Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: [cfj] simultaneous again
On 8/6/2021 9:48 PM, Aspen via agora-discussion wrote: > While this is theoretically possible, it isn't doable in practice. To make > all the timestamps completely identical, you'd have to control not just > your mailserver, but all of the intermediate mail servers. If you didn't, > we could non-arbitrarily pick a message to come first. Who's to say all the timestamps need to be completely identical as long as the primary ones are? If I look at message 1, and there's nothing "suspicious", I'd use the first timestamp. Same with message 2. Nothing about message 2's arrival makes message 1's primary timestamp any less valid - using any kind of tiebreaker at all would be arbitrary. And there's no particular rules support that ties actually need to be broken. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: [cfj] simultaneous again
While this is theoretically possible, it isn't doable in practice. To make all the timestamps completely identical, you'd have to control not just your mailserver, but all of the intermediate mail servers. If you didn't, we could non-arbitrarily pick a message to come first. -Aspen On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 6:50 PM Ned Strange via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I think we allow people to make multiple actions in one message because > it's often a useful and necessary shortcut. I think it's possible to make > two simultaneous actions by sending 2 emails with the same timestamp, to > the second. So there isn't a good reason not to allow simultaneous actions > in one message. > > This wouldn't mean G has two ministry foci of course, because that rule > uses the singular 'the', meaning that if there is no most recently > specified focus, it is not flipped. > > Actually because the two possible options are either that he took > sequential actions (flipping to participation) or simultaneous actions (no > flip) there is no circumstance this CFJ is anything but FALSE. So the judge > doesn't have to resolve the underlying issue. > > On Sat, Aug 7, 2021, 11:06 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > [lol sigh. one more err want to get this exact.] > > > > I withdraw the most recent CFJ I called. > > > > > > I simultaneously plan to flip my focus to Legacy and plan to flip my > focus > > to Compliance. > > > > > > I CFJ: Assuming G. announces no further focus plans, eir focus will flip > > to Legacy at the beginning of the next month. > > > > > > Evidence: > > > > Rule 2638/0[extract] > > An active player CAN Plan to Flip eir own Ministry Focus, > > specifying any valid value for eir Ministry Focus, by > > announcement. At the beginning of a month, every active player's > > Ministry Focus is set to the value e mostly recently specified by > > Planning to Flip. If a player did not Plan to Flip eir Ministry > > Focus switch in the last month, it is not flipped. > > > > Arguments: > > > > Rule 478/39 reads in part: > > Any action performed by sending a message is > >performed at the time date-stamped on that message. Actions in > >messages (including sub-messages) are performed in the order they > >appear in the message, unless otherwise specified. > > > > The "unless otherwise specified" seems like a bit of a security hole, > > given that several mechanisms in the rules would break if people could > > perform multiple actions simultaneously. But I can't find a prohibition > > against that - the "in the order they appear" is written not as a limit, > > but as a default that can be overridden - can it go so far to specify "at > > exactly the same moment (simultaneous)"? > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: [cfj] simultaneous again
I know. that's why it's in the rules, though On Sat, Aug 7, 2021 at 12:11 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 8/6/21 9:49 PM, Ned Strange via agora-discussion wrote: > > I think we allow people to make multiple actions in one message because > > it's often a useful and necessary shortcut. I think it's possible to make > > two simultaneous actions by sending 2 emails with the same timestamp, to > > the second. So there isn't a good reason not to allow simultaneous > actions > > in one message. > > > Putting two actions in one message isn't a shortcut, it's directly > permitted by the rules. There's no requirement that only one "by > announcement" can be in a message, all one has to do is fulfill the > requirements, and that can be done multiple times. > > -- > Jason Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: [cfj] simultaneous again
On 8/6/21 9:49 PM, Ned Strange via agora-discussion wrote: > I think we allow people to make multiple actions in one message because > it's often a useful and necessary shortcut. I think it's possible to make > two simultaneous actions by sending 2 emails with the same timestamp, to > the second. So there isn't a good reason not to allow simultaneous actions > in one message. Putting two actions in one message isn't a shortcut, it's directly permitted by the rules. There's no requirement that only one "by announcement" can be in a message, all one has to do is fulfill the requirements, and that can be done multiple times. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: [cfj] simultaneous again
I think we allow people to make multiple actions in one message because it's often a useful and necessary shortcut. I think it's possible to make two simultaneous actions by sending 2 emails with the same timestamp, to the second. So there isn't a good reason not to allow simultaneous actions in one message. This wouldn't mean G has two ministry foci of course, because that rule uses the singular 'the', meaning that if there is no most recently specified focus, it is not flipped. Actually because the two possible options are either that he took sequential actions (flipping to participation) or simultaneous actions (no flip) there is no circumstance this CFJ is anything but FALSE. So the judge doesn't have to resolve the underlying issue. On Sat, Aug 7, 2021, 11:06 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > [lol sigh. one more err want to get this exact.] > > I withdraw the most recent CFJ I called. > > > I simultaneously plan to flip my focus to Legacy and plan to flip my focus > to Compliance. > > > I CFJ: Assuming G. announces no further focus plans, eir focus will flip > to Legacy at the beginning of the next month. > > > Evidence: > > Rule 2638/0[extract] > An active player CAN Plan to Flip eir own Ministry Focus, > specifying any valid value for eir Ministry Focus, by > announcement. At the beginning of a month, every active player's > Ministry Focus is set to the value e mostly recently specified by > Planning to Flip. If a player did not Plan to Flip eir Ministry > Focus switch in the last month, it is not flipped. > > Arguments: > > Rule 478/39 reads in part: > Any action performed by sending a message is >performed at the time date-stamped on that message. Actions in >messages (including sub-messages) are performed in the order they >appear in the message, unless otherwise specified. > > The "unless otherwise specified" seems like a bit of a security hole, > given that several mechanisms in the rules would break if people could > perform multiple actions simultaneously. But I can't find a prohibition > against that - the "in the order they appear" is written not as a limit, > but as a default that can be overridden - can it go so far to specify "at > exactly the same moment (simultaneous)"? > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Victory Auction] Resolution of July 2021 VA 2
On 06/08/2021 22:44, Trigon via agora-discussion wrote: On 06/08/2021 22:37, ais523 via agora-business wrote: Gratuitous arguments: By rule 2577, you can gratuitously revoke coins from yourself (because "revoke" is a synonym for "destroy in the possession of", and coins are destructible). Regulation AM0 has a "CAN and SHALL" for destroying the payment and creating/transferring the purchased asset – the creation is only possible if done simultaneously with a destruction of the correct size. So this case hinges on whether the correct interpretation of the message in question is as a correctly-sized revoke combined with a gratuitous destruction of additional coins, or not. Fortunately for the judge, it's a little more clear-cut. It *would* hinge on that if I had correctly specified that I was transferring the Justice Card from the Lost and Found to myself; instead, I treated it as if it were new. Unless there is some clause allowing me to grant myself a justice card, we don't have to go down this line of inquiry. Rule 478 requires actions by announcement to specify the action that's being taken, clearly and unambiguously. I don't think this message can reasonably be interpreted as specifying the action of "discard 578 coins" to that standard – and doing so would be required in order for it to succeed – so I think the whole thing fails. I'm inclined to agree with you on this point, however. That is to say, I'm inclined to agree with this reasoning. -- Trigon ¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST I’m always happy to become a party to contracts. 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
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Victory Auction] Resolution of July 2021 VA 2
On 06/08/2021 22:37, ais523 via agora-business wrote: Gratuitous arguments: By rule 2577, you can gratuitously revoke coins from yourself (because "revoke" is a synonym for "destroy in the possession of", and coins are destructible). Regulation AM0 has a "CAN and SHALL" for destroying the payment and creating/transferring the purchased asset – the creation is only possible if done simultaneously with a destruction of the correct size. So this case hinges on whether the correct interpretation of the message in question is as a correctly-sized revoke combined with a gratuitous destruction of additional coins, or not. Fortunately for the judge, it's a little more clear-cut. It *would* hinge on that if I had correctly specified that I was transferring the Justice Card from the Lost and Found to myself; instead, I treated it as if it were new. Unless there is some clause allowing me to grant myself a justice card, we don't have to go down this line of inquiry. Rule 478 requires actions by announcement to specify the action that's being taken, clearly and unambiguously. I don't think this message can reasonably be interpreted as specifying the action of "discard 578 coins" to that standard – and doing so would be required in order for it to succeed – so I think the whole thing fails. I'm inclined to agree with you on this point, however. -- Trigon ¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST I’m always happy to become a party to contracts. 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
DIS: Proto-Auction Regulation Fix (was: Resolution of July 2021 VA 2)
On 06/08/2021 22:17, Trigon via agora-business wrote:
CFJ: The quoted message is a distribution message as outlined in
Regulation AM0.
ARGUMENTS: This may not be a distribution message because of a textual
error: I intended to award myself a new justice card for a price 578
coins greater that what I bid on it. What, if anything, did this message
do? Did it fail as it did not meet the criteria for a distribution
message? Did the distribution message succeed and I just violated the
"SHALL destroy and transfer" bit?
EVIDENCE:
Ambiguous quoted text:
Trigon wins the second lot for 50cn.
...
If all of the following succeed I do them:
{ I revoke from Trigon 628cn. I grant em one justice card. }
Relevant part of AM0:
DISTRIBUTION: The auctioneer for an auction CAN and SHALL, within
seven days of the ending of that auction's retrieval period,
create a public message (henceforth the "distribution message")
that contains a full history of bids on the auction and
withdrawals from the auction. It must also clearly indicate each
awardee and the lot e recieves. In this message, the auctioneer
CAN and SHALL destroy the amount to be paid from the inventory
each awardee and transfer to that player (or create in eir
possession if the item is new) the set of assets associated with
the lot e won. Failing to publish a distribution message
constitutes the Class 3 Crime of Auction Abandonment.
I think that the solution to making sure something like this doesn't
happen again is to split the parts of the message up. This also has the
advantage of letting people into the loop earlier about who should be
preparing to receive the lots.
-
In AM0, replace the paragraph beginning "DISTRIBUTION:" with the
following two paragraphs:
RESOLUTION: The auctioneer for an auction SHALL, during that
auction's retrieval period, create a public message (henceforth
the "resolution message") that contains a full history of bids on
the auction and withdrawals from the auction. It must also clearly
indicate who each awardee would be if all players were funded, as
well as the lot each one would recieve. Failing to publish a
resolution message constitutes the Class 3 Crime of Auction
Negligence.
DISTRIBUTION: In a timely fashion after the retrieval period for
an auction ends, that auction's auctioneer CAN and SHALL, for each
awardee in that auction, destroy the amount to be paid from the
inventory of that awardee and transfer to that player (or create
in eir possession if the item is new) the set of assets associated
with the lot e won.
--
Trigon
¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST
I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
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
