Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8815-8821
On 7/24/22 20:04, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 12:56 AM secretsnail9 via agora-official > wrote: >> 8821~ nix, Jason, secretsnail 3.0 More Intuitive Rule Changes > Opinion of the rulekeepor sought: > > In all previous history, the phrase: > > "Retitle rule X to Y, and Amend it to read..." would be listed as two > separate historical annotations in the FLR, I'm quite concerned that > changing this to: > > "Amed Rule X by retitling it Y and changing it to read..." would > greatly obscure historical, reconstruction, as the amendment would be > a single action (retitling and text change on a single line of > history). > > Often, when looking at historical annotations to figure out which > proposal changed what, retitles are milestones which signify > significant change in the function of the rule. Would this > information be obscured/lost under this proposal? I'd be inclined to record it as a single amendment, but I could potentially include "amended (title)" or "amended (text/title)"? In any case that would require me to write more code *grumble grumble*. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8815-8821
> > On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 6:56 PM secretsnail9 via agora-official < > agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > ID Author(s) AITitle > --- > 8815~ ais523 3.0 Proposal terminology fix > 8816~ secretsnail 3.05 No Duplication Allowed > 8817~ secretsnail 3.05 No Duplication Allowed > 8818~ Jason 3.0 Tabled action condition ambiguity v2 > 8819~ nix 1.0 A Quick Anti-Contrarian Compromise > 8820~ Murphy, nix 1.0 Another Quick Anti-Contrarian > 8821~ nix, Jason, secretsnail 3.0 More Intuitive Rule Changes > I vote, unconditionally, AGAINST on all proposals available for voting. -- 4st Referee
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8815-8821
On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 12:56 AM secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote: > 8821~ nix, Jason, secretsnail 3.0 More Intuitive Rule Changes Opinion of the rulekeepor sought: In all previous history, the phrase: "Retitle rule X to Y, and Amend it to read..." would be listed as two separate historical annotations in the FLR, I'm quite concerned that changing this to: "Amed Rule X by retitling it Y and changing it to read..." would greatly obscure historical, reconstruction, as the amendment would be a single action (retitling and text change on a single line of history). Often, when looking at historical annotations to figure out which proposal changed what, retitles are milestones which signify significant change in the function of the rule. Would this information be obscured/lost under this proposal?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette - 22 Jul 2022
On 7/24/22 18:49, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > Pseudo-coe: I think this is missing the Cfj called by snail with the > subject line [Proposal?]. If so and it’s not taken I favor that one. -G. > Acknowledged and assigned, thank you. -- Jason Cobb Arbitor, Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette - 22 Jul 2022
Pseudo-coe: I think this is missing the Cfj called by snail with the subject line [Proposal?]. If so and it’s not taken I favor that one. -G. On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 4:10 AM Jason Cobb via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) > Fri 22 July 2022 > > DEADLINES (details below) > --- > [none] > > INTERESTED JUDGES AND THEIR MOST RECENT CASES > --- > Regular Judges: > 3971 Secretsnail9 > 3976 Jason > 3977 4st > 3979 ais523 > 3980 Murphy > > Occasional Judges: > [None currently] > > Overflow Judges: > 3888 nix > > Recused: > > 3956 R. Lee > 3941 Cuddlybanana > 3926 Gaelan > 3924 Madrid > > OPEN CASES > --- > [none] > > RECENTLY-JUDGED CASES > --- > 3976 Judged FALSE by Jason [Sun 17 Jul 2022 21:19:58] > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2022-July/049569.html > G. Earned a Magenta Ribbon in 2022. >
Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
secretsnail wrote: On 7/24/2022 2:04 PM, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 3:57 PM Edward Murphy via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: In any case, the differences of opinion seem intractable at this point; best to just legislate something acceptable to all sides, and move on from there. I think my proposal codifying the invisible requirement would help somewhat, but it still doesn't get rid of this issue of "coloring". We shouldn't have to reexamine every new way of saying you take an action in worry of it not working for some entirely subjective reason, but I'm not sure if we can legislate that away. It's not very elegant to just codify in the rules "'I submit the following proposal X times:' doesn't work." and neither is it to codify that it does work. Is there any general clarification that would fix this? Maybe something like "If there is an ambiguity in an attempt to take an action, where it could either mean an attempt to take a possible action or an attempt to take an impossible action, it is instead an unambiguous attempt to take the possible action." That's broader than what I had in mind (but may still be worthwhile). I was just thinking more like: "If there would otherwise be an ambiguity in an attempt to create or otherwise identify or reference one or more entities, where it could either mean the same instance multiple times or multiple instances with matching attributes, it is interpreted as an unambiguous attempt to do the latter."
Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
On Sun, Jul 24, 2022 at 3:57 PM Edward Murphy via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > In any case, the differences of opinion seem intractable at this point; > best to just legislate something acceptable to all sides, and move on > from there. > I think my proposal codifying the invisible requirement would help somewhat, but it still doesn't get rid of this issue of "coloring". We shouldn't have to reexamine every new way of saying you take an action in worry of it not working for some entirely subjective reason, but I'm not sure if we can legislate that away. It's not very elegant to just codify in the rules "'I submit the following proposal X times:' doesn't work." and neither is it to codify that it does work. Is there any general clarification that would fix this? Maybe something like "If there is an ambiguity in an attempt to take an action, where it could either mean an attempt to take a possible action or an attempt to take an impossible action, it is instead an unambiguous attempt to take the possible action." -- secretsnail
Re: DIS: Re: (@Arbitor, Assessor, Promotor) Re: BUS: CFJ 3978, CFJ 3979 assigned to ais523
secretsnail wrote:
On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 6:16 PM Edward Murphy via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
Yes, you can create/submit a proposal by announcement. That doesn't mean
you can create *the same* proposal multiple times
I'd like a better explanation as to why that is, because it seems like
the opposite. Because tou can create a proposal by announcement, you can
create the same proposal multiple times by announcement, but that action
falls under the umbrella of creating a proposal by announcement.
That's what "the" means in ordinary language, and what the creation and
existence of entities means in ordinary language (backed up to some
extent by Definition and Continuity of Entities). You can't create *the
same* instance of anything more than once (unless perhaps it's repealed
or something in between, which is n/a here).
If I announced "81 times, I create the coin in my possession", then that
would be equally problematic (even if there was a rule "Murphy CAN
create coins in eir possession by announcement").
I'd argue this is more problematic just because we don't refer to coins as
"the coin" normally, but we do use "the proposal" a lot more.
It really depends on what entity you're creating, for coins it is strange,
but for promises, for example, it works.
"81 times, I grant myself the promise:
{
I plant potatoes
}."
would be perfectly fine, because we refer to promises that way. The same
goes for proposals. It should be obvious it's not actually one promise
being granted, but multiple instances of the same promise.
An example of this happening just fine:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2022-April/048821.html
If this should work, so should my proposals.
Also we should really look at the difference between "the same proposal"
and "the same instance of a proposal".
The text in question there was:
I grant the library 3 of the following promise, each titled
"Stamps for Stamps": (etc.)
which more clearly suggests an implied "instances" after the "3". This
is probably also colored by promises being a type of entity where we're
accustomed to someone creating multiple instances with the same text up
front (as opposed to "whoops, I re-submit this text as a proposal now
that some relevant part of the gamestate has changed", or scam attempts
like the recent one, neither of which is as common). And, yes, it's
probably *also* colored by "there was a scam attempt".
In any case, the differences of opinion seem intractable at this point;
best to just legislate something acceptable to all sides, and move on
from there.
DIS: Re: (@Assessor) BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8717-8811
On 7/15/22 15:09, ais523 via agora-business wrote: > AGAINST – sometimes it can be subjective whether a rule breach > occurred, and platonically awarding Blots at the instant those happens > strikes me as problematic (as well as a lot of extra work for the > Referee trying to keep the records up to date) FWIW I agree with this critique to some extent. I'm certainly open to some revisions in the near future. Some infractions should probably be put into a special category that is more discretionary. I don't really think it's much extra work, since any missed blots will be ratified away, tho I agree that's not super clean. Might be worth adding a sentence like "if an infraction is not noted, reduced, or increased within 7 days, the blots it created are destroyed". -- nix Herald, Registrar, Collector
