DIS: Re: BUS: [Falsifian, Treasuror, Notary] Quickexchange use
On 2020-06-29 11:31, Becca Lee via agora-business wrote: I become a party to Dragon Quickexchange, transferring 1 victory card for 100 credits (idk why theres an incentive to transfer products into this contract but i might as well try it with a card) Again, apologies for the lateness, but I believe that at this point you had given all your cards and products (except for legislative cards and pendants) to PSS. I believe that none of your transfers to the Dragon QuickExchange were effective. -- 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: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3864 Assigned to G.
On 7/5/2020 5:22 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > at 4:51 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > >>> In short, you’re saying that a rule does not “operate in a way that is >>> clearly contrary to legislative intent or common sense” if it only does so >>> in conjunction with other rules. >> >> To do otherwise is an extreme judicial intrusion into the legislative >> process. > > Well, it’s not like the question is whether to rule “the scam is contrary > to intent, therefore it doesn’t work”. *That* would be a judicial > intrusion into the legislative process. But with Rule 2626, the question > is merely whether to allow certain proposals to enter the legislative > process without a fee. Since they still have to be voted on, I’d argue > that concerns about intrusion into the legislative process are at their > nadir. Fair enough. >> Even if you could, the unforeseen consequences would be only applicable to >> the final piece of the puzzle, which was the creation of the ability to >> create one's own blots and had nothing to do with welcome packages. > > I'd say that adding the ability to create one’s own blots allowed Rule 2499 > (Welcome Packages) to operate in a way contrary to legislative intent and > common sense, even if that rule was not actually amended at that point. > After all, even aside from the general legislative intent against scams, > Welcome Packages are clearly intended to be a limited resource rather than > an infinite spring of riches. > > But even if we assume that Rule 2555 (Blots) is the one operating in a way > contrary, Rule 2626 doesn’t say that a patch proposal must therefore amend > Rule 2555. Regardless of which rule is at fault, “Welcome Package Patch” > did “rectify” the “situation", and arguably did so minimally, since any > other type of patch would probably have a larger impact on game mechanics. This is a good point - in particular, I remember considering the proposal that added that ability to Blots - quite recently - and remember asking "this seems like a weird power and prone to abuse" and there was a brief discussion about why it was being done. Don't remember if that was during voting or beforehand. Anyway, you're right, it seems worth addressing how legislative intent works or is inferred when creating one thing (accidentally but directly) breaks another. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3864 Assigned to G.
at 4:51 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: In short, you’re saying that a rule does not “operate in a way that is clearly contrary to legislative intent or common sense” if it only does so in conjunction with other rules. To do otherwise is an extreme judicial intrusion into the legislative process. Well, it’s not like the question is whether to rule “the scam is contrary to intent, therefore it doesn’t work”. *That* would be a judicial intrusion into the legislative process. But with Rule 2626, the question is merely whether to allow certain proposals to enter the legislative process without a fee. Since they still have to be voted on, I’d argue that concerns about intrusion into the legislative process are at their nadir. Even if you could, the unforeseen consequences would be only applicable to the final piece of the puzzle, which was the creation of the ability to create one's own blots and had nothing to do with welcome packages. I'd say that adding the ability to create one’s own blots allowed Rule 2499 (Welcome Packages) to operate in a way contrary to legislative intent and common sense, even if that rule was not actually amended at that point. After all, even aside from the general legislative intent against scams, Welcome Packages are clearly intended to be a limited resource rather than an infinite spring of riches. But even if we assume that Rule 2555 (Blots) is the one operating in a way contrary, Rule 2626 doesn’t say that a patch proposal must therefore amend Rule 2555. Regardless of which rule is at fault, “Welcome Package Patch” did “rectify” the “situation", and arguably did so minimally, since any other type of patch would probably have a larger impact on game mechanics.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Reportor] Last Week in Agora
I really appreciate the inclusion of the "exile scam" section. Thanks as always for the excellent report! On 7/5/2020 7:23 PM, Falsifian via agora-official wrote: Archived at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/Reportor/tree/master/weekly_summaries Previous reports were sent to the discussion list. Below is the report for the week of 2020-06-22..28. (Note: that's the week before the week that's currently ending. Sorry for the lag!) # Summary A new scam attempt captured Agora's attention this week. See "Exile scam" below for our minute-by-minute coverage of the scam, including five distinct efforts to interfere with it (including an unbelievably swift officer response and some creative counter-scamming), and its eventual apparent demise. And stay tuned for next next week's report --- it wasn't quite as dead as we thought. Scams and rule tests on a smaller scale happen just about every week in Agora. This week also saw an anonymous voter cause confusion, mysterious and still unexplained behaviour on the backup list, clever new Apathy attempts, email signature mischief, meep meep usual variety meep meep meep questions meep rules. Our new economy chugged along this week, despite the looming threat of a reset caused by the scam. A card-pooling lottery concluded and a new trading system opened, both handled by contracts subsidiary to the Dragon Corporation. Discussion this week included the impact of resets (prepare or give up?) and a possible increase in the monthly card supply through auctions. The Plundership completed its raid of the Lost and Found Department; a share of it goes to everyone who bothered to sign up (except Murphy, who ran afoul of the contract's terms but has graciously allowed its operation to continue by not objecting to the transfer). Agorans are at work planning and building our future. There was earnest discussion about channels for live communication, and their potential to facilitate easier discussion, especially for new players who tend to be overwhelmed by the volume of email-based activity and discussion. Our Webmastor is actively improving the website, and more reports are becoming available conveniently through the web. Plenty of proposals this week on improving (or at least changing up) our rules and regulations, including more use of the "bodies of law" framework; auction regulations to go with the new auction rule text; re-introducing a crime-infraction distinction; publicly-funded contracts; and proposals for replacing (or just repealing) our mechanism for submitting proposals for free. And our Herald has formally announced intent to begin this year's Birthday Tournament, which is planned to be a game of Diplonomic. This week the Rulekeepor honoured G. with the title of Tapecutter, and our new ADoP, R. Lee, was democratically confirmed. # Exile scam nch and R. Lee begin an attempted scam: to have a player repeatedly exiled and then re-registered, collecting welcome packages in between. Since exiling must be done with 7 days notice, they are forced to give a hint about their plans ahead of time by announcing a deregistration intent. This starts a race to patch the bug before they can exploit it --- the voting period for a proposal is also 7 days. Note: there is a good overview of some of the technical aspects in Jason's email starting the thread "Statement from the Opposition", and another note from nch with the subject "Scam Wrap-Up" near the end of the week about how it apparently failed. (However, the scam unexpectedly continued next week.) Timeline (UTC): * 2020-06-23 02:37: nch announces intent 36 times to deregister R. Lee, starting the clock. Thread: "Perfectly Normal Gameplay Nothing to See Move Along." * 2020-06-23 02:38: Aris submits a proposal to patch the bug. Thread: "[Proposal] Welcome Package Patch" * 2020-06-23 02:39: The Treasuror certifies the proposal. Thread: "certifying" This leads to a Finger Pointing and debate about whether it met the conditions for certification, and a CFJ (not yet assigned an ID). * 2020-06-23 02:40: The Promotor (again Aris) distributes it as Proposal 8458, starting a second 7-day interval. Depending on how quickly the Assessor acts 7 days from now, and how voting for the proposal goes, the scammers may have a window as short as three minutes long between when R. Lee can be exiled and when the proposal can be adopted. * 2020-06-23 02:46: nch announces intent 20 more times to deregister R. Lee. Thread: "Perfectly Normal Gameplay Nothing to See Move Along." * 2020-06-23 02:51: Jason begins a motion of no confidence, to remove nch from the office of Prime Minister. Thread: "MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE" Prime Minister nch is one of the scammers. There's a lot of discussion in this thread, including how the office could help nch with the scam, a suggestion that Jason is trying to seize Prime Minister and Speaker, and pledges from both to not take certain actions as
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Notary] The Notes (weekly report)
On 7/5/2020 7:41 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: On 6/29/2020 9:37 AM, ATMunn via agora-official wrote: "TPP"[2] CB, nch, R. Lee, P.S.S., Bögtil, Jason, ... [3] [3] Also Falsifian, Aris, ATMunn CoE: I'm not listed in the summary, but have been found by CFJ to have joined TPP and am listed in TPP history: 12 Jun 2020: G. became a party Whoops, this again. Fixed. Do I have to explicitly accept or deny the CoE? I'm going to be publishing the next report tomorrow anyway. More generally, can you confirm there were 10 members of TPP at the following moment (from the Treasusor's Report)? |PlunderPS |+ 500c.|22 Jun 2020 01:03|Transfer L Dept. (w/o object) | |L Dept. |- 500c.|22 Jun 2020 01:03|Transfer PlunderPS (w/o object) | This seems minutes after the last party (ATMunn) joined: 22 Jun 01:01 2020: ATMunn became a party Correct. There were 10 members then. Checked and double-checked. [Apologies for all the confusion around this.] -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary here :)
DIS: [Treasuror] Tardiness
I hate to say this but I'm late for this week's report. I've tried to be consistent, but this week it's been really hard to keep myself motivated and to top it all off there's more Plundership stuff. I'll have the report out in a few hours and I will publish an extra report closer to the end of the week to make up for this. I understand that my job is important and acknowledge that this inconsistency will likely create setbacks for others. I am truly sorry for this. -- 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: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3864 Assigned to G.
On 7/5/2020 4:44 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote: > at 12:40 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > >> So it does NOT meet the test in Rule 2626(1) on legislative intent (nor do >> any of the other tests apply). It would be presumptuous, in this case, for >> any judge or referee to overrule the legislature and find otherwise, when >> every element of the overall "bug" was clearly functional and instituted >> with legislative intent, and being used as intended. > > In short, you’re saying that a rule does not “operate in a way that is > clearly contrary to legislative intent or common sense” if it only does so > in conjunction with other rules. To do otherwise is an extreme judicial intrusion into the legislative process. Each piece worked as intended by the legislature at the time it was voted on. And worked perfectly and according to common sense. I don't see how you can extend legislative intent to unforeseen consequences when each piece worked, and continues to work, as intended. Even if you could, the unforeseen consequences would be only applicable to the final piece of the puzzle, which was the creation of the ability to create one's own blots and had nothing to do with welcome packages. -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3864 Assigned to G.
at 12:40 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: So it does NOT meet the test in Rule 2626(1) on legislative intent (nor do any of the other tests apply). It would be presumptuous, in this case, for any judge or referee to overrule the legislature and find otherwise, when every element of the overall "bug" was clearly functional and instituted with legislative intent, and being used as intended. In short, you’re saying that a rule does not “operate in a way that is clearly contrary to legislative intent or common sense” if it only does so in conjunction with other rules. I disagree with such tunnel vision. Most of what I’d call bugs in the ruleset involve a combination of rules, so from my perspective, your interpretation of Rule 2626 comes close to reading “bug” out of the rule, even if it leaves a tiny bit of room for “clearly malfunctioning text”. Also, your judgement focuses on the “legislative intent” prong of Rule 2626(1), but lacks any mention of the other prong, “common sense”. For legislative intent, there may be a case that, if nobody thought about the interaction of that specific set of mechanics before passing the relevant proposals, the legislature can’t have any real intent on the matter. Though even then – why am I assuming nobody thought about it (other than perhaps those involved in the scam)? Simply because if they had, the proposals likely wouldn’t have passed. In other words, there is a strong latent legislative intent not to create scammable mechanics, even if it wasn’t applied to this specific situation. But even if that doesn’t count as intent, such speculation about voters’ mental states is not needed to evaluate “common sense”. For that, we need only consider what people (not necessarily voters) *would* think if asked about this particular “way” that the rule “operate[s]”. And in this case, allowing anyone to instantly gain unlimited Cards by being repeatedly exiled is clearly a violation of common sense. It may not be entirely clear which part of the scheme is the problem – which affects the question of "minimal rectification” – but it’s clear that there is a problem, and that’s enough to make the situation a Rule 2626 “bug”.
Re: DIS: Re: @Arbitor another unassigned CFJ? (Re: BUS: certifying)
Naw no worries - I got this one in my hopper now, because the one you found first made me go back and look again at the whole week. Now that I've withdrawn my cfj about objections, I've got: - the one above - one about contracts called by Aris (this week) - one about 2+2=5 called by Cuddlebeam (this week). Just looked through a few times, but feel free to let me know if I've missed any others - these should be out pretty soon today. -G. Thanks. I finished my Reportor pass through last week (June 21..28) and didn't notice any others. -- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Decriminalization
On 2020-06-28 11:21 p.m., Reuben Staley via agora-discussion wrote: On 2020-06-28 13:54, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: Proposal: Decriminalization (AI = 1.7) Unless I'm missing something, this is purely a ruleset-wide change in semantics from 'crime' to 'infraction', correct? Not an expansion to a system where crimes and infractions are different things. That's my understanding too. It could lay the groundwork for actually distinguishing the two. I think Murphy pointed out in a comment that you could define a different base value, for example. -- Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3864 Assigned to G.
On 7/5/2020 12:40 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > Now, the above arguments make it seem like there's absolutely no such > thing as a "bug" wherever text was voted on by the legislature. In that > respect, it is quite reasonable to apply the "bug" designation to clearly > malfunctioning text, if the malfunction is direct and limited in scope. > For example, if a CAN is missing a "by announcement", and the context of > surrounding text makes it clear that the text can only work if an explicit > method is put in, there's a bug (such an omission is not a R2626(2) > "error" in that it might still have some functionality and meaning, so the > mistake is functional not textual, which makes it a "bug" not an "error" > by R2626). The bug itself must be very limited and minimal in scope to be > considered a bug, and mere legislative regret doesn't cut it. Addendum: an example I didn't get into (because it would take a couple paragraphs) was what killed originally-intended scam method: the fact that the "withdrawing objections" 24-hour timeout applied to Notice would pass as a true "bug" IMO. But only after doing detailed historical research, which shows that Notice wasn't defined when that text was put in, and nobody thought that it would apply to Notice during the various re-writes of dependent actions, and it breaks a specific thing that's self-contained within the rule (and also against common sense somewhat). -G.
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3851 judged TRUE on Reconsideration
On 2020-07-04 7:11 p.m., Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via
agora-business wrote:
I established in my previous judgment on this case that an intent to
engage in a forbidden action is an attempt to perform a forbidden
action; however, the case is under reconsideration because it is unclear
whether eir action was forbidden. Eir action was the following:
I thought of another thing to consider: R2221 says
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.
I don't think R. Lee specified any such corrections. Eir message 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"
If e had said "[Fix spelling somewhere] and then amend all the other
words to read 'Meep'" then e would have indeed specified a spelling
corrections, so maybe the whole change would have been applied ("the
rule is amended by this rule as specified by that person").
I don't think it changes the outcome of the case, since a buggy attempt
is still an attempt. But I wonder if my interpretation is correct.
--
Falsifian
DIS: Re: @Arbitor another unassigned CFJ? (Re: BUS: certifying)
On 7/5/2020 10:17 AM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: >> ... what? It doesn't matter if it's "antithetical". The rule clearly >> says "sole function". This is an ulterior function and therefore >> violates the rule. This interpretation means 'patches' dont't have to >> be primarily patches which sets a terrible precedent. >> >> I CFJ: Welcome Package Patch's sole function is not to minimally rectify >> a bug. >> >> Arguments: It does rectify a bug (although, again, it introduces a new >> one). But it was forced through to prevent a scam. R2626 says "A player >> SHALL NOT certify a proposal unless its sole function isto minimally >> rectify a bug, error, or ambiguity". This has two functions: rectifying >> the bug, and preventing a scam. Sole means only, as in "the only function". > > Here's another one that appears to be unassigned. > > (If you're just behind and were planning to get to these, let me know > and I'll stop flagging them.) > Naw no worries - I got this one in my hopper now, because the one you found first made me go back and look again at the whole week. Now that I've withdrawn my cfj about objections, I've got: - the one above - one about contracts called by Aris (this week) - one about 2+2=5 called by Cuddlebeam (this week). Just looked through a few times, but feel free to let me know if I've missed any others - these should be out pretty soon today. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: [cfj] Re: BUS: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
On 2020-07-05 4:56 p.m., Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 7/5/2020 9:32 AM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: On 2020-07-05 4:25 p.m., Falsifian via agora-business wrote: I object to the above announcement of intent. This may do nothing. I CFJ: Regardless of other supporters/objectors, Agora will not be satisfied with the above intent for ~48 hours, due to the Speaker objecting. Arguments: I objected to this intent on Friday, withdrew the objection on Sunday, and objected again (maybe) in the above announcement on Monday. R2124 reads in part: The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours. Here, "objected" is used as a verb. But in the early part of R2124, it reads: An Objector to an intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of that intent. This leaves it very unclear whether the verb "to object" refers to "publicly posting an objection" (which is the natural language reading, and can be done many times) or whether it means "becomes an objector" (which can't be done if an objection has been previously withdrawn). Gratuitous: The interpretation of the word "objected" as meaning "became an objector" seems very unnatural to me. The ordinary English meaning of "to object" almost certainly doesn't mean that; for example, "repeatedly objected", is not an uncommon combination of words. The rules do introduce a new definition, "Objector". It is natural to assume "an objector" is one who has "objected", and based on that, we could try to work backward from the Agoran definition of "objector" to figure out what it means to "object". Your two suggested definitions are equally consistent with "Objector" meaning someone who has "objected", but one definition is very unnatural and the other is the simple English definition. Also, I'm confused. You say you had withdrawn an objection before posting that message with the CFJ. Doesn't that mean that by posting that message, you went from being being not an objector to being an objector again? Is there any possible ambiguity about that? And since you did become an objector again, what definition of "object" could possibly not include that? There's a few readings of this text: An Objector to an intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of that intent. 1. Each withdrawal is matched to the objection you're withdrawing. In which case you're correct. Pretty trivial. 2. If I've withdrawn Objection #1, and then post Objection #2, it's still true that I've withdrawn Objection #1. So the question on whether I've withdrawn "an objection" is still true for #1 and will always be true (because I can't "withdraw my withdrawal" even if I object again). And thus #2 wouldn't make me an objector. I think at least some of us are playing under this assumption. 3. You can "publicly post" an objection, but there's no mention on how withdrawal is done (in public, or what?). So you can never withdraw objections anyway, it's impossible. I don't have strong arguments for any of these but my sense was that people assumed we were using interpretation 2, just from some of the discussions. I don't know if there are cfjs that brought it up before. But if we're using interpretation 2, "objecting" in a public post is sometimes decoupled from whether it makes you an "objector". -G. Oh, that's interesting. #2 and #3 hadn't occurred to me as possibilities. That casts CFJ 3858 in a new light for me. I had assumed one person could use that trick on their own by repeatedly objecting and then withdrawing. I guess under #2 you need a different person to do it each time. -- Falsifian
DIS: Re: [cfj] Re: BUS: MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE
On 7/5/2020 9:32 AM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: > On 2020-07-05 4:25 p.m., Falsifian via agora-business wrote: >>> I object to the above announcement of intent. This may do nothing. >>> >>> >>> I CFJ: Regardless of other supporters/objectors, Agora will not be >>> satisfied with the above intent for ~48 hours, due to the Speaker >>> objecting. >>> >>> >>> Arguments: >>> >>> I objected to this intent on Friday, withdrew the objection on Sunday, >>> and >>> objected again (maybe) in the above announcement on Monday. >>> >>> R2124 reads in part: The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours. >>> >>> Here, "objected" is used as a verb. But in the early part of R2124, >>> it reads: >>> An Objector to an intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of that intent. >>> >>> This leaves it very unclear whether the verb "to object" refers to >>> "publicly posting an objection" (which is the natural language reading, >>> and can be done many times) or whether it means "becomes an objector" >>> (which can't be done if an objection has been previously withdrawn). >> >> Gratuitous: >> >> The interpretation of the word "objected" as meaning "became an >> objector" seems very unnatural to me. The ordinary English meaning of >> "to object" almost certainly doesn't mean that; for example, "repeatedly >> objected", is not an uncommon combination of words. >> >> The rules do introduce a new definition, "Objector". It is natural to >> assume "an objector" is one who has "objected", and based on that, we >> could try to work backward from the Agoran definition of "objector" to >> figure out what it means to "object". Your two suggested definitions are >> equally consistent with "Objector" meaning someone who has "objected", >> but one definition is very unnatural and the other is the simple English >> definition. > > Also, I'm confused. You say you had withdrawn an objection before > posting that message with the CFJ. Doesn't that mean that by posting > that message, you went from being being not an objector to being an > objector again? Is there any possible ambiguity about that? And since > you did become an objector again, what definition of "object" could > possibly not include that? There's a few readings of this text: > An Objector to an intent to perform > an action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not > withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of that intent. 1. Each withdrawal is matched to the objection you're withdrawing. In which case you're correct. Pretty trivial. 2. If I've withdrawn Objection #1, and then post Objection #2, it's still true that I've withdrawn Objection #1. So the question on whether I've withdrawn "an objection" is still true for #1 and will always be true (because I can't "withdraw my withdrawal" even if I object again). And thus #2 wouldn't make me an objector. I think at least some of us are playing under this assumption. 3. You can "publicly post" an objection, but there's no mention on how withdrawal is done (in public, or what?). So you can never withdraw objections anyway, it's impossible. I don't have strong arguments for any of these but my sense was that people assumed we were using interpretation 2, just from some of the discussions. I don't know if there are cfjs that brought it up before. But if we're using interpretation 2, "objecting" in a public post is sometimes decoupled from whether it makes you an "objector". -G.
