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

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/25/20 11:39 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via 
agora-discussion wrote:
> For simplicity, would it be possible for the Registrar to adopt
> regulations defering to the Treasuror's regulations?

I think so. I don't see any reason a Regulation couldn't simply say 
"Auctions are run as defined in the Regulations defined by the 
Treasuror" or whatever text is needed to make it clear what you're 
referring to.

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulatory Instruments draft

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/25/20 6:40 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> Title: Regulatory Instruments v2
> Author: Jason
> Coauthors: Aris
> Adoption index: 3.0

Reading this it seems mechanically sound. However I kind of agree with 
G. Were there any specific deficits with the current regulation system 
that have affected gameplay negatively? Do we need the extra protections 
offered by bodies of law?

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: Re: [Indictment] Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch

[omd via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 2:32 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> Can someone point me to the CFJ that says "authorized to" conditions are
> triggered by a CAN, but not a SHALL?  (specifically that look at the term
> "authorize", I'm just curious how much that highly-used but undefined in
> the rules word has been adjudicated).

This one is pretty close, in that it asks whether "X SHALL do Y"
resulted in the rules "authorizing" Y.  It's not quite on point,
though: as the judge of that case I simply assumed that "authorized"
meant "CAN", and focused instead on the question of whether that
particular SHALL implied a CAN.

https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3736

Re: DIS: Re: [Indictment] Re: BUS: actually fuck it

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/27/20 12:14 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:13 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On 6/27/20 12:11 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
>>> Regardless of the interpretation of this clause, "pending" a proposal is
>>> flipping its switch. You can't flip a switch to the same value it
>>> already has, per R2162.
>>
>> Right, I'm not arguing that the flipping of the switch failed. I'm
>> arguing that the flipping failing doesn't cause the certification to
>> fail due to the phrasing of the rule.
>
> One advantage of having written Contracts v8 is that it's so terrible that
> all of my other mistakes pale by comparison.
>
>
> -Aris


I'm not sure that's it's really a "mistake", since the wording seems
relatively idiomatic.

-- 
Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Contract charities

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/26/20 7:45 PM, James Cook via agora-business wrote:
>> 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!
> I submit a proposal as follows. (But I do not pend it just yet.)
>
> Title: Contract charities
> Co-authors: G.
> AI: 1
> Text:
> {
> [Comment: The original version was by G..]
>
> Enact the following rule, Charities:
>
>Donation Level is a natural switch for contracts, tracked by the
>Notary, with a default of 0 and a maximum of 25.  A contract with
>nonzero donation level is called a Charity.
>
>The Notary CAN flip a contract's donation level to a non-default
>value with 3 Agoran consent.  This SHOULD only be done if the
>contract's provisions ensure that its funds will be used solely
>for the betterment of Agora.  Any player CAN flip a contract's
>donation level to 0 with Agoran consent.
>
>Whenever a payday occurs, half of each charity's coin holdings
>(rounded down) are destroyed, and then each charity earns a
>number of coins equal to its donation level.
> }
>
> - Falsifian

Part of me is a bigger fan of not having true charities and having some 
other payment scheme, like the Reporter selling ad space. But I'm also 
not against this. Text looks good mechanically, I'd probably vote 
PRESENT on this.

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: Re: [Indictment] Re: BUS: actually fuck it

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 9:13 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 6/27/20 12:11 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> > Regardless of the interpretation of this clause, "pending" a proposal is
> > flipping its switch. You can't flip a switch to the same value it
> > already has, per R2162.
>
>
> Right, I'm not arguing that the flipping of the switch failed. I'm
> arguing that the flipping failing doesn't cause the certification to
> fail due to the phrasing of the rule.


One advantage of having written Contracts v8 is that it's so terrible that
all of my other mistakes pale by comparison.


-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: [Indictment] Re: BUS: actually fuck it

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/27/20 12:11 AM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> Regardless of the interpretation of this clause, "pending" a proposal is 
> flipping its switch. You can't flip a switch to the same value it 
> already has, per R2162.


Right, I'm not arguing that the flipping of the switch failed. I'm
arguing that the flipping failing doesn't cause the certification to
fail due to the phrasing of the rule.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: [Indictment] Re: BUS: actually fuck it

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/26/20 7:50 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/26/20 8:38 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business
> wrote:
>> Here is the list of proposals that I believe were pended in this way —
>> some may be missing, and I considered the possibility that the finger
>> pointing was insufficiently precise, but given that I can recommend
>> arbitrary punishment, I'm not particularly concerned:
>
> Oooh, time for more semantics!
>
> Rule 2626:
>
>>Any player CAN, by announcement, certify a specified proposal (as
>>a patch), causing it to become pending.
>
> My reading of this would be that any player CAN certify any proposal
> (even one that is already pending), which also makes em cause the
> proposal to become pending as a side effect. This would mean that the
> pending can fail independently of the certification, and R2626 says "A
> player SHALL NOT certify a proposal...", rather than prohibiting the
> pending itself.
>
> I made a similar argument in CFJ 3769 [0], but the language was slightly
> different in that the rule in that case was written in the passive voice
> ("the gamestate is modified" vs R2626's "causing it to become pending").
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
Regardless of the interpretation of this clause, "pending" a proposal is 
flipping its switch. You can't flip a switch to the same value it 
already has, per R2162.

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE

[omd via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with
> just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest
> out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly.

Back in 2008, there was a short-lived nomic called "Nomic 217", whose
initial ruleset consisted in its entirety of this paragraph copied
from Agora's Rule 217:

  When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules
  takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or
  unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past
  judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game.

Re: DIS: Apathy warning

[omd via agora-discussion]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 5:52 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> Explanation for those curious:
>
> The attachment was the EICAR antivirus test file, which everything is
> supposed to treat as malware, but is really just a 68-byte text file.
> Gmail wouldn't even send it from my own account, which is why I had to
> use protonmail.

Indeed, Gmail rejected the list server's attempts to deliver it:

Error: 552 5.7.0 This message was blocked because its content presents
a potential security issue. Please visit
https://support.google.com/mail/?p=BlockedMessage to review our
message content and attachment content guidelines. a66si14491710pfb.91
- gsmtp

If there hadn't been objections, this would be similar to CFJ 1905:

https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1905

But slightly different, since the message was dropped by list
subscribers' mail servers rather than the list server itself.

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

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/26/20 10:52 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/26/20 11:42 PM, Ed Strange via agora-business wrote:
>> I pledge to abandin any attrmpt to do this scam if you give ME a win via
>> free tournament
>
> Interesting idea, but I think we'll have to wait to find out how the CFJ
> is judged. Also, nch might be able to force you into doing it by contract.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
I don't think I can force em to register. Or at least, I hope I can't 
because that raises a lot of questions...

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

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

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/26/20 11:42 PM, Ed Strange via agora-business wrote:
> I pledge to abandin any attrmpt to do this scam if you give ME a win via
> free tournament


Interesting idea, but I think we'll have to wait to find out how the CFJ
is judged. Also, nch might be able to force you into doing it by contract.

-- 
Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: [Indictment] Re: BUS: actually fuck it

[omd via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 5:39 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-business  wrote:
> Here is the list of proposals that I believe were pended in this way —

I think my proposal "Reset deadlines when resetting the economy" was
also pended.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/26/20 9:18 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> I may have forgotten this case existed.
>
> Rule 2221 reads, in its entirety:
>
>> Rule 2221/7 (Power=3)
>> Cleanliness
>>
>>   Any player CAN clean a rule without objection by specifying one or
>>   more corrections to spelling, grammar, capitalization, formatting,
>>   and/or dialect, or to whether a synonym or abbreviation is used in
>>   place of a word or phrase, in the rule's text and/or title; the
>>   rule is amended by this rule as specified by that person.
>
>
> R. Lee's intent was:
>
>> I intend, without objection, to amed the rules in the following
>> inconsequential way:
>> Amend every word in the ruleset except the rules at power 4 to read
>> "Meep"
>
>
> The "without objection" part is probably clear enough to be an intent
> to clean some rules. However, I'm not sure if the intent is invalid
> because it doesn't specify a single rule or if it's one intent for
> each rule. If the latter, it could potentially be construed as one
> violation per enacted rule (of which there are 136)...
>
> That said, I have absolutely no idea which (if any) of my offered
> readings is right.
>
> -- 
> Jason Cobb


On re-reading, these arguments aren't relevant to the judgement or
whether the action would ossify (I'm sorry for derailing the thread),
but they might affect how R. Lee will be punished.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/26/2020 6:14 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> On 6/26/20 9:11 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
>>  wrote:
>>> On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
 On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:
> The below CFJ is 3851.  I assign it to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
>
> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851
>
> ===  CFJ 3851  ===
>
>   R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message in
>   evidence.
>
> ==
> Caller:G.
> Barred:R. Lee
>
> Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> ==
>
> History:
>
> Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 02:49:52
> Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:  [now]
>
> ==
 First, let's look at the common language definition of "attempt", one of
 which is "[To] make an effort to achieve or complete".[0] By this
 definition, it seems clear that, since an intent is an effort to
 complete the intended action, R. Lee did attempt to perform a forbidden
 action; however, we should also look to the use of "attempt" as a term
 of art in jurisprudence. Here, we find possibly conflicting definitions:
 "Any act that is more than merely preparatory to the intended commission
 of a crime"[1] and "the crime of having the intent to commit and taking
 action in an effort to commit a crime that fails or is prevented".[2]
 The second of these is clearly fulfilled as R. Lee stated eir intent
 publicly and took action towards the commission of the crime, but the
 first rests upon whether the intent was "merely preparatory". Given that
 the statement of intent was a necessary condition for the later
 commission of the crime and could not have reasonably served any other
 purpose, I find that the intent was more than merely preparatory. Given
 that the three definitions are agreeable with respect to the
 circumstances, we need not further analyze which is best to use. As a
 result, I assign a judgment of TRUE to CFJ 3851.

>>>
>>> Actuallly I forgot about this, but I thought of something else here.
>>>
>>> I took it for granted that changing the ruleset below Power=4 to "Meep"
>>> would ossify agora.  However, this would remove the explicit definition of
>>> contract, which would make the document (potentially) a "common-law"
>>> agreement that in Agoran custom, could be modified by the consent of all
>>> parties.
>>>
>>> And we'd still have the description of agora in Rules 101 and 1689.
>>>
>>> And you can make various arguments like - R101 still tells us a little
>>> about the pieces we need to change an agreement (parties and an agreed
>>> forum).  Before the change we knew who the parties were, and we didn't
>>> explicitly change that so they're the same; before the change we knew what
>>> "public" meant, so that's still a common-law method of determining proof
>>> of consent, etc.  Also noting the recent judgement (on shines) that found
>>> that rules-terms could persist in custom more than previously allowed.
>>>
>>> Or just tell me I'm silly and obviously the change would ossify agora,
>>> that's fine too...
>>>
>>> -G.
>>
>> I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with
>> just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest
>> out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly.
>>
>> It doesn't sound that silly for Agora to still work with just the
>> power-4 rules plus Meeps. The rules sort of say "There are fora; you
>> say your actions over the fora; proposals change the gamestate; here's
>> an example "fountain" rule some people made; now go have fun!"
>>
>> Given the absence of other guidance, R1698 might be interpreted as
>> implying that the players can adopt proposals, and that they take
>> effect unless they would ossify Agora.
>>
>> - Falsifian
>>
> 
> There does seem to be an argument to be made here, but if that's the
> case I'm not sure what effect R1698 would have.

I think R1698 basically says "the only rule is that you can always change
the rules".  It's good proof that the rules can still be changed.  It
suggests the word "proposal" as an agent of change, suggesting some sort
of democratic/discussion process.

And as a playable concept, it's honestly not much different than playing a
face-to-face nomic.  In email nomic, you have to spell out a lot of
assumptions to start.  How to vote, for example.  In the original 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/26/20 12:04 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:
>>> The below CFJ is 3851.  I assign it to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
>>>
>>> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851
>>>
>>> ===  CFJ 3851  ===
>>>
>>>   R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message in
>>>   evidence.
>>>
>>> ==
>>> Caller:G.
>>> Barred:R. Lee
>>>
>>> Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>>
>>> ==
>>>
>>> History:
>>>
>>> Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 02:49:52
>>> Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:  [now]
>>>
>>> ==
>> First, let's look at the common language definition of "attempt", one of
>> which is "[To] make an effort to achieve or complete".[0] By this
>> definition, it seems clear that, since an intent is an effort to
>> complete the intended action, R. Lee did attempt to perform a forbidden
>> action; however, we should also look to the use of "attempt" as a term
>> of art in jurisprudence. Here, we find possibly conflicting definitions:
>> "Any act that is more than merely preparatory to the intended commission
>> of a crime"[1] and "the crime of having the intent to commit and taking
>> action in an effort to commit a crime that fails or is prevented".[2]
>> The second of these is clearly fulfilled as R. Lee stated eir intent
>> publicly and took action towards the commission of the crime, but the
>> first rests upon whether the intent was "merely preparatory". Given that
>> the statement of intent was a necessary condition for the later
>> commission of the crime and could not have reasonably served any other
>> purpose, I find that the intent was more than merely preparatory. Given
>> that the three definitions are agreeable with respect to the
>> circumstances, we need not further analyze which is best to use. As a
>> result, I assign a judgment of TRUE to CFJ 3851.
>>
> Actuallly I forgot about this, but I thought of something else here.
>
> I took it for granted that changing the ruleset below Power=4 to "Meep"
> would ossify agora.  However, this would remove the explicit definition of
> contract, which would make the document (potentially) a "common-law"
> agreement that in Agoran custom, could be modified by the consent of all
> parties.
>
> And we'd still have the description of agora in Rules 101 and 1689.
>
> And you can make various arguments like - R101 still tells us a little
> about the pieces we need to change an agreement (parties and an agreed
> forum).  Before the change we knew who the parties were, and we didn't
> explicitly change that so they're the same; before the change we knew what
> "public" meant, so that's still a common-law method of determining proof
> of consent, etc.  Also noting the recent judgement (on shines) that found
> that rules-terms could persist in custom more than previously allowed.
>
> Or just tell me I'm silly and obviously the change would ossify agora,
> that's fine too...
>
> -G.
>

I may have forgotten this case existed.

Rule 2221 reads, in its entirety:

> Rule 2221/7 (Power=3)
> Cleanliness
>
>   Any player CAN clean a rule without objection by specifying one or
>   more corrections to spelling, grammar, capitalization, formatting,
>   and/or dialect, or to whether a synonym or abbreviation is used in
>   place of a word or phrase, in the rule's text and/or title; the
>   rule is amended by this rule as specified by that person.


R. Lee's intent was:

> I intend, without objection, to amed the rules in the following
> inconsequential way:
> Amend every word in the ruleset except the rules at power 4 to read
> "Meep"


The "without objection" part is probably clear enough to be an intent to
clean some rules. However, I'm not sure if the intent is invalid because
it doesn't specify a single rule or if it's one intent for each rule. If
the latter, it could potentially be construed as one violation per
enacted rule (of which there are 136)...

That said, I have absolutely no idea which (if any) of my offered
readings is right.

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On 6/26/20 9:11 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
>> On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>>> On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:
 The below CFJ is 3851.  I assign it to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.

 status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851

 ===  CFJ 3851  ===

   R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message in
   evidence.

 ==
 Caller:G.
 Barred:R. Lee

 Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

 ==

 History:

 Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 02:49:52
 Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:  [now]

 ==
>>> First, let's look at the common language definition of "attempt", one of
>>> which is "[To] make an effort to achieve or complete".[0] By this
>>> definition, it seems clear that, since an intent is an effort to
>>> complete the intended action, R. Lee did attempt to perform a forbidden
>>> action; however, we should also look to the use of "attempt" as a term
>>> of art in jurisprudence. Here, we find possibly conflicting definitions:
>>> "Any act that is more than merely preparatory to the intended commission
>>> of a crime"[1] and "the crime of having the intent to commit and taking
>>> action in an effort to commit a crime that fails or is prevented".[2]
>>> The second of these is clearly fulfilled as R. Lee stated eir intent
>>> publicly and took action towards the commission of the crime, but the
>>> first rests upon whether the intent was "merely preparatory". Given that
>>> the statement of intent was a necessary condition for the later
>>> commission of the crime and could not have reasonably served any other
>>> purpose, I find that the intent was more than merely preparatory. Given
>>> that the three definitions are agreeable with respect to the
>>> circumstances, we need not further analyze which is best to use. As a
>>> result, I assign a judgment of TRUE to CFJ 3851.
>>>
>>
>> Actuallly I forgot about this, but I thought of something else here.
>>
>> I took it for granted that changing the ruleset below Power=4 to "Meep"
>> would ossify agora.  However, this would remove the explicit definition of
>> contract, which would make the document (potentially) a "common-law"
>> agreement that in Agoran custom, could be modified by the consent of all
>> parties.
>>
>> And we'd still have the description of agora in Rules 101 and 1689.
>>
>> And you can make various arguments like - R101 still tells us a little
>> about the pieces we need to change an agreement (parties and an agreed
>> forum).  Before the change we knew who the parties were, and we didn't
>> explicitly change that so they're the same; before the change we knew what
>> "public" meant, so that's still a common-law method of determining proof
>> of consent, etc.  Also noting the recent judgement (on shines) that found
>> that rules-terms could persist in custom more than previously allowed.
>>
>> Or just tell me I'm silly and obviously the change would ossify agora,
>> that's fine too...
>>
>> -G.
> 
> I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with
> just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest
> out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly.
> 
> It doesn't sound that silly for Agora to still work with just the
> power-4 rules plus Meeps. The rules sort of say "There are fora; you
> say your actions over the fora; proposals change the gamestate; here's
> an example "fountain" rule some people made; now go have fun!"
> 
> Given the absence of other guidance, R1698 might be interpreted as
> implying that the players can adopt proposals, and that they take
> effect unless they would ossify Agora.
> 
> - Falsifian
> 

There does seem to be an argument to be made here, but if that's the
case I'm not sure what effect R1698 would have.

-- 

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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE

[Aris Merchant via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:12 PM James Cook via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
> > On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > > On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:
> > >> The below CFJ is 3851.  I assign it to Publius Scribonius
> Scholasticus.
> > >>
> > >> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851
> > >>
> > >> ===  CFJ 3851
> ===
> > >>
> > >>   R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message in
> > >>   evidence.
> > >>
> > >>
> ==
> > >> Caller:G.
> > >> Barred:R. Lee
> > >>
> > >> Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > >>
> > >>
> ==
> > >>
> > >> History:
> > >>
> > >> Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 02:49:52
> > >> Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:  [now]
> > >>
> > >>
> ==
> > > First, let's look at the common language definition of "attempt", one
> of
> > > which is "[To] make an effort to achieve or complete".[0] By this
> > > definition, it seems clear that, since an intent is an effort to
> > > complete the intended action, R. Lee did attempt to perform a forbidden
> > > action; however, we should also look to the use of "attempt" as a term
> > > of art in jurisprudence. Here, we find possibly conflicting
> definitions:
> > > "Any act that is more than merely preparatory to the intended
> commission
> > > of a crime"[1] and "the crime of having the intent to commit and taking
> > > action in an effort to commit a crime that fails or is prevented".[2]
> > > The second of these is clearly fulfilled as R. Lee stated eir intent
> > > publicly and took action towards the commission of the crime, but the
> > > first rests upon whether the intent was "merely preparatory". Given
> that
> > > the statement of intent was a necessary condition for the later
> > > commission of the crime and could not have reasonably served any other
> > > purpose, I find that the intent was more than merely preparatory. Given
> > > that the three definitions are agreeable with respect to the
> > > circumstances, we need not further analyze which is best to use. As a
> > > result, I assign a judgment of TRUE to CFJ 3851.
> > >
> >
> > Actuallly I forgot about this, but I thought of something else here.
> >
> > I took it for granted that changing the ruleset below Power=4 to "Meep"
> > would ossify agora.  However, this would remove the explicit definition
> of
> > contract, which would make the document (potentially) a "common-law"
> > agreement that in Agoran custom, could be modified by the consent of all
> > parties.
> >
> > And we'd still have the description of agora in Rules 101 and 1689.
> >
> > And you can make various arguments like - R101 still tells us a little
> > about the pieces we need to change an agreement (parties and an agreed
> > forum).  Before the change we knew who the parties were, and we didn't
> > explicitly change that so they're the same; before the change we knew
> what
> > "public" meant, so that's still a common-law method of determining proof
> > of consent, etc.  Also noting the recent judgement (on shines) that found
> > that rules-terms could persist in custom more than previously allowed.
> >
> > Or just tell me I'm silly and obviously the change would ossify agora,
> > that's fine too...
> >
> > -G.
>
> I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with
> just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest
> out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly.
>
> It doesn't sound that silly for Agora to still work with just the
> power-4 rules plus Meeps. The rules sort of say "There are fora; you
> say your actions over the fora; proposals change the gamestate; here's
> an example "fountain" rule some people made; now go have fun!"
>
> Given the absence of other guidance, R1698 might be interpreted as
> implying that the players can adopt proposals, and that they take
> effect unless they would ossify Agora.
>

We have one of those on the Discord server. So far the end result appears
to be that, in the absence of any defined way of contributing to the game,
no one even tries.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 16:08, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:
> >> The below CFJ is 3851.  I assign it to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
> >>
> >> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851
> >>
> >> ===  CFJ 3851  ===
> >>
> >>   R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message in
> >>   evidence.
> >>
> >> ==
> >> Caller:G.
> >> Barred:R. Lee
> >>
> >> Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> >>
> >> ==
> >>
> >> History:
> >>
> >> Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 02:49:52
> >> Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:  [now]
> >>
> >> ==
> > First, let's look at the common language definition of "attempt", one of
> > which is "[To] make an effort to achieve or complete".[0] By this
> > definition, it seems clear that, since an intent is an effort to
> > complete the intended action, R. Lee did attempt to perform a forbidden
> > action; however, we should also look to the use of "attempt" as a term
> > of art in jurisprudence. Here, we find possibly conflicting definitions:
> > "Any act that is more than merely preparatory to the intended commission
> > of a crime"[1] and "the crime of having the intent to commit and taking
> > action in an effort to commit a crime that fails or is prevented".[2]
> > The second of these is clearly fulfilled as R. Lee stated eir intent
> > publicly and took action towards the commission of the crime, but the
> > first rests upon whether the intent was "merely preparatory". Given that
> > the statement of intent was a necessary condition for the later
> > commission of the crime and could not have reasonably served any other
> > purpose, I find that the intent was more than merely preparatory. Given
> > that the three definitions are agreeable with respect to the
> > circumstances, we need not further analyze which is best to use. As a
> > result, I assign a judgment of TRUE to CFJ 3851.
> >
>
> Actuallly I forgot about this, but I thought of something else here.
>
> I took it for granted that changing the ruleset below Power=4 to "Meep"
> would ossify agora.  However, this would remove the explicit definition of
> contract, which would make the document (potentially) a "common-law"
> agreement that in Agoran custom, could be modified by the consent of all
> parties.
>
> And we'd still have the description of agora in Rules 101 and 1689.
>
> And you can make various arguments like - R101 still tells us a little
> about the pieces we need to change an agreement (parties and an agreed
> forum).  Before the change we knew who the parties were, and we didn't
> explicitly change that so they're the same; before the change we knew what
> "public" meant, so that's still a common-law method of determining proof
> of consent, etc.  Also noting the recent judgement (on shines) that found
> that rules-terms could persist in custom more than previously allowed.
>
> Or just tell me I'm silly and obviously the change would ossify agora,
> that's fine too...
>
> -G.

I've thought it would be interesting to play a Nomic that starts with
just one simple rule with text like "This is a Nomic; figure the rest
out.". Or just on rules written down explicitly.

It doesn't sound that silly for Agora to still work with just the
power-4 rules plus Meeps. The rules sort of say "There are fora; you
say your actions over the fora; proposals change the gamestate; here's
an example "fountain" rule some people made; now go have fun!"

Given the absence of other guidance, R1698 might be interpreted as
implying that the players can adopt proposals, and that they take
effect unless they would ossify Agora.

- Falsifian

DIS: Re: BUS: [Dragon] Rejoining

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 21:35, Aris Merchant via agora-business
 wrote:
> I don't think I ever consented to the latest amendment, so I believe I
> am no longer a party. I become a party to the Dragon Corporation.
>
> -Aris

Oops, welcome back! Sorry, probably should have bumped that thread first.

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: [Indictment] Re: BUS: actually fuck it

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On 6/26/20 8:50 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/26/20 8:38 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business
> wrote:
>> Here is the list of proposals that I believe were pended in this way —
>> some may be missing, and I considered the possibility that the finger
>> pointing was insufficiently precise, but given that I can recommend
>> arbitrary punishment, I'm not particularly concerned:
> 
> 
> Oooh, time for more semantics!
> 
> Rule 2626:
> 
>>   Any player CAN, by announcement, certify a specified proposal (as
>>   a patch), causing it to become pending.
> 
> 
> My reading of this would be that any player CAN certify any proposal
> (even one that is already pending), which also makes em cause the
> proposal to become pending as a side effect. This would mean that the
> pending can fail independently of the certification, and R2626 says "A
> player SHALL NOT certify a proposal...", rather than prohibiting the
> pending itself.
> 
> I made a similar argument in CFJ 3769 [0], but the language was slightly
> different in that the rule in that case was written in the passive voice
> ("the gamestate is modified" vs R2626's "causing it to become pending").
> 

I think that's a reasonable interpretation although not one that I had
considered. I think that that interpretation though could lead to some
complications around how certification will soon affect other switches,
so I'm inclined to prefer mine.

-- 

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

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Contract charities

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On 6/26/20 8:45 PM, James Cook via agora-business wrote:
>   This SHOULD only be done if the
>   contract's provisions ensure that its funds will be used solely
>   for the betterment of Agora.

I think we should change this to:
  This SHOULD only be done if the contract's provisions ensure that
  the funds received from Agora will be used solely for the
  betterment of Agora.

Some contracts may receive both Agoran and private funds, and only the
Agoran funds should be restricted.
-- 

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

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

[James Cook via agora-discussion]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 19:39, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion
 wrote:
> 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

This is an attitude I hadn't been aware of.

My goals in Agora are: win; make sure nobody else wins; and other
stuff like having fun. I never thought of preventing scams as an end
in itself. I am not inclined to support a free win for some other
player just to prevent a different set of wins. Maybe I would support
an "everyone wins" free tournament, because me winning with everyone
else is better than me being left out of a win?

- Falsifian

Re: DIS: Re: [Indictment] Re: BUS: actually fuck it

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/26/20 8:50 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/26/20 8:38 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business
> wrote:
>> Here is the list of proposals that I believe were pended in this way —
>> some may be missing, and I considered the possibility that the finger
>> pointing was insufficiently precise, but given that I can recommend
>> arbitrary punishment, I'm not particularly concerned:
> Oooh, time for more semantics!


Oh, forgot to add: If I'm right, I don't think anybody would honestly
expect you to go through the indictment for each potentially pended
proposal.

-- 
Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: [Indictment] Re: BUS: actually fuck it

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/26/20 8:38 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business
wrote:
> Here is the list of proposals that I believe were pended in this way —
> some may be missing, and I considered the possibility that the finger
> pointing was insufficiently precise, but given that I can recommend
> arbitrary punishment, I'm not particularly concerned:


Oooh, time for more semantics!

Rule 2626:

>   Any player CAN, by announcement, certify a specified proposal (as
>   a patch), causing it to become pending.


My reading of this would be that any player CAN certify any proposal
(even one that is already pending), which also makes em cause the
proposal to become pending as a side effect. This would mean that the
pending can fail independently of the certification, and R2626 says "A
player SHALL NOT certify a proposal...", rather than prohibiting the
pending itself.

I made a similar argument in CFJ 3769 [0], but the language was slightly
different in that the rule in that case was written in the passive voice
("the gamestate is modified" vs R2626's "causing it to become pending").

-- 
Jason Cobb

DIS: Re: [Indictment] Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/26/2020 8:59 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business
wrote:
>
> G., you will need to initiate the decisions, but you can't yet, so hold
> on until the Fixes pass.
>

Can someone point me to the CFJ that says "authorized to" conditions are
triggered by a CAN, but not a SHALL?  (specifically that look at the term
"authorize", I'm just curious how much that highly-used but undefined in
the rules word has been adjudicated).

Re: DIS: Re: [Indictment] Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On 6/26/20 12:37 PM, nch via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/26/20 11:10 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> I plead guilty, but I really do think that 4 blots is too high a penalty
>> for what I did. I wrote a patch for a bug that was possibly exploitable
>> in the future, but I certified it under what I think was a plausible
>> reading of the rule (even if ultimately found to be wrong) for the
>> purpose of testing a new rule (and, sure, saving the pendant). [Since
>> this is a public message, I'm not lying, and it would be illegal for me
>> to do so.]
>>
>> I will destroy one of my pendants if asked to, so that my asset
>> standings will be the same as what they "should" be. [Not a pledge, but
>> only because I don't want the notary to have to track it.]
> 
> FWIW as the judge of this CFJ I agree. I would personally recommend 2 or 
> 3 blots. 4 should be reserved for intentionally flaunting the rule, not 
> a bad reading.
> 

Then, we ought to amend the rule. According the rules, the base value is
4 blots. The fine should be reduced for being reasonably inconsequential
but then increased for being an abuse of power and profitable, resulting
in what I believe to be a fine of 4 blots when interpreted kindly.

-- 

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

DIS: Re: [Indictment] Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/26/2020 8:59 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> G., you will need to initiate the decisions, but you can't yet, so hold
> on until the Fixes pass.
> 

Yah knowing this was coming up is one reason I grabbed the green ribbon
when I did :)

DIS: Re: [Indictment] Re: BUS: [Proposal] Black ribbon patch

[nch via agora-discussion]

On 6/26/20 11:10 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I plead guilty, but I really do think that 4 blots is too high a penalty
> for what I did. I wrote a patch for a bug that was possibly exploitable
> in the future, but I certified it under what I think was a plausible
> reading of the rule (even if ultimately found to be wrong) for the
> purpose of testing a new rule (and, sure, saving the pendant). [Since
> this is a public message, I'm not lying, and it would be illegal for me
> to do so.]
>
> I will destroy one of my pendants if asked to, so that my asset
> standings will be the same as what they "should" be. [Not a pledge, but
> only because I don't want the notary to have to track it.]

FWIW as the judge of this CFJ I agree. I would personally recommend 2 or 
3 blots. 4 should be reserved for intentionally flaunting the rule, not 
a bad reading.

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/26/2020 8:49 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> On 6/19/20 8:26 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:
>> The below CFJ is 3851.  I assign it to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
>>
>> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3851
>>
>> ===  CFJ 3851  ===
>>
>>   R. Lee attempted to perform a forbidden action in the message in
>>   evidence.
>>
>> ==
>> Caller:G.
>> Barred:R. Lee
>>
>> Judge: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>
>> ==
>>
>> History:
>>
>> Called by G.: 19 Jun 2020 02:49:52
>> Assigned to Publius Scribonius Scholasticus:  [now]
>>
>> ==
> First, let's look at the common language definition of "attempt", one of
> which is "[To] make an effort to achieve or complete".[0] By this
> definition, it seems clear that, since an intent is an effort to
> complete the intended action, R. Lee did attempt to perform a forbidden
> action; however, we should also look to the use of "attempt" as a term
> of art in jurisprudence. Here, we find possibly conflicting definitions:
> "Any act that is more than merely preparatory to the intended commission
> of a crime"[1] and "the crime of having the intent to commit and taking
> action in an effort to commit a crime that fails or is prevented".[2]
> The second of these is clearly fulfilled as R. Lee stated eir intent
> publicly and took action towards the commission of the crime, but the
> first rests upon whether the intent was "merely preparatory". Given that
> the statement of intent was a necessary condition for the later
> commission of the crime and could not have reasonably served any other
> purpose, I find that the intent was more than merely preparatory. Given
> that the three definitions are agreeable with respect to the
> circumstances, we need not further analyze which is best to use. As a
> result, I assign a judgment of TRUE to CFJ 3851.
> 

Actuallly I forgot about this, but I thought of something else here.

I took it for granted that changing the ruleset below Power=4 to "Meep"
would ossify agora.  However, this would remove the explicit definition of
contract, which would make the document (potentially) a "common-law"
agreement that in Agoran custom, could be modified by the consent of all
parties.

And we'd still have the description of agora in Rules 101 and 1689.

And you can make various arguments like - R101 still tells us a little
about the pieces we need to change an agreement (parties and an agreed
forum).  Before the change we knew who the parties were, and we didn't
explicitly change that so they're the same; before the change we knew what
"public" meant, so that's still a common-law method of determining proof
of consent, etc.  Also noting the recent judgement (on shines) that found
that rules-terms could persist in custom more than previously allowed.

Or just tell me I'm silly and obviously the change would ossify agora,
that's fine too...

-G.

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulatory Instruments draft

[Jason Cobb via agora-discussion]

On 6/26/20 11:34 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
> On 6/25/2020 4:54 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> Hmm.  What is really wanted is a document that defines terms/procedures
> without actually authorizing them.
>
> The good thing about using regulations is that is has a good level of
> document stability built in (i.e. a defined tracker, and a formal public
> process to modify).  That's the only reason I used them.
>
> But the need to now add "body of law", "scope" is a minus, plus you've put
> what look to me like unnecessary legalese (eg "Definitions in auction
> regulations are used by Rules whenever clearly identified") that take the
> point away from the goal of this of common sense interpretation IMO.
>
> This is something of an experiment, and (like we've talked about for Sets)
> I'd like to avoid tweaking the experiment in a way that takes away its
> experimental qualities (by adding back in all the Agoran legal cruft - the
> absence of which is what I mean by "self-contained concept") until it
> becomes clear through judgement or whatever that it's actually necessary.
>
> -G.
>

It might actually be possible to make it compatible by just striking the
sentence about the definitions being as-if they appeared in the rules,
without any other changes, and since the rules aren't supposed to
directly reference auction methods. Would that be better?

-- 
Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulatory Instruments draft

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 6/25/2020 4:54 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
> 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.
> 

Hmm.  What is really wanted is a document that defines terms/procedures
without actually authorizing them.

The good thing about using regulations is that is has a good level of
document stability built in (i.e. a defined tracker, and a formal public
process to modify).  That's the only reason I used them.

But the need to now add "body of law", "scope" is a minus, plus you've put
what look to me like unnecessary legalese (eg "Definitions in auction
regulations are used by Rules whenever clearly identified") that take the
point away from the goal of this of common sense interpretation IMO.

This is something of an experiment, and (like we've talked about for Sets)
I'd like to avoid tweaking the experiment in a way that takes away its
experimental qualities (by adding back in all the Agoran legal cruft - the
absence of which is what I mean by "self-contained concept") until it
becomes clear through judgement or whatever that it's actually necessary.

-G.