
> Incense, then I inhale it.

This fails for 2 reasons. 1) you made no attempt to pay for the Inspiration 
Incense. 2) if you did, it would fail because assets can only be transferred to 
*another entity* according to R2577. You're going to have to use your own wits 
to defend this one, no mystical enhancements.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/8/2020 11:35 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> I opine that the two situations are completely different. In the "WILL"
> situation, the change would break composition. 

Lol I can be equally passionate and reasoned about WILL (mmm, wait a
minute...  ok now I can) but in lieu of a manifesto think I'm just
gonna leave this one to the voters.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 18:44, James Cook  wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 18:35, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On 6/8/2020 11:12 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:26 AM Rebecca wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > > >>> On 6/7/2020 9:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > > Amend each of Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time"), Rule 2496 ("Rewards"), and
> > > > Rule 2602 ("Glitter"), in that order, by changing the text
> > > > "in an officially timely fashion" to read "in a stately fashion".
> > > >>>
> > > >>> This is another case (like my WILL last month) that adding a word like
> > > >>> "stately" that means nothing is more confusing than "officially 
> > > >>> timely"
> > > >>> which at least contains the appropriate concepts (official and 
> > > >>> timely).
> > > >>>
> > > >>> -G.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >> Agreed, there is no concept of the passing of time whatsoever inherent
> > > in
> > > >> the phrase "stately fashion". "officially timely" is kind of gross but
> > > it's
> > > >> also something that doesn't matter enough for me to be mad about it.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, there is? From the OED, one of the definitions of stately is "Of
> > > > movement or gait: slow and dignified; deliberate, sedate". So it's
> > > > like saying, "in a sedate fashion". I could use that if people would
> > > > prefer?
> > >
> > > No, I think I'm having the same reaction to "stately" (or any other single
> > > word) that you had when I suggested replacing "CAN and SHALL" with WILL.
> > > The slight extra verbiage in "officially timely" is worth the precision,
> > > in that it ties into other rules-terms ("offices" and "timely fashion").
> >
> >
> > I opine that the two situations are completely different. In the "WILL"
> > situation, the change would break composition. It's pretty obvious what CAN
> > means, and pretty obvious what SHALL means, and pretty obvious what they
> > mean when you use them together, but when you introduce the term "WILL"
> > that gets hidden.
> >
> > By contrast, let's look at the difference between "officially timely" and
> > "timely". Looking at those terms, I have absolutely no clue what the
> > difference is. The word "officially" adds nothing, apart from the idea that
> > it applies to offices. But it doesn't tell me if it's a shorter amount of
> > time, a longer amount of time, or the same amount of them with some other
> > implication. Plus, "timely fashion" also often applies to offices, so the
> > extra word is actively confusing without adding any meaning. You say it
> > "ties into other rules-terms", which would be great if those terms added
> > some additional meaning, but they tell a reader absolutely nothing about
> > what the term actually means.
> >
> > Now let's look at the difference between "timely" and
> > "stately/sedate/whatever". "timely" implies promptness. The other terms
> > imply less promptness. So I can surmise that if an officer had to do
> > something in a "sedate fashion", that means e has more time to do it than
> > an officer who has to do it in a "timely fashion". This would be correct.
> > So it's actually easier for an uninformed reader to understand than the
> > current phrasing, despite adding a new term.
> >
> > -Aris
>
> For what it's worth, I read "stately" as a pun meaning kind of slow
> and also state-related, and immediately liked it.
>
> Thinking about it more, I guess if someone read  "the Officiator SHALL
> transfer the Orb in a stately fashion" in isolation, it might not be
> obvious that the "in a stately fashion" has anything to do with time.
> Still, it would be nice to be able to incorporate the terminology
> somehow because it's fun and reads more smoothly.
>
> - Falsifian

Maybe "in stately time" or "within a stately interval" or "with
stately dispatch" or something like that would make it more obvious
it's got to do with time?

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 18:35, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 6/8/2020 11:12 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:26 AM Rebecca wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > >>> On 6/7/2020 9:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > Amend each of Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time"), Rule 2496 ("Rewards"), and
> > > Rule 2602 ("Glitter"), in that order, by changing the text
> > > "in an officially timely fashion" to read "in a stately fashion".
> > >>>
> > >>> This is another case (like my WILL last month) that adding a word like
> > >>> "stately" that means nothing is more confusing than "officially timely"
> > >>> which at least contains the appropriate concepts (official and timely).
> > >>>
> > >>> -G.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> Agreed, there is no concept of the passing of time whatsoever inherent
> > in
> > >> the phrase "stately fashion". "officially timely" is kind of gross but
> > it's
> > >> also something that doesn't matter enough for me to be mad about it.
> > >
> > > Yes, there is? From the OED, one of the definitions of stately is "Of
> > > movement or gait: slow and dignified; deliberate, sedate". So it's
> > > like saying, "in a sedate fashion". I could use that if people would
> > > prefer?
> >
> > No, I think I'm having the same reaction to "stately" (or any other single
> > word) that you had when I suggested replacing "CAN and SHALL" with WILL.
> > The slight extra verbiage in "officially timely" is worth the precision,
> > in that it ties into other rules-terms ("offices" and "timely fashion").
>
>
> I opine that the two situations are completely different. In the "WILL"
> situation, the change would break composition. It's pretty obvious what CAN
> means, and pretty obvious what SHALL means, and pretty obvious what they
> mean when you use them together, but when you introduce the term "WILL"
> that gets hidden.
>
> By contrast, let's look at the difference between "officially timely" and
> "timely". Looking at those terms, I have absolutely no clue what the
> difference is. The word "officially" adds nothing, apart from the idea that
> it applies to offices. But it doesn't tell me if it's a shorter amount of
> time, a longer amount of time, or the same amount of them with some other
> implication. Plus, "timely fashion" also often applies to offices, so the
> extra word is actively confusing without adding any meaning. You say it
> "ties into other rules-terms", which would be great if those terms added
> some additional meaning, but they tell a reader absolutely nothing about
> what the term actually means.
>
> Now let's look at the difference between "timely" and
> "stately/sedate/whatever". "timely" implies promptness. The other terms
> imply less promptness. So I can surmise that if an officer had to do
> something in a "sedate fashion", that means e has more time to do it than
> an officer who has to do it in a "timely fashion". This would be correct.
> So it's actually easier for an uninformed reader to understand than the
> current phrasing, despite adding a new term.
>
> -Aris

For what it's worth, I read "stately" as a pun meaning kind of slow
and also state-related, and immediately liked it.

Thinking about it more, I guess if someone read  "the Officiator SHALL
transfer the Orb in a stately fashion" in isolation, it might not be
obvious that the "in a stately fashion" has anything to do with time.
Still, it would be nice to be able to incorporate the terminology
somehow because it's fun and reads more smoothly.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-06-08 12:17, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:


On 6/8/2020 11:12 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:26 AM Rebecca wrote:

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:

On 6/7/2020 9:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

Amend each of Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time"), Rule 2496 ("Rewards"), and
Rule 2602 ("Glitter"), in that order, by changing the text
"in an officially timely fashion" to read "in a stately fashion".


This is another case (like my WILL last month) that adding a word like
"stately" that means nothing is more confusing than "officially timely"
which at least contains the appropriate concepts (official and timely).


Agreed, there is no concept of the passing of time whatsoever inherent in
the phrase "stately fashion". "officially timely" is kind of gross but it's
also something that doesn't matter enough for me to be mad about it.


Yes, there is? From the OED, one of the definitions of stately is "Of
movement or gait: slow and dignified; deliberate, sedate". So it's
like saying, "in a sedate fashion". I could use that if people would
prefer?


No, I think I'm having the same reaction to "stately" (or any other single
word) that you had when I suggested replacing "CAN and SHALL" with WILL.
The slight extra verbiage in "officially timely" is worth the precision,
in that it ties into other rules-terms ("offices" and "timely fashion").


I echo G. here; e expressed my thoughts very succinctly.

I would also like to point out that I rarely see the word "stately" 
used; let alone in the context of the definition to which you refer. 
It's an obscure definition of an uncommon word. I would argue that this 
proposal would do nothing but worsen our readability problem.


--
Trigon

Re: DIS: [Proto] Equation (equity cases)

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 2:25 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> On 6/8/20 2:12 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On 6/8/2020 10:42 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 6:12 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>> On 6/7/2020 8:42 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>  Here's my proto for generalized equity cases. I expect that there will
>  be a bunch of screaming, but it's minimalistic and leaves working out
>  the details of what equity means in practice to case law. Moots
>  provide a sufficient safeguard against abuses.
> >>> Seriously, this is overwhelming.  Please lets phase all our changes just a
> >>> wee bit.  I'll just say I'd like to be involved, and until I see how the
> >>> ruleset looks after the next couple batches I'm not in favor of these
> >>> changes (will vote against) this month.
> >>
> >> Fair enough. I have a proto now, so we can discuss again whenever.
> > I think, on reflection, that I don't think we should use the
> > judge/judicial system for equity cases directly.  I would rather create a
> > mediation process through the Notary with an inquiry (or maybe criminal)
> > case being the final recourse if that fails.
> >
> > Looking at your proto, I'm also uncomfortable expanding equity to "unfair
> > situations" in general as opposed to just contracts.  That's far too much
> > of an open-ended slippery slope for me, and far far too removed from the
> > "game nature" of Agora, as written it could apply to any minor competitive
> > advantage, unless we vastly constrain (with written text) what's meant by
> > "just, fair, and right".
> >
> > But also, we shouldn't really worry about the procedure until we greatly
> > improve (as part of the infractions reform, perhaps) how we're treating
> > contract disputes.  Right now, even the worst contract breach, the
> > offending party can just say "eh I broke a SHALL in R1742 give me a couple
> > blots, that's cheaper than keeping my end of the deal".  Was fine for very
> > simple stuff.  But now we're putting an economic value on blots, that
> > places a strict upper limit for penalties based on the maximum penalty for
> > breaking that SHALL.  Can't really build equity around that.
>
>
> This was something I had in mind when writing the proposal to allow
> people to create blots for themselves. My idea was that their would be
> some arbitration contract that authorizes acting-on-behalf to create
> blots for violations, with other contracts forcing opt-ins to the
> arbitration to be able to join. I never got around to writing up the
> arbitration contract, though.
>
> Another, potentially simpler, solution would be to expand the SHALL in
> R1742 to allow contracts to specify base values of crimes other than the
> default 2.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>

That does seem like it would be interesting. As it pertains to
enforcement of R1742, there are various sorts of discretion that the
rules provide to me that I could employ to punish appropriately when a
contract clearly intended serious punishment.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:20 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> On 6/8/2020 11:12 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:26 AM Rebecca wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>> On 6/7/2020 9:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > Amend each of Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time"), Rule 2496 ("Rewards"), and
> > Rule 2602 ("Glitter"), in that order, by changing the text
> > "in an officially timely fashion" to read "in a stately fashion".
> >>>
> >>> This is another case (like my WILL last month) that adding a word like
> >>> "stately" that means nothing is more confusing than "officially timely"
> >>> which at least contains the appropriate concepts (official and timely).
> >>>
> >>> -G.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Agreed, there is no concept of the passing of time whatsoever inherent
> in
> >> the phrase "stately fashion". "officially timely" is kind of gross but
> it's
> >> also something that doesn't matter enough for me to be mad about it.
> >
> > Yes, there is? From the OED, one of the definitions of stately is "Of
> > movement or gait: slow and dignified; deliberate, sedate". So it's
> > like saying, "in a sedate fashion". I could use that if people would
> > prefer?
>
> No, I think I'm having the same reaction to "stately" (or any other single
> word) that you had when I suggested replacing "CAN and SHALL" with WILL.
> The slight extra verbiage in "officially timely" is worth the precision,
> in that it ties into other rules-terms ("offices" and "timely fashion").


I opine that the two situations are completely different. In the "WILL"
situation, the change would break composition. It's pretty obvious what CAN
means, and pretty obvious what SHALL means, and pretty obvious what they
mean when you use them together, but when you introduce the term "WILL"
that gets hidden.

By contrast, let's look at the difference between "officially timely" and
"timely". Looking at those terms, I have absolutely no clue what the
difference is. The word "officially" adds nothing, apart from the idea that
it applies to offices. But it doesn't tell me if it's a shorter amount of
time, a longer amount of time, or the same amount of them with some other
implication. Plus, "timely fashion" also often applies to offices, so the
extra word is actively confusing without adding any meaning. You say it
"ties into other rules-terms", which would be great if those terms added
some additional meaning, but they tell a reader absolutely nothing about
what the term actually means.

Now let's look at the difference between "timely" and
"stately/sedate/whatever". "timely" implies promptness. The other terms
imply less promptness. So I can surmise that if an officer had to do
something in a "sedate fashion", that means e has more time to do it than
an officer who has to do it in a "timely fashion". This would be correct.
So it's actually easier for an uninformed reader to understand than the
current phrasing, despite adding a new term.

-Aris

>

Re: DIS: [Proto] Equation (equity cases)

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/8/20 2:12 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/8/2020 10:42 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 6:12 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2020 8:42 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
 Here's my proto for generalized equity cases. I expect that there will
 be a bunch of screaming, but it's minimalistic and leaves working out
 the details of what equity means in practice to case law. Moots
 provide a sufficient safeguard against abuses.
>>> Seriously, this is overwhelming.  Please lets phase all our changes just a
>>> wee bit.  I'll just say I'd like to be involved, and until I see how the
>>> ruleset looks after the next couple batches I'm not in favor of these
>>> changes (will vote against) this month.
>>
>> Fair enough. I have a proto now, so we can discuss again whenever.
> I think, on reflection, that I don't think we should use the
> judge/judicial system for equity cases directly.  I would rather create a
> mediation process through the Notary with an inquiry (or maybe criminal)
> case being the final recourse if that fails.
>
> Looking at your proto, I'm also uncomfortable expanding equity to "unfair
> situations" in general as opposed to just contracts.  That's far too much
> of an open-ended slippery slope for me, and far far too removed from the
> "game nature" of Agora, as written it could apply to any minor competitive
> advantage, unless we vastly constrain (with written text) what's meant by
> "just, fair, and right".
>
> But also, we shouldn't really worry about the procedure until we greatly
> improve (as part of the infractions reform, perhaps) how we're treating
> contract disputes.  Right now, even the worst contract breach, the
> offending party can just say "eh I broke a SHALL in R1742 give me a couple
> blots, that's cheaper than keeping my end of the deal".  Was fine for very
> simple stuff.  But now we're putting an economic value on blots, that
> places a strict upper limit for penalties based on the maximum penalty for
> breaking that SHALL.  Can't really build equity around that.


This was something I had in mind when writing the proposal to allow
people to create blots for themselves. My idea was that their would be
some arbitration contract that authorizes acting-on-behalf to create
blots for violations, with other contracts forcing opt-ins to the
arbitration to be able to join. I never got around to writing up the
arbitration contract, though.

Another, potentially simpler, solution would be to expand the SHALL in
R1742 to allow contracts to specify base values of crimes other than the
default 2.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/8/2020 11:12 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:26 AM Rebecca wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On 6/7/2020 9:36 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Amend each of Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time"), Rule 2496 ("Rewards"), and
> Rule 2602 ("Glitter"), in that order, by changing the text
> "in an officially timely fashion" to read "in a stately fashion".
>>>
>>> This is another case (like my WILL last month) that adding a word like
>>> "stately" that means nothing is more confusing than "officially timely"
>>> which at least contains the appropriate concepts (official and timely).
>>>
>>> -G.
>>>
>>>
>> Agreed, there is no concept of the passing of time whatsoever inherent in
>> the phrase "stately fashion". "officially timely" is kind of gross but it's
>> also something that doesn't matter enough for me to be mad about it.
> 
> Yes, there is? From the OED, one of the definitions of stately is "Of
> movement or gait: slow and dignified; deliberate, sedate". So it's
> like saying, "in a sedate fashion". I could use that if people would
> prefer?

No, I think I'm having the same reaction to "stately" (or any other single
word) that you had when I suggested replacing "CAN and SHALL" with WILL.
The slight extra verbiage in "officially timely" is worth the precision,
in that it ties into other rules-terms ("offices" and "timely fashion").

Re: DIS: [Proto] Equation (equity cases)

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/8/2020 10:42 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 6:12 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> On 6/7/2020 8:42 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>> Here's my proto for generalized equity cases. I expect that there will
>>> be a bunch of screaming, but it's minimalistic and leaves working out
>>> the details of what equity means in practice to case law. Moots
>>> provide a sufficient safeguard against abuses.
>>
>> Seriously, this is overwhelming.  Please lets phase all our changes just a
>> wee bit.  I'll just say I'd like to be involved, and until I see how the
>> ruleset looks after the next couple batches I'm not in favor of these
>> changes (will vote against) this month.
> 
> 
> Fair enough. I have a proto now, so we can discuss again whenever.

I think, on reflection, that I don't think we should use the
judge/judicial system for equity cases directly.  I would rather create a
mediation process through the Notary with an inquiry (or maybe criminal)
case being the final recourse if that fails.

Looking at your proto, I'm also uncomfortable expanding equity to "unfair
situations" in general as opposed to just contracts.  That's far too much
of an open-ended slippery slope for me, and far far too removed from the
"game nature" of Agora, as written it could apply to any minor competitive
advantage, unless we vastly constrain (with written text) what's meant by
"just, fair, and right".

But also, we shouldn't really worry about the procedure until we greatly
improve (as part of the infractions reform, perhaps) how we're treating
contract disputes.  Right now, even the worst contract breach, the
offending party can just say "eh I broke a SHALL in R1742 give me a couple
blots, that's cheaper than keeping my end of the deal".  Was fine for very
simple stuff.  But now we're putting an economic value on blots, that
places a strict upper limit for penalties based on the maximum penalty for
breaking that SHALL.  Can't really build equity around that.

>From a sheer "gaming law procedure" viewpoint, I think it would be more
interesting to have different officers in charge of the different types of
cases (Referee, Notary, Arbitor), rather than having them all be part of
the same CFJ ID series, because you could get some interesting
jurisdictional disputes that way and if this persists over time, have
diverging "traditions" between the offices.

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 7:26 AM Rebecca via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 6/7/2020 9:36 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> > >> Amend each of Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time"), Rule 2496 ("Rewards"), and
> > >> Rule 2602 ("Glitter"), in that order, by changing the text
> > >> "in an officially timely fashion" to read "in a stately fashion".
> >
> > This is another case (like my WILL last month) that adding a word like
> > "stately" that means nothing is more confusing than "officially timely"
> > which at least contains the appropriate concepts (official and timely).
> >
> > -G.
> >
> >
> Agreed, there is no concept of the passing of time whatsoever inherent in
> the phrase "stately fashion". "officially timely" is kind of gross but it's
> also something that doesn't matter enough for me to be mad about it.

Yes, there is? From the OED, one of the definitions of stately is "Of
movement or gait: slow and dignified; deliberate, sedate". So it's
like saying, "in a sedate fashion". I could use that if people would
prefer?

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer opens a humble agoran occult shop

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 1:54 PM nch via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> On Monday, June 8, 2020 11:51:09 AM CDT you wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:47 PM nch via agora-discussion
> >
> >  wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 8, 2020 10:27:52 AM CDT Cuddle Beam via agora-business
> wrote:
> > > > Any player can Purchase a Product by announcement and transferring the
> > > > price of that Product to Cuddlebeam. Doing so creates an instance of
> > > > that
> > > > Product in their ownership.
> > >
> > > Products aren't rule defined yet. I'm not sure these are assets.
> > >
> > > --
> > > nch
> >
> >   The rules collectively have Mint Authority. Contracts have Mint
> >   Authority. An asset defined by rule or regulation is public; one
> >   defined by a contract is private.
>
> Nothing here calls anything an asset. I'm not questioning whether e can make
> assets, I'm questioning whether e did.
>
> --
> nch
>
>
>
On 6/8/2020 8:27 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> A Mystical Item is a destructible asset that can be owned by any Player.
> Spells are destructible assets that can be owned by any Player.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer opens a humble agoran occult shop

[nch via agora-discussion]

On Monday, June 8, 2020 12:54:00 PM CDT nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Monday, June 8, 2020 11:51:09 AM CDT you wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:47 PM nch via agora-discussion
> > 
> >  wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 8, 2020 10:27:52 AM CDT Cuddle Beam via agora-business
> 
> wrote:
> > > > Any player can Purchase a Product by announcement and transferring the
> > > > price of that Product to Cuddlebeam. Doing so creates an instance of
> > > > that
> > > > Product in their ownership.
> > > 
> > > Products aren't rule defined yet. I'm not sure these are assets.
> > > 
> > > --
> > > nch
> > > 
> >   The rules collectively have Mint Authority. Contracts have Mint
> >   Authority. An asset defined by rule or regulation is public; one
> >   defined by a contract is private.
> 
> Nothing here calls anything an asset. I'm not questioning whether e can make
> assets, I'm questioning whether e did.
> 
> --
> nch

Oh, I just straight up missed the definition later down in the contract. 
Nevermind.

-- 
nch

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer opens a humble agoran occult shop

[nch via agora-discussion]

On Monday, June 8, 2020 11:51:09 AM CDT you wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:47 PM nch via agora-discussion
> 
>  wrote:
> > On Monday, June 8, 2020 10:27:52 AM CDT Cuddle Beam via agora-business 
wrote:
> > > Any player can Purchase a Product by announcement and transferring the
> > > price of that Product to Cuddlebeam. Doing so creates an instance of
> > > that
> > > Product in their ownership.
> > 
> > Products aren't rule defined yet. I'm not sure these are assets.
> > 
> > --
> > nch
> 
>   The rules collectively have Mint Authority. Contracts have Mint
>   Authority. An asset defined by rule or regulation is public; one
>   defined by a contract is private.

Nothing here calls anything an asset. I'm not questioning whether e can make 
assets, I'm questioning whether e did.

-- 
nch

Re: DIS: [Proto] Interested Proposals Redux

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:04 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion  wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:01 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
> >
> > Here's another step towards solving the proposal rewards problem. Let
> > me know what you all think.
> >
> > -Aris
> > ---
> > Title: Interested Proposals Redux
> > Adoption index: 2.0
> > Author: Aris
> > Co-authors: Murphy, Ørjan, nch
> >
> >
> > [I know the overlap with office interest is a little confusing, but this
> > is traditional. If we have to change one, I'd prefer it be office
> interest.]
> >
> > Create a rule titled "Interested Proposals" with this text:
> >
> >   Interestedness is an untracked proposal switch with values
> >   "disinterested" and "interested" (default). The author of a
> >   proposal CAN flip its Interestedness to disinterested
> >   by announcement.
> >
> >  Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing this text:
> >   * Being the author of an adopted proposal:
> >  with this text:
> >   * Being the author of a proposal that was interested when
> >   adopted:
> >
> > If there is a rule entitled "Certifiable Patches", amend it by
> > appending to the first paragraph:
> >
> >   When a proposal is pended by this method, it becomes disinterested.
>
> I like the idea, but my concern is that Certifiable Patches allows
> people other than the author to use it to pend, and I feel as if that
> would be unfair to the author unless there is some way for them to
> flip it back to interested, such as by paying the pending cost;
> however, to implement such a mechanism would increase the tracking
> load for those proposals because we would have to also track whether
> it had been paid.
>
I thought of that. The simple answer is for the author to pend when e
submits the proposal, request that no one certify the proposal when e
submits it, or retract and resubmit after it's certified. Further
mechanical handling doesn't seem necessary?

-Aris

Re: DIS: [Proto] Equation (equity cases)

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 6:12 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> On 6/7/2020 8:42 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Here's my proto for generalized equity cases. I expect that there will
> > be a bunch of screaming, but it's minimalistic and leaves working out
> > the details of what equity means in practice to case law. Moots
> > provide a sufficient safeguard against abuses.
>
> Seriously, this is overwhelming.  Please lets phase all our changes just a
> wee bit.  I'll just say I'd like to be involved, and until I see how the
> ruleset looks after the next couple batches I'm not in favor of these
> changes (will vote against) this month.


Fair enough. I have a proto now, so we can discuss again whenever.

-Aris

>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer opens a humble agoran occult shop

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/8/2020 9:47 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Monday, June 8, 2020 10:27:52 AM CDT Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
>> Any player can Purchase a Product by announcement and transferring the
>> price of that Product to Cuddlebeam. Doing so creates an instance of that
>> Product in their ownership.
> 
> Products aren't rule defined yet. I'm not sure these are assets.
> 

I sniff [0] my  and now feel smart enough to say you're wrong, there's
one right here--^

[0] but I didn't inhale.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer opens a humble agoran occult shop

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:47 PM nch via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> On Monday, June 8, 2020 10:27:52 AM CDT Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> > Any player can Purchase a Product by announcement and transferring the
> > price of that Product to Cuddlebeam. Doing so creates an instance of that
> > Product in their ownership.
>
> Products aren't rule defined yet. I'm not sure these are assets.
>
> --
> nch
>
>
>

  The rules collectively have Mint Authority. Contracts have Mint
  Authority. An asset defined by rule or regulation is public; one
  defined by a contract is private.

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer opens a humble agoran occult shop

[nch via agora-discussion]

On Monday, June 8, 2020 10:27:52 AM CDT Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> Any player can Purchase a Product by announcement and transferring the
> price of that Product to Cuddlebeam. Doing so creates an instance of that
> Product in their ownership.

Products aren't rule defined yet. I'm not sure these are assets.

-- 
nch

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer opens a humble agoran occult shop

[ATMunn via agora-discussion]

Loophole: I think that if I were to purchase and use a 龍 Scam 
Banishment Ritual, this whole contract would disappear...


On 6/8/2020 11:27 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:

I create the following Contract titled "The Mystical Menagerie":

.:*~*【THE MYSTICAL MENAGERIE】*~*:.
- humble agoran occult shop -

Any player can Purchase a Product by announcement and transferring the
price of that Product to Cuddlebeam. Doing so creates an instance of that
Product in their ownership.

Mystical Items and Spells are Products. The effects they deliver are
mystical in nature. Cuddlebeam is the only party to this Contract.

MYSTICAL ITEMS:
A Mystical Item is a destructible asset that can be owned by any Player.
The following are the Mystical Items, their emoji representation, their
price in coins, and their mystical abilities.

Scam Protection Charm [5 Coins]
This powerful seal inscribed by ancient monks contains a powerful astral
spell that will protect yourself and your assets from all scams.

Pendant of Proposalling [5 Coins]
An amulet made out of beads, each with a 'FOR' magically written on them in
an arcane language, it will improve your changes of your Proposals gaining
FORs and lessen the chance of AGAINSTs.

Crystal of Fortune [5 Coins]
A rare mystical mineral which has been distilled from the very essence of
past agoran economic systems, legend has it that you can see the rules of
them in its reflection. Its mystical power will increase your overall coin
gains.

Incense of Insight [5 Coins]
Leaves from a special humble agoran plant which has been watered with the
sweat of the brow of Judges, these powerful and entirely bio-friendly
artifacts will exude a constant, mystical, abstract, platonic odor which
will improve the chances that your arguments strike true and it may even
increase your IQ. A Player who owns this item can Inhale it by
announcement, which destroys it and produces its mystical effects upon
themselves.

[More to come]


SPELLS:
Spells are destructible assets that can be owned by any Player. Cuddlebeam
can Fulfill a Spell by announcement along mystical actions. Once Fulfilled,
the Spell is destroyed and its mystical effects will then benefit its owner
as described. The following are the Spells, their emoji representation,
their price in coins, and their mystical abilities.

龍 Scam Banishment Ritual [30 Coins]
A powerful rite which, when applied, it will mystically remove scams
present in a certain document by purifying it of evil, serving as an extra
safeguard against any possible rule-lawyering and legal debauchery. Can be
purchased and applied multiple times to further strengthen its purifying
effect.

 Powerful Dance (General Blessing) [50 Coins]
By the power of dancing a powerful dance, a certain document or action is
mystically empowered with positive energy to have more possibilities to
have a positive effect for you.

 Scam Summoning Ritual [not for sale]
(FORBIDDEN, UNAVAILABLE)

[More to come]

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer opens a humble agoran occult shop

[Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion]

Oh my first customer! Thank you so much G!!! Please, enjoy your Incense of
Insight and please come again to the Mystical Menagerie for all of your
Agoran occult needs!

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 5:44 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> Oh I need this in my life I transfer 5 coins to Cuddlebeam to buy a
> portion of .
>
>
> On 6/8/2020 8:27 AM, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote:
> > I create the following Contract titled "The Mystical Menagerie":
> >
> > .:*~*【THE MYSTICAL MENAGERIE】*~*:.
> > - humble agoran occult shop -
> >
> > Any player can Purchase a Product by announcement and transferring the
> > price of that Product to Cuddlebeam. Doing so creates an instance of that
> > Product in their ownership.
> >
> > Mystical Items and Spells are Products. The effects they deliver are
> > mystical in nature. Cuddlebeam is the only party to this Contract.
> >
> > MYSTICAL ITEMS:
> > A Mystical Item is a destructible asset that can be owned by any Player.
> > The following are the Mystical Items, their emoji representation, their
> > price in coins, and their mystical abilities.
> >
> > Scam Protection Charm [5 Coins]
> > This powerful seal inscribed by ancient monks contains a powerful astral
> > spell that will protect yourself and your assets from all scams.
> >
> > Pendant of Proposalling [5 Coins]
> > An amulet made out of beads, each with a 'FOR' magically written on them
> in
> > an arcane language, it will improve your changes of your Proposals
> gaining
> > FORs and lessen the chance of AGAINSTs.
> >
> > Crystal of Fortune [5 Coins]
> > A rare mystical mineral which has been distilled from the very essence of
> > past agoran economic systems, legend has it that you can see the rules of
> > them in its reflection. Its mystical power will increase your overall
> coin
> > gains.
> >
> > Incense of Insight [5 Coins]
> > Leaves from a special humble agoran plant which has been watered with the
> > sweat of the brow of Judges, these powerful and entirely bio-friendly
> > artifacts will exude a constant, mystical, abstract, platonic odor which
> > will improve the chances that your arguments strike true and it may even
> > increase your IQ. A Player who owns this item can Inhale it by
> > announcement, which destroys it and produces its mystical effects upon
> > themselves.
> >
> > [More to come]
> >
> >
> > SPELLS:
> > Spells are destructible assets that can be owned by any Player.
> Cuddlebeam
> > can Fulfill a Spell by announcement along mystical actions. Once
> Fulfilled,
> > the Spell is destroyed and its mystical effects will then benefit its
> owner
> > as described. The following are the Spells, their emoji representation,
> > their price in coins, and their mystical abilities.
> >
> > 龍 Scam Banishment Ritual [30 Coins]
> > A powerful rite which, when applied, it will mystically remove scams
> > present in a certain document by purifying it of evil, serving as an
> extra
> > safeguard against any possible rule-lawyering and legal debauchery. Can
> be
> > purchased and applied multiple times to further strengthen its purifying
> > effect.
> >
> >  Powerful Dance (General Blessing) [50 Coins]
> > By the power of dancing a powerful dance, a certain document or action is
> > mystically empowered with positive energy to have more possibilities to
> > have a positive effect for you.
> >
> >  Scam Summoning Ritual [not for sale]
> > (FORBIDDEN, UNAVAILABLE)
> >
> > [More to come]
> >
>

DIS: Re: BUS: [Dragon President] State of the Dragon

[Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion]

What is a dragon without its hoard of MAGIC crystals? Hello, I'm
Cuddlebeam, owner of the Mystical Menagerie, humble agoran occult shop.

Dragons, the market is a competitive, ruthless place - but with the help of
the supernatural, you'll surely have the edge that will allow you to come
out on top! I offer to you one of my star products: the Crystal of
Fortune,it's a truely unique and special kind of abstract gamestate.
Through its mystical powers, it will INCREASE the possibilities for you to
earn even MORE coins? And I know that you businesspeople know a good
bargain when you see one, so feast your eyes on this: it only, ONLY costs 5
coins. Now if that's not an amazing deal I don't know what is. Long-term,
reliably mystical good luck for all of your business endeavours, truely a
must-have for any agoran entrepreneur.

Oh, you'd like to know more about my products? I even do spells too, and
always at an affordable price - check that out and more at.:*~*【THE
MYSTICAL MENAGERIE】*~*:.! Come on over!

On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 5:54 AM Aris Merchant via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Sets looks to be passing, which means that the Dragon Corporation will
> soon be in a position to achieve world domina-- erm, I mean achieve
> healthy profits by providing excellent service to the community. A
> private shareholders' meeting will soon begin where I can share my
> plans with the membership. I assure everyone we will be benevolent
> overloar--, uhhhm, community members.
>
> [Also, no one actually panic; what I have planned is really in the
> excellent service direction rather than the world domination
> direction. For now.]
>
> Owner  Shares  Bonds  Banknotes
> -  --  -  -
> Aris   20  0  0
> Falsifian  18  0  0
> Jason  11  0  0
>
>
> History of DRGN shares (not self-ratifying):
> Mar 01 2020 23:13: Warrigal purchased 3 shares of DRGN and became
> president.
> Mar 10 2020 01: Jason purchased 3 shares of DRGN.
> Mar 21 2020 01:53: Warrigal sold 1 share of DRGN, causing Jason to
> become president.
> Apr 23 2020 02:04: Warrigal's 2 shares of DRGN are destroyed as e
> deregisters.
> May 14 2020 21:15: Aris purchased 2 shares of DRGN.
> May 17 2020 03:46: Falsifian purchased 18 shares of DRGN and became
> president.
> May 19 2020 15:50: Jason purchased 9 shares of DRGN.
> May 27 2020 15:06: Aris purchased 18 shares of DRGN and became president.
>

Re: DIS: help out a friend

[ATMunn via agora-discussion]

Thank you! Much appreciated.

On 6/8/2020 11:34 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:

On 6/8/20 11:30 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:

As I will soon be elected Notary, I have already begun the process of
working on my report. I think I have gotten all changes since the last
Notary report; however, if someone buried a pledge in a random thread, I
have missed it. If any such pledges were made, could someone please
bring them to my attention? :)



I made one at [0].

[0]:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043039.html

Re: DIS: help out a friend

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/8/20 11:30 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:
> As I will soon be elected Notary, I have already begun the process of 
> working on my report. I think I have gotten all changes since the last 
> Notary report; however, if someone buried a pledge in a random thread, I 
> have missed it. If any such pledges were made, could someone please 
> bring them to my attention? :)


I one at [0].

[0]:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043039.html

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: help out a friend

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/8/20 11:30 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:
> As I will soon be elected Notary, I have already begun the process of 
> working on my report. I think I have gotten all changes since the last 
> Notary report; however, if someone buried a pledge in a random thread, I 
> have missed it. If any such pledges were made, could someone please 
> bring them to my attention? :)


I made one at [0].

[0]:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043039.html

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: [Proto] Judicial Diversification

[Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion]

Hi Aris, have you ever considered the blessings of the mysterious and
supernatural? I highly recommend a*Scam Protection Charm* (for only 5
coins!) - it has powerful astral magic in it, I'm sure you can feel it too
- to protect this future Proposal from any scams that may befall it. That's
not all, if you'd like to be extra prepared, I can even perform a *Scam
Banishment Ritual *(for only 30 coins!) to further cleanse it of any evil
that might have snuck into it.

If you're interested in more, feel free to check out the .:*~*【THE MYSTICAL
MENAGERIE】*~*:. for all of your Agoran occult needs

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:09 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> On 6/7/2020 8:29 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Anyhow, I retract "Judicial Diversification", but I'd still like to
> > get it in before the economic changeover.
>
> Speaking as Arbitor, can we not rush this one?  Lots is changing now and
> don't want to hurry just to save a pend.
>
> -G.
>
>

DIS: help out a friend

[ATMunn via agora-discussion]

As I will soon be elected Notary, I have already begun the process of 
working on my report. I think I have gotten all changes since the last 
Notary report; however, if someone buried a pledge in a random thread, I 
have missed it. If any such pledges were made, could someone please 
bring them to my attention? :)

DIS: court restructuring - in phases

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

I'm not at all convinced, at the moment, that diversification of CFJ types
is the way to go for some of these types of game controversy.

For equity cases, what about trying Notary-run mediation instead of court
cases?  The 2008-12 era of equity was through the courts.  One thing is
that, at the time, the court procedure tended to get in the way of finding
mediated compromise solutions.  If the Notary leads the procedure with a
focus on mediation, it could be a better system.

For criminal cases, we'd probably want some kind of "judicial" procedure
for crimes, but it might be referee-led?

We might also want to make it so equity/criminal cases don't really "set
precedent", if there's a matter of law it should be moved over to the
Inquiry side.

An Appeals court could still be a usful umbrella check on all the
adjudication types.

Can we phase these ideas a bit (by which I mean, actually adopt and
implement each step before doing the next)?  I think we should start by
the reclassification of infractions/crimes - the language we use there
(especially in terms of what kinds of violations are 'ok' to commit) will
affect the tone of what comes after.  (We're not necessarily "upping"
penalties from what exists now as we do this, so the referee can still
function as e does now, following reclassification).

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [NAX] Improved Amendment Procedures

[ATMunn via agora-discussion]

I use Thunderbird personally and I know several other Agorans do as 
well, so I would definitely recommend it.


On 6/7/2020 10:31 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:

On Sunday, June 7, 2020 9:26:22 PM CDT Nch via agora-business wrote:

Test message, please ignore. Sorry about sending something unnecessary to
a-b, but not entirely sure how to test this problem otherwise. This was
sent from protonmail's web client to see if it would still happen here.


This one has the correct in-reply-to, so it looks like kmail is the culprit. I
don't see any settings or discussion threads online for this (admittedly very
niche) issue. I might look into using thunderbird or another client.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation

[Rebecca via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:14 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

>
> On 6/7/2020 9:36 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> >> Amend each of Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time"), Rule 2496 ("Rewards"), and
> >> Rule 2602 ("Glitter"), in that order, by changing the text
> >> "in an officially timely fashion" to read "in a stately fashion".
>
> This is another case (like my WILL last month) that adding a word like
> "stately" that means nothing is more confusing than "officially timely"
> which at least contains the appropriate concepts (official and timely).
>
> -G.
>
>
Agreed, there is no concept of the passing of time whatsoever inherent in
the phrase "stately fashion". "officially timely" is kind of gross but it's
also something that doesn't matter enough for me to be mad about it.
-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: [Discussion] Criminal Cases

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/8/2020 12:16 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> Would you like to see criminal cases decided by judges again? Why or why
> not? Discussion and debate are welcome.

If you're asking my preference, no (as the rules are written now), and
maybe (AFTER we've actually implemented - i.e. adopted - the split between
crimes and infractions).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Stately Officiation

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/7/2020 9:36 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
>> Amend each of Rule 1023 ("Agoran Time"), Rule 2496 ("Rewards"), and
>> Rule 2602 ("Glitter"), in that order, by changing the text
>> "in an officially timely fashion" to read "in a stately fashion".

This is another case (like my WILL last month) that adding a word like
"stately" that means nothing is more confusing than "officially timely"
which at least contains the appropriate concepts (official and timely).

-G.

Re: DIS: [Proto] Equation (equity cases)

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/7/2020 8:42 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> Here's my proto for generalized equity cases. I expect that there will
> be a bunch of screaming, but it's minimalistic and leaves working out
> the details of what equity means in practice to case law. Moots
> provide a sufficient safeguard against abuses.

Seriously, this is overwhelming.  Please lets phase all our changes just a
wee bit.  I'll just say I'd like to be involved, and until I see how the
ruleset looks after the next couple batches I'm not in favor of these
changes (will vote against) this month.

Re: DIS: [Proto] Judicial Diversification

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/7/2020 8:29 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> Anyhow, I retract "Judicial Diversification", but I'd still like to
> get it in before the economic changeover.

Speaking as Arbitor, can we not rush this one?  Lots is changing now and
don't want to hurry just to save a pend.

-G.

Re: DIS: [Proto] Interested Proposals Redux

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:01 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> Here's another step towards solving the proposal rewards problem. Let
> me know what you all think.
>
> -Aris
> ---
> Title: Interested Proposals Redux
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors: Murphy, Ørjan, nch
>
>
> [I know the overlap with office interest is a little confusing, but this
> is traditional. If we have to change one, I'd prefer it be office interest.]
>
> Create a rule titled "Interested Proposals" with this text:
>
>   Interestedness is an untracked proposal switch with values
>   "disinterested" and "interested" (default). The author of a
>   proposal CAN flip its Interestedness to disinterested
>   by announcement.
>
>  Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing this text:
>   * Being the author of an adopted proposal:
>  with this text:
>   * Being the author of a proposal that was interested when
>   adopted:
>
> If there is a rule entitled "Certifiable Patches", amend it by
> appending to the first paragraph:
>
>   When a proposal is pended by this method, it becomes disinterested.

I like the idea, but my concern is that Certifiable Patches allows
people other than the author to use it to pend, and I feel as if that
would be unfair to the author unless there is some way for them to
flip it back to interested, such as by paying the pending cost;
however, to implement such a mechanism would increase the tracking
load for those proposals because we would have to also track whether
it had been paid.

Re: DIS: [Discussion] Criminal Cases

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:16 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> Would you like to see criminal cases decided by judges again? Why or why
> not? Discussion and debate are welcome.
>
> -Aris

I've been thinking about this as I've been working on the reform of
crimes, and I think that we shouldn't go back to judicial criminal
cases right now. I think that low-level things should always be dealt
with by an officer because otherwise the burden of management is too
great, and we've just enacted an interesting mechanism for dealing
with higher level things.

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Election Initiations

[Rebecca via agora-discussion]

(nch, i would remind you that you should become a candidate for webmastor)

On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 8:13 PM Rebecca via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I, the ADoP, initiate elections for the interim offices of ADoP and
> Webmastor. I become a candidate for ADoP.
>
> --
> From R. Lee
>


-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: [Discussion] Criminal Cases

[Rebecca via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 5:17 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Would you like to see criminal cases decided by judges again? Why or why
> not? Discussion and debate are welcome.
>
> -Aris
>
Nope! An elected referee with a high level of discretion and also the added
bonus of democratic election/legitimacy will lead to more consistent
outcomes than ad hoc judges.

-- 
>From R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8409-8430

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 12:07 AM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 3:34 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
> agora-business  wrote:
> >
> > FOR; Aris, I think there is an error here because the Adoption index
> > is listed differently below than here.
>
> I'm inclined to think this totally broke the distribution, but someone
> can let me know if they disagree. I'm going to adopt some boilerplate
> that makes it harder for this to happen again in the future.


Just to make it (probably unnecessarily) clear, I mean the distribution of
that proposal, not the whole set of them.

-Aris

>
>

DIS: [Discussion] Criminal Cases

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

Would you like to see criminal cases decided by judges again? Why or why
not? Discussion and debate are welcome.

-Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8409-8430

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 3:34 AM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-business  wrote:
>
> FOR; Aris, I think there is an error here because the Adoption index
> is listed differently below than here.

I'm inclined to think this totally broke the distribution, but someone
can let me know if they disagree. I'm going to adopt some boilerplate
that makes it harder for this to happen again in the future.

-Aris

DIS: [Proto] Interested Proposals Redux

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

Here's another step towards solving the proposal rewards problem. Let
me know what you all think.

-Aris
---
Title: Interested Proposals Redux
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: Murphy, Ørjan, nch


[I know the overlap with office interest is a little confusing, but this
is traditional. If we have to change one, I'd prefer it be office interest.]

Create a rule titled "Interested Proposals" with this text:

  Interestedness is an untracked proposal switch with values
  "disinterested" and "interested" (default). The author of a
  proposal CAN flip its Interestedness to disinterested
  by announcement.

 Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing this text:
  * Being the author of an adopted proposal:
 with this text:
  * Being the author of a proposal that was interested when
  adopted:

If there is a rule entitled "Certifiable Patches", amend it by
appending to the first paragraph:

  When a proposal is pended by this method, it becomes disinterested.