Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On Wednesday, 10 June 2020, 02:04:58 GMT+1, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > What follows is a proto-contract to provide independent dispute > resolution for alleged contract violations. Like arbitration often is in > the real world, this can be unfair and biased, and it lacks an appeals > mechanism. On the bright side, this allows specifying penalties other > than the Class-2 crime in the rules and it might take some workload off > of the referee. > > I'm wondering two things: do people like this idea and would they > actually consider using this in their contracts? This general idea strikes me as a great way to do equity; it doesn't have to be in the rules at all, a contract can define it just fine. Perhaps we could even have two competing arbitration associations, one for "here, have X blots" rapid-fire justice, one for "something went wrong, here's how we're fixing it" more equitable justice. In general I'm in favour of having major gameplay mechanics in contracts rather than in the rules, if it allows the rules to be shorter and simpler; that way, players don't have to "opt in" to all the gameplay mechanics at once, but rather only those that they're interested in. (I was planning a fairly radical reform along those lines a long time ago, but never got around to it because I couldn't make it work; this implies a way to make it work.) Potentially radical idea (but only once we've got started with Cards, don't want two major reforms at once!): replace all the contract/promise/pledgy things with a contract-like thing which allows acting on behalf but does not place SHALL requirements. Then define promises, pledges, regular contracts, etc. in using the new contract-like thing. (Possibly for the far future: make the economy work like that, too. The issue here is in tying the economy back to things like proposals and voting power (including Blot penalties) and wins.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On 6/9/20 9:35 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > Fixed. Clearly I need to improve my vim schools, as this is just > embarrassing at this point :). > > *skills* /me is disappointed in my self -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On 6/9/20 9:18 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 9:04 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
> wrote:
>> What follows is a proto-contract to provide independent dispute
>> resolution for alleged contract violations. Like arbitration often is in
>> the real world, this can be unfair and biased, and it lacks an appeals
>> mechanism. On the bright side, this allows specifying penalties other
>> than the Class-2 crime in the rules and it might take some workload off
>> of the referee.
>>
>> I'm wondering two things: do people like this idea and would they
>> actually consider using this in their contracts?
> I like this idea, but I'm not sufficiently involved in the contract
> business to know whether I'll ever use it.
Thanks, that's a good data point.
>
>> THE AGORAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION (AAA)
>>
>> {
>>
>> # SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
>>
>> This contract is known as the Agoran Arbitration Association, or as AAA.
>> The purpose of this contract is to provide independent dispute
>> resolution services for other contracts.
>>
>> # SECTION 2: OPT-IN
>>
>> A contract is opted-in to AAA if:
>> - all of its members are party to this contract;
>> - it specifies that all of its members consent to being party to this
>> contract;
>> - it contains phrasing that requires all of its members to be parties to
>> this contract.
> Are these connected by AND's or OR's?
Ands. Fixed.
>
>> Each party to this contract consents to each other party acting on eir
>> behalf to create blots when explicitly and unambiguous authorized by
>> this contract.
> unambiguous*ly*
Thanks, fixed.
>
>> # SECTION 3: MANAGEMENT
>>
>> The Head Arbitrator is the person who is party to this contract has been
>> party to this contract for the longest time. The Purse is a natural
>> switch tracked by the Head Arbitrator.
> The Head Arbitrator is the person who is party to this contract *who*
> has been party to this contract for the longest time.
>
> Additionally, should it be continuously or cumulatively?
Fixed, and good question. I guess I'll go with continuously - if I'm
copying this much from NAX, I might as well copy that detail, too.
>
>> At least once per week, the Head Arbitrator SHALL publish a list of
>> recently updated Arbitration Cases. In the same message, e CAN, by
>> announcement, transfer up to N coins from this contract to emself, where
>> N is the value of the Purse. When doing so, the Purse is decreased by
>> the number of coins transferred.
>>
>> # SECTION 4: ARBITRATION CASES
>>
>> An Arbitration Case is a matter arising from an alleged violation of a
>> contract. Arbitrator is an untracked switch possessed by Arbitration
>> Cases with possible values of any party to this contract and
>> "unassigned" (default). To assign an Arbitration Case to a person is to
>> flip its Arbitrator to that person. State is an untracked switch
>> possessed by Arbitration Cases with possible values "open" (default) and
>> "closed".
>>
>> The following must be specified when creating an Arbitration Case: the
>> relevant action, the relevant contract, and the alleged perpetrator.
>>
>> When an Arbitration Case is unassigned, the Head Arbitrator CAN by
>> announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, flip its Arbitrator to any
>> other value. The Arbitrator SHALL NOT assign an Arbitration Case to a
>> person who has a manifest interest in the case, whether monetary or
>> otherwise.
>>
>> # SECTION 5: CASE INITIATION
>>
>> A party to this contract CAN, by paying a fee of 5 coins to this
>> contract, invoke arbitration, specifying:
>> - an opted-in contract;
>> - an alleged violation of that contract; and
>> - the alleged perpetrator (who is a party to that contract).
> Should we allow it to occur against people who are no longer parties
> but were formerly parties?
This should be resolved by just not allowing people to leave unless e is
party to no opted-in contract (described below). This shouldn't happen
in the middle of a dispute unless the relevant contract ceases to be
exist or opts-out.
>
>> When arbitration is invoked, a new open Arbitration Case is created with
>> the specified action, contract, and perpretrator, and the Purse is
>> increased by 1.
>>
>> # SECTION 6: CASE RESOLUTION
>>
>> This section authorizes parties to act on behalf of other parties to
>> create blots, and is the only section that does so.
>>
>> The Punishment Limit of an Arbitration Case is a number of blots
>> specified by the relevant contract for the alleged violation, or 5
>> otherwise.
> Could we make it 4 otherwise to line up with the maximum unspecified
> value in the rules?
Sure, done.
>
>> The Arbitrator of an open Arbitration Case CAN, and SHALL in a timely
>> fashion after being assigned, resolve that Arbitration Case by publicly
>> doing the following:
>> - determining whether the action alleged to be a violation occurred;
>> - if the action occurred, determining whether it violated the
Re: DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 9:04 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> What follows is a proto-contract to provide independent dispute
> resolution for alleged contract violations. Like arbitration often is in
> the real world, this can be unfair and biased, and it lacks an appeals
> mechanism. On the bright side, this allows specifying penalties other
> than the Class-2 crime in the rules and it might take some workload off
> of the referee.
>
> I'm wondering two things: do people like this idea and would they
> actually consider using this in their contracts?
I like this idea, but I'm not sufficiently involved in the contract
business to know whether I'll ever use it.
>
> THE AGORAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION (AAA)
>
> {
>
> # SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
>
> This contract is known as the Agoran Arbitration Association, or as AAA.
> The purpose of this contract is to provide independent dispute
> resolution services for other contracts.
>
> # SECTION 2: OPT-IN
>
> A contract is opted-in to AAA if:
> - all of its members are party to this contract;
> - it specifies that all of its members consent to being party to this
> contract;
> - it contains phrasing that requires all of its members to be parties to
> this contract.
Are these connected by AND's or OR's?
>
> Each party to this contract consents to each other party acting on eir
> behalf to create blots when explicitly and unambiguous authorized by
> this contract.
unambiguous*ly*
>
> # SECTION 3: MANAGEMENT
>
> The Head Arbitrator is the person who is party to this contract has been
> party to this contract for the longest time. The Purse is a natural
> switch tracked by the Head Arbitrator.
The Head Arbitrator is the person who is party to this contract *who*
has been party to this contract for the longest time.
Additionally, should it be continuously or cumulatively?
>
> At least once per week, the Head Arbitrator SHALL publish a list of
> recently updated Arbitration Cases. In the same message, e CAN, by
> announcement, transfer up to N coins from this contract to emself, where
> N is the value of the Purse. When doing so, the Purse is decreased by
> the number of coins transferred.
>
> # SECTION 4: ARBITRATION CASES
>
> An Arbitration Case is a matter arising from an alleged violation of a
> contract. Arbitrator is an untracked switch possessed by Arbitration
> Cases with possible values of any party to this contract and
> "unassigned" (default). To assign an Arbitration Case to a person is to
> flip its Arbitrator to that person. State is an untracked switch
> possessed by Arbitration Cases with possible values "open" (default) and
> "closed".
>
> The following must be specified when creating an Arbitration Case: the
> relevant action, the relevant contract, and the alleged perpetrator.
>
> When an Arbitration Case is unassigned, the Head Arbitrator CAN by
> announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, flip its Arbitrator to any
> other value. The Arbitrator SHALL NOT assign an Arbitration Case to a
> person who has a manifest interest in the case, whether monetary or
> otherwise.
>
> # SECTION 5: CASE INITIATION
>
> A party to this contract CAN, by paying a fee of 5 coins to this
> contract, invoke arbitration, specifying:
> - an opted-in contract;
> - an alleged violation of that contract; and
> - the alleged perpetrator (who is a party to that contract).
Should we allow it to occur against people who are no longer parties
but were formerly parties?
>
> When arbitration is invoked, a new open Arbitration Case is created with
> the specified action, contract, and perpretrator, and the Purse is
> increased by 1.
>
> # SECTION 6: CASE RESOLUTION
>
> This section authorizes parties to act on behalf of other parties to
> create blots, and is the only section that does so.
>
> The Punishment Limit of an Arbitration Case is a number of blots
> specified by the relevant contract for the alleged violation, or 5
> otherwise.
Could we make it 4 otherwise to line up with the maximum unspecified
value in the rules?
>
> The Arbitrator of an open Arbitration Case CAN, and SHALL in a timely
> fashion after being assigned, resolve that Arbitration Case by publicly
> doing the following:
> - determining whether the action alleged to be a violation occurred;
> - if the action occurred, determining whether it violated the contract
> specified at initiation;
This needs a connecting conjunction.
>
> In the same message as e closes an Arbitration Case, and if e determined
> that the relevant action occurred and was a violation, the Arbitrator
> CAN cause the perpetrator to grant emself a specified number of blots
> that is between 0 and the Punishment Limit for that case.
>
> In a timely fashion after resolving an Arbitration Case, the Arbitrator
> for that case CAN once, by announcement, transfer 4 coins from this
> contract to emself.
>
> When an Arbitration Case is resolved, it becomes closed.
>
> }
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
How does one join this
DIS: [proto-contract] Arbitration
What follows is a proto-contract to provide independent dispute
resolution for alleged contract violations. Like arbitration often is in
the real world, this can be unfair and biased, and it lacks an appeals
mechanism. On the bright side, this allows specifying penalties other
than the Class-2 crime in the rules and it might take some workload off
of the referee.
I'm wondering two things: do people like this idea and would they
actually consider using this in their contracts?
THE AGORAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION (AAA)
{
# SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
This contract is known as the Agoran Arbitration Association, or as AAA.
The purpose of this contract is to provide independent dispute
resolution services for other contracts.
# SECTION 2: OPT-IN
A contract is opted-in to AAA if:
- all of its members are party to this contract;
- it specifies that all of its members consent to being party to this
contract;
- it contains phrasing that requires all of its members to be parties to
this contract.
Each party to this contract consents to each other party acting on eir
behalf to create blots when explicitly and unambiguous authorized by
this contract.
# SECTION 3: MANAGEMENT
The Head Arbitrator is the person who is party to this contract has been
party to this contract for the longest time. The Purse is a natural
switch tracked by the Head Arbitrator.
At least once per week, the Head Arbitrator SHALL publish a list of
recently updated Arbitration Cases. In the same message, e CAN, by
announcement, transfer up to N coins from this contract to emself, where
N is the value of the Purse. When doing so, the Purse is decreased by
the number of coins transferred.
# SECTION 4: ARBITRATION CASES
An Arbitration Case is a matter arising from an alleged violation of a
contract. Arbitrator is an untracked switch possessed by Arbitration
Cases with possible values of any party to this contract and
"unassigned" (default). To assign an Arbitration Case to a person is to
flip its Arbitrator to that person. State is an untracked switch
possessed by Arbitration Cases with possible values "open" (default) and
"closed".
The following must be specified when creating an Arbitration Case: the
relevant action, the relevant contract, and the alleged perpetrator.
When an Arbitration Case is unassigned, the Head Arbitrator CAN by
announcement, and SHALL in a timely fashion, flip its Arbitrator to any
other value. The Arbitrator SHALL NOT assign an Arbitration Case to a
person who has a manifest interest in the case, whether monetary or
otherwise.
# SECTION 5: CASE INITIATION
A party to this contract CAN, by paying a fee of 5 coins to this
contract, invoke arbitration, specifying:
- an opted-in contract;
- an alleged violation of that contract; and
- the alleged perpetrator (who is a party to that contract).
When arbitration is invoked, a new open Arbitration Case is created with
the specified action, contract, and perpretrator, and the Purse is
increased by 1.
# SECTION 6: CASE RESOLUTION
This section authorizes parties to act on behalf of other parties to
create blots, and is the only section that does so.
The Punishment Limit of an Arbitration Case is a number of blots
specified by the relevant contract for the alleged violation, or 5
otherwise.
The Arbitrator of an open Arbitration Case CAN, and SHALL in a timely
fashion after being assigned, resolve that Arbitration Case by publicly
doing the following:
- determining whether the action alleged to be a violation occurred;
- if the action occurred, determining whether it violated the contract
specified at initiation;
In the same message as e closes an Arbitration Case, and if e determined
that the relevant action occurred and was a violation, the Arbitrator
CAN cause the perpetrator to grant emself a specified number of blots
that is between 0 and the Punishment Limit for that case.
In a timely fashion after resolving an Arbitration Case, the Arbitrator
for that case CAN once, by announcement, transfer 4 coins from this
contract to emself.
When an Arbitration Case is resolved, it becomes closed.
}
--
Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: [Proto-Contract] LoAFER revision 3
On 6/9/2020 5:32 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: Sorry it's taken so long to get back to this thread. I kind of forgot about this for a bit there. On 2020-06-03 18:59, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 8:48 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: On 2020-06-03 17:00, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: On Jun 3, 2020, at 18:48, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: Parties to this contract should signal their own messages. They should also, if a message that should be signaled lacks signaling, reply to that message, signaling their own message and stating that the quoted message contains actions that should be signaled. I’m not sure how I feel about this clause. I apologize for not raising this at an earlier draft, but I wonder whether this will actually help or just serve to make the mailing list busier. I think if it becomes near universal, this will be good because the collective impact will be minimally busying and will allow everyone to read fewer messages if they don’t want to; otherwise, I think it will just crowd the mailing list. I'm sorry, I don't know if I follow this logic here. Which section do you have qualms about? The "signaling their own messages" or the "signaling for other's messages" part? Sorry, this is about the "signaling for other's messages" part. I was unsure about the inclusion of this clause in the original message because it will inevitably bring a lot more traffic. I think it's the right call though. If we only ask that players signal their own messages, then life will only be marginally easier for officers. If we help other players by signaling their messages, though, then life gets easier even faster. I think it also provides a very nice opportunity for teaching by example. When someone fails to signal, they'll see someone signal for them and I think they'll remember that for the next time they do that action and that will lead to more people signaling by themselves. Over time, additional traffic caused by this mechanic will slow as we all become a more considerate. Then again, that might just be my hopeful side speaking. TO EVERYONE: If you're reading this, I'd like you to pitch in and tell me what you think. The quotes above should give a context about the mechanic in question. Your argument is compelling. Leading by example is a good way to get people to do things.
Re: DIS: [Proto-Contract] LoAFER revision 3
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 6:46 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 2020-06-09 16:26, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > agora-discussion wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 5:32 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion > > wrote: > >> I see. I think that would be classified as the second point in the "All > >> Offices" section that says > >> > >>* Situations not enumerated above that require special attention > >> from an Officer: signal that Officer > >> > >> Although I suppose that I could add another point for just > >> contract-defined officers that states something specifically if you > >> think that'd be valuable. > > > > I do think that would be valuable since that's not included in the > > common definition of officers. > > That is a good point. I could possibly add a special definition for > "officer" to the contract that would include the set of all > rules-defined officers as well as any person described as having the > responsibility to track things defined by a contract. I think that could > be a good way to define this. > > >> So do you think this section is unnecessary? If not, how would you fix > >> it? I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you want me to do here. > > > > I didn't really have a specific solution in mind. I'm just not sure > > what this does because of its phrasing, but I'm not sure if it's a > > problem. If it is, I think the best idea would be to have a vague > > clause that gets the idea across without being too specific. > > Hmm, How about a major generalization of this list item. Something along > the lines of "When an officer states either implicitly or explicitly > that e will perform an action related to eir official duties, and there > is no cause to believe that e is performing that action for any > malicious or nefarious purpose, then parties to this contract SHOULD NOT > do anything that would majorly hinder or impede the officer's > performance of that action." Does that seem good? It makes it more > general and, I think, more explicit. That wording seems very good to me. > > > I'm sorry if this feels nitpicky, but I really like the idea and am > > interested in it, in case that wasn't clear. > > I appreciate your interest and input into this contract. I think it is a > very worthwhile thing to perfect. I want to make sure it doesn't blow up > in my face (or worse, the face of any hardworking officer). So I thank > you for your help in proofreading this. > > -- > Trigon
Re: DIS: [Proto-Contract] LoAFER revision 3
On 2020-06-09 16:26, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 5:32 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: I see. I think that would be classified as the second point in the "All Offices" section that says * Situations not enumerated above that require special attention from an Officer: signal that Officer Although I suppose that I could add another point for just contract-defined officers that states something specifically if you think that'd be valuable. I do think that would be valuable since that's not included in the common definition of officers. That is a good point. I could possibly add a special definition for "officer" to the contract that would include the set of all rules-defined officers as well as any person described as having the responsibility to track things defined by a contract. I think that could be a good way to define this. So do you think this section is unnecessary? If not, how would you fix it? I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you want me to do here. I didn't really have a specific solution in mind. I'm just not sure what this does because of its phrasing, but I'm not sure if it's a problem. If it is, I think the best idea would be to have a vague clause that gets the idea across without being too specific. Hmm, How about a major generalization of this list item. Something along the lines of "When an officer states either implicitly or explicitly that e will perform an action related to eir official duties, and there is no cause to believe that e is performing that action for any malicious or nefarious purpose, then parties to this contract SHOULD NOT do anything that would majorly hinder or impede the officer's performance of that action." Does that seem good? It makes it more general and, I think, more explicit. I'm sorry if this feels nitpicky, but I really like the idea and am interested in it, in case that wasn't clear. I appreciate your interest and input into this contract. I think it is a very worthwhile thing to perfect. I want to make sure it doesn't blow up in my face (or worse, the face of any hardworking officer). So I thank you for your help in proofreading this. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: [Proto-Contract] LoAFER revision 3
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 5:32 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: > > Sorry it's taken so long to get back to this thread. I kind of forgot > about this for a bit there. > > On 2020-06-03 18:59, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > agora-discussion wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 8:48 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion > > wrote: > >> > >> On 2020-06-03 17:00, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > >> agora-discussion wrote: > >>> On Jun 3, 2020, at 18:48, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion > >>> wrote: > Parties to this contract should signal their own messages. They > should also, if a message that should be signaled lacks signaling, > reply to that message, signaling their own message and stating that > the quoted message contains actions that should be signaled. > >>> I’m not sure how I feel about this clause. I apologize for not raising > >>> this at an earlier draft, but I wonder whether this will actually help or > >>> just serve to make the mailing list busier. I think if it becomes near > >>> universal, this will be good because the collective impact will be > >>> minimally busying and will allow everyone to read fewer messages if they > >>> don’t want to; otherwise, I think it will just crowd the mailing list. > >> > >> I'm sorry, I don't know if I follow this logic here. Which section do > >> you have qualms about? The "signaling their own messages" or the > >> "signaling for other's messages" part? > > > > Sorry, this is about the "signaling for other's messages" part. > > I was unsure about the inclusion of this clause in the original message > because it will inevitably bring a lot more traffic. I think it's the > right call though. If we only ask that players signal their own > messages, then life will only be marginally easier for officers. If we > help other players by signaling their messages, though, then life gets > easier even faster. > > I think it also provides a very nice opportunity for teaching by > example. When someone fails to signal, they'll see someone signal for > them and I think they'll remember that for the next time they do that > action and that will lead to more people signaling by themselves. Over > time, additional traffic caused by this mechanic will slow as we all > become a more considerate. > > Then again, that might just be my hopeful side speaking. > > TO EVERYONE: If you're reading this, I'd like you to pitch in and tell > me what you think. The quotes above should give a context about the > mechanic in question. > > A list of actions that should be so signaled and the appropriate > signals is included below, sorted by which office they are most > pertinent to the duties of. If the specified action signal is already > included in the subject of the message, players should signal the > office instead. > >>> I’m confused by this. This seems to imply that both the action and the > >>> office should be signaled. > >> > >> The intention was that if the subject line is "Quangor Election", > >> players don't need to say something redundant like "[Election] Quangor > >> Election" because that would be redundant; instead they would say > >> "[Attn: ADoP] Quangor Election". I would find this more intuitive, but I > >> am open to changing it a bit. > > > > Okay, that wasn't clear to me. Maybe change it to: "If the specified > > action signal is otherwise included in the subject of the message, > > players should signal the office instead." This makes it clear that > > it's about inclusion for reasons other than the contract. > > > >> > >>> Maybe also include something for contracts? > >> > >> Apart from what's already in the Notary section? > > > > I meant for internal contract operations, such as messages to be > > processed by the President of the Dragon or the Exchange Master. > > I see. I think that would be classified as the second point in the "All > Offices" section that says > > * Situations not enumerated above that require special attention > from an Officer: signal that Officer > > Although I suppose that I could add another point for just > contract-defined officers that states something specifically if you > think that'd be valuable. I do think that would be valuable since that's not included in the common definition of officers. > > 2. Respecting Drafts: the act of not performing actions that would cause > an officer to be required to update already-published drafts. > >>> > >>> What about things like the Promotor’s report where back-dating is > >>> permissible? It seems that this would have little force in that regard. > >> > >> Ironically, the Promotor's report was the inspiration to start this, > >> before Aris mentioned that e could backdate eir reports. I'm open to > >> suggestions on this point. It could just say "except when back-dating is > >> permissible" I guess. > > > > I was actually saying this with the
Re: DIS: [Proto-Contract] LoAFER revision 3
Sorry it's taken so long to get back to this thread. I kind of forgot about this for a bit there. On 2020-06-03 18:59, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 8:48 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: On 2020-06-03 17:00, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: On Jun 3, 2020, at 18:48, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: Parties to this contract should signal their own messages. They should also, if a message that should be signaled lacks signaling, reply to that message, signaling their own message and stating that the quoted message contains actions that should be signaled. I’m not sure how I feel about this clause. I apologize for not raising this at an earlier draft, but I wonder whether this will actually help or just serve to make the mailing list busier. I think if it becomes near universal, this will be good because the collective impact will be minimally busying and will allow everyone to read fewer messages if they don’t want to; otherwise, I think it will just crowd the mailing list. I'm sorry, I don't know if I follow this logic here. Which section do you have qualms about? The "signaling their own messages" or the "signaling for other's messages" part? Sorry, this is about the "signaling for other's messages" part. I was unsure about the inclusion of this clause in the original message because it will inevitably bring a lot more traffic. I think it's the right call though. If we only ask that players signal their own messages, then life will only be marginally easier for officers. If we help other players by signaling their messages, though, then life gets easier even faster. I think it also provides a very nice opportunity for teaching by example. When someone fails to signal, they'll see someone signal for them and I think they'll remember that for the next time they do that action and that will lead to more people signaling by themselves. Over time, additional traffic caused by this mechanic will slow as we all become a more considerate. Then again, that might just be my hopeful side speaking. TO EVERYONE: If you're reading this, I'd like you to pitch in and tell me what you think. The quotes above should give a context about the mechanic in question. A list of actions that should be so signaled and the appropriate signals is included below, sorted by which office they are most pertinent to the duties of. If the specified action signal is already included in the subject of the message, players should signal the office instead. I’m confused by this. This seems to imply that both the action and the office should be signaled. The intention was that if the subject line is "Quangor Election", players don't need to say something redundant like "[Election] Quangor Election" because that would be redundant; instead they would say "[Attn: ADoP] Quangor Election". I would find this more intuitive, but I am open to changing it a bit. Okay, that wasn't clear to me. Maybe change it to: "If the specified action signal is otherwise included in the subject of the message, players should signal the office instead." This makes it clear that it's about inclusion for reasons other than the contract. Maybe also include something for contracts? Apart from what's already in the Notary section? I meant for internal contract operations, such as messages to be processed by the President of the Dragon or the Exchange Master. I see. I think that would be classified as the second point in the "All Offices" section that says * Situations not enumerated above that require special attention from an Officer: signal that Officer Although I suppose that I could add another point for just contract-defined officers that states something specifically if you think that'd be valuable. 2. Respecting Drafts: the act of not performing actions that would cause an officer to be required to update already-published drafts. What about things like the Promotor’s report where back-dating is permissible? It seems that this would have little force in that regard. Ironically, the Promotor's report was the inspiration to start this, before Aris mentioned that e could backdate eir reports. I'm open to suggestions on this point. It could just say "except when back-dating is permissible" I guess. I was actually saying this with the opposite intent. As I read it now, the Promotor's ability to back-date means that e is never required to update an already-published draft. So do you think this section is unnecessary? If not, how would you fix it? I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you want me to do here. -- Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:29 PM grok via agora-business wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020, 3:06 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > what is ISTIDDIES? > > > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 9:59 PM Alex Smith via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, 9 June 2020, 20:16:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via > > agora-discussion > > > wrote: > > > > On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > > > > > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > > > > >> A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels. > > > > > This is unusual wording for this, and it looks a lot like it would > > > permit a player to win the game without having 100 barrels. > > > > > > > > Using what method? > > > > > > The rule states that a player CAN win the game. It doesn't specify a > > > mechanism. So on a straightforward reading, either players can win the > > > game, or they can't due to a lack of mechanism, but neither seems to > > have a > > > dependency on their barrel quantities. (In particular, the rule states > > that > > > players in general CAN win the game, not just players who have 100 > > barrels.) > > > > > > I guess the sentence in question is meant to be a) insufficiently precise > > > to define a mechanism in its own right, thus preventing players who are > > > short on barrels winning the game because they have no way short of an > > > ISIDTID fallacy to attempt to do so; but b) sufficiently precise to > > trigger > > > rule 2579, which provides the mechanism. By rule 2152, "CAN" means > > > "Attempts to perform the described action are successful"; most rules > > that > > > want players to be able to perform an action under certain circumstances > > > state that attempts succeed under only those circumstances, whereas this > > > rule is apparently defined so that attempting to perform the action is > > > automatically successful, but limits the performance of the action by > > > restricting what would count as an attempt. That's an almost > > unprecedented > > > situation (and very unintuitive because it relies on the rule being > > > reinterpreted into something other than the obvious reading by a > > > higher-powered rule). > > > > > > For what it's worth, I think using ISIDTID to try to win the game without > > > 100 barrels might actually work here. Assuming you think it works (or > > maybe > > > even if you don't), an announcement "I win the game, but this costs me > > 100 > > > barrels" is clearly an /attempt/ to win the game, and thus by the new > > rule, > > > and rule 2152, the attempt succeeds. The announcement didn't actually > > > trigger anything within the rules directly; but it was evidence of an > > > attempt to trigger them, and by the rules, it succeeded! > > > > > > -- > > > ais523 > > > > > I submit the following notice of honour: > > +1 ais523 for thoughtful addition to the discussion > -1 cuddlebeam for eir "joke" > > > This fails because ais523 isn't a player.
Re: DIS: [Proto] Interested Proposals Redux
On 6/8/20 2:00 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. This certainly seems to fix it, minus the issue someone else pointed out of someone flipping it to disinterested just to be mean. I'd vote for this but I think in the future we could redo the language around proposals to streamline this and pending and the exceptions to paying for pending. Right now it's starting to all look stapled together.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
what is ISTIDDIES? On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 9:59 PM Alex Smith via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Tuesday, 9 June 2020, 20:16:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > > > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > > >> A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels. > > > This is unusual wording for this, and it looks a lot like it would > permit a player to win the game without having 100 barrels. > > > > Using what method? > > The rule states that a player CAN win the game. It doesn't specify a > mechanism. So on a straightforward reading, either players can win the > game, or they can't due to a lack of mechanism, but neither seems to have a > dependency on their barrel quantities. (In particular, the rule states that > players in general CAN win the game, not just players who have 100 barrels.) > > I guess the sentence in question is meant to be a) insufficiently precise > to define a mechanism in its own right, thus preventing players who are > short on barrels winning the game because they have no way short of an > ISIDTID fallacy to attempt to do so; but b) sufficiently precise to trigger > rule 2579, which provides the mechanism. By rule 2152, "CAN" means > "Attempts to perform the described action are successful"; most rules that > want players to be able to perform an action under certain circumstances > state that attempts succeed under only those circumstances, whereas this > rule is apparently defined so that attempting to perform the action is > automatically successful, but limits the performance of the action by > restricting what would count as an attempt. That's an almost unprecedented > situation (and very unintuitive because it relies on the rule being > reinterpreted into something other than the obvious reading by a > higher-powered rule). > > For what it's worth, I think using ISIDTID to try to win the game without > 100 barrels might actually work here. Assuming you think it works (or maybe > even if you don't), an announcement "I win the game, but this costs me 100 > barrels" is clearly an /attempt/ to win the game, and thus by the new rule, > and rule 2152, the attempt succeeds. The announcement didn't actually > trigger anything within the rules directly; but it was evidence of an > attempt to trigger them, and by the rules, it succeeded! > > -- > ais523 >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On 6/9/20 3:00 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/9/20 2:14 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >>> Is there any reason this isn't just "A player CAN spend 100 barrels to win >>> the game"? >> tbh, because I was a little bored with that stock phrasing, and the >> reaction to it from commenters so far shows that IMO we've got a bit of a >> dependence issue with stock phrases and invokations such that we question >> every variant (even when the governing rule is fairly explicit at allowing >> for variance). That seems constraining and worth shaking up just a >> little, from time to time. > > I don't think the issue is the stock phrase or synonyms, it's the > passive construction. The wording sounds like, to me, that I can do it > by announcement and it will be effective, and then right afterwards I > will lose 100 barrels. But if I don't have 100 barrels, it sounds like > its still effective. The CAN isn't conditional on paying or being able > to pay in the way that this is worded. > > If it were to say "If e has at least 100 barrels, a player CAN win by announcement, but it will cost em 100 barrels." I think that would work as you intend it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On 6/9/20 2:14 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: >> Is there any reason this isn't just "A player CAN spend 100 barrels to win >> the game"? > tbh, because I was a little bored with that stock phrasing, and the > reaction to it from commenters so far shows that IMO we've got a bit of a > dependence issue with stock phrases and invokations such that we question > every variant (even when the governing rule is fairly explicit at allowing > for variance). That seems constraining and worth shaking up just a > little, from time to time. I don't think the issue is the stock phrase or synonyms, it's the passive construction. The wording sounds like, to me, that I can do it by announcement and it will be effective, and then right afterwards I will lose 100 barrels. But if I don't have 100 barrels, it sounds like its still effective. The CAN isn't conditional on paying or being able to pay in the way that this is worded.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On Tuesday, 9 June 2020, 20:16:09 GMT+1, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > >> A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels. > > This is unusual wording for this, and it looks a lot like it would permit a > > player to win the game without having 100 barrels. > > Using what method? The rule states that a player CAN win the game. It doesn't specify a mechanism. So on a straightforward reading, either players can win the game, or they can't due to a lack of mechanism, but neither seems to have a dependency on their barrel quantities. (In particular, the rule states that players in general CAN win the game, not just players who have 100 barrels.) I guess the sentence in question is meant to be a) insufficiently precise to define a mechanism in its own right, thus preventing players who are short on barrels winning the game because they have no way short of an ISIDTID fallacy to attempt to do so; but b) sufficiently precise to trigger rule 2579, which provides the mechanism. By rule 2152, "CAN" means "Attempts to perform the described action are successful"; most rules that want players to be able to perform an action under certain circumstances state that attempts succeed under only those circumstances, whereas this rule is apparently defined so that attempting to perform the action is automatically successful, but limits the performance of the action by restricting what would count as an attempt. That's an almost unprecedented situation (and very unintuitive because it relies on the rule being reinterpreted into something other than the obvious reading by a higher-powered rule). For what it's worth, I think using ISIDTID to try to win the game without 100 barrels might actually work here. Assuming you think it works (or maybe even if you don't), an announcement "I win the game, but this costs me 100 barrels" is clearly an /attempt/ to win the game, and thus by the new rule, and rule 2152, the attempt succeeds. The announcement didn't actually trigger anything within the rules directly; but it was evidence of an attempt to trigger them, and by the rules, it succeeded! -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On 6/9/2020 11:21 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: >> A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels. > This is unusual wording for this, and it looks a lot like it would permit a > player to win the game without having 100 barrels. Using what method? > Is there any reason this isn't just "A player CAN spend 100 barrels to win > the game"? tbh, because I was a little bored with that stock phrasing, and the reaction to it from commenters so far shows that IMO we've got a bit of a dependence issue with stock phrases and invokations such that we question every variant (even when the governing rule is fairly explicit at allowing for variance). That seems constraining and worth shaking up just a little, from time to time. As a practical matter, no awards will be made for a bit, so if this is adopted I'll call a cfj and propose a fix for the wording if need be, to make the judge happy :P -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 barrels. This is unusual wording for this, and it looks a lot like it would permit a player to win the game without having 100 barrels. Is there any reason this isn't just "A player CAN spend 100 barrels to win the game"? I think your proposal is also likely too susceptible to Coopor + 3 confederate scams, which can place and cash out bargains in zero time. -- ais523
DIS: [Reportor] Last Week in Agora
Archived at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reportor/tree/master/weekly_summaries Report for the week of 2020-06-01..07: # Summary Welcome, Tyler! A very busy week. With nch's new "Sets" economy coming, there's a rush to submit proposals while submitting them is still free, leading the Promotor to perform an unusual second distribution within the week. Plenty of interesting ones, summarized in the sections below. nch creates the Needlessly Abstract Exchange in anticipation of the new economy, and the Dragon Corporation president promises new plans to come. Many proposals were adopted this week, including the office of the Webmastor (filled by nch), outlawing actions dangerous to Agora, and another attempt to fix auctions (with a wild auction experiment coming on its heels). Let's see if we finally get a working zombie auction. R. Lee seized the office of ADoP by deputizing this week, and many office elections are under way. What does negative karma mean? Is issuing blots a rebuke? Discussion on these and other topics, and on treating each other well, referenced in the "Honour, minor crimes, being nice to each other, gaming" section below. The Flappy Bird tournament isn't happening, but Agora's Birthday tournament is coming up, and it looks like it will be Diplonomic. On the subject of birthdays, happy birthday to Jason! Agora's scholarly traditions continue. G. transforms eir earlier arguments about the status of the ancient CFJ 7 into a thesis, and many rules questions are discussed in other threads, including one in Spanish. Some other topics this week: rules about player intent; choosing good terminology; continued discussion whether players should follow the rules (including bringing back a crime/infraction distinction). # Registrations * New player Tyler registers. # Voting and elections * ATMunn becomes a candidate for Notary, and R. Lee tries to withdraw but it's pointed out there's no mechanism for doing that. Voting begins. Threads: "Notary Election", "Notary Election Enters Next phase" * P.S.S. proposes to add a mechanism for withdrawing candidacy (thread: "Termination of Candidacy"). * R. Lee resigns as Notary. * R. Lee takes the office of ADoP from Murphy by deputisation, and initiates elections for Prime Minister, ADoP, and Webmastor. * The Prime Minister election was actually initiated before e took over ADoP; e also attempted to start elections for Promotor, ADoP, Assessor, Arbitor and Registrar, saying e's interested in ADoP and Registrar. Threads: "Election Time", "Prime Minister Election Attempt". * The current H. Prime Minister says e will not run for a second term, in accordance with tradition. * Due to a large number of proposals in flight, there are two proposal distributions this week. Voting begins on the following: * Proposals 8405-8408: * A small fix (8405) * Replace the Line-item Veto rule with a Cabinet Order. (8406) * After 8406 was composed, proposal 8400 repealed Line-item Veto. * Repeal auction definitions and defer the mechanism to the auctineer and Treasuror instead. (8407) * A new game / economy! (8408) * Proposals 8409-8430: * Fixes and other small changes (8410, 8412, 8413, 8415, 8416, 8417, 8422, 8423, 8428) * Academic reform (8409) * New patent title about contracts (8411) * Change ministry descriptions (8414) * Define a new term "Referenda" for proposal decisions (8418) * Define new executive orders (8419) but allow the Prime Minister to be recalled when that happens (8420) * Allow exchanging any 3 Cards for 1 of a specified type (8421) * Allow pending fixes without paying a Pendant (8424) * Decreasing or removing punishment in certain cases: (8425, 8426, 8427, 8429) * Back-award the 2016 Silver Quill (8430) * The decisions on whether to adopt proposals 8388-8404 are resolved. Adopted: * The office of the Webmastor (8388) * Strip old rule text including the Editor and Line-item Veto (8389, 8395, 8399, 8400) * Make crimes are punishable according to the rules at the time of the event (8392) * Allow late nominations to otherwise uncontested elections. (8393) * Ban zombies from office (8394; originally attempted in 8228) * Fix auctions (8396) * Define "to refer" (8397) * Outlaw doing things that would harm Agora if it were not for R1698, and introduce a new process for "high crimes" (8401, 8404) * Bring back Promises (8402) # History and Academics * R. Lee pledges a bounty for filling in all the gaps in the CFJ database in the years 2018 and 2019. Thread: "Pledge (attention COTC)" * G. submits a thesis: "On the Continuity of the Agoran Judicial System". It is based on eir arguments as Arbitor in March 2020 that e could assign the ancient CFJ 7 to a new judge. It touches on how to handle uncertainty over what may have happened over 26 years of
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 12:25 PM nch via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 6/9/20 11:05 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > > > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > > > > > > Create a power-1 rule, "The General Store", with the following text: > > > >Barrels are a currency tracked by the Coopor (an office) in eir > >monthly report. A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 > >barrels. > > > Does this construction work like this? Shouldn't it be "A player CAN win > the game by paying 100 barrels"? > > > > > >A bargain is a specification consisting of a title, a payout (a > >number of barrels between 1 and 10), and a tender (a list of 6 or > >more rules-defined card types; a type may be repeated, with each > >repeat being a separate element on the list). > > > >A player CAN cash out a specified bargain that's "on the barrel", > >by announcement, provided that, in the same message, e paid cards > >(possibly spread over multiple sets) to successfully earn rules- > >defined products, and those cards match all of the cards types in > >that bargain's tender. The payment of a particular card instance > >can only match a single tender element for the single cashing out > >of a bargain. > > > >When a player cashes out a bargain on the barrel, e earns the > >payout for that bargain. > > > Do you want the bargains to be gone once someone cashes them out? The > term "cash out" makes me think they're meant to be one time usage, but > they don't seem to be the way the rule is written. > > > > > >The Coopor CANNOT cash out a specific bargain in the 14 days > >after putting that bargain on the barrel. > > > > > > Create a power-1 rule, "Bargains on the Barrel", with the > > following text: > > > >If there are fewer than four bargains on the barrel, the Coopor > >CAN put a bargain on the barrel with notice. If there are fewer > >than eight bargains on the barrel, the Coopor CAN put a bargain on > >the barrel with 3 support. > > > The ability of the Coopor to specify every element of the bargain seems > really abusable for a 2 person scam. Though the threshold of victory > through this is high enough that it'd probably get prevented well ahead > of time. Given that it's with notice, the Cooper could probably be removed prior to execution. > > > > > >The Coopor CAN take a bargain off the barrel without N objections, > >where N is the number of months, rounded up, since that bargain > >was last placed on the barrel. Within 14 days after winning an > >election for Coopor, the Coopor CAN take any bargain off the > >barrel with notice. > > > >The Coopor's monthly report includes a list of all bargains on the > >barrel. E SHOULD publish such a list whenever e adds or removes a > >bargain from the barrel. > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On 6/9/2020 9:25 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/9/20 11:05 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >> >> I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: >> >> >> Create a power-1 rule, "The General Store", with the following text: >> >>Barrels are a currency tracked by the Coopor (an office) in eir >>monthly report. A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 >>barrels. > > > Does this construction work like this? Shouldn't it be "A player CAN win > the game by paying 100 barrels"? It associates an action with a set of assets using the word "cost" - a direct and literal reading of R2579's first paragraph really (which was purposefully written to allow for synonymous phrasings). > Do you want the bargains to be gone once someone cashes them out? The > term "cash out" makes me think they're meant to be one time usage, but > they don't seem to be the way the rule is written. No they should stay. I wasn't 100% happy with the phrase "cash out". > The ability of the Coopor to specify every element of the bargain seems > really abusable for a 2 person scam. Though the threshold of victory > through this is high enough that it'd probably get prevented well ahead > of time. Hmm - see how this develops, maybe making it a week's notice to add? That way the abuse is telegraphed a week in advance, which would be enough time to impeach?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 16:25, nch via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/9/20 11:05 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > > > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > > > > > > Create a power-1 rule, "The General Store", with the following text: > > > >Barrels are a currency tracked by the Coopor (an office) in eir > >monthly report. A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 > >barrels. > > > Does this construction work like this? Shouldn't it be "A player CAN win > the game by paying 100 barrels"? I wondered about that too, but the wording in R2579 (specifically the first paragraph) is pretty liberal. - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Barrel rolling
On 6/9/20 11:05 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > I submit the following proposal, "Barrel Rolling", AI-1: > > > Create a power-1 rule, "The General Store", with the following text: > >Barrels are a currency tracked by the Coopor (an office) in eir >monthly report. A player CAN win the game, but it will cost em 100 >barrels. Does this construction work like this? Shouldn't it be "A player CAN win the game by paying 100 barrels"? > >A bargain is a specification consisting of a title, a payout (a >number of barrels between 1 and 10), and a tender (a list of 6 or >more rules-defined card types; a type may be repeated, with each >repeat being a separate element on the list). > >A player CAN cash out a specified bargain that's "on the barrel", >by announcement, provided that, in the same message, e paid cards >(possibly spread over multiple sets) to successfully earn rules- >defined products, and those cards match all of the cards types in >that bargain's tender. The payment of a particular card instance >can only match a single tender element for the single cashing out >of a bargain. > >When a player cashes out a bargain on the barrel, e earns the >payout for that bargain. Do you want the bargains to be gone once someone cashes them out? The term "cash out" makes me think they're meant to be one time usage, but they don't seem to be the way the rule is written. > >The Coopor CANNOT cash out a specific bargain in the 14 days >after putting that bargain on the barrel. > > > Create a power-1 rule, "Bargains on the Barrel", with the > following text: > >If there are fewer than four bargains on the barrel, the Coopor >CAN put a bargain on the barrel with notice. If there are fewer >than eight bargains on the barrel, the Coopor CAN put a bargain on >the barrel with 3 support. The ability of the Coopor to specify every element of the bargain seems really abusable for a 2 person scam. Though the threshold of victory through this is high enough that it'd probably get prevented well ahead of time. > >The Coopor CAN take a bargain off the barrel without N objections, >where N is the number of months, rounded up, since that bargain >was last placed on the barrel. Within 14 days after winning an >election for Coopor, the Coopor CAN take any bargain off the >barrel with notice. > >The Coopor's monthly report includes a list of all bargains on the >barrel. E SHOULD publish such a list whenever e adds or removes a >bargain from the barrel. > > >
Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft
The below AIs are inconsistent: > 8437l R. Lee, G. 1.0 Guilderoy Lockhart > // > ID: 8437 > Title: Guilderoy Lockhart > Adoption index: 2.0 > Author: R. Lee > Co-authors: G. - Falsifian
Re: [CFJ] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer opens a humble agoran occult shop
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 at 21:06, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > 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 There are convincing arguments in this thread on my paradox attempt won't work. Should I withdraw the CFJ, or just leave it open since the judge has plenty of gratuitous argument they can cite? (They could probably just cite Jason's argument and be done with it.) I didn't have a lot of hope for this, but couldn't resist. I'll add one more argument against a PARADOXICAL finding: The precedent in CFJ 3768 makes me suspect any kind of attempt to build a paradox only on a contract is bound to fail. If we pretend grok's, Jason's and ATMunn's arguments in this thread fail, then I suspect it just turns out Cuddle Beam's by announcement action was not "unambiguously and clearly" specified, which would make this FALSE. (So, kind of similar to Jason's point about consent.) My summary of the other arguments presented * grok points out the spell is only described as removing "scams", not *all scams*. * Jason argues Cuddle Beam probably didn't consent to eir contract being changed. * ATMunn points out "scam" isn't defined by the rules (though I wonder if that means we need to figure out what "scam" means to Agorans, since the contract doesn't explicitly define the term) - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8405-8408
oh gosh no On 6/8/2020 9:05 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: 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
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer opens a humble agoran occult shop
Thank you Aris and Rebecca for your purchases! These are truly some precious, powerful pieces of gamestate, I'm sure you'll love them. Thank you for your patronage! And if you ever need again the assistance of the Agoran forces beyond, .:*~*【THE MYSTICAL MENAGERIE】*~*:. is here to help you out! On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 3:45 AM Rebecca via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Also notice of honour > +1 cuddlebeam for eir fun brand of distraction during a hard time > -1 falsifian frivolous CFJ > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 11:38 AM Rebecca wrote: > > > 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 > > > > > -- > From R. Lee >
