Re: [Attn. Referee] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal 8458 (Third time's the charm)
On 7/1/2020 8:24 PM, omd via agora-business wrote: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 8:00 PM Jason Cobb wrote: >>> CoE: This resolution is invalid because the decision was already resolved >>> the previous time, because G.’s vote was invalid, because it did not >>> “clearly set[] forth the voter’s intent to place the identified vote”. >> >> >> In what way was it not clear? It was certainly not conspicuous, but it >> was clear. > > Although “clear and conspicuous” is a common legal term, I consider it at > least > partly a legal doublet, like “null and void”. It may be possible to be > conspicuous without being clear, but it is much more questionable whether > something can be clear without being conspicuous. > > For example, Google’s dictionary definition of “clear” is: > > 1. easy to perceive, understand, or interpret. > > However, the ballot in question went out of its way to make it hard for > players > to perceive it, or understand or interpret that it was a ballot. So I kind of think like you do omd. This was the result of a judgement in 2018 (an Apathy intent with the exact same type of hiding) and Jason's previous answer (that there's a difference between "clear" and "conspicuous") became became the precedent. That's why "unobfuscated" was added to dependent action intent requirements. For non-dependent actions, filed it in the back pocket, figured someone would get away with it once and it would fixed by proposal. Or a subsequent CFJ would find more in your direction. Unfortunately the case is in the still-large cfj archive gap in 2018. Been browsing BUS backwards and haven't found it yet. Will add it to gratuitous when I do... -G.
Re: DIS: Re: [Indictment] Re: BUS: actually fuck it
> On Jun 27, 2020, at 2:45 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > agora-discussion wrote: > > On 6/26/20 11:50 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: >> 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. >> > > E did pend that illegally, but no finger has been pointed for that as > far as I can tell. How is this possible if e pointed fingers at emself "once for each proposal I just certified”? I ask because, if the recent scam was in fact successful, e appears to have escaped effective punishment for the other instances.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal 8458 (Third time's the charm)
On 7/1/20 10:56 PM, omd via agora-business wrote: > >> On Jun 30, 2020, at 8:36 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-official >> wrote: >> >> RESOLUTION OF PROPOSALS 8458 >> >> >> IDTitle Result >> >> 8458 Welcome Package Patch ADOPTED > CoE: This resolution is invalid because the decision was already resolved the > previous time, because G.’s vote was invalid, because it did not “clearly > set[] forth the voter’s intent to place the identified vote”. In what way was it not clear? It was certainly not conspicuous, but it was clear. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: art degrees
On 7/1/2020 4:59 PM, James Cook wrote: > On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 16:17, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: >> tl;dr What do people think about a separate method for arts degrees that's >> more akin to applause and somehow brings in Bard? (just in general). >> >> longer: >> >> I didn't think about this when voting last month, but the new art degrees >> are kind of how we used to award Bard. A person produces Good Art, and by >> acclaim they are awarded Bard. >> >> I'd be a bit sad to see that sidelined, plus the peer-review process seems >> a bit stuffy for art. Not that art *can't* be reviewed critically and >> academically, but (1) most people are producing it for the applause not >> the analysis when they publish and (2) it's just less fun to do a piece of >> performance art, get told "that's just a draft here's the critiques in >> your rhyme scheme" and publish it again. Better for people to applaud and >> say "that's some good art, any 'mistakes' are just little happy trees and >> part of the performance." >> >> So just thinking about writing a method for that and looking for general >> feedback first. >> >> -G. > > Having a different process for art degrees sounds reasonable. Were you > thinking of keeping the existing degrees and just changing the > process? Yeah just the process. (tho looking at the list it could also be arranged as high to low degrees separated by each "college", that's just a legibility thing not sure which is better). -G.
Re: DIS: [Attn. R. Lee] Re: BUS: [RWO Intent] Truth in piracy [attn. Notary]
Oh, nevermind. I misunderstood how ratification works. On 7/1/2020 9:45 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/1/20 9:44 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: R. Lee: Unfortunately, this undid your most recent Parley. I suggest you submit it again. No, it didn't. The Parley was completed after the truth date of the ratified document. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: [Attn. R. Lee] Re: BUS: [RWO Intent] Truth in piracy [attn. Notary]
On 7/1/20 9:44 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > R. Lee: Unfortunately, this undid your most recent Parley. I suggest you > submit it again. No, it didn't. The Parley was completed after the truth date of the ratified document. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: [Attn. R. Lee] Re: BUS: [RWO Intent] Truth in piracy [attn. Notary]
R. Lee: Unfortunately, this undid your most recent Parley. I suggest you
submit it again.
On 7/1/2020 7:45 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
On 6/27/20 5:49 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
I intent, without objection, to ratify the following document:
{
This document is true as of 9:46 PM, June 27, 2020 UTC.
The contract known as "The Plunder Partnership" has the following text:
{
The Plunder Partnership
☠️ WHO WE BE
The Plunder Partnership is also known as the Plundership. A party to this
contract is known as a Pirate. Any person who is not in Davy Jones’ Locker
can become a Pirate by announcement. Any Pirate can make themselves cease
to be one by announcement.
☠️ NO TATTLE-TALES
Any person who has objected to a transferral of coins to the Plundership
are in Davy Jones’ Locker. A person in Davy Jones’ Locker cannot become a
Pirate, and they immediately cease to be a Pirate if they already were one.
☠️ DOUBLOONS
Doubloons are a destructible asset that can only belong to Pirates. When an
amount of coins is transferred to the Plundership, each Pirate gains an
amount of Doubloons equal to the amount transferred divided by the amount
of Pirates, rounded down. A Pirate with at least 1 Doubloon can transfer 1
coin to themselves from the Plundership. Doing so destroys 1 Doubloon in
their possession.
☠️ PARLEY
Any Pirate can propose a Parley by announcement, which describes amendments
to this contract. If a Parley was proposed at least 2 days ago, at least
2/3rds (rounded up) of all Pirates consent to its contents, and it has not
yet been applied, then any Pirate can apply it by announcement, causing
this contract to be amended according to it.
}
}
This document may or may not be true due to confusion about the state of
the contract, but the above is what is listed in the latest Notary
report. The nature of the document's error is that it may contain
platonically inaccurate contract text. The reason for ratifying this
potentially-incorrect document is to eliminate uncertainty about the
contract's text. [I believe this satisfies any requirements under R2202
to prevent me committing the Crime of Endorsing Forgery.]
Seeing no objection, I do so (ratify the above document).
--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: [proto] Regulatory Instruments draft
On 6/27/20 1:46 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > So maybe we should "unify" underlying text control. In other words, say > "a legal body of text (LBOD) is a document that can be changed by [some > useful default methods]." Then we might make various texts (contract > texts, proposal texts, regulations etc.) into LBODs [ok not a great name > someone can think of something better]. > > That way we might simplify/reduce the mechanical text on how to change and > track the various types of documents, and keep the actual legal effects of > each document separate and written specifically for each purpose. I like this idea; maybe I'll write up a draft. > First-time drafts can often have a bit too much in them, especially if the > language its trying to replace is old and has accumulated a lot of edge > cases, which the drafter feels obligated to include so as not to open old > scams/bugs. But the second draft could be a review of "which of this is > *actually* needed right now. I think I'd try a round of clarifying before > complete abandonment. What did you have in mind for clarification? Dropping classes of regulation or just trying to shorten the text as much as possible while keeping general meaning? -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: art degrees
On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 at 16:17, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > tl;dr What do people think about a separate method for arts degrees that's > more akin to applause and somehow brings in Bard? (just in general). > > longer: > > I didn't think about this when voting last month, but the new art degrees > are kind of how we used to award Bard. A person produces Good Art, and by > acclaim they are awarded Bard. > > I'd be a bit sad to see that sidelined, plus the peer-review process seems > a bit stuffy for art. Not that art *can't* be reviewed critically and > academically, but (1) most people are producing it for the applause not > the analysis when they publish and (2) it's just less fun to do a piece of > performance art, get told "that's just a draft here's the critiques in > your rhyme scheme" and publish it again. Better for people to applaud and > say "that's some good art, any 'mistakes' are just little happy trees and > part of the performance." > > So just thinking about writing a method for that and looking for general > feedback first. > > -G. Having a different process for art degrees sounds reasonable. Were you thinking of keeping the existing degrees and just changing the process? - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Hidden Action Fixes
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 21:17, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > aww man, I was going to try to bury an apathy intent R2595 requires the intent to have been published "conspicously" and "without obfuscation". My understanding is that comes from a period of time when people were sticking hidden things in messages and it got annoying looking for them. - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: Ratification Scam Fix Proposal
On 7/1/20 7:39 PM, James Cook via agora-business wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 15:09, Becca Lee via agora-business > wrote: >> I intend to ratify the following document without objection >> >> "Every player's assets 1 minute after BUS: @Notary @Treasuror, I do the >> scam anyway was sent to the public forum are the same as their assets 1 >> minute before that message was sent, except R. Lee has 60 victory points >> and 19 blot b gones, and G. has one additional Blot B Gone." >> >> Disclaimer: this ratification is knowingly false as everyone's assets would >> be significantly different under this ratification, however I believe it is >> needed to minimally alter the game state and >> >> This would lead to me still being able to get the rewards of the scam (the >> blot b gones and a victory for G), but otherwise every single thing in the >> economy would be exactly the same, meaning that no gameplay is invalidated. >> >> -- >> From R. Lee > > I object. For one thing, why should I let G. win? Because that was the understanding discussed prior to this. This is the goal that many people wanted to achieve and this is simply a faster way of achieving it than passing a proposal. -- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
DIS: Re: BUS: @Referee Giving a Blot B Gone to G
> Also I intend to declare apathy (just kidding) I object. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Objections
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 12:27 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On 6/30/20 10:26 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > > I object to all and any intents to exile nch. > > > > > > I withdraw these objections. > > > > > > > I object to all and any intents to exile R. Lee. > > > > I withdraw these objections. On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 14:28, Becca Lee via agora-discussion wrote: > In my email client, I beat you by 1 minute. Agreed that R. Lee beat Jason. The latest time I see in the headers of R. Lee's scam email is 14:26:39: Received: (Haraka outbound); Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:26:39 +000 The earliest time I see in the headers of Jason's scam email is 14:26:59: Received: from mail-qt1-f171.google.com (mail-qt1-f171.google.com [209.85.160.171]) by vps.qoid.us (Haraka/2.8.25) with ESMTP id DF4B4117-DBF8-4F51-BDE7-4B282E0F89F1.1 envelope-from ; Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:26:59 + - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Falsifian, Treasuror, Notary] Quickexchange use
On 7/1/20 6:42 PM, James Cook via agora-business wrote: > Accounting after the below transaction: > > I think Dragon QE owns the following: Is this assuming the VP win effects will be reversed? -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Hidden Action Fixes
On 7/1/2020 11:51 AM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 12:59 AM omd wrote: >> I haven’t looked at the wording in detail yet, but “by notice” is >> confusingly similar to “with notice” (i.e. dependent actions). >> > Other suggestions? It doesn't seem confusing to me, but if someone can come > up with something that makes sense to me I'll do that instead. > > -Aris datapoint: when reading the draft I also thought it would be very confusing. I think changing the current "with notice" to "with warning" would be better than changing "Notice of " to something else - Notices of are less used now but have a longer history. People who have joined since With Notice was a thing may think differently (and the price is probably mistakes in intent messages for a while). -G.
Re: DIS: Hidden Action Fixes
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 12:59 AM omd via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > On Jun 30, 2020, at 5:45 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 2:09 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > > wrote: > >> > >> I'm working on a proposal to deal with hidden actions (such a G.'s > burried > >> vote). It'll also handle cases where the identity of the player sending > a > >> message is unclear. I'm done drafting the core, but I need to handle > some > >> technical and confirming amendments; I should have a proto out in the > next > >> day or two. Just letting everyone know so we avoid duplication of > effort. > > > > > > A proto follows. Comments are, as always, welcome. > > I haven’t looked at the wording in detail yet, but “by notice” is > confusingly similar to “with notice” (i.e. dependent actions). > Other suggestions? It doesn't seem confusing to me, but if someone can come up with something that makes sense to me I'll do that instead. -Aris
Re: DIS: Hidden Action Fixes
On 7/1/2020 9:17 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > > they've been comprehensively fixed by now. The Agoran equivalent of "what could possibly go wrong"
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] With apologies to G.
On 7/1/2020 9:08 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 7/1/20 11:05 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: >> FWIW I will probably vote AGAINST both of these as I have a black ribbon >> already, and the way this is worded, I'm not sure I could even get black >> glitter from it. Correct me if I'm wrong, however. > > > I believe you would get black glitter. Rule 2438: lol but if everyone votes for it, it would be like 1 coin.
DIS: art degrees
tl;dr What do people think about a separate method for arts degrees that's more akin to applause and somehow brings in Bard? (just in general). longer: I didn't think about this when voting last month, but the new art degrees are kind of how we used to award Bard. A person produces Good Art, and by acclaim they are awarded Bard. I'd be a bit sad to see that sidelined, plus the peer-review process seems a bit stuffy for art. Not that art *can't* be reviewed critically and academically, but (1) most people are producing it for the applause not the analysis when they publish and (2) it's just less fun to do a piece of performance art, get told "that's just a draft here's the critiques in your rhyme scheme" and publish it again. Better for people to applaud and say "that's some good art, any 'mistakes' are just little happy trees and part of the performance." So just thinking about writing a method for that and looking for general feedback first. -G.
Re: DIS: Hidden Action Fixes
On Tuesday, 30 June 2020, 22:16:48 GMT+1, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/30/2020 5:09 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > > I'm working on a proposal to deal with hidden actions (such a G.'s burried > > vote). It'll also handle cases where the identity of the player sending a > > message is unclear. I'm done drafting the core, but I need to handle some > > technical and confirming amendments; I should have a proto out in the next > > day or two. Just letting everyone know so we avoid duplication of effort. > > aww man, I was going to try to bury an apathy intent We fixed that ages ago. A strong part of the motivation for the Win by Apathy rule was to help us ensure that we'd end up fixing any dependent action scams that might potentially end up doing more damage. For what it's worth, several years ago, I buried an intent in the (very long, under the customs of the time) Registrar's Report, but Apathy didn't exist at the time, so I used the buried intent to make an IRC channel into a public forum (which is at least relevant to the Registrar's Report). So buried-intent scams go back a long way, and it's not surprising they've been comprehensively fixed by now. (Of course, part of the nature of Agora is that even well-established fixes tend to get randomly broken from time to time.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] With apologies to G.
On 7/1/20 11:05 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > FWIW I will probably vote AGAINST both of these as I have a black ribbon > already, and the way this is worded, I'm not sure I could even get black > glitter from it. Correct me if I'm wrong, however. I believe you would get black glitter. Rule 2438: > Black (K): An Instrument CAN, as part of its effect, cause a > person to earn a Black Ribbon. When this occurs, this Rule awards > that person a Black Ribbon. If you were to vote FOR, then you would "earn" a Black Ribbon. Rule 2438 would then attempt to award you a Black Ribbon (thus flipping your Ribbon Ownership to include Black), but it would fail since you already have it. However, the following clause would still apply: > A person qualifies for a type of Ribbon if e has earned that type > of Ribbon within the preceding 7 days (including earlier in the > same message). Since you would have earned a Black Ribbon within the past 7 days, you would qualify for it. If we then look at the final paragraph: > While a person qualifies for a type of Ribbon: > > - If e has not owned that type of Ribbon within the preceding 7 > days, any player CAN, by announcement, award em that type of > Ribbon. > > - Otherwise, if e has not been awarded that type of Ribbon or > the corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or came > to qualify for that type of Ribbon, and has not been so > awarded five or more times within the past 24 hours, e CAN, by > announcement, award emself that type of Glitter. You would have owned a Black Ribbon within the preceding 7 days, and you would have just earned and come to qualify for a Black Ribbon, so you would be able to award yourself the Glitter. -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: On Theses
On 7/1/2020 8:21 AM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > - How long do theses tend to be on average? I remember trying to read > through G.'s thesis e published recently and realizing just how long it > is. Is that an average length, or do they tend to be shorter? That one is Master or PhD degree length IMO (and a lot of the length is because it was annotated rules text, original writing in there is probably half). Much shorter is fine. For a while we had a rule that specified minimum word counts and they were very short: Associate: 150 words (challenging to write one that short! (except art) Bachelors: 500 Masters:750 Doctor:1000 > - Is there a list of former theses out there anywhere? I want to avoid > writing on something that someone else has already written about, or, at > the very least, if I do, I want to be able to take a new angle on it and > provide something unique. There's an archive are on github but the link seems to be broken because the repo is missing an index (attn. Webmastor?). In the meantime, I think you can get to it this way: https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Herald/tree/master/Theses But at a glance many are missing. > - When I publish a thesis, do I need to specify which degree I am trying > to qualify for, or can I just say that it's attempting to qualify for a > degree and let the peer reviewers decide? You don't need to specify. It's sort of consensus. Ultimately the gatekeeper is the Herald who announces the intent to award (and of course supporters/objectors). Practically, the submitter has said "I'm aiming for this degree" or "Herald et al. what do you think it's worth" when you do your first draft. Sometimes there's a little debate - standards are pretty unclear it's just everyone's opinion at the time. Hope this helps! -G.
DIS: On Theses
I've been thinking for a little while now that I would like to try to write a thesis at some point. The cultural/historical side of Agora is one that I haven't really gotten into before, and it sounds very intriguing. In addition, I actually think that getting experience writing theses in an environment like Agora could help with future papers I write for school and college. I have a few questions, though: - How long do theses tend to be on average? I remember trying to read through G.'s thesis e published recently and realizing just how long it is. Is that an average length, or do they tend to be shorter? - Is there a list of former theses out there anywhere? I want to avoid writing on something that someone else has already written about, or, at the very least, if I do, I want to be able to take a new angle on it and provide something unique. - When I publish a thesis, do I need to specify which degree I am trying to qualify for, or can I just say that it's attempting to qualify for a degree and let the peer reviewers decide? -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] With apologies to G.
FWIW I will probably vote AGAINST both of these as I have a black ribbon
already, and the way this is worded, I'm not sure I could even get black
glitter from it. Correct me if I'm wrong, however.
On 6/30/2020 10:16 PM, Becca Lee via agora-business wrote:
I submit the following proposal
Title: Inverted Bribery
AI 1.0
Text: Every player who voted unconditionally AGAINST the proposal "Plain
Old Bribery" earns a Black Ribbon
On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 12:02 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
I submit (but do not pend, because VP win confusion) the following
proposal:
Title: Plain Old Bribery
Author: Jason
Coauthors: G.
Adoption index: 1.0
{
Every player who cast a valid non-withdrawn unconditional ballot FOR
this proposal earns a Black Ribbon.
[Note to the Tailor: the definition of Black Ribbons in R2438 means
that, immediately after this proposal is adopted, people will have the
Black Ribbons without needing to separately claim them.]
}
--
Jason Cobb
--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary here :)
Re: DIS: Hidden Action Fixes
On 6/30/20 8:45 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 2:09 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: >> >> I'm working on a proposal to deal with hidden actions (such a G.'s burried >> vote). It'll also handle cases where the identity of the player sending a >> message is unclear. I'm done drafting the core, but I need to handle some >> technical and confirming amendments; I should have a proto out in the next >> day or two. Just letting everyone know so we avoid duplication of effort. > > > A proto follows. Comments are, as always, welcome. > > -Aris > --- > Title: Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: nch, G., Jason > > > Amend Rule 2202, "Ratification Without Objection", by deleting: > > A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message. > > Amend Rule 478, "Fora", by changing the portion of the Rule from > "A public message is a message" to the end to read as follows: > > A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to > all players and containing a clear designation of intent to be > public. A document is part (possibly all) of a message. To "publish" or > "announce" something is to send a public message whose body contains that > thing. To do something "publicly" is to do that thing within a public > message. > > Where the rules define an action that a person CAN perform "by > announcement", that person performs that action by specifying the > action and announcing that e performs it, all unambiguously, clearly, > and without concealment. > > A notice is a document specifying conspicuously and without obfuscation > all information which the rules require that type of notice to contain > to be valid. A notice must be public, unless otherwise specified by the > enabling rule. If someone accomplishes an action by sending > a notice, e accomplishes that action "by notice". I think "by notice" may be too close to "with notice". > > Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time > date-stamped on that message. Actions in messages (including their contained > documents) are performed in the order they appear in the message, unless > otherwise specified. If an action in a message is being taken by someone > who has been a player within the last month, it must be clear, either > from the message itself or from context, which person is performing the > action; if it is not, the action is canceled. This sees a bit problematic. For any new arbitrary person, we don't certainly know that they weren't previously a person, so this creates some uneeded ambiguity. > > > Retitle Rule 2518 from "Determinacy" to "Safeguards". > > Amend Rule 2518, "Safeguards", by changing it to read in full: > > 1. If something can be understood with reasonable effort, it is clear, > otherwise it is unclear. > 2. If something has multiple reasonable interpretations, it is ambiguous, > otherwise it is unambiguous. I think this may be too broad because sometimes there are multiple reasonable interpretation which may all agree or there may be clear reasons to select one among the rest. > 3. If something has been hidden in such a way that a reasonable player > would have difficultly locating it, it is concealed, otherwise it is > unconcealed. > 4. If something stands out so as to be visible with little effort, it is > conspicuous, otherwise it is inconspicuous. > 5. If something has been rendered hard to understand at a glance, > it is obfuscated, otherwise it is unobfuscated. > 6. If a value CANNOT be reasonably determined (without circularity or > paradox) from information reasonably available, or if it > alternates indefinitely between values, then the value is > considered to be indeterminate, otherwise it is determinate. > > > Amend Rule 208, "Resolving Agoran Decisions", by replacing: > > The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve > it by announcement, indicating the outcome. If it was required to > be initiated, then e SHALL resolve it in a timely fashion after > the end of the voting period. To be valid, this announcement must > satisfy the following conditions: > > 1. It is published after the voting period has ended. > > 2. It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved. > > 3. It specifies the number of voters (or a list of the voters). > For these purposes and for determining quorum, a "voter" is > someone who submitted a ballot on the decision that was valid > when it was submitted and also valid (i.e. not withdrawn or > otherwise invalidated) at the end of the voting period. > > 4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there > was more than one valid option, provides a tally of the voters' > valid ballots. > > > with: > > The vote collector for an
Re: DIS: Hidden Action Fixes
> On Jun 30, 2020, at 5:45 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 2:09 PM Aris Merchant via agora-discussion > wrote: >> >> I'm working on a proposal to deal with hidden actions (such a G.'s burried >> vote). It'll also handle cases where the identity of the player sending a >> message is unclear. I'm done drafting the core, but I need to handle some >> technical and confirming amendments; I should have a proto out in the next >> day or two. Just letting everyone know so we avoid duplication of effort. > > > A proto follows. Comments are, as always, welcome. I haven’t looked at the wording in detail yet, but “by notice” is confusingly similar to “with notice” (i.e. dependent actions).
DIS: Re: BUS: [Contract, CFJ] Amusing Test Case
> On Jun 30, 2020, at 9:32 PM, Aris Merchant via agora-business > wrote: > > I CFJ "Aris MAY Call Destruction Down Upon the contract Amusing Test Case.” Arguments: The amusement switch is not a real switch, anyway, because it is not "a property that the rules define as a switch”. It’s just something analogous to a switch.
