Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:


The way it should work is for Agora to be satisfied if any of (1)
through (4) are satisfied. That is, Agora is “satisfied” if there were
fewer than N objections and the action was without N objections; OR if
there are more than N supporters and the action was with N support; OR
the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than or equal to N and
the action is to be taken with N Agoran Consent; etc.


That breaks if intents are allowed to be both with objection and with 
support.  I think there was once a rule that allowed making intents with 
stricter methods than necessary (I guess you still can add conditions).


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Trouble subscribing

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 13 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote:


I was unable to subscribe jc...@cs.berkeley.edu to the Agora lists (except
tue), but was able to subscribe falsifi...@gmail.com. Is this a common
problem?

It's not a problem for me (assuming you received this message) but thought
I'd mention it in case others are having trouble.


I don't know but it _could_ be because of spam blacklisting.  (Consider 
this something halfway between suggestion and snark.)


I had trouble last year around the time of Agora's Birthday because the 
Agora server kept getting on a public spam blacklist my mail server uses. 
The honorable Distributor never responded (has he been seen since?) and I 
had to get the admins here to add an exception for it.


If your university servers use the same kind of blacklist, that could be 
swallowing your confirmation email.  (Hm I guess you could check if it's 
ended up in a spam folder, too - I don't have one.)


No one else on the Agora lists ever reported having the same problem, 
though.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] House of Snerds

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:


RETIREMENT ANNOUNCEMENT

Kim Ping Pong has announced eir retirement.


To secure the stability and continued prosperity of the people, we trust 
that his glorious tenure will be succeeded by that of his brilliant son 
Kim Kong Ill.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Quang Revived

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2019, Gaelan Steele wrote:

I object, both to any intents this may create and to people taking this 
gibberish thing way too far.


I don't think it could create any intents, even if the relevant rule did 
_not_ contain a clear disqualification of obfuscation.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 10 Feb 2019, Gaelan Steele wrote:

CoE: the Astronomor weekly report was not published the day before the 
Unix epoch.


Maybe the Astronomor found a wormhole.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: still need a currency for something

[Ørjan Johansen]

Ah I see you thought of the same bug as I.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Sun, 10 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:


Just in case...


On Feb 4, 2019, at 5:11 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:


I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award myself the degree Associate of Nomic 
(A.N.).


I object. I withdraw my objection.




On Feb 4, 2019, at 6:22 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

It's not 100% guaranteed to work, but why not - I intend, without objection, to 
Declare Apathy, specifying the set of players that is the union of
(a) {twg},
(b) if ais523 is a player at the time this action is performed, then {ais523}, 
otherwise the empty set, and
(c) the set of people who, at the time this action is performed, are players 
and have privately sent me a broadly correct explanation of the scam.


I object.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8152-8163

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:


//
ID: 8162
Title: No Contract Reporting Rewards
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Telnaior
Co-authors: G.



Amend the phrase "Publishing a duty-fulfilling report" in Rule 2496
("Rewards") to the following:
"Publishing a report fulfilling the weekly or monthly duties of an office"


The "the" there makes it seem like the report must fulfil _all_ of the 
duties, but e.g. the Promotor's main weekly duty (distribution) is not 
part of eir report.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Agora itself is a contract

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote:


- You can change the rules if everyone agrees to it, without needing a
proposal for it. R1742: "A contract may be modified, including by changing
the set of parties, by agreement between all existing parties."


That rule has too low power to trump the safeties in 105 and 1688.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Red herrings and indigo ribbons

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:


I think I have found a bug in twg’s execution of the scheme!


I also see some bugs, although the rule 869 issue makes them pretty moot.

For one thing, it was argued in previous discussion that supporting cannot 
be done on behalf as an accidental side effect of the "consents" synonym.


For another thing ... I'm going to save that until it's completely agreed 
that rule 869 kills the attempt anyway.


Greetings,
Ørjan, who is only 16% into the ruleset reading and may be extending the 
week a bit.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer something something

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote:


I editted it to point out the specific rule but is it really necessary? I
thought it would be unambiguous where the edit was supposed to be. Just
curious about if there's a formal reason for it.


Hm, I think you're technically correct, although it's still seems bad form 
not to include it.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: [Proto] Extend "amend"

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, Reuben Staley wrote:


Title: Extend "amend"

Amend Rule 105 (Power=3) 'Rule Changes' by removing items 3-6 in the
ordered list and then adding to that list:

 3. reenact a rule. A repealed rule not in the ruleset identified
by its most recent rule number MUST be specified for
 reenactment. The rule's properites are to be set as follows:


"properties"


* its ID number will be the same as it was when the rule was
   most recently repealed.

* its change identifier will be one more than its change
   identifier when it was most recently repealed.

* If no text is specified for the rule, it is to have the same
   text it had when it was most recently repealed. If the
   reenacting instrument provides new text, it is to have that
   text. The rule SHOULD have materially the same purpose as did
   the repealed version.

* If a new power is not specified, it is to have power equal to
   the power it had at the time of its most recent repeal, or
   power 1, if power was not defined at the time of that rule's
   repeal. If the reenacting instrument provides a new power, it
   is to have that power.

* If a new title is not specified, it is to have the same title
   as it had when it was most recently repealed. If the
   reenacting instrument provides a new title, it is to have
   that title.


Perhaps the last three can be consolidated like you did with amendment:

* Each of its text, power and title shall be as provided by the
  reenacting instrument, or if not provided, the same as when it
  was most recently repealed, with power defaulting to 1 if it had
  none. The rule SHOULD have materially the same purpose as did
  the repealed version.


If the re-enacting instrument is incapable of setting the
 reenacted rule's power to that value, then the re-enactment is
 INEFFECTIVE.

 4. amend a rule. This may include changing the rule's text, name,
or power.

--
Trigon


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup

[Ørjan Johansen]

I am reminded that a previous Rulekeepor (Gaelan perhaps?) made a number 
of formatting changes in order to make the Ruleset valid markdown, and I 
don't quite remember for sure, but that may be how this rule ended up with 
the confusion of two top-level lists with the same numbering scheme.  I 
suspect this proposal breaks that.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:


Below is a protoproposal that is meant to address the bug that Gaelan
identified.  I also noticed what might be another bug--I believe,
under the current first paragraph (1), an intent might fail if the
player ever announced that same intent more than 15 days prior.  So,
arguably, if Gaelan ever announced intent to declare apathy more than
14 days ago, then eir current declaration of apathy failed under the
first paragraph (1).  I also think the current dependent action rule
is very very difficult to parse, so I made some modifications to
improve readability.  I think part of the reason the bug was able to
slip through was that the formatting of the rule makes it hard to
parse.

Comments welcome.  I won't be offended if people say that they don't
want to reformat the rule, but I do think it's currently very hard to
read.

Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act
Author: D Margaux
Co-author: Gaelan
AI: 3

Amend Rule 1728 to replace its entire text with the following:

{

(a) The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent
actions" (N is 1 unless otherwise specified):

   1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater
  than 8 ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with
  N = 1);

   2. With N Support, where N is a positive integer ("With
  Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1);

   3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1
  with a minimum of 1;

   4. With Notice; or

   5. With T Notice, where T is a time period.

(b) A rule that purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform
an action by a set of one or more dependent actions defined above in
section (a) thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if
all of the following are true:

   1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent to
   perform the action within the 14 days preceding the action;

   2. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform
   the action between 4 and 14 days preceding the action, if
   the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N
   Agoran Consent, or With Notice;

   3. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform
   the action between T and 14 days preceding the action,
   if the action is to be performed With T Notice;

   4. Any announcement of intent relied upon to meet any
   applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or
   (b)(3) unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without
   obfuscation specified the action intended to be taken
   and method(s) to be used (including the value of
   N and/or T for each method);

   5. At least one of the following is true:

 A. The performer is the initiator;

 B. The initiator was authorized to perform the action
due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the
performer; or

 C. The initiator is authorized to perform the action,
the action depends on support, the performer has
supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the
performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from
performing it,

6.  Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined
 by other rules; and

7. The conditions are met, if any conditions were stated in
the announcement of intent relied upon to meet any
applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or
(b)(3).

(c) The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters if the action
depends on support, and a list of objectors if it depends on
objections.

}

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3705 and 3706 judged FALSE

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:


Gaelan tried to win by Apathy, using one buried intent to satisfy R1728(2)
and then another open intent to satisfy R1728(1). This relies on the assumption
that the R1728(1) and R1728(2) intents can be separate from each other.
However, this is not the case. While R1728(1) specifies merely (and somewhat
ungrammatically) that the initiator must have "announced intent",
R1728(2) discusses requirements for "the intent". The use of the definite
article in R1728(2) means that the intent used to satisfy it must be the
same one previously mentioned, i.e. the same one used to satisfy
R1728(1). Thus, Gaelan cannot use one intent to satisfy R1728(1) and a
different intent to satisfy R1728(2).


The obvious counterargument is that there was only one intent, just two 
announcements of it.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Quang Revived

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote:


- "kuukie" as shorthand for "I intend to"
- "dvba" as shorthand for "declare victory by apathy"



kuukie dvba for myself.


This part probably won't work, because intents are required to be 
unobfuscated.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:

I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation wouldn’t be 
a barrier anymore, though.


I don't see why.  I don't think there's any provision for anything other 
than a rule to take precedence over a rule, regardless of power.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

[Ørjan Johansen]

I think you technically cannot force it until just after the Week, because 
you need to wait until the Promotor is late (rule 2160 §3).


Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:

I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposals in the 
proposal pool.


I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposal that I 
submitted today and that was not withdrawn.


(This is merely meant to ensure that I can force my scam proposal to be 
distributed this week, to reduce the chance that anyone could discover 
it or launch a counter-scam. This isn’t meant to be any kind of 
criticism of the commendable job done by our H. Promotor. If this 
inadvertently violates game norms, then I won’t execute either intent.)

DIS: Re: BUS: still need a currency for something

[Ørjan Johansen]

I assume G. was hinting to the fact that these are fungible assets yet 
distinguishable.  Not that the rules define what "fungible" means, 
anymore.


Which might make them hard to track, so just as well that there's no 
recordkeepor defined.


No idea how you intend to get any advantage out of this, though.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Niiice, Telnaior. c: It wasn't, in fact, what I was going for. I guess 
contracts are just horribly broken, huh.


I consent to be bound by the terms of the following document, with the 
intent for it to become a contract provided G. also so agrees. (Slightly 
modified from the previous version to improve G.'s security.)


{
This is a contract between twg and G. Other persons CANNOT become parties.

twg CAN modify this contract by announcement, with the exception that 
twg CANNOT (and SHALL NOT attempt to) modify this contract such that it 
imposes any obligation on G. or otherwise significantly harms eir 
standing in the game, or such that this paragraph is removed, altered or 
otherwise rendered ineffective.


Beads are a currency defined by this contract. Ownership of beads is 
restricted to any entity. twg CAN, by announcement, create a bead in the 
possession of any entity.


Each bead has a colour, which is one of the following: red, green, blue, 
cyan, magenta, yellow or white. The colour of a bead is set when it is 
created and cannot thereafter be changed. An attempt to create a bead is 
INEFFECTIVE if the colour of the bead is not specified.

}

*whistles innocently*

(I'm also quite happy to just explain the scam, incidentally, and will 
on request from G. But it seems more fun to give a relatively-harmless 
live demonstration.)


-twg

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] It's (nearly) Read the Ruleset Week!

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 3 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote:


To enter, you have to publicly outline/ describe the full idea of the
loophole during Read the Ruleset week.  If you're actually pulling the trick
as a scam, you need to make sure we (the "public") have the info we need to
understand how the scam works or is supposed to work by the end of the week
(even if you haven't made the final moves yet).


This pretty much rules out pulling some scams - those which require more 
than a week to pull off and can be prevented by someone who knows how it 
works before it's finished.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

I transfer all Tenhigitsune's liquid assets to myself, flip eir master 
switch to Agora, and bid 1 coin in this auction.


You forgot to act on behalf, so the first action fails.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer something something

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote:


When a player Becomes One With The Cosmos, if their Fame is either 10 or
-10, their Fame is set to 0 and they win the game."


Please use proper Agoran pronouns.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer becomes an automated victory dispensing machine

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 1 Feb 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote:


Note that I can have others send the attack Energy message on my behalf,
and it's not obligatory for the sender of the attack Energy to _understand
their own message_.


   [...]; in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another
   person to send a message, only to perform specific actions that
   might be taken within a message.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: bring back judicial protections

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019, Gaelan Steele wrote:

Not just that—at the time there was a rule that reenacted rules had to 
have “largely the same purpose” or something.


Yeah, that was changed to a SHOULD in the current version.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: bring back judicial protections

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Re-enact Rule 2246 (name at repeal: Submitting a CFJ to the Justiciar),
at Power-2, with the title "Submitting a CFJ to the Referee", and the
following text:


I don't think you can change the title without a separate rule change, 
although the reenactment provision doesn't actually mention titles at all.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 27 Jan 2019, Edward Murphy wrote:


I transfer a kudo from myself (for overlooking this) to twg (for
pointing it out).


That takes me back.  But it's all about karma nowadays.  Which is probably 
a bit more flexible.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but

[Ørjan Johansen]

This provision is clearly intended to be a long-term protection against 
rule abuse.  In such cases, it seems reasonable to interpret the 
meticulous wording as an added safety in case of new rule changes, without 
any implications following from whether or not the phrasing is redundant 
given the _current_ ruleset.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

I understand and agree with your logic (and, incidentally, would find it 
hilarious if this made me guilty of Masterminding Being a Bad Space 
Captain), but I have a brief question that occurred to me yesterday 
about Rule 2519, which says:


 A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e, acting
 as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action.

This seems to imply that it is possible for someone to act on behalf of 
someone else to "publicly state" something, and explicitly excludes that 
ability. This is almost the same as the language used in the Ribbons 
rule ("publicly acknowledged the fact [that it is Agora's Birthday]").


Does this mean that the "acting as emself" clause in R2519 is simply 
unnecessary? Or is "stating" something different from "sending a message 
that states" something?

Re: DIS: oh dear

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Reuben Staley wrote:


This is exactly what I said nearly a year ago when PAoaM passed. Minigames
rarely work the way they are supposed to on their first revision.


*
* THE AGORAN MINIGAME CYCLE *
*

1. Enact a minigame system, initially completely broken.
2. Use a few weeks to correct the most ruinous bugs.
3. With the system now barely useable, some people find new bugs and use
   them to get an insurmountable advantage.
4. Spend several months trying to weed out the most annoying bugs.
5. Just as the system looks like it's starting to work as intended, all
   the players except for those from (3) vote to repeal it because it's
   too much work and hasn't been fun to play.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau Energy 
in Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which is a 
constructed language invented by me. (Other twgese words include "quang" 
and "spaaace".)


Go ahead, CFJ this. You know you want to.


This discussion makes me even more doubtful about the recent usage of 
"quang" BTW, except in those messages that also quote its definition.


Before all the mention of typical Agorans I thought it would probably be 
OK as long as you were the relevant recordkeepor, but now I'm not so sure.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RIP

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

"And I'm joining you live from Agora's Lost and Found Department, where 
a large Spaceship has appeared in the central office, causing widespread 
damage. Projected casualties number in the dozens..."


Spaceships are destructible.  Reading rule 2576, it seems slightly unclear 
but plausible that it was destroyed immediately upon entering the L 
Department.


Which incidentally also provides a crude way of opting out of this game 
while not currently in a battle, for those seeking it.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Rule 2576/0 (Power=3)
Ownership

   Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset's backing document
   restricts its ownership to a class of entities, then that asset
   CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity outside that
   class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity outside that
   class. The restrictions in the previous sentence are subject to
   modification by its backing document. By default, ownership of an
   asset is restricted to Agora, players, and contracts.

   If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost
   and Found Department. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the
   Lost and Found Department can own assets of every type. Assets
   owned by the Lost and Found Department can be transferred or
   destroyed by any player without objection.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8143-8145 and 8142

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:


I resolve the Agoran Decisions to adopt each of Proposals 8143, 8144,
8145 and 8142, in that order, as follows. I'll do 8139-8141 after lunch.

(I know this is a controversial use of Assessor powers, but if you will
keep voting for proposals about rewards for proposals...)


Doing this to personally gain an advantage may be controversial, but doing 
it in a manner that ends up completely undoing the effect of proposal 8144 
is just plain rude.


Greetings,
Ørjan.


-twg


SUMMARY

This section self-ratifies.

IDAuthor(s)  Title  Result

8143  Trigon Happy Birthday to You v3   ADOPTED
8144  Trigon Sharing the Wealth ADOPTED
8145  Gaelan No Rebirth ADOPTED
8142  twg et al. Let Me Back In!ADOPTED

7 ballots were cast on Proposal 8142, so Quorum on Agoran Decisions is
now 5 except where otherwise stated.


TALLY OF VOTES

This section does not self-ratify.

+-+-+-+-+
| 8143| 8144| 8145| 8142|
++-+-+-+-+
|AI  | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2.0 |
|Quorum  |  7  |  7  |  7  |  7  |
++-+-+-+-+
|Aris| AAA | AAA | AAA | FFF |
|D. Margaux  | FFF | FFF | FFF | FFF |
|Gaelan  |+FFF |+ P  | FFF |+FFF |
|Murphy  | FFF | FFF | FFF | FFF |
|Tenhigitsune   Z|+FFF |+FFF |+FFF |+FFF |
|Trigon  | FFF |  P  |  P  | FFF |
|twg | FFF | FFF |+FFF | FFF |
++-+-+-+-+
|FOR | 18  | 15  | 18  | 21  |
|AGAINST |  3  |  3  |  3  |  0  |
|Ballots |  7  |  7  |  7  |  7  |
|Resolved|ADOP.|ADOP.|ADOP.|ADOP.|
++-+-+-+-+

Key:
#b. Possesses # blots [-floor(#/3) voting strength]
PM  Prime Minister [+1 voting strength]
Z   Zombie
+   Extricated conditional
x   Inextricable conditional


RIBBONS EARNED IN THIS RESOLUTION

This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify.

  PlayerRibbonProposal(s)
  -------
  twg   Orange8139
  twg   Orange8141
  twg   Orange8142


TEXT OF ADOPTED PROPOSALS

This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify.

//
ID: 8143
Title: Happy Birthday to You v3
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Trigon
Co-authors:


Enact a new rule entitled "Birthday Gifts", power=1, with the text:

 It is considered to be a player's Agoran Birthday on the
 anniversary of the day e most recently registered. Every time it
 is a player's Agoran Birthday, each of the other players CAN
 grant em 3 coins by announcement.

 Players are ENCOURAGED to announce their Agoran Birthdays.

//
ID: 8144
Title: Sharing the Wealth
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Trigon
Co-authors:


Amend rule 2496 "Rewards" by replacing the list element beginning "Being
the author" that reads:

 * The following apply to adopted proposals:

   *  Being the author: a number of coins equal to ((the total
  number of valid ballots cast FOR the decision - the total
  number of valid ballots cast AGAINST) times its adoption
  index) rounded up.
   *  Being listed as a coauthor: the same amount, divided by 2 and
  rounded up.

//
ID: 8145
Title: No Rebirth
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Gaelan
Co-authors:


IF THE PROPOSAL “Happy Birthday to You v3” HAS BEEN RESOLVED AND ENACTED:
 Amend the rule entitled “Birthday Gifts” by replacing “anniversary of the
 day e most recently registered” with “anniversary of the day e first
 registered. If the day a player first registered is unknown, that player
 CAN, with Agoran Consent, declare a day to be eir Agoran Birthday. As long
 as the day a player first registered remains unknown, it is considered to be
 eir Agoran Birthday on the anniversary of the day e most recently declared
 as eir Agoran Birthday”

IF THE PROPOSAL “Happy Birthday to You v3” HAS NOT BEEN RESOLVED, BUT IF
RESOLVED WOULD BE ENACTED:
 Create a power-1 rule entitled “ugh” with the text “Any player may, by
 announcement cause this rule to amend the rule entitled “Birthday Gifts”
 by replacing “anniversary of the day e most recently registered” with
 “anniversary of the day e first registered. If the day a player first
 

DIS: Re: BUS: Open call for politician names

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

I pledge that whenever I create a politician with a name someone else 
suggested to me, I will transfer 5 coins to that person (if it would be 
LEGAL and POSSIBLE to do so).


*Looks up the previous list to avoid duplicates*

Theresa Cannot
Benjamin Surreali
Ronald Ray-Gun
Genghis Khaan
Lex Luthor

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset: Second Week of 2019

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019, Reuben Staley wrote:


THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET


I think that's a bit shorter than you intended.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

I think this argument doesn't work because, according to the FLR, CFJs 
1911-1914 set the precedent that "Physical realities supersede the Rules 
by default" - in this case, the physical reality that no rule defines a 
process for zombie transferral overrides the rule that says zombie 
transferral is possible, somehow, as part of an auction. But I'm not 
confident enough in that interpretation to judge the case.


The content of the Rules surely must be the exact _opposite_ of what 
"physical reality" refers to in those judgements?


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Birthdays II

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Using the Registrar's monthly report, my Agoran birthdays would be:
 4-Feb-01, 14-Jul-03, 23-Feb-07, 27-Oct-07, 19-Jun-08,
 4-May-09, 29-Oct-09, 18-Oct-11 and 25-Aug-17.
You may want to use "day e most recently registered" or "day e first
registered"? (your preference, but I'd go for "first" personally).


I suspect "most recently" is easier to verify.  For example, I'm pretty 
sure my first registration isn't listed.  In fact I don't know the exact 
date myself.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Coauthors deserve something.

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 15 Dec 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:


Amend rule 2496 "Rewards" by replacing the list element beginning "Being
the author" that reads:


I suspect you are missing "with text" or something in there.


 * The following apply to adopted proposals:

* Being the author: a number of coins equal to ((the total
  number of valid ballots cast FOR the decision - the total
  number of valid ballots cast AGAINST) times its adoption
  index) rounded up.
 * Being listed as a coauthor: the same amount, divided by 2 and
   rounded up.


Hm, I smell a tab character.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Let's do some space

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 14 Dec 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:


Perform the following action for each player, iterating over them in
order of the days of the year (1 January to 31 December) on which they
most recently registered, breaking ties in order of the times at which
they most recently registered.

[Does this satisfy? I believe it presently gives the order omd,
ATMunn, P.S.S., Gaelan, twg, nichdel, G., CuddleBeam, D. Margaux,
Aris, L., Trigon, Halian, Telnaior, Tarhalindur, Tenhigitsune,
Jacob Arduino, Corona, pokes, Murphy, V.J. Rada, which seems to me to
have sufficient entropy.]


You seem to have forgotten the action itself :P

Other than that, the potential for manipulation looks small, especially if 
the proposal gets resolved before new year (in which case a new player 
registering just before would get a late position, but would get that if 
registering _afterward_ as well.)  And it's obviously harder to pull off 
for people who are already players.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Let's do some space

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 13 Dec 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:


 The resolver for a Space Battle is the person highest in the
 following list who is not a combatant in the Space Battle:

 1) the Astronomor;
 2) the Arbitor;
 3) the Prime Minister;
 4) the non-combatant who has least recently registered.

 For the initiation of a Space Battle to be EFFECTIVE, the initiator
 must correctly specify the resolver.


(1) Shouldn't this be a player rather than a person? (2) What if the list 
changes before the battle is resolved?



For each player, iterating over them in order of the values of the
MD5 hashes of the nicknames they are known by in the most recent
Registrar weekly report [i.e. in an arbitrary order]: Create a
Spaceship in the possession of that player.


I'm not sure initial sector placement matters that much, but if someone 
disagrees, e might have time to change eir nickname to manipulate eir 
position.


Also, a player may have registered after the last registrar's report.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset -- December 7

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 9 Dec 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:


What about something like this?

   * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. For each office,
 this reward can only be claimed for the first weekly report
 published in a week and the first monthly report published in a
 month.


That seems clear, although I have a nagging doubt about "what if there's 
something severely wrong with the first one?"


Greetings,
Ørjan.


-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 6:17 PM, Ørjan Johansen  
wrote:


On Sat, 8 Dec 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:


Unfortunately I believe this fails, because you have already claimed a
reward this week for publication of the SLR (even though the SLR you
claimed the reward for was published last week).


That sounds rather annoying - e basically cannot synchronize the rewards
back without missing a report.

* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. This reward can
only be claimed once per office per week for a weekly report and
once per office per month for a monthly report.

Rephrasing the rule so that it clearly applies the "once per *" to the
timing of the report rather than the claim is a bit awkward. The
following is ambiguous between the current reading and the more flexible
one:

* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. This reward can
only be claimed for one weekly report per office per week
and for one monthly report per office per month.

I think the following should work:

* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. This reward can
only be claimed for one weekly report per office published in a
week and for one monthly report per office published in a month.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

[Narrowly avoid quoting entire ruleset]

DIS: Re: BUS: Weekly maintenance

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2018, Edward Murphy wrote:


I expunge one of my Blots.


With the proposal to automatize this having failed, I can no longer resist 
pointing out that the way the rule works, you would generally want to do 
this at the _beginning_ of a week, not the end.


Greetings,
Ørjan, who is disturbed that he made _three_ typos when first typing the 
above.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] The Agoran Directory

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2018, D. Margaux wrote:


Does that actually work though?

I don’t see any provision that resets the resale value to 2 after the 
master switch is set back to the player. So I think nichdel’s resale 
value is still 1, because eir master switch was previously transferred 
to me.


Resale value is a zombie switch, so while e is not a zombie eir resale 
value simply does not exist.  (Or does it?  After writing the below I'm 
wondering if rule 2240 might mess this up too because the provision that 
says it doesn't exist is early in rule 2162.)


However, it occurs to me that rule 2162 is not obviously clear on what 
happens when e again _does_ come to have an instance of that switch. 
There are possibly competing provisions, and the later (which by rule 2240 
would take precedence) _might_ imply it's set to the same value as the 
last time it had one:


   At any given time, each instance of a switch has exactly one
   possible value for that type of switch. If an instance of a switch
   comes to have a value, it ceases to have any other value. If an
   instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a possible
   value, it comes to have its default value.

[...]

   If an action or set of actions would cause the value of an
   instance of a switch to become indeterminate, the instance instead
   takes on its last determinate and possible value, if any,
   otherwise it takes on its default value.

It depends on what it takes for a switch value to become indeterminate - 
does the first provision trigger to prevent it from happening, before the 
second one does?


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Agora can into space

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:


Enact a new rule entitled "The Astronomor", with power 1.0 and the
following text:
{
   The Astronomor is an office. The Astronomor's weekly report
   includes, in addition to any information required by other rules,
   a list of all Sectors and their ID numbers.
}


Suddenly I envision this should be "Astronomican".

Despite never having played the game...

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] The Agoran Directory

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 1 Dec 2018, ATMunn wrote:


12-Nov-18 15:54:54  Jacob Ardruino registers.  Welcome, Jacob Ardruino!
[let me know if I missed anything, but it seems like this is it]


The spelling of eir name?  Impressively, even in the email address.

Greetings,
Ørjan.


Players (20) (by Rule 869, Persons with 'Registered' Citizenship, z=zombie)

  Player   Contact Registered
  --   --- --
  omd  comexk at gmail.com [3] 03 Feb 11
  Aris thoughtsoflifeandlight17 at gmail.com   13 Sep 16
  P. Scholasticus [1]  pscriboniusscholasticus at gmail.com[2] 16 Apr 17
  Gaelan   gbs at canishe.com  15 May 17
  G.   kerim at u.washington.edu   25 Aug 17
  Cuddle Beam  cuddlebeam at gmail.com 25 Aug 17
  Trigon   reuben.staley at gmail.com  24 Sep 17
  Corona   liliumalbum.agora at gmail.com  17 Nov 17
  Murphy   emurphy42 at zoho.com   17 Dec 17
  V.J. Radaedwardostrange at gmail.com[5]  29 Dec 17
  ATMunn   iamingodsarmy at gmail.com  11 Mar 18
  twg  me at timon.red 24 May 18
  D. Margaux   dmargaux000 at gmail.com[4] 25 Aug 18
  Lprmcd16 at yahoo.com20 Sep 18
  Hālian   halian at safiria.net   20 Oct 18
  Tarhalindur  ahzin23 at icstudents.org   31 Oct 18
  Jacob Ardruino   jacobardruino at gmail.com  12 Nov 18
z  nichdel  nichdel at gmail.com29 Jun 17
z  pokespokes at botnoise.org   11 Dec 17
z  天火狐 draconicdarkness at gmail.com   06 Nov 16
z  Telnaior jdga at iinet.net.au20 Oct 17

[1] In full, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
[2] officially, but technically equivalent p.scribonius.scholasticus at
googlemail.com
[3] officially, but technically equivalent c.ome.xk at gmail.com
[4] also known as D Margaux
[5] aka VJ Rada


Zombie Master and Resale switches (self-ratifying)

Zombie  Master   Resale   Agora was last eir Master on
TelnaiorAris 105-Sep-18 06:46:28
nichdel D. Margaux   109-Sep-18 17:17:16
pokes   G.   005-Nov-18 15:12:39
天火狐twg  005-Nov-18 20:55:38


Fora (Rule 478, self-ratifying)

Type Location  Typical use
   ---
Public   agora-official at agoranomic.org  official reports
Public   agora-business at agoranomic.org  other business
Discussion   agora-discussion at agoranomic.orgdiscussion
Discussion   irc://irc.freenode.net:6667/##nomic
   discussion
Public   agora at listserver.tue.nlbackup

Subscribe or unsubscribe from main lists:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo

Subscribe or unsubscribe from tue.nl backup list:
http://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora

The IRC channel does not require subscription; set your IRC client to
server irc.freenode.net, port 6667, channel ##nomic, and whatever
nickname you like.


Writs of FAGE (Rule 1789)
PlayerDate
--
Kelly 17 Sep 95
Andre 13 Feb 99
BobTHJ16 Jan 08
P1 5 Nov 08
P2 5 Nov 08
P3 6 Nov 08
G.29 Jun 17


Watchers (4)

The list of Watchers is not governed by the rules, but is
traditionally maintained in the Registrar's Report.  If you'd like to
be listed as a Watcher or removed from the list, feel free to email
the fora or the Registrar directly.

Watchers confirmed as of May 2017:

Nickname  Contact
  ---
Ørjan oerjan at nvg.ntnu.no

Watchers confirmed as of May 2013:

Nickname  Contact
  ---
Dave  davidnicol at gmail.com
Phlogistique  noe.rubinstein at gmail.com
Steve zardoz37 at gmail.com

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [minority] Report

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:


So I believe I have two legal options:
- declare this Finger Pointing Shenanigans now, or
- wait until December (35 minutes) and then levy a fine on you.


Third option would have been to get someone to repeat the Finger Pointing 
- the double jeopardy provision only prevents _fining_ twice.  Although, I

  think the levying is EFFECTIVE anyway.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Vote

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, D. Margaux wrote:


I vote AGAINST the proposal referenced below.

I change my vote on that proposal to ENDORSE the most recent player to join
the Living Zombie contract, if and only if one or more new players have
joined that contract before the end of the voting period on that proposal.


My interpretation of these actions is that the change entirely replaces 
the AGAINST vote, whether or not the condition within happens.


The less plausible reading (which I think game custom would not prefer 
unless you did it more unambiguously) is that it's a conditional action to 
create a vote, not to create a conditional vote, in which case the change 
is presumably ineffective because the condition is inextricable at this 
time.


For what I suspect you want (unless you were trying to misguide), you need 
to make a vote that contains the conditional branching inside it.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8133-8138

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Yeah, exactly, looks like that would work.  I might make it "explicitly"
permitted it the first sentence but that might be me being overcautious.


Still doesn't fix your worry about secrecy, though.

Greetings,
Ørjan.


On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Ah, I see now. So it should be something like:

  A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions
  as permitted by the contract's text:

  * Act on behalf of another party to the contract.

  * By announcement, destroy destructible assets in the
contract's possession.

  * By announcement, transfer liquid assets in the contract's
possession.

?

(I'm not going to change my vote because I've _just_ managed to work out the 
precarious tower of conditional votes and I don't want to confuse myself. But 
it's nowhere near being adopted anyway.)

-twg

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 11:39 PM, Kerim Aydin  
wrote:




No. Actions on behalf between persons are governed by R2466, which says
explicitly that the actor CAN use the same method the principal CAN. So
if the Rules say that Person A CAN transfer a currency "by announcement"
(which is covered in the Assets rules), and that Person B CAN act on
behalf of Person A (covered by act-on-behalf and current Contract rules),
then Person B CAN also do it "by announcement".

But that only works between persons, not between person and contract.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:


Well in that case it's similarly broken in the current rule as well, albeit 
only for actions on behalf, not for currency transfers. No?
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 2:35 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:


On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:


On Sun, 25 Nov 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


8138 twg 2.5 Access to contracts' assets


I vote AGAINST 8138 and act on behalf of pokes to vote AGAINST 8138.


There seems to be no methods as required by rule 2125.


I think "as permitted by a contract's text" may defer the method
specification to the contract (i.e. "by contract" is the specified
rules method, provided the contract says explicitly how to perform
the task).
However, this makes me realize what made me nervous: if that works,
the method specified in the contract could be private, which would
result in the contract being able to transfer currencies secretly
(not informing the recordkeepor) if the deference works. And if the
deference doesn't work, it's all broken anyway as Ørjan says.

Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:

Is there any reason we’d want proposals resolved out of order? I don’t 
see any off hand, but it’s worth making sure we’re not losing the 
ability to easily clean up some mess.


In addition to what G. listed, there may be cases where it is _required_ 
(or at least impractical to avoid) for the Assessor to resolve proposals 
out of order because of voting period extensions.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote:


8135  twg, D Margaux  2.0   Blot Decay (Reprise)
ENDORSE twg if the  Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
AGAINST otherwise



8137  Aris, twg, Trigon   3.0   Uncorrecting Rewards
ENDORSE twg if the  Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
AGAINST otherwise



8138  twg 2.5   Access to contracts' assets
ENDORSE twg if the  Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
AGAINST otherwise


While I applaud the attempt to prevent the Assessor from gaining personal 
advantage by reordering resolutions again, I don't think these work, 
because conditionals are evaluated at the end of the _voting period_, not 
when the proposals are later resolved.


Suggestion: Try something like "ENDORSE twg if e has pledged not to gain 
personal advantage by reordering proposal resolutions for this batch."


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8133-8138

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


8138  twg 2.5   Access to contracts' assets

No vote for now. I see an issue with this that I have to think about
(i.e. read the rules a few times to see if it's actually an issue).


There seems to be no methods as required by rule 2125.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8129, 8131, 8127, 8123-8126, 8128, 8130 and 8132

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 24 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:


In the most recent ruleset, I only replaced the "earn", not the "earns".

Someone can CoE it, but in a couple of weeks, Aris' proposal will pass and 
converge the gamestate.


My options (1) and (4) would converge with this proposal, but the rest 
wouldn't.


Greetings,
Ørjan.


On 11/24/18 11:05 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

 On Fri, 23 Nov 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:


 Sorry, my mind isn’t getting the semantics of your comment. Could you
 break
 down what you mean?


 The original rule text contains both the words "earn" and "earns", and the
 latter may be considered a form of the former (the lemma form).

 Then the question is, did "earns" get replaced as well?  If (1) no, then
 it is still in the rule (and the provision was buggy).  If yes, did it (2)
 get substituted by the same text, or (3) by a version with a suitable -s
 added for grammatical correctness?  Does this whole thing (4) make the
 triggered provision ambiguous and thus the amendment fails completely?

 And then for each option above, what happens with your uncorrection
 proposal?  (1) It's fine since "earns" was never replaced.  (2) It will
 turn what used to be "earns" into "earn".  (3) It will leave what used to
 be "earns" as "creates in eir possession".  (4) It's fine but redundant.

 Greetings,
 Ørjan.


 -Aris

 On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 11:40 PM Ørjan Johansen 
 wrote:


 I'm wondering what happens to the word "earns" throughout these changes.
 Did it get replaced by the original provision, and if so, does it get
 uncorrected back correctly?

 Greetings,
 Ørjan.

 On Fri, 23 Nov 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:


 Wait, you want the literal opposite of this right? You want to switch
 it
 back to “earn”. The problem is that the provision did trigger, and it
 shouldn't have. I submit the following proposal:

 //
 Title: Uncorrecting Rewards
 Adoption index: 3.0
 Author: Aris
 Co-authors: twg, Trigon


 [
  This is A.I. 3.0 because I don't know what Rule 2496's power is.
  Proposal 8127 "reenacted" it, meaning it acquires the power it had
  when it was originally repealed, but I wasn't around when that
  happened and it's not in the SLR yet.
] 


 Amend rule 2496 by replacing all instances of the text "create in eir
 possession" with the word
 "earn".

 //

 -Aris

 On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 1:43 PM Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:


 You are, of course, correct.

 I submit this proposal:

 //
 ID: 8127
 Title: Rephrasing Rewards
 Adoption index: 3.0
 Author: twg
 Co-authors: Trigon


 [
   This is A.I. 3.0 because I don't know what Rule 2496's power is.
   Proposal 8127 "reenacted" it, meaning it acquires the power it had
   when it was originally repealed, but I wasn't around when that
   happened and it's not in the SLR yet.
] 


 Amend rule 2496 by replacing all instances of the word "earn" with
 "create in eir possession".

 //

 Notice of Honour:
 -1 twg (allowing eir own moneymaking activities to interfere with the

 rest

 of the game)
 +1 Trigon (suffering eir proposal being mangled by aforementioned
 activities)

 (I'm virtually certain my "rewards" _do_ work, but I'm astonished

 nobody's

 CFJed them on principle yet...)

 -twg


 ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
 On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 3:19 AM, Ørjan Johansen <

 oer...@nvg.ntnu.no>

 wrote:


 On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:


 I resolve the Agoran Decisions to adopt each of Proposals 8129,
 8131,
 8127, 8123-8126, 8128, 8130 and 8132, in that order, as follows.


 Fiendish. (Assuming this works. People might want to CFJ your double
 earnings.) However, I think resolving 8127 before 8126 has another
 unfortunate side effect, it causes the last paragraph of 8127 to

 trigger:



 If a proposal by Trigon has not passed in the same distribution as

 this

 proposal entitled "High-level asset verbs", amend rule 2496 by

 replacing

 all instances of the word "earn" with "create in eir possession".


 Greetings,
 Ørjan.












--
Trigon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8129, 8131, 8127, 8123-8126, 8128, 8130 and 8132

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 23 Nov 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:


Sorry, my mind isn’t getting the semantics of your comment. Could you break
down what you mean?


The original rule text contains both the words "earn" and "earns", and the 
latter may be considered a form of the former (the lemma form).


Then the question is, did "earns" get replaced as well?  If (1) no, then 
it is still in the rule (and the provision was buggy).  If yes, did it (2) 
get substituted by the same text, or (3) by a version with a suitable -s 
added for grammatical correctness?  Does this whole thing (4) make the 
triggered provision ambiguous and thus the amendment fails completely?


And then for each option above, what happens with your uncorrection 
proposal?  (1) It's fine since "earns" was never replaced.  (2) It will 
turn what used to be "earns" into "earn".  (3) It will leave what used to 
be "earns" as "creates in eir possession".  (4) It's fine but redundant.


Greetings,
Ørjan.


-Aris

On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 11:40 PM Ørjan Johansen  wrote:


I'm wondering what happens to the word "earns" throughout these changes.
Did it get replaced by the original provision, and if so, does it get
uncorrected back correctly?

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:


Wait, you want the literal opposite of this right? You want to switch it
back to “earn”. The problem is that the provision did trigger, and it
shouldn't have. I submit the following proposal:

//
Title: Uncorrecting Rewards
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: twg, Trigon


[
 This is A.I. 3.0 because I don't know what Rule 2496's power is.
 Proposal 8127 "reenacted" it, meaning it acquires the power it had
 when it was originally repealed, but I wasn't around when that
 happened and it's not in the SLR yet.
]

Amend rule 2496 by replacing all instances of the text "create in eir
possession" with the word
"earn".

//

-Aris

On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 1:43 PM Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:


You are, of course, correct.

I submit this proposal:

//
ID: 8127
Title: Rephrasing Rewards
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: twg
Co-authors: Trigon


[
  This is A.I. 3.0 because I don't know what Rule 2496's power is.
  Proposal 8127 "reenacted" it, meaning it acquires the power it had
  when it was originally repealed, but I wasn't around when that
  happened and it's not in the SLR yet.
]

Amend rule 2496 by replacing all instances of the word "earn" with
"create in eir possession".

//

Notice of Honour:
-1 twg (allowing eir own moneymaking activities to interfere with the

rest

of the game)
+1 Trigon (suffering eir proposal being mangled by aforementioned
activities)

(I'm virtually certain my "rewards" _do_ work, but I'm astonished

nobody's

CFJed them on principle yet...)

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 3:19 AM, Ørjan Johansen <

oer...@nvg.ntnu.no>

wrote:


On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:


I resolve the Agoran Decisions to adopt each of Proposals 8129, 8131,
8127, 8123-8126, 8128, 8130 and 8132, in that order, as follows.


Fiendish. (Assuming this works. People might want to CFJ your double
earnings.) However, I think resolving 8127 before 8126 has another
unfortunate side effect, it causes the last paragraph of 8127 to

trigger:



If a proposal by Trigon has not passed in the same distribution as

this

proposal entitled "High-level asset verbs", amend rule 2496 by

replacing

all instances of the word "earn" with "create in eir possession".


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8129, 8131, 8127, 8123-8126, 8128, 8130 and 8132

[Ørjan Johansen]

I'm wondering what happens to the word "earns" throughout these changes. 
Did it get replaced by the original provision, and if so, does it get 
uncorrected back correctly?


Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:


Wait, you want the literal opposite of this right? You want to switch it
back to “earn”. The problem is that the provision did trigger, and it
shouldn't have. I submit the following proposal:

//
Title: Uncorrecting Rewards
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: twg, Trigon


[
 This is A.I. 3.0 because I don't know what Rule 2496's power is.
 Proposal 8127 "reenacted" it, meaning it acquires the power it had
 when it was originally repealed, but I wasn't around when that
 happened and it's not in the SLR yet.
]

Amend rule 2496 by replacing all instances of the text "create in eir
possession" with the word
"earn".

//

-Aris

On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 1:43 PM Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:


You are, of course, correct.

I submit this proposal:

//
ID: 8127
Title: Rephrasing Rewards
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: twg
Co-authors: Trigon


[
  This is A.I. 3.0 because I don't know what Rule 2496's power is.
  Proposal 8127 "reenacted" it, meaning it acquires the power it had
  when it was originally repealed, but I wasn't around when that
  happened and it's not in the SLR yet.
]

Amend rule 2496 by replacing all instances of the word "earn" with
"create in eir possession".

//

Notice of Honour:
-1 twg (allowing eir own moneymaking activities to interfere with the rest
of the game)
+1 Trigon (suffering eir proposal being mangled by aforementioned
activities)

(I'm virtually certain my "rewards" _do_ work, but I'm astonished nobody's
CFJed them on principle yet...)

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 3:19 AM, Ørjan Johansen 
wrote:


On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:


I resolve the Agoran Decisions to adopt each of Proposals 8129, 8131,
8127, 8123-8126, 8128, 8130 and 8132, in that order, as follows.


Fiendish. (Assuming this works. People might want to CFJ your double
earnings.) However, I think resolving 8127 before 8126 has another
unfortunate side effect, it causes the last paragraph of 8127 to trigger:


If a proposal by Trigon has not passed in the same distribution as this
proposal entitled "High-level asset verbs", amend rule 2496 by

replacing

all instances of the word "earn" with "create in eir possession".


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8129, 8131, 8127, 8123-8126, 8128, 8130 and 8132

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:


I resolve the Agoran Decisions to adopt each of Proposals 8129, 8131,
8127, 8123-8126, 8128, 8130 and 8132, in that order, as follows.


Fiendish.  (Assuming this works.  People might want to CFJ your double 
earnings.)  However, I think resolving 8127 before 8126 has another 
unfortunate side effect, it causes the last paragraph of 8127 to trigger:



If a proposal by Trigon has not passed in the same distribution as this
proposal entitled "High-level asset verbs", amend rule 2496 by replacing
all instances of the word "earn" with "create in eir possession".


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly report: Forbes 500

[Ørjan Johansen]

NttPF.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:


Oh right. I create a nothing in my possession (in case I don’t have one) and 
pay it to nichdel for his auction. E automatically pays me 10 coins.

Gaelan


On Nov 19, 2018, at 2:35 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

Date of this weekly report: 2018-11-19
Date of last weekly report: 2018-11-15


ASSET INDEX

This section does not self-ratify.

  Asset classRecordkeepor
  ------
  Coins  Treasuror (twg)
  Blots  Referee (twg)


COIN BALANCES

This section self-ratifies.

  CoinsActive player
  --
 16ATMunn
 30Aris
  6Corona
 14CuddleBeam
666D. Margaux
453G.
 20Gaelan
 15Hālian
 10Jacob Arduino
 15L.
 52Murphy
 16omd
 13Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
 15Tarhalindur
 91Trigon
301twg
 19V.J. Rada

  CoinsZombie
  ---
 10nichdel
  0pokes
  5Telnaior
  0天火狐

  CoinsNon-player entity
  --
   1135Agora
 12Lost and Found Department


RECENT HISTORY

This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify.

Entity Change  Time (UTC)Reason

twg+ 80c.  2018-11-19 22:24  Transferred from 天火狐
天火狐  - 80c.  2018-11-19 22:24  Transferred to twg
天火狐  + 40c.  2018-11-19 22:24  Reward for Proposal 8131
twg+ 78c.  2018-11-19 22:24  Reward for Proposal 8129
Trigon + 37c.  2018-11-19 22:22  Proposal 8127 ADOPTED
天火狐  + 40c.  2018-11-19 22:22  Proposal 8131 ADOPTED
twg+ 78c.  2018-11-19 22:22  Proposal 8129 ADOPTED
Aris   +  5c.  2018-11-19 00:04  Judged CFJ 3674
Murphy +  5c.  2018-11-18 23:45  Judged CFJ 3689
G. +  5c.  2018-11-16 20:01  Judged CFJ 3688
-- time of last report --
Jacob Arduino  + 10c.  2018-11-12 16:02  Welcome Package
nichdel+ 10c.  2018-11-12 00:21  Welcome Package
Gaelan + 10c.  2018-11-12 00:21  Transferred from nichdel
nichdel- 10c.  2018-11-12 00:21  Transferred to Gaelan
nichdel+  5c.  2018-11-12 00:21  Transferred from Gaelan
Gaelan -  5c.  2018-11-12 00:21  Transferred to nichdel
Murphy + 18c.  2018-11-13 01:13  Proposal 8122 ADOPTED
G. + 15c.  2018-11-13 01:13  Proposal 8121 ADOPTED
D. Margaux +  8c.  2018-11-13 01:13  Proposal 8120 ADOPTED
D. Margaux + 16c.  2018-11-13 01:13  Proposal 8119 ADOPTED
G. -  1c.  2018-11-13 01:13  Proposal 8118 REJECTED
D. Margaux +  6c.  2018-11-13 01:13  Proposal 8117 ADOPTED
Trigon + 11c.  2018-11-13 01:13  Proposal 8116 ADOPTED
Aris   -  7c.  2018-11-13 01:13  Proposal 8115 REJECTED
Trigon +  3c.  2018-11-13 01:13  Proposal 8113 ADOPTED
G. +  8c.  2018-11-13 01:13  Proposal 8112 ADOPTED
Gaelan +  3c.  2018-11-12 00:21  Transferred from ATMunn
ATMunn -  3c.  2018-11-12 00:21  Transferred to Gaelan
ATMunn +  3c.  2018-11-12 00:21  Transferred from Gaelan
Gaelan -  3c.  2018-11-12 00:21  Transferred to ATMunn
Gaelan +  1c.  2018-11-11 23:44  Transferred from ATMunn
ATMunn -  1c.  2018-11-11 23:44  Transferred to Gaelan
Murphy +  5c.  2018-11-11 17:37  Judged CFJ 3687
D. Margaux +  5c.  2018-11-10 20:05  Judged CFJ 3686
D. Margaux +  5c.  2018-11-10 20:05  Judged CFJ 3685
G. +  9c.  2018-11-06 00:10  Transfer from pokes
pokes  -  9c.  2018-11-06 00:10  Transfer to G.
twg+  8c.  2018-11-05 21:01  Transfer from 天火狐
天火狐  -  8c.  2018-11-05 21:01  Transfer to twg
Agora  + 13c.  2018-11-05 20:55  Zombie auction (天火狐)
twg- 13c.  2018-11-05 20:55  Zombie auction (天火狐)
Agora  + 25c.  2018-11-05 15:12  Zombie auction (pokes)
G. - 25c.  2018-11-05 15:12  Zombie auction (pokes)
Trigon +  5c.  2018-11-03 07:22  Judged CFJ 3684
Trigon +  5c.  2018-11-03 07:22  Judged CFJ 3683
G. +  5c.  2018-11-02 17:45  Judged CFJ 3680
G. +  5c.  2018-11-02 17:45  Judged CFJ 3679
twg+  5c.  2018-11-01 13:56  Judged CFJ 3677
V.J. Rada  +  5c.  2018-11-01 00:00  Payday
twg+ 25c.  2018-11-01 00:00  Payday (Assessor etc.)
Trigon + 10c.  2018-11-01 00:00  Payday (Rulekeepor)
天火狐  +  5c.  2018-11-01 00:00 

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3674

[Ørjan Johansen]

My copy of the Ruleset contains no such judgement as DISCHARGE.  You 
probably meant DISMISS?  (Given that you still resolved the actual issue, 
INSUFFICIENT is probably inappropriate.)


Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Sun, 18 Nov 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:


I'm running out of time to judge CFJ 3674. I'm planning to write up a
longer opinion later, and am sorry I've been so busy.

Summary verdict:
I judge DISCHARGE in CFJ 3674, because the caller hasn't outlined
whether there were in fact any intentions to perform actions without
objection at that time. However, I further rule that were there any
intents to perform actions without N objections, the intent would have
succeeded, because objections are counted at the time the action is
taken, not when the objection is made. Under the present
circumstances, it would not be excessively difficult to locate G.'s
categorical objection when someone attempted to take such an action.

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3688 judgement

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


R591 contains:

 When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN assign
 a valid judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so in a
 timely fashion after this becomes possible. If e does not, the
 Arbitor CAN remove em from being the judge of that case by
 announcement

Here, "When a CFJ is ... assigned to a judge" is singular, which implies
that if a CFJ is assigned to 2 judges, then this condition isn't meant.


I really don't see how you can deduce that from this grammatical 
construction unless you've _already_ decided "assigned to" is an n to 1 
relationship.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8112-8122

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 14 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:

Hold up. That's INEFFECTIVE since the rule it modifies is power 1.5. The AI 
must have been misreported.


Actually Proposal 8116 is probably either right or overpowered - the 
Assessor's Report says its AI is 1.5 and 3 in different places.


Greetings,
Ørjan.


On 11/14/2018 04:35 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:

 I award myself an Orange ribbon.

 On 11/11/2018 06:13 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

 RIBBONS EARNED IN THIS RESOLUTION
 
 This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify.

     Player    Ribbon    Proposal(s)
     --    --    ---
     G.    Orange    8112
     Trigon    Orange    8116
     D. Margaux    Orange    8119
     D. Margaux    Red   8120
     G.    Red   8121
     G.    Orange    8121
     Murphy    Red   8122




--
Trigon

DIS: Re: BUS: Memes

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Rebecca wrote:


I create the following proposal
Title: I hate myself
AI: 3
Text: Rules or Instruments to the contrary notwithstanding, this proposal
shall act as though its text is the text submitted to a public forum and
clearly marked "Memes submission" by the last person to vote FOR it.


I don't think Proposals can take precedence over Rules, regardless of AI.

However, I am not sure that this actually _does_ conflict with any Rules, 
if the Memes submission is written clearly enough. (The second last 
paragraph of Rule 105 seems relevant.)


(Also I don't follow the memesphere so I might be being whooshed about 
something.)


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Interest Poll: Rulekeepor's Notes

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 11 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:


Would anyone like me to start publishing Rulekeepor's notes? It's an old
tradition but I'm not going to do it if people don't think it would be 
useful.


If you *do* want me to publish them, tell me what information you would like 
me to include.


As I recall, the most interesting information in those were when the 
Rulekeepor pointed out that a Proposal had not worked as intended.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 4 Nov 2018, ATMunn wrote:

For some reason, this showed up as a separate email for me. For a second I 
missed the "DIS: Re:" and thought you were trying to publish an ADoP report.


Hm, I don't recall doing anything out of the ordinary for that message. 
I deleted the copy I got back from Agora.


Although the following TTttPF was a reply to my sent-mail folder copy, 
rather than to the one received from Agora.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 4 Nov 2018, Edward Murphy wrote:


[twg intended to deputise for Referee on Nov 1, though I don't think it
 was effective; see my recent CFJ]


COE: E did, see my gratuitous argument.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Reminder to claim violet ribbons

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 4 Nov 2018, Edward Murphy wrote:


CFJ, barring twg: twg is Referee.

Caller's arguments:

* Oct 30, D. Margaux resigned Referee

* Nov 1, twg published the Referee's report but did not announce that e
  was deputising (as required by Rule 2160 item #5)


Gratuitous argument:

E had just previously deputized properly to resolve a Finger Pointing.



Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: 3679-80 judgements

[Ørjan Johansen]

Something didn't feel right about my last message...

I just realized that rule 2450 does _not_ define what a pledge is - it 
cannot, because then it would need to provide a mechanism for making them, 
which it clearly doesn't.  So it presumably defers to the common sense 
definition, which means that there's nothing regulating pledges that are 
_not_ to perform or refrain from performing actions.  And thus, the pledge 
does exist.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Sat, 3 Nov 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:


On Sat, 3 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:


 You clearly understand my point, though. Since V.J. is referring to a
 pledge that doesn't exist, saying "the pledge above is true" just doesn't
 really mean anything. I wouldn't call them "lies", or "intending to
 mislead" because I don't see any of that in there.

 If you want me to change the /terminology/, sure, I will do that, but I'm
 afraid I am rather hidebound in my decision.


I understand and I disagree.  "the pledge above is true" means that the 
pledge above exists and is true.  It has a completely clear meaning, and if 
it was made knowing/believing that the pledge doesn't exist, it could be a 
lie for that reason.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: 3679-80 judgements

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 3 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:

You clearly understand my point, though. Since V.J. is referring to a pledge 
that doesn't exist, saying "the pledge above is true" just doesn't really 
mean anything. I wouldn't call them "lies", or "intending to mislead" because 
I don't see any of that in there.


If you want me to change the /terminology/, sure, I will do that, but I'm 
afraid I am rather hidebound in my decision.


I understand and I disagree.  "the pledge above is true" means that the 
pledge above exists and is true.  It has a completely clear meaning, and 
if it was made knowing/believing that the pledge doesn't exist, it could 
be a lie for that reason.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: 3679-80 judgements

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 3 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:


== Judgement of CFJ 3679 ==

Since, per CFJ 3680, the pledge mentioned does not exist, the statement
affirming the pledge's truthfulness is also INEFFECTIVE. INEFFECTIVE
statements are not lies.


I strongly dislike this argument.  INEFFECTIVE applies to actions, not 
statements.  And surely a statement that knowingly presumes something 
to exist, implies that it does.  (BTW, have you stopped beating your 
wife?)


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3679 and 3680 - judgements

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:


- With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 with a
  minimum of 1. ("With Consent" is shorthand for this method with N =
  1.)


"With Agoran Consent".  Consent has other meanings so not good to leave it 
out.



OPINIONS ON DEPENDENT ACTIONS (new rule. Power?)


This seems a lot more verbose than the current phrasing, just to make it 
use switches...


Opinion is an untracked [active?] player-intent pair switch, with 
possible values Neutral (default), Supporting, and Objecting. A player 
CAN flip any of eir opinion switches to any value by announcement, 
except that they CANNOT flip it to Supporting or Objecting if it has 
previously held that value.


"e CANNOT"


RESOLVING DEPENDENT ACTIONS (retitle 2124, Agoran Satisfaction)

A player (the performer) CAN, by announcement, perform a dependent 
action for which an intent exists, subject to the following conditions:


This makes the authorizing Rule much less prominent in the mechanism (to 
the point of not even mentioning it). Currently it's the authorizing Rule 
which actually _allows_ the actions, with the dependent action rules only 
providing definition.


I worry that this CAN may mess up precedence, e.g. by applying with the 
full power of rule 2124, even if the authorizing rule has much lower 
power.


This shouldn’t change any function—I just changed some things to take 
advantage of modern Agoran concepts.

Gaelan


You removed the provision from rule 1728 that the actor (um, I thought 
that term was supposed to have been amended to "performer") SHOULD publish 
a list of supporters and objectors.


You removed several provisions from rule 2124:
* The provision that allows the authorizing document to restrict who can
  support or object to an intent. Not sure if that's used anywhere
  currently, I suppose that was intended for contracts and the like.
* The provision that the action cannot be performed less than 24 hours
  after an objection is withdrawn, which is an anti-scam measure.
* The Speaker's temporary veto (although with the recent CFJ that seems a
  bit neutered).

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Quick proposals

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:


Is this really what you want?

Gaelan


On Nov 1, 2018, at 3:37 PM, Reuben Staley  wrote:

2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or
more days in the previous month and no unforgivable fines were
levied on em for eir conduct in that office during that time,
each player earns 5 coins


Should probably be "that player earns".  Also I'd like a period at the 
end.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Murphy's Lawlessness (Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter (Weekly Report))

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, Rebecca wrote:


I expunge a blot from myself


Looking at the recent blot history, someone should remind Murphy e might 
want to start doing this too.


Greetings,
Ørjan.


On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 2:54 AM Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:


Date of this weekly report: 2018-11-01
Date of last weekly report: 2018-10-27


BLOT HOLDINGS


   BlotsPerson
   ---
  10Corona
   7Kenyon
   7Murphy
   6V.J. Rada
   3CuddleBeam
   3Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
   1L


RECENT BLOT HISTORY


   Person ChangeDate (UTC)Reason
   ----------
   CuddleBeam + 1f  2018-11-01Faking
   twg- 1   2018-10-23Expunged
   Murphy + 2  D2018-10-20Late CFJ judge removal
   twg+ 1   2018-10-20Late CFJ judgement
   L  + 1   2018-10-20Late CFJ judgement
   CuddleBeam + 2   2018-10-20Late CFJ judgement
   ATMunn - 1   2018-10-11Expunged
   Trigon - 1   2018-10-09Expunged
   Trigon - 1   2018-10-04Expunged
   Kenyon - 1   2018-09-28Expunged
   Corona + 2 S 2018-09-28Late CFJ judgement
   Aris   - 1   2018-09-24Expunged
   Aris   - 1   2018-09-20Expunged
   Kenyon - 1   2018-09-17Expunged
   Kenyon - 1   2018-09-16Expunged
   Corona + 1f  2018-09-16Late CFJ judgement
   V.J. Rada  + 1f  2018-09-16Late CFJ judgement
   P.S.S. + 2 SD2018-09-14Tardiness (Herald)
   Murphy + 2 S 2018-09-09Late CFJ judgement
   V.J. Rada  + 2 S 2018-09-09Late CFJ judgement
   Aris   + 2 SD2018-09-09Tardiness (Promotor)
   Trigon + 2 SD2018-09-01Tardiness (Cartographor)

Key:
f   Forgivable
S   Summary Judgement
D   Loses monthly salary for relevant office




--

From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] let's do some space

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, ATMunn wrote:

I had wondered if that might be a problem. Don't know how exactly how to fix 
it though.


You could move either the increment or the Section setting to the other 
rule.


Incidentally, this would also imply that it now subtly matters in which 
order Welcome Packages are received. (If I recall correctly, it's mattered 
less subtly before when Agora had limited funds.)



On 10/31/2018 9:36 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

 On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote:


  Imminent Sector is an singleton switch, tracked by the Spacekeepor,
  defaulting to 1. Every time a player receives a Welcome Package, the
  Imminent Sector is increased by one. If the Imminent Sector ever is
  greater than the current Sector Count, it is instead set to 1.




  A player who has just received a Welcome Package also has eir Energy
  set to 15, eir Armour set to 20, and eir Sector set to the current
  Imminent Sector.


 Given that this all happens in infinitesimal time, I don't think it's
 clear whether eir Sector is set before or after the increment.

 Greetings,
 Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Quick proposals

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:


Repeal Rule 2505 "Distributing Assets".


That should be 2515.


Amend Rule 1728 "Dependent Actions" by:
   replacing the following:
  2. If the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N
 Agoran Consent, or With Notice, if the intent was announced at
 least 4 days earlier

  3. If the action is to be performed With T Notice, if the intent
 was announced at least T earlier.
   with:
  2. The intent was announced at least T earlier. If T is undefined,
 it is instead considered to be 4 days.
   and by renumbering the list accordingly.


Currently there is no delay for With N Support.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] let's do some space

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote:


 Imminent Sector is an singleton switch, tracked by the Spacekeepor,
 defaulting to 1. Every time a player receives a Welcome Package, the
 Imminent Sector is increased by one. If the Imminent Sector ever is
 greater than the current Sector Count, it is instead set to 1.




 A player who has just received a Welcome Package also has eir Energy
 set to 15, eir Armour set to 20, and eir Sector set to the current
 Imminent Sector.


Given that this all happens in infinitesimal time, I don't think it's 
clear whether eir Sector is set before or after the increment.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Hypothetical: What if a player dies?

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote:

Kinda dark, but interesting. And since Agora has been going on for so long 
and doesn't seem like it will stop anytime soon, even thought it would be 
sad, it's not a complete impossibility.


Even darker, it may already have happened without us knowing.

Greetings,
Ørjan.


On 10/29/2018 12:58 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

 This randomly occurred to me recently.

 Rule 869/44 indicates that a dead organism is not a person, because it is
 not capable of thinking. So if an organism who was a player died, e would
 cease to be a person and COULD NOT be a player any longer. But this is not
 the same as "deregistering", because that is the act of flipping a
 Citizenship switch to Unregistered, and non-persons do not have
 Citizenship switches. Are there rules that would malfunction if this
 happened?

 Non-persons also cannot have Patent Titles, Ribbons etc, so we have a
 potential loss of historical information in Herald, Tailor and Registrar
 reports. Not to mention that dying could cause someone to cease to be a
 party to a contract that would otherwise prohibit em from doing so.

 R2350 says:


 Creating a proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool. Once a proposal is
 created, nether its text nor any of the aforementioned attributes can be
 changed. The author (syn. proposer) of a proposal is the _person_ who
 submitted it.


 (emphasis mine) If the organism that was once the author of a proposal
 dies, then that proposal's author is now undefined, which is a change in
 one of the aforementioned attributes. So the rule is self-contradictory!
 Same for co-authors.

 Regulations Promulgated by an organism cease to be Regulations when the
 organism dies.

 And what if an Auctioneer or vote collector dies?

 Perhaps Rule 869 should be amended to state that any people continue to be
 people in perpetuity even if they stop meeting the definition of a person.

 -twg

DIS: Proposal 8121 (Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8112-8122)

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 28 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:


 8121  G.  3.0   Retroactive Documents
PRESENT. There are arguments for and against doing this and I am not 
convinced which way to go.


This was a result of a discussion between me and G. on a rather subtle 
point, where it took a while for me to convince him, so given the proposal 
has no comments, I'm not surprised that some voters don't see why it's 
needed.


Ratification _simulates_ retroactive modification of the gamestate, but 
it's written to achieve this without _actual_ retroactivity, with a 
two-level mechanism:


* Find a _minimal_ hypothetical modification to the gamestate that would
  have made the document's claims true if they had been applied _at the
  time it was published_.
* Then fast-forward from that hypothetical modification to the present,
  and in the present change the gamestate to what it would have been if
  the hypothetical modification had been done in the past.

This mechanism works well when applied to documents that describe 
"concrete" gamestate _at the moment they are published_, because at that 
moment the minimal change needed to make them true is generally obvious.


But not all documents happen to be of this kind.  Sometimes a CoE results 
in a revision where the Officer publishes a new report, but with a note 
that it does not include changes since the previous report.  And 
sometimes, like the hypothetical that started this discussion, someone 
attempts to correct an error in the past by publishing a _new_ document 
speaking _about that past_, and then ratifying it.


However, with the current wording of ratification rule, this can have 
strange effects, because there is now time for _changes_ in game state to 
happen between the time the document speaks _about_, and the time it is 
_published_:


Time A: G. has 50 coins
Time B: G. uses coins for scam (needs at least 40), massive follow-on game
  changes
Time C: Report (or possibly anti-scam document) published, says G. had 10
  coins at time A
Time D: Report ratified somehow

By the current Ratification rule, the "minimal change" is calculated at 
time C, _after_ the massive game changes caused by the scam.


At that time, is a _smaller_ change to say that the scam _worked_, say by 
having G. lose 40 coins at time A, but then regain 30 some time before 
time B.  Therefore, by the wording of the Ratification Rule, it does _not_ 
cancel out the scam, as one would otherwise intuitively expect.


G.s proposal adjusts ratification so minimality is calculated at 
time A, instead, where again the required change is obvious and has the 
intuitive result of cancelling the scam.


Side note: The trouble would be even more severe if G.s scam involves rule 
changes, because then the intuitive (but huge) modification at time C 
would need to cancel those, _without_ the document saying so, which the 
ratification rule _also_ explicitly forbids.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I intend to win by apathy without objection AND I OBJECT

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Oh for crying out loud.  I object to everything.  To everything, literally.
I object.


It seems like it's the final stage before you turn abject.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: These declarations of apathy are getting ridiculous

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 21 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:


Any player who consents to be bound by this contract CAN become a party
by announcement.

Every day at 0:00 UTC, this contract acts on behalf of all its parties to 
object to each intent to declare apathy.


This won't work, as only persons can act on behalf.

As I said earlier, Apathy should become way harder once Proposal 8107 
passes.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: [Prime Minister] Regarding Wins

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 21 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:

I think that’s what must have happened, because in my email sent folder, 
it’s not quoted. Does it come out quoted in your inboxes (as 
distinguished from the website)? If not, interesting question which one 
is authoritative—the website or our inboxes.


I didn't keep that particular message in my inbox, but that's where I've 
usually seen the quoting for others.


Greetings,
Ørjan.


On Oct 21, 2018, at 11:49 AM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:


On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:

Oh crud. That wasn’t supposed to be in quotes. Looks like I only unquoted the 
second line of the intent, not both lines. That’s very annoying.


I've often seen messages with a first new line after quoted content 
accidentally quoted like that.  I've assumed it's something going wrong when 
GMail HTML messages get converted to plain text.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: [Prime Minister] Regarding Wins

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 21 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Ah, darn it. (This message best viewed in a fixed-width font.) I don't 
know whether this would have worked anyway but it would have been 
amusing.


That looked quoted, so I'm pretty sure would be excluded by the principles 
in G.s recent (although currently reconsidering) judgement.


For the record, I'm starting to get burned out on attempts to declare 
apathy. No more from me for a while.


It should become way harder to pull off once Proposal 8107 passes, anyway.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: [Prime Minister] Regarding Wins

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:

Oh crud. That wasn’t supposed to be in quotes. Looks like I only 
unquoted the second line of the intent, not both lines. That’s very 
annoying.


I've often seen messages with a first new line after quoted content 
accidentally quoted like that.  I've assumed it's something going wrong 
when GMail HTML messages get converted to plain text.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Fwd: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly report: Last ever painstaking addition of 3s to each facility balance

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


You can still use ratification, just be specific on date/time, e.g.

The following document is hereby ratified:
{
 On 18-Oct-2018, HH:MM:SS [time of Treasuror's Report],
 G. had 42 coins and D. Margaux had 62 coins.
}


Um, that's precisely the kind of document I claim is fishy to ratify.


And honestly, we've done it before (or at least claimed to do so)
and I really still don't see the issue for it.  Can you construct
an example where this causes problems?


I forget whether the 42 coins correction is supposed to be an up- or 
downgrade, but assume the former.


Imagine that between 18 Oct and the publishing of that document on the 
20th, you had attempted to use those 42 coins to set in motion some 
hypothetical major scam, that on the 19th changed a _lot_ of other 
gamestate as a consequence.


In that case, on 20th Oct, it would clearly be a smaller change to say 
"none of those big changes need adjustment, instead just say that the coin 
correction gets applied only for a second at the declared time and then 
changed back before the scam attempt starts."


And thus Rule 1551 would forbid applying the more major gamestate 
correction that was probably intended, since it's not a minimal one at the 
calculation time of 20th Oct.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Fwd: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly report: Last ever painstaking addition of 3s to each facility balance

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


You can still use ratification, just be specific on date/time, e.g.

The following document is hereby ratified:
{
 On 18-Oct-2018, HH:MM:SS [time of Treasuror's Report],
 G. had 42 coins and D. Margaux had 62 coins.
}


Um, that's precisely the kind of document I claim is fishy to ratify.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Fwd: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly report: Last ever painstaking addition of 3s to each facility balance

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


How is this different than self-ratification - when it self-ratifies a week
after publication, it ratifies the past condition as being true as of that
past date, correct?  If not, we're really messed up.


I think it works fine as long as the published document (self-ratifying or 
not) speaks about "concrete" game state at the moment of publishing, 
because then it's fairly obvious how the game state could be minimally 
corrected at _that_ moment in isolation.


But when a published document speaks about game state in the past relative 
to that document, intervening events can cause the effect of a small 
change at the initial moment to blow up into a large change at the later 
one, or theoretically vice versa.


This could cause the minimal change requirement, which speaks about the 
later time, to select a completely different way of correcting the 
document than what an intuitive "change the past to be true" way of 
thinking would imply.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Fwd: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly report: Last ever painstaking addition of 3s to each facility balance

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


This is very weird phrasing to me.  You can backdate ratification, so possibly
better phrasing:  "The following list is Ratified as being an accurate list of
coin holdings for 18 Oct 2018".  Maybe no big deal tho.


I think I've quibbled in the past that the ratification rule is written 
such that it _isn't_ clear what happens when specifically constructing 
documents speaking about the past in order to ratify them.


This is because what's a "minimal change" to the game state to make the 
document true is calculated for the time of document publishing, _not_ for 
the time of the referenced date, and so the more game state changes have 
happened between the times, the more the actual effect may be different 
from what you intuitively wanted to happen.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Auction related proposals

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:


Amend the last paragraph of rule 2551 'Auction End' by removing the
final sentence.


This also removes a clarifying part about Agora and the relevant CAN, 
which may not be obvious otherwise, since Agora is AFAICT not commonly 
presented as an agent in the rules.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3644 judged TRUE

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


(on a side note, should I start publishing these again after cases
are complete?  I'm entering them into the database once a month or
so).


It's nice to see it all at once, especially if the judge doesn't quote 
everything relevant.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Joining

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018, hal...@safiria.net wrote:

In accordance with Rule 869/33, I, Hālian, hereby publish a message of intent 
to become a player of Agora Nomic.


(Also, where relevant, I am a he.)


Welcome to Agora! (Well, once you resend it to the proper place.)

I don't think it's ever officially relevant - Spivak pronouns are custom 
in Agora even when a player's gender is known.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8077B-8085A and 8087A-8089A

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:


I CFJ (barring Aris) this statement: “G.’s attempt in the message quoted
below to transfer coins to the contract between em and D. Margaux is
EFFECTIVE.” (I note for the Arbitor’s benefit that G. is an interested
party. Also twg might be considered an interested party because this
transfer circumvents the “according to eir means” proposals that e
authored.)

(This should raise exactly the same issues as the CFJ that I just raised in
my most recent message, but just in case.)


An obvious difference is that G.'s message did not quote the contract, 
which might matter to the "reasonable effort for the recordkeepor to 
verify" question.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Click here for FREE land!

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

Unless it's been changed since June 6, creating a Contract requires payment.

[snip]

It changed in late June.  Ruleset up to July (unofficial, but with the new
contract text) is here:

https://github.com/AgoraNomic/ruleset/blob/trigon/slr.txt


Thanks.  That probably happened in the middle of my problems getting Agora 
emails, which explains why I couldn't find any Assessor Report for it 
either.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Reiteration Judgement (3663)

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


2. Not only does the chosen term ("reiterate") have a common use that
makes sense in context of voting, but the common use is actually opposite
the proposed meaning!  To "reiterate" means to "restate clearly".  If you
say "I hereby restate my name for the record" but don't actually restate
your name, that's "I Say I Did" - it's not true that you did it.
Similarly, if you say "I reiterate my vote" without actually restating
your vote, you're not telling the truth in common language.  Since this is
a complete reverse of the term's common-language use, and the common-use
makes perfect sense with respect to restating a vote, I'd give a -1 there.


I thought "reiterate" could also refer to actions rather than statements, 
and Wiktionary agrees with me.


However, this shouldn't change the conclusion much, because *then* there 
is a natural meaning that says absolutely nothing about including zombies.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Click here for FREE land!

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


CFJ, barring D. Margaux:
   Corona and D. Margaux made a Contract in the last 24 hours.


Unless it's been changed since June 6, creating a Contract requires 
payment.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


2.  In R2510, clause (2) and clause (3) somehow got reversed, in that the
"other" in clause (2) is meant to refer to the fact that it can't be the
same entity as in clause (3).  Does the "other" mean anything with that
reversal?


Um no, it's meant to refer to the fact it cannot be the publishing player 
emself.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Define Reiteration

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:


On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 6:00 PM Ørjan Johansen  wrote:


On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:


[This is an informal general definition that is helpful for proposals
added again to the pool. The Assessor already has this information,
which means that it's legal under past precedent to cast a vote that
requires em to retrieve it.]


The obvious question is why e should be required to keep the information
in the definition message.

Greetings,
Ørjan.


This is intended to work the same way TTttPF works, by becoming a part of
the Agoran dialect. This formal definition is merely supposed to enter the
information into our collective consciousness.


I don't think that works when "I reiterate my votes" has an obvious 
natural meaning that _isn't_ what you want.


"On behalf of myself and my Zombie, I reiterate our votes." should work, 
and then you can shorten it to ObomamZ after people get used to it. :P


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8096-8103

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:


I vote, and act on behalf as Tenaior to vote, as follows:


Not that it matters, but it's "Telnaior".

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Define Reiteration

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:


[This is an informal general definition that is helpful for proposals
added again to the pool. The Assessor already has this information,
which means that it's legal under past precedent to cast a vote that
requires em to retrieve it.]


The obvious question is why e should be required to keep the information 
in the definition message.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Edward Murphy wrote:


Open cases (CFJs)
-
3645 called by Aris 20 June 2018, assigned to V.J. Rada 26 August 2018:
"G. has satisfied eir weekly obligation with regard to the FLR and SLR."

3648 called by G. 24 June 2018, assigned to V.J. Rada 26 August 2018:
"The fine levied on Corona for late Herald Tournament Regulations is
unforgivable for the purposes of R2559."

3652 called by G. 20 July 2018, assigned to Corona 26 August 2018: "If a
person pays the (nonzero) upkeep cost for eir Rank 1 facility and then
upgrades it to Rank 2 in the same month, e must pay the full Rank 2
upkeep cost to prevent its end-of-the-month destruction."


Assuming your report is otherwise correct, I believe you're way over the 
rule 591 time limit for removing these judges.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Fora (Rule 478, self-ratifying)



Discussion   irc://irc.freenode.net:6667/##nomic
   discussion


There seems to be a http: in the link, which doesn't work.

However, for people without irc: set up,
https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=%23%23nomic will give a webchat 
client.


Repeatings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Deputy-[Herald] Scroll of Agora

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:

I think the Herald must timely award the patent title Champion after a 
victory per Rule 649:


“... A person permitted and enabled to award (revoke) a Patent Title 
SHALL do so in a timely fashion after the conditions authorizing em to 
do so are announced, unless there is an open judicial case contesting 
the validity of those conditions.”


Yes, but I thought e still CAN do it later.  The rule may be unclear.


Also per Rule 649, the Herald is responsible for tracking patent titles.

So, I *believe* the COE can be resolved either (1) by citing the open 
CFJ or (2) by noting that the Herald has not yet awarded the Champion 
title (so the report is correct). I think either of those resolution 
would not self-ratify the victory out of existence (if it was a 
victory).


Well (2) would be appropriate, but I think (1) is irrelevant until an 
actual reward action happens.  Also, I don't think any of this information 
is self-ratifying regardless - I see nothing in the rules and vaguely 
recall that the Herald's stuff has been left out on purpose.


And the time limit for the Herald to award the Champion title (if it was 
a valid win) remains suspended until the CFJ is resolved.


That's true, but doesn't require a CoE.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Deputy-[Herald] Scroll of Agora

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:


I CoE this Monthly Report on the ground that twg and I won by Apathy


I don't think this CoE is correct, because Champion is not automatically 
awarded and the Herald isn't required to report wins per se.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Declaration of Apathy

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

This seems to be an argument for replacing (or complementing) "clear" by
"unobfuscated" in the relevant rule text.


Huh, actually, a leading definition of "obfuscated" is "unclear":
'obfuscate: render obscure, unclear, or unintelligible.'


Not _quite_ the same because "unclear" doesn't imply it's intentional. 
(Your definition doesn't mention that but the one in English Wiktionary 
does.)


Which may actually be an argument for _not_ using "unobfuscated", since 
the rules usually try to avoid depending on intent.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Declaration of Apathy

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


1. The Parliamentary Tradition: "Without Objection" has more dangerous
consequences than win by Apathy (e.g. Ruleset changes).  In a legislature,
if you mumbled "any objections?" so only you could hear it, then said
"with no objections I proceed", it would be thrown out.  We should stick
very strongly to this principle and say:  ANY obfuscation outside the clear
statement "Without Objection" should be thrown out as too ambiguous,
because it's dangerous to allow these levels of obfuscation.


This seems to be an argument for replacing (or complementing) "clear" by 
"unobfuscated" in the relevant rule text.


That might also cover burying such stuff deeply in long messages, which I 
recall to be a frowned-upon tradition.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 9 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Fora (Rule 478, self-ratifying)



Discussion   irc://irc.freenode.net:6667/##nomic
   discussion


There seems to be a http: in the link, which doesn't work.

However, for people without irc: set up, 
https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=%23%23nomic will give a webchat 
client.


Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: End-of-month business

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sat, 1 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

I intend, with Agoran Consent, to award the Badge "Badge of Accidental 
Loom Destruction" to myself, Trigon and Corona. I find it an 
extraordinary coincidence that three players have managed to accomplish 
this, completely independently.


Needs more punnery.  What about Accidental Luddite?

Greetings,
Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Slow your quorum

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018, Edward Murphy wrote:


I submit the following proposal and destroy the minimum amount of paper
required to pend it (I think this is either 0 or 1).


This definition of Baseline Quorum doesn't seem to make it the actual 
quorum for anything.


Greetings,
Ørjan.


Proposal: Slow your quorum
(AI = 2)

Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by replacing this text:

  The quorum that an Agoran Decision gains as it is created can be
  defined by other rules of power 2 or greater. If no other rule
  defines the quorum of an Agoran Decision, the quorum for that
  decision is equal to the number of players who voted on the Agoran
  Decision to adopt a proposal that had been most recently resolved
  at the time of that decision's initiation, minus 2.

with this text:

  The quorum that an Agoran Decision gains as it is created can be
  defined by other rules of power 2 or greater. If no other rule
  defines the quorum of an Agoran Decision, the quorum for that
  decision is equal to 2.

Create a rule titled "Baseline Quorum" with Power = 2 and this text:

  Baseline Quorum is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, with values
  equal to the positive integers and default value 1.

  Target Quorum is N - 2, where N is the number of players who voted
  on the most recently resolved Agoran Decision to adopt a proposal.

  Once per week, the Promotor CAN increase or decrease Baseline
  Quorum by 1 by announcement, and SHALL do so as follows:

   a) If Baseline Quorum < Target Quorum, then increase it.

   b) If Baseline Quorum > Target Quorum, then decrease it.

c) If Baseline Quorum = Target Quorum, then announce it. E need
   not change it that week.

Set Baseline Quorum equal to what Target Quorum would have been
immediately before the adoption of this proposal, if it had been
defined as above.