Re: DIS: [proto] Regulatory Instruments draft

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/25/20 7:48 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/25/2020 4:40 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>> Auction regulations are regulations defined by this rule, all of which
>> comprise a single body of law, and for which the Treasuror is the
>> promulgator. The scope of auction regulations is wholly restricted to
>> defining specific auction methods (i.e. "the default auction method")
>> and placing binding obligations upon auctioneers. Definitions in auction
>> regulations are used by Rules whenever clearly identified. The Treasuror
>> SHOULD promulgate auction regulations in a manner that aids trade and
>> commerce. To further aid trade and commerce, auction regulations are to
>> be interpreted in the name of fairness with deference to the method's
>> clear intent, if intent can be reasonably inferred.
> Well, I tried to be a tapecutter in this rule, but Agorans be Agorans.  Is
> this really an improvement over the more self-contained concept?
> (honestly I didn't want to use regulations at all here).
>

Yeah, sorry about that. I'm not sure what you mean by "the more
self-contained concept", but I can propose to tear out the regulations
phrasing from the rule if you want.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulatory Instruments draft

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/25/2020 4:40 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> Auction regulations are regulations defined by this rule, all of which
> comprise a single body of law, and for which the Treasuror is the
> promulgator. The scope of auction regulations is wholly restricted to
> defining specific auction methods (i.e. "the default auction method")
> and placing binding obligations upon auctioneers. Definitions in auction
> regulations are used by Rules whenever clearly identified. The Treasuror
> SHOULD promulgate auction regulations in a manner that aids trade and
> commerce. To further aid trade and commerce, auction regulations are to
> be interpreted in the name of fairness with deference to the method's
> clear intent, if intent can be reasonably inferred.

Well, I tried to be a tapecutter in this rule, but Agorans be Agorans.  Is
this really an improvement over the more self-contained concept?
(honestly I didn't want to use regulations at all here).

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulatory Instruments draft

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/25/20 7:46 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion
wrote:
> On 6/25/20 7:40 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>> Amend Rule 2464 by replacing the final sentence of the final paragraph
>> with the following:
>>
>> {
>>
>> Each Tournament's regulations comprise a body of law. The scope of each
>> such body of law is wholly restricted to governing the play of the
>> tournament (including determining a winner) and placing binding
>> obligations upon those who have consented to participate.
>>
>> }
> Could we make explicit that each tournament's regulations comprise a
> *separate* body of law?
>

Fixed in local copy.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulatory Instruments draft

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On 6/25/20 7:40 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> Amend Rule 2464 by replacing the final sentence of the final paragraph
> with the following:
> 
> {
> 
> Each Tournament's regulations comprise a body of law. The scope of each
> such body of law is wholly restricted to governing the play of the
> tournament (including determining a winner) and placing binding
> obligations upon those who have consented to participate.
> 
> }

Could we make explicit that each tournament's regulations comprise a
*separate* body of law?

-- 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth

DIS: [proto] Regulatory Instruments draft

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

This is a draft of Regulatory Instruments, which was originally
submitted as a proposal, but had a few bugs. I'm submitting it here as a
draft for any further feedback.


Title: Regulatory Instruments v2
Author: Jason
Coauthors: Aris
Adoption index: 3.0


{

[The purpose of this proposal is to expand bodies of law to encompass
regulations, bringing them under the rules and protections of that
system. However, this also means that regulations will now always be
taking effect, allowing them to potentially do some damage, so please
vet this proposal carefully.]

Amend Rule 2493 to by replacing the first paragraph with:

{

A regulation is an enduring instrument defined by the ruleset, which
must be authorized by a rule (its parent rule) in order to exist. Unless
otherwise specified, the regulations of each parent rule comprise a
single body of law. The scope of a body of law formed from regulations
is wholly limited to the scope defined by its parent rule.

}

[The default of all regulations from a single parent rule being a single
body of law was selected as the least bad default, when compared to each
regulation being in its own body of law or with all regulations being in
a single body of law. The sentence about the scope is probably not
necessary, but is there for maximum clarity.]

Amend Rule 2614 by replacing the second paragraph with the following:

{

Emergency Regulations are regulations defined by this rule, all of which
comprise a single body of law. The Prime Minister is the promulgator for
Emergency Regulations and CAN, in an emergency message and with 3 Agoran
consent, enact, amend, or repeal Emergency Regulations, provided that
the intent to do so was also contained in an emergency message.

}

[The scope of Emergency Regulations is intended to be defined by the
list with a "CAN" that immediately follows the changed paragraph.]

Amend Rule 2545 by replacing the final paragraph with the following:

{

Auction regulations are regulations defined by this rule, all of which
comprise a single body of law, and for which the Treasuror is the
promulgator. The scope of auction regulations is wholly restricted to
defining specific auction methods (i.e. "the default auction method")
and placing binding obligations upon auctioneers. Definitions in auction
regulations are used by Rules whenever clearly identified. The Treasuror
SHOULD promulgate auction regulations in a manner that aids trade and
commerce. To further aid trade and commerce, auction regulations are to
be interpreted in the name of fairness with deference to the method's
clear intent, if intent can be reasonably inferred.

}

[This is wordy because it attempts to preserve all of the wording
currently in the auction rules. The "binding obligations" phrasing is
intended to incorporate all requirements from the regulations into
requirements by the rules, but I'm not sure how effective it is.]

Amend Rule 2464 by replacing the final sentence of the final paragraph
with the following:

{

Each Tournament's regulations comprise a body of law. The scope of each
such body of law is wholly restricted to governing the play of the
tournament (including determining a winner) and placing binding
obligations upon those who have consented to participate.

}

[Same here with the "binding obligations" phrasing.]

Amend the Rule with the title "The Administrative State" by prepending
the following to the first paragraph:

{

Administrative Regulations are regulations defined by this rule and
associated with an office, with scope wholly limited to what is
authorized by this rule. Each office's Administrative Regulations
comprise a single body of law.

}

[This only has effect if one of Aris's proposals has enacted this rule,
and should be compatible with either one.]

}

-- 
Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3858 assigned to ATMunn

[ATMunn via agora-discussion]

last I checked, I'm not grok...

though I am kind of glad this wasn't actually assigned to me, I'm not 
sure how well I would be able to judge this one.


then again, that tends to be true of CFJs in general so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(not saying I don't want them to be assigned to me, the more I judge the 
better i become at it :))


On 6/25/2020 6:24 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:

The below is CFJ 3858.  I assign it to grok.


--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary here :)

DIS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3858 assigned to ATMunn

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

oh, crud.  I copy and pasted and forgot to change "grok" to "ATMunn".

There's actually a couple precedents that the assignment in the message
worked, not the subject line.  So I guess these are "linked" with grok as
judge (unless e recuses emself from one).  Sorry about that!

On 6/25/2020 3:24 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 
> The below is CFJ 3858.  I assign it to grok.
> 
> CFJ Statement:
> An action to be performed with 7 days notice depends on objections.
> 
> 
> Called by:
> Jason on 23 Jun 2020 21:58:23 -0400
> (Barred: nch)
> 
> 
> Caller's Evidence:
> 
> Rule 2124/26 [Excerpt]:
> 
>>   The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and
>>   an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within
>>   the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent.
>>   
>>   The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent
>>   if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours.
> 
> 
> Dictionary definition of "define":
> 
> [0]: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/depend
> 
> 
> Caller's Arguments:
> 
> What it means for an action to "depend on objections" is not defined in
> the rules. This means that it has its common language meaning. The word
> at issue is "depend". Merriam-Webster [0] defines "depend" as an
> intransitive verb meaning:
> 
> 1. to be determined, based, or contingent
> 
> 2. to be pending or undecided
> 
> 3. a. to place reliance or trust
> 
>    b. to be dependent especially for financial support
> 
> 4. to hang down
> 
> I believe definition 1 here makes the most sense in context. I see two
> ways to interpret an action "depending on objections" - it either must
> require objects to be performable, or it must be affected by objections.
> The former makes no sense - no dependent action requires objections in
> order to be actionable, which would mean the clause has no effect. This
> leaves the second reading - the action "depends on objections" if
> objections affect whether it can be performed.
> 
> An action to be performed with 7 days notice is affected by the presence
> or absence of objections. In particular, it is affected by the presence
> of an objection from the Speaker, who can veto an action for 48 hours by
> objecting. This is consistent with a common language reading - the
> effectiveness of an action to be performed with 7 days action is, in
> part, "determined" by, "based" on, or "contingent" upon, the presence or
> absence of an objection. Because of this, I argue that an action to be
> performed with 7 days notice "depends on objections" and argue for TRUE.
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Statement from the Opposition

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/25/20 3:33 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:12 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business
>  wrote:
>> Free Tournaments require only 2 Agoran consent to initiate, while
>> Emergency Regulations require 3, so the easiest option is a Free
>> Tournament that automatically grants a certain person the win.
> 3 Agoran Consent is hard but perhaps not impossible.  Currently, my
> Emergency Regulation intent has objections from the 2 scam team
> members, and support from 3 people including me.  If nobody else
> objects, we could pass it with 7 support, so 4 more...

Only the PM can resolve this intent, you'd have to become the PM and 
this isn't a SHALL so you can't deputize for it.

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Statement from the Opposition

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/25/20 4:33 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:12 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business
>  wrote:
>> Free Tournaments require only 2 Agoran consent to initiate, while
>> Emergency Regulations require 3, so the easiest option is a Free
>> Tournament that automatically grants a certain person the win.
> 3 Agoran Consent is hard but perhaps not impossible.  Currently, my
> Emergency Regulation intent has objections from the 2 scam team
> members, and support from 3 people including me.  If nobody else
> objects, we could pass it with 7 support, so 4 more...


But how would you get into PM? The only way I can see is deputising to
appoint a speaker, which would require someone to win the game.

-- 
Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: BUS: Statement from the Opposition

[omd via agora-discussion]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:12 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business
 wrote:
> Free Tournaments require only 2 Agoran consent to initiate, while
> Emergency Regulations require 3, so the easiest option is a Free
> Tournament that automatically grants a certain person the win.

3 Agoran Consent is hard but perhaps not impossible.  Currently, my
Emergency Regulation intent has objections from the 2 scam team
members, and support from 3 people including me.  If nobody else
objects, we could pass it with 7 support, so 4 more...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Statement from the Opposition

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:36 PM nch via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 6/25/20 2:35 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:16 PM nch via agora-discussion
> >  > > wrote:
> >
> > On 6/25/20 2:11 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> > > Free Tournaments require only 2 Agoran consent to initiate, while
> > > Emergency Regulations require 3, so the easiest option is a Free
> > > Tournament that automatically grants a certain person the win.
> > However,
> > > this intent is also vetoable by the Speaker, which would be
> > incentivized
> > > to do so in order to keep eir post. This means that bribing the
> > current
> > > Speaker with a free win might be the best option. This would
> > also remove
> > > the need to control Prime Minister.
> >
> > Making up a fake win is better than a scam win? Also this can't be
> > done
> > in time. The only way you can delay us long enough would allow us to
> > delay this long enough.
> >
> >
> > Yes. Part of the fun of scams is that they should be resisted using
> > any legal game mechanic. If it requires producing an extra win, so be it.
> >
> > -Aris
>
> How is that different than a scam at that point?
>

It's a matter of purpose, not of form. The purpose is to block the scam. We
don't want someone to win because we want a win, we want someone to win
because we can't think of a better way of blocking your scam. When someone
starts a scam, everyone will do everything they can to block it. It's
like... once you start using scam tactics, it becomes fair play to use them
back against you.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Statement from the Opposition

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/25/20 2:35 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:16 PM nch via agora-discussion 
>  > wrote:
>
> On 6/25/20 2:11 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> > Free Tournaments require only 2 Agoran consent to initiate, while
> > Emergency Regulations require 3, so the easiest option is a Free
> > Tournament that automatically grants a certain person the win.
> However,
> > this intent is also vetoable by the Speaker, which would be
> incentivized
> > to do so in order to keep eir post. This means that bribing the
> current
> > Speaker with a free win might be the best option. This would
> also remove
> > the need to control Prime Minister.
>
> Making up a fake win is better than a scam win? Also this can't be
> done
> in time. The only way you can delay us long enough would allow us to
> delay this long enough.
>
>
> Yes. Part of the fun of scams is that they should be resisted using 
> any legal game mechanic. If it requires producing an extra win, so be it.
>
> -Aris

How is that different than a scam at that point?

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Statement from the Opposition

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:16 PM nch via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 6/25/20 2:11 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> > Free Tournaments require only 2 Agoran consent to initiate, while
> > Emergency Regulations require 3, so the easiest option is a Free
> > Tournament that automatically grants a certain person the win. However,
> > this intent is also vetoable by the Speaker, which would be incentivized
> > to do so in order to keep eir post. This means that bribing the current
> > Speaker with a free win might be the best option. This would also remove
> > the need to control Prime Minister.
>
> Making up a fake win is better than a scam win? Also this can't be done
> in time. The only way you can delay us long enough would allow us to
> delay this long enough.
>

Yes. Part of the fun of scams is that they should be resisted using any
legal game mechanic. If it requires producing an extra win, so be it.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Statement from the Opposition

[ATMunn via agora-discussion]

On 6/25/2020 3:21 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:18 PM ATMunn via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:


Quick question - what even is the scam? I just woke up one day to find
out that there were a ton of messages and a few people were performing
weird actions and people said it was a scam. I figured nobody knew how
it worked except the people performing it, but it appears that that
isn't the case.



Someone who is deregistered by exile can reregister immediately and claim a
welcome package. Then can they be deregistered again. Rinse and repeat.
Infinite welcome packages.

The anti-scam team is so far me, Jason, and Trigon. The scam team is nch
and R. Lee (and possibly G., but e's really something of a free agent last
I checked). The proposal I distributed would block the scam, but it can't
be resolved before the scam can be performed unless we can delay the scam.

-Aris



Ah, got it. So there's basically a mini-war between the scam team and 
anti-scam team. Neat.


I would "join" the anti-scam team but I don't think I could be of any 
additional use. But if there's ever something I can do just by being 
another player (e.g. supporting or objecting to an intent or voting a 
certain way on a proposal), I'm happy to assist in that way.


--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary here :)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Statement from the Opposition

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/25/20 2:18 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/25/20 2:11 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> It is no secret that we wish to prevent the exile scam from working,
>> granting three players wins and resetting our economy.
> Also, our side has already proposed and supported a way to avoid
> resetting the economy when the win goes through.
>
> --
> nch
> Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager
>
>
Sorry, this isn't true. I mixed it up with another proposal that fixes 
some reset stuff. We're talking about the specifics of such a proposal now.

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Statement from the Opposition

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:18 PM ATMunn via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Quick question - what even is the scam? I just woke up one day to find
> out that there were a ton of messages and a few people were performing
> weird actions and people said it was a scam. I figured nobody knew how
> it worked except the people performing it, but it appears that that
> isn't the case.
>

Someone who is deregistered by exile can reregister immediately and claim a
welcome package. Then can they be deregistered again. Rinse and repeat.
Infinite welcome packages.

The anti-scam team is so far me, Jason, and Trigon. The scam team is nch
and R. Lee (and possibly G., but e's really something of a free agent last
I checked). The proposal I distributed would block the scam, but it can't
be resolved before the scam can be performed unless we can delay the scam.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Statement from the Opposition

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/25/20 3:15 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/25/20 2:11 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> Free Tournaments require only 2 Agoran consent to initiate, while
>> Emergency Regulations require 3, so the easiest option is a Free
>> Tournament that automatically grants a certain person the win. However,
>> this intent is also vetoable by the Speaker, which would be incentivized
>> to do so in order to keep eir post. This means that bribing the current
>> Speaker with a free win might be the best option. This would also remove
>> the need to control Prime Minister.
> Making up a fake win is better than a scam win?


/shrug. It prevents you from messing with the economy and it grants one
fake win rather than three.


> Also this can't be done 
> in time. The only way you can delay us long enough would allow us to 
> delay this long enough.
>

I... didn't realize this. Dammit.

-- 
Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: BUS: Statement from the Opposition

[ATMunn via agora-discussion]

Quick question - what even is the scam? I just woke up one day to find 
out that there were a ton of messages and a few people were performing 
weird actions and people said it was a scam. I figured nobody knew how 
it worked except the people performing it, but it appears that that 
isn't the case.


On 6/25/2020 3:11 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:

It is no secret that we wish to prevent the exile scam from working,
granting three players wins and resetting our economy. All that must be
done in order to do that is to prevent the exile intent from being
resolvable for any amount of time, so that the fix proposal's decision
can be resolved (please vote for it and consider using EVs, it appears
to be failing right now).

There are two potential ways to delay the intent resolution: having the
Speaker object and use of the final paragraph of Rule 2124.

First, the Speaker objection. The Speaker can veto the resolution for 48
hours by objecting to the intent. This could either by done by
convincing the current Speaker (G.) to object or by replacing em with
someone against the scam. We have no specific desire to replace the
Speaker - if e agrees to help stop the scam, we will not replace em.
However, since that, at the moment, appears unlikely, we are forced to
consider replacing em.

To replace G., someone must win the game, and the Prime Minister must
appoint em to Speaker. The latter is the reason for the Motion of No
Confidence - if the office is vacant, a person against the scam can
deputise to appoint the like-minded Speaker (which also grants em voting
strength on the fix proposal). Again, we have no specific desire to make
Prime Minister vacant, and we will not do so if it proves unnecessary
(i.e. if there is a Speaker opposed to the scam).

There are currently the following methods for winning the game:
- free tournament
- birthday tournament
- PM -> emergency regs
- VP win
- Apathy
- PARADOXICAL CFJ
- Ribbons

Some of these are definitely impossible within the necessary timeframe:
PARADOXICAL CFJ (needs to stand for one week) and Ribbons (nobody both
has a black ribbon and is close to having all the ribbons). Some of them
we will not be pursuing: VP Win, Apathy, and the Birthday Tournament.
This leaves a Free Tournament and emergency regulations.

Free Tournaments require only 2 Agoran consent to initiate, while
Emergency Regulations require 3, so the easiest option is a Free
Tournament that automatically grants a certain person the win. However,
this intent is also vetoable by the Speaker, which would be incentivized
to do so in order to keep eir post. This means that bribing the current
Speaker with a free win might be the best option. This would also remove
the need to control Prime Minister.

Finally, there is another potential way of blocking the intent -
objecting and withdrawing objections from the Blots intent. This would
only work if a recently called CFJ is judged TRUE (i.e. it is found that
with notice actions "depend on objections"). If so, then every player
can veto the exile intent for one day each, which is certainly enough
time to resolve the proposal.



--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary here :)

DIS: Re: BUS: Statement from the Opposition

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/25/20 2:11 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> It is no secret that we wish to prevent the exile scam from working,
> granting three players wins and resetting our economy.

Also, our side has already proposed and supported a way to avoid 
resetting the economy when the win goes through.

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

DIS: Re: BUS: Statement from the Opposition

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/25/20 2:11 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> Free Tournaments require only 2 Agoran consent to initiate, while
> Emergency Regulations require 3, so the easiest option is a Free
> Tournament that automatically grants a certain person the win. However,
> this intent is also vetoable by the Speaker, which would be incentivized
> to do so in order to keep eir post. This means that bribing the current
> Speaker with a free win might be the best option. This would also remove
> the need to control Prime Minister.

Making up a fake win is better than a scam win? Also this can't be done 
in time. The only way you can delay us long enough would allow us to 
delay this long enough.

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: [Attn: G.] Re: Contract charities (was Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification)

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/25/2020 11:33 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 17:03, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
>> On 6/25/2020 9:33 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 14:00, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
>>>  wrote:
 On 6/24/2020 8:47 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> Bump. Here's an updated text; all I did was remove the once-per-month
> restriction. G., what do you think about submitting this before nch's
> and R. Lee's possible victory? I'm happy to pend it (assuming
> DracoLotto worked as intended).

 I'm 99% sure the victory will either succeed or fail before this can be
 voted on (quite possibly before it's distributed) so I don't see an issue
 there?

 -G.
>>>
>>> My concern is that our Pendants will disappear. Just trying to save on
>>> the pending cost.
>>
>> Oh - you mean "does this count as tweaking the game too soon" in general,
>> because you might rush to pend?  I might leave that to nch this seems like
>> a nice feature not a big tweak but others may vary...
>>
>> -G.
> 
> I don't think that's what I meant either...
> 
> I think it's a nice and simple proposal. I would submit and pend it
> myself now, but I don't want to steal authorship from you. I'm
> suggesting there's a (very mild) urgency because we have some Pendants
> that could disappear at any moment, and I don't want them to go to
> waste.

oh, duh.  everyone's been going back and forth so much with ideas and
drafts I wasn't thinking of ownership at all.  go for it!

Re: DIS: [Treasuror] Second draft of auction regulations

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/25/20 2:44 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 2020-06-24 16:23, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On 6/24/20 6:09 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> * Sealed-bid auctions do not end when bidding is closed. Instead, they
>>> end four days afterward.
>> If you want to override when the auction ends in a specific method, you
>> might want to put an "unless otherwise specified" on the generic
>> method's ending clause.
> To avoid verbosity and allow for more flexibility in future auction 
> types, I actually decided not to put an "unless otherwise specified" 
> there. If I added one here, it might imply that this type of clause is 
> required anywhere if the generalized auction is overriden. Is that 
> irrational?
>

No, it's not irrational, and on reading it again, I think the "other
auction methods can generally override attributes" has you covered.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: [Treasuror] Second draft of auction regulations

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-06-24 16:23, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:

On 6/24/20 6:09 PM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:

* Sealed-bid auctions do not end when bidding is closed. Instead, they
end four days afterward.


If you want to override when the auction ends in a specific method, you
might want to put an "unless otherwise specified" on the generic
method's ending clause.


To avoid verbosity and allow for more flexibility in future auction 
types, I actually decided not to put an "unless otherwise specified" 
there. If I added one here, it might imply that this type of clause is 
required anywhere if the generalized auction is overriden. Is that 
irrational?


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: [Attn: G.] Re: Contract charities (was Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification)

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 17:03, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On 6/25/2020 9:33 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 14:00, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> >  wrote:
> >> On 6/24/2020 8:47 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> >>> Bump. Here's an updated text; all I did was remove the once-per-month
> >>> restriction. G., what do you think about submitting this before nch's
> >>> and R. Lee's possible victory? I'm happy to pend it (assuming
> >>> DracoLotto worked as intended).
> >>
> >> I'm 99% sure the victory will either succeed or fail before this can be
> >> voted on (quite possibly before it's distributed) so I don't see an issue
> >> there?
> >>
> >> -G.
> >
> > My concern is that our Pendants will disappear. Just trying to save on
> > the pending cost.
>
> Oh - you mean "does this count as tweaking the game too soon" in general,
> because you might rush to pend?  I might leave that to nch this seems like
> a nice feature not a big tweak but others may vary...
>
> -G.

I don't think that's what I meant either...

I think it's a nice and simple proposal. I would submit and pend it
myself now, but I don't want to steal authorship from you. I'm
suggesting there's a (very mild) urgency because we have some Pendants
that could disappear at any moment, and I don't want them to go to
waste.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Talismans Auction Patch

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/25/2020 11:16 AM, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 2020-06-25 10:41, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On 6/25/20 12:39 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
>> agora-discussion wrote:
>>> On 6/25/20 12:37 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
 This also means the Registrar rather than the Treasuror is in charge
 of figuring out how zombie auctions work, which I'm happy with given
 the Treasuror is defining a good default for when I'm feeling lazy.

 - Falsifian

>>> For simplicity, would it be possible for the Registrar to adopt
>>> regulations defering to the Treasuror's regulations?
>>>
>>
>> The Registrar wouldn't need to write any regulations, e would just need
>> to pick a method that the Treasuror has defined in the auction regulations.
> 
> For the record, I've been interpreting the auctions rule as saying 
> something like "If the rules say you can run an auction, you can do so 
> by any method (even one you specify on the spot) if it's identifiable as 
> an auction. But also the Treasuror can make regulations that help 
> players set up auctions."
> 
> If this is not how this rule is to be interpreted, please correct me.
> 

That's how I intended it when I wrote it, anyway.

I saw the Treasusor's role as maintaining a document with a method or
methods that were handy and would save effort (and over time, be debugged)
so as to "aid trade and commerce" without mandating it.

Making it a regulation ensures the document has version control, and that
some public review has to go into changing it, but I wasn't meaning it to
crowd out other methods that the auctioneer might prefer.

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Congratulations !! You Just WON !!!

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-06-23 18:08, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:
Worth a shot. I thought maybe sending it to all players (because that 
can count as a public action) would work a bit better, since that would 
subvert people's filters to not send Agoran messages to spam.


But alas, P.S.S. is smarter than that.


I doubt it would have worked anyway. There was no "clear designation of 
intent to be public" (R478), which is required for public messages sent 
to all players.


--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Talismans Auction Patch

[Reuben Staley via agora-discussion]

On 2020-06-25 10:41, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:

On 6/25/20 12:39 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion wrote:

On 6/25/20 12:37 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:

This also means the Registrar rather than the Treasuror is in charge
of figuring out how zombie auctions work, which I'm happy with given
the Treasuror is defining a good default for when I'm feeling lazy.

- Falsifian


For simplicity, would it be possible for the Registrar to adopt
regulations defering to the Treasuror's regulations?



The Registrar wouldn't need to write any regulations, e would just need
to pick a method that the Treasuror has defined in the auction regulations.


For the record, I've been interpreting the auctions rule as saying 
something like "If the rules say you can run an auction, you can do so 
by any method (even one you specify on the spot) if it's identifiable as 
an auction. But also the Treasuror can make regulations that help 
players set up auctions."


If this is not how this rule is to be interpreted, please correct me.

--
Trigon

I LOVE SPAGHETTI
transfer Jason one coin
nch was here
I hereby
don't... trust... the dragon...
don't... trust... the dragon...
Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Talismans Auction Patch

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On 6/25/20 12:47 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 16:39, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
> agora-discussion  wrote:
>> On 6/25/20 12:37 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 14:05, Jason Cobb via agora-business
>>>  wrote:
 I submit the following proposal:

 Title: Talismans auction patch

 Author: Jason

 Coauthors: Trigon

 Adoption index: 2.0

 {

 Amend Rule 1885 by deleting the sentence beginning "The method to be
 used for this auction".

 [This fixes a specification bug in the talismans proposal, since
 auctions are now supposed to have their method determined by the
 auctioneer, rather than a rule. If talismans has not been adopted, then
 this will have no effect.]

 }

 --
 Jason Cobb
>>>
>>> This also means the Registrar rather than the Treasuror is in charge
>>> of figuring out how zombie auctions work, which I'm happy with given
>>> the Treasuror is defining a good default for when I'm feeling lazy.
>>>
>>> - Falsifian
>>>
>>
>> For simplicity, would it be possible for the Registrar to adopt
>> regulations defering to the Treasuror's regulations?
> 
> I'm not sure where Registrar regulations come into the picture... are
> you requesting that I run zombie auctions according to one of the
> methods defined in the Treasuror's regulations?

It's not a request; I just think that running auctions isn't the core
purpose of the Registrar, so e shouldn't be expected to write eir own
regulations if e doesn't want to.

> 
> I think that's a good idea for the first zombie auction, since we
> should test those regulations.
> 
> For later ones, I'm not sure. I'll almost certainly circulate a draft
> before trying anything fancy.
> 
> - Falsifian
> 


-- 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth

Re: [Attn: G.] Re: Contract charities (was Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification)

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/25/2020 9:33 AM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 14:00, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
>> On 6/24/2020 8:47 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> Bump. Here's an updated text; all I did was remove the once-per-month
>>> restriction. G., what do you think about submitting this before nch's
>>> and R. Lee's possible victory? I'm happy to pend it (assuming
>>> DracoLotto worked as intended).
>>
>> I'm 99% sure the victory will either succeed or fail before this can be
>> voted on (quite possibly before it's distributed) so I don't see an issue
>> there?
>>
>> -G.
> 
> My concern is that our Pendants will disappear. Just trying to save on
> the pending cost.

Oh - you mean "does this count as tweaking the game too soon" in general,
because you might rush to pend?  I might leave that to nch this seems like
a nice feature not a big tweak but others may vary...

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Talismans Auction Patch

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/25/2020 9:41 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> The Registrar wouldn't need to write any regulations, e would just need
> to pick a method that the Treasuror has defined in the auction regulations.
> 

I think the auctioneer is free to point to any method that follows the
guidelines of the second paragraph of R2545.  Methods whose definitions
are legally locked by Agora (via official regulations or whatever) would
probably withstand more criticism but it could be a contract or anything
really.

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Talismans Auction Patch

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 16:39, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion  wrote:
> On 6/25/20 12:37 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 14:05, Jason Cobb via agora-business
> >  wrote:
> >> I submit the following proposal:
> >>
> >> Title: Talismans auction patch
> >>
> >> Author: Jason
> >>
> >> Coauthors: Trigon
> >>
> >> Adoption index: 2.0
> >>
> >> {
> >>
> >> Amend Rule 1885 by deleting the sentence beginning "The method to be
> >> used for this auction".
> >>
> >> [This fixes a specification bug in the talismans proposal, since
> >> auctions are now supposed to have their method determined by the
> >> auctioneer, rather than a rule. If talismans has not been adopted, then
> >> this will have no effect.]
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jason Cobb
> >
> > This also means the Registrar rather than the Treasuror is in charge
> > of figuring out how zombie auctions work, which I'm happy with given
> > the Treasuror is defining a good default for when I'm feeling lazy.
> >
> > - Falsifian
> >
>
> For simplicity, would it be possible for the Registrar to adopt
> regulations defering to the Treasuror's regulations?

I'm not sure where Registrar regulations come into the picture... are
you requesting that I run zombie auctions according to one of the
methods defined in the Treasuror's regulations?

I think that's a good idea for the first zombie auction, since we
should test those regulations.

For later ones, I'm not sure. I'll almost certainly circulate a draft
before trying anything fancy.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Talismans Auction Patch

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/25/20 12:39 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/25/20 12:37 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 14:05, Jason Cobb via agora-business
>>  wrote:
>>> I submit the following proposal:
>>>
>>> Title: Talismans auction patch
>>>
>>> Author: Jason
>>>
>>> Coauthors: Trigon
>>>
>>> Adoption index: 2.0
>>>
>>> {
>>>
>>> Amend Rule 1885 by deleting the sentence beginning "The method to be
>>> used for this auction".
>>>
>>> [This fixes a specification bug in the talismans proposal, since
>>> auctions are now supposed to have their method determined by the
>>> auctioneer, rather than a rule. If talismans has not been adopted, then
>>> this will have no effect.]
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jason Cobb
>> This also means the Registrar rather than the Treasuror is in charge
>> of figuring out how zombie auctions work, which I'm happy with given
>> the Treasuror is defining a good default for when I'm feeling lazy.
>>
>> - Falsifian
>>
> For simplicity, would it be possible for the Registrar to adopt
> regulations defering to the Treasuror's regulations?
>

The Registrar wouldn't need to write any regulations, e would just need
to pick a method that the Treasuror has defined in the auction regulations.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: [Attn. R. Lee] Re: DIS: [Reportor] Last Week in Agora

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 15:45, nch via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On 6/25/20 10:43 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:
> > The Discord invite link no longer works. It probably expired; Discord
> > invites expire after a week or 3 days or something by default.
> >
> > On 6/24/2020 11:20 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> >> https://discord.gg/UGxm3v  --- Agora suddenly has an unofficial Discord
> >> server. This happened when a downside of Agora's recent increased
> >> activity becomes impossible to ignore: the activity is hard to keep up
> >> with, and it might even be scaring new players away. There was some
> >> discussion of different strategies, but for now R. Lee went ahead and
> >> just created the server.
> > --
> > ATMunn
> > friendly neighborhood notary here :)
>
> Forgot that, by default, discord links expire. Here's one that doesn't
> expire: https://discord.gg/JCC6YGc
>
> --
> nch
> Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Thanks. Updated in the online version of last week's summary, in case
people check for it there.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Talismans Auction Patch

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On 6/25/20 12:37 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 14:05, Jason Cobb via agora-business
>  wrote:
>> I submit the following proposal:
>>
>> Title: Talismans auction patch
>>
>> Author: Jason
>>
>> Coauthors: Trigon
>>
>> Adoption index: 2.0
>>
>> {
>>
>> Amend Rule 1885 by deleting the sentence beginning "The method to be
>> used for this auction".
>>
>> [This fixes a specification bug in the talismans proposal, since
>> auctions are now supposed to have their method determined by the
>> auctioneer, rather than a rule. If talismans has not been adopted, then
>> this will have no effect.]
>>
>> }
>>
>> --
>> Jason Cobb
> 
> This also means the Registrar rather than the Treasuror is in charge
> of figuring out how zombie auctions work, which I'm happy with given
> the Treasuror is defining a good default for when I'm feeling lazy.
> 
> - Falsifian
> 

For simplicity, would it be possible for the Registrar to adopt
regulations defering to the Treasuror's regulations?

-- 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Talismans Auction Patch

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 14:05, Jason Cobb via agora-business
 wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Talismans auction patch
>
> Author: Jason
>
> Coauthors: Trigon
>
> Adoption index: 2.0
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 1885 by deleting the sentence beginning "The method to be
> used for this auction".
>
> [This fixes a specification bug in the talismans proposal, since
> auctions are now supposed to have their method determined by the
> auctioneer, rather than a rule. If talismans has not been adopted, then
> this will have no effect.]
>
> }
>
> --
> Jason Cobb

This also means the Registrar rather than the Treasuror is in charge
of figuring out how zombie auctions work, which I'm happy with given
the Treasuror is defining a good default for when I'm feeling lazy.

- Falsifian

Re: [Attn: G.] Re: Contract charities (was Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification)

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 14:00, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On 6/24/2020 8:47 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Bump. Here's an updated text; all I did was remove the once-per-month
> > restriction. G., what do you think about submitting this before nch's
> > and R. Lee's possible victory? I'm happy to pend it (assuming
> > DracoLotto worked as intended).
>
> I'm 99% sure the victory will either succeed or fail before this can be
> voted on (quite possibly before it's distributed) so I don't see an issue
> there?
>
> -G.

My concern is that our Pendants will disappear. Just trying to save on
the pending cost.

- Falsifian

DIS: Re: OFF: Report Routing

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 04:40, Aris Merchant via agora-official
 wrote:
> I would prefer for Reportor reports to be sent to OFF, even in the absence
> of a rule making the Reportor an office. People often read OFF to get a
> summary of game affairs at a given time. The Reportor's entries are
> astoundingly useful for that purpose. What does everyone else think about
> this?
>
> Also, great work Falsifian! There's a lot going on, and you're doing an
> amazing job.
>
> -Aris

Sure, I'll start sending to OFF (remind me if I forget).

Yeah, I'm hoping the summaries will be useful for future historical research.

- Falsifian

Re: [Attn. R. Lee] Re: DIS: [Reportor] Last Week in Agora

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/25/20 10:43 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote:
> The Discord invite link no longer works. It probably expired; Discord
> invites expire after a week or 3 days or something by default.
>
> On 6/24/2020 11:20 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
>> https://discord.gg/UGxm3v  --- Agora suddenly has an unofficial Discord
>> server. This happened when a downside of Agora's recent increased
>> activity becomes impossible to ignore: the activity is hard to keep up
>> with, and it might even be scaring new players away. There was some
>> discussion of different strategies, but for now R. Lee went ahead and
>> just created the server.
> --
> ATMunn
> friendly neighborhood notary here :)

Forgot that, by default, discord links expire. Here's one that doesn't 
expire: https://discord.gg/JCC6YGc

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

[Attn. R. Lee] Re: DIS: [Reportor] Last Week in Agora

[ATMunn via agora-discussion]

The Discord invite link no longer works. It probably expired; Discord 
invites expire after a week or 3 days or something by default.


On 6/24/2020 11:20 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:

https://discord.gg/UGxm3v  --- Agora suddenly has an unofficial Discord
server. This happened when a downside of Agora's recent increased
activity becomes impossible to ignore: the activity is hard to keep up
with, and it might even be scaring new players away. There was some
discussion of different strategies, but for now R. Lee went ahead and
just created the server.


--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary here :)

DIS: Re: OFF: Report Routing

[ATMunn via agora-discussion]

I agree. I don't usually read the individual lists separately, but I see 
the value in it being sent to OFF.


On 6/25/2020 12:39 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote:

I would prefer for Reportor reports to be sent to OFF, even in the absence
of a rule making the Reportor an office. People often read OFF to get a
summary of game affairs at a given time. The Reportor's entries are
astoundingly useful for that purpose. What does everyone else think about
this?

Also, great work Falsifian! There's a lot going on, and you're doing an
amazing job.

-Aris



--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary here :)

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: general objection

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/24/20 9:51 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote:
>
>
>> On Jun 24, 2020, at 6:55 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business 
>>  wrote:
>>
>>
>> I object to any and all intents to declare apathy.
> But does this adequately identify the intents being objected to?
>
> (I think there might have been a CFJ along those lines in the past.)

I don't think "any" would be but "all" seems unambiguous.

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: general objection

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/24/2020 7:51 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On Jun 24, 2020, at 6:55 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
>>
>>
>> I object to any and all intents to declare apathy.
> 
> But does this adequately identify the intents being objected to?
> 
> (I think there might have been a CFJ along those lines in the past.)
> 

It's been used regularly for a long time and there's old CFJs.  I remember
judging one around, er, before 2010 anyway, but my judgement was just
citing older ones, I'll go look (don't remember enough context to find it
instantly).

But just on general principles I don't see why it wouldn't there aren't
particularly strong specificity about supporting/objecting such that "all
of [a reasonably well-defined class of intent]" wouldn't do the trick.
In fact, R2124, using the "publicly posted" as a method descriptor instead
of "by announcement", bypasses *any* explicit standard for clarity or
specificity.

(I remember saying something in the CFJ like that it makes sense for there
to be a lower standard, because it's better to error on the side of
caution when proposing the intent, but to error on the side of
inclusiveness during the supporting/objecting).

On that note:  We added "without obfuscation" and "conspicuously" to the
dependency intent requirements in R2595 last year.  IMO an intent that
clearly hides the *message* (i.e. designed to trigger spam filters) would
count as "an obfuscation" and/or not be "conspicuous", anyway.

-G.

Re: [Attn: G.] Re: Contract charities (was Re: DIS: How and Whether to Change Patch Certification)

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/24/2020 8:47 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> Bump. Here's an updated text; all I did was remove the once-per-month
> restriction. G., what do you think about submitting this before nch's
> and R. Lee's possible victory? I'm happy to pend it (assuming
> DracoLotto worked as intended).

I'm 99% sure the victory will either succeed or fail before this can be
voted on (quite possibly before it's distributed) so I don't see an issue
there?

-G.