Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate
But if the person is high enough powered (say, power=5), should it matter what the rules say about order of precedence if the high-powered person overrules them? I suppose ultimately it comes down to what the Agoran community is willing to accept, rather than what the Rules or any particular person says. > On Feb 5, 2019, at 8:49 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > >> 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.
Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup
I think it’s confusing also because there is a second level list that uses the
same numbering as the two top-level lists. Is that not possible to change?
Maybe we could split the rule into two rules, which would fix the issue of
having two top level lists with the same numbering system. But that wouldn’t
fix the second level list.
Or maybe no one else is as bothered by the formatting of this rule as I am...?
> On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:19 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> Yep, that would be me. And that is still nice (agora-ruleset.gaelan.me uses
> it), so I’d prefer that we keep that up. But if others think it’s fine, it’s
> not a dealbreaker for me.
>
> Gaelan
>
>> On Feb 8, 2019, at 4:11 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>>
>> 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 act
Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup
> On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:47 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > Actually, the markdown-compliance has been broken for a while, for example by > Rule 2531 as of revision 3. Ha! That was my fault too. I introduced those formatting issues. > On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:53 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > Unfortunately, Markdown is rather limited in the types of lists it > implements. It can do 1., 2., 3., but unless you have an extended markdown, > it does not recognise parenthesized numbers or any kind of letters. It does > support *, -, and + for unordered lists. > > We can either have different lists or we can stop trying to maintain Markdown > support. I think we could make it markdown compliant, and still formatted reasonably well, if we break it into two rules. I’m happy to take a shot at drafting that unless people are opposed to that idea.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Spaceship Energy Convergence
Ahhh, that makes sense. So doesn’t really matter if it has any energy anyway I suppose. On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 9:55 AM Cuddle Beam wrote: > You can’t repair your ship. In both realities, it has 0 Armor. > > A Spaceship with an Armour of 0 is "Defeated". A Spaceship is > "Pilotable" if it is neither Defeated nor engaging in a Space > Battle. > > Any player CAN, by announcement, spend a coin to increase the > Armour of a Pilotable Spaceship e owns by 1. This is called > "Repairing" the Spaceship. > > > > On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 15:38, D. Margaux wrote: > > > I spend 10 coins to repair my ship. > > > > If my ship has less than 10 energy, I spend 32 coins to increase its > > energy (I think to 20). > > > > If my ship has 10 or more energy, I spend 12 coins to increase its energy > > (I think to 20). > > > > > > > On Feb 6, 2019, at 11:47 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > > Sorry for the delay. > > > > > > I CFJ, barring D. Margaux, on the statement: "If and when -N (negative > > N) coins are revoked from an entity, where N is a natural number, that > > entity's coin balance increases by N." > > > > > > > > > If the CFJed statement is FALSE, then I resolve Space Battle 0006 as > > follows: > > > > > > CuddleBeam spent 20 Energy (private communication), so eir Spaceship's > > Energy decreases from 20 to 0. > > > D. Margaux attempted to spend -10 Energy (private communication), so > eir > > Spaceship's Energy remains at 4. > > > > > > Therefore: > > > D. Margaux's Spaceship's Armour decreases from 10 to 0 (it is > Defeated). > > > CuddleBeam's Spaceship's Armour remains at 10. > > > > > > CuddleBeam is the winner. > > > > > > > > > If the CFJed statement is TRUE, then I instead resolve Space Battle > 0006 > > as follows: > > > > > > CuddleBeam spent 20 Energy (private communication), so eir Spaceship's > > Energy decreases from 20 to 0. > > > D. Margaux spent -10 Energy (private communication), so eir Spaceship's > > Energy increases from 4 to 14. > > > > > > Therefore: > > > D. Margaux's Spaceship's Armour decreases from 10 to 0 (it is > Defeated). > > > CuddleBeam's Spaceship's Armour remains at 10. > > > > > > CuddleBeam is the winner. > > > > > > > > > I intend to maintain two divergent copies of the Astronomor's report > > until the above CFJ is judged. > > > > > > -twg > > > > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > >> On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 9:27 AM, Cuddle Beam < > > cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> I have too, just waiting right now. > > >> > > >>> On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 23:38, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>> > > >>> I have communicated my choice to the Astronomor > > >>> > > >>>> On Feb 4, 2019, at 4:15 AM, Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com wrote: > > >>>> I initiate a Space Battle between my (only) ship and D.Margaux’s > > (only) > > >>>> ship, and I specify the Astronomor as the resolver. > > > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
> On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:28 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > Interesting that I judged 3592 more recently than 83 or 84 but it's not > recorded anywhere. Oops. The decision in 3692 was recorded in the Court Gazette of 20 January, but I forgot to add it to the list of recently judged CFJs. Will do that next time. BTW, G. had intended to seek reconsideration of that CFJ, which I thought was a good idea, because IRRELEVANT probably isn’t the right decision. If the arguments were lacking enough detail, I think DISMISS is more proper. It may be too late to do that though.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter
I object to that question. E doesn’t need to explain emself. Object object object! > On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:30 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > Why do you object lol > > >> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:29 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> >> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:27 PM, Cuddle Beam >> wrote: >> >>> Ah, no worries. Ratification can be solved with ratification. >>> >>> I intend to ratify without objection the following document: >>> >>> The player Cuddlebeam has 1 Blot. >> >> I object, but nicely done. >> >> -twg >>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Can we put the Orinoco River in space so I can sing Enya
> On Jan 29, 2019, at 11:36 AM, Madeline wrote: > > Are you sure? The Spaceship I possessed as a zombie was deemed to have been > destroyed the moment it entered the L office upon my deregistration two > weeks ago. Under Rule 2576 (power=3), “Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Lost and Found Department can own assets of every type.” I think that trumps any other rule that would purport to limit ownership of spaceships to players.
DIS: Scam CFJs
Does any player favour resolving the CFJs relating to my politics scam? I’m required to assign them to someone. I’ll assign them to the first eligible player who favors it, or else choose randomly among day/weekend judges (excluding me).
Re: DIS: Unlasting Damage
I think this works. Punishment for violation could be to permit the aggrieved player to act on behalf of the violator to transfer to the aggrieved player a number of coins sufficient (but not more than necessary) to enable the aggrieved player to put emself in the same position with respect to armour and energy as e would have been in if the contract had been followed. (The precise language of that punishment may need to be ironed out a little.) > On Jan 29, 2019, at 1:11 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Proto-contract: Unlasting Damage > (does this work? thoughts, edits?) > > When a combatant is a member of this contract, when they initiate a space > battle with another member, they can specify that the combat uses Anti- > Entropy. Members of this contract agree that, for any space battle in > which both combatants are members and this is specified, they will submit a > value in the range N-30, where N is between 0 and 20, inclusive. > > (thoughts on punishment if broken?) > > This contract is not an alliance. > >> On 1/29/2019 8:15 AM, D. Margaux wrote: >> I resolve space battle 0002 as follows: >> twg chose 10 energy. >> G. chose -10 (i.e., negative 10) energy. >> twg's spaceship: 10/10 armour*, 10/20 energy >> G.'s spaceship: 0/10 armour, 20/20 energy** >> twg is the winner. >> >> *By Rule 2591, armour is a switch with value 0 to 10, so twg's armour >> CANNOT grow to 20. >> **By Rule 2592, any energy in excess of 20 is destroyed, so G.'s >> energy CANNOT grow to 30 (or if it does, it is immediately reduced >> back to 20). >>> On 1/15/2019 6:02 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >>> - SPACE BATTLE 0002 - >>> 2019-01-15 - UNRESOLVED >>> SECTOR 07 >>> Aggressor: twg VS. Defender: G. >>> Energy: ?? Energy: ?? >>> Resolver: D. Margaux
DIS: Re: BUS: bring back judicial protections
This seems like a good idea in principle, but as drafted I think it opens up the possibility for abuse in cases where the Referee is an interested party. What about a proposal that did the following -- (1) permits the Arbitor to recuse emself, naming another willing player to act as Arbitor, provided that the other player is reasonably disinterested in the outcome of the case; (2) permits any player with Agoran Consent to require the Arbitor, or any player acting as the Arbitor, to recuse emself in favor of a specified other player; and (3) permits a player to initiate that procedure at the time the CFJ is initiated, in which case the Arbitor is prohibited from taking any action on the CFJ other than recusing emself for 7 days (giving enough time for the calling player to obtain Agoran Consent to recuse the Arbitor). Maybe that's a little too convoluted--but I do think there's a need to account for the situation where the Referee is the interested party, rather than (or in addition to) the Arbitor. On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:16 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > [D. Margaux has said e is not further abusing Arbitor to affect the course > of eir abuse-of-office cases - I trust em on that, but we used to have a > rule for that, too]. > > I submit the following Proposal: Arbitor-free justice, AI-2: > > > 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: > >When a person initiates a Call for Judgement, e CAN, optionally, >submit it to the Referee by announcement. All persons are >ENCOURAGED to submit a case to the Referee only when there is a >good reason not to let it be processed by the Arbitor as usual. > >When a CFJ is submitted to the Referee, the Referee receives all >obligations and powers for the specific case that the Arbitor >would otherwise receive due to being Arbitor. This takes >precedence over Rules that would otherwise assign duties and >powers regarding a judicial case to the Arbitor. > > [ > History of R2246: > Created by Proposal 6181 (comex), 7 April 2009 > Amended(1) by Proposal 6333 (coppro), 29 May 2009 > Amended(2) by Proposal 6496 (coppro), 26 September 2009 > Amended(3) by Proposal 6662 (Murphy; disi.), 10 March 2010 > Amended(4) by Proposal 6752 (Murphy), 2 August 2010 > Amended(5) by Proposal 6891 (coppro), 20 November 2010 > Repealed by Proposal 6961 '52-pickup v2' (G.), 3 March 2011 > ] > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Vigilante time
FWIW, I think this is ineffective because it does not specify the resolver > On Jan 30, 2019, at 12:14 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > I spend 3 energy to move to sector (4->5 5->6 6->7). > > I initiate a space battle with twg. > > Contract under rules should twg accept: the parties SHALL, in a timely > fashion after agreement of this contract, communicate their energy > expenditure to the battle’s resolver in a private email containing their > desired expenditure as a positive integer, expressed as one or two Arabic > numerals. > > Gaelan
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3697 and 3698 assigned
> On Jan 30, 2019, at 1:39 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I wouldn't feel that you had to wait > more than say 48 hours before resorting to an arbitrary/random assignment > (And if you want, as a policy, to encourage more frequent favoring, that's > totally cool but you'll probably have to remind people to be more > proactive). Thanks for the tip—that makes sense. My only reason for delaying in assigning these CFJs was that I was obviously a highly interested party, and I didn’t want there to be any suggestion of my exercising undue influence over how they are determined. So I thought I’d wait for someone to express some interest before assigning it randomly in this specific circumstance.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction
I think the second action fails for the same reason, no? > On Feb 2, 2019, at 4:25 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > >> 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.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction
Whoops, thanks. > On Feb 2, 2019, at 5:06 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > No, R2532/2: "A zombie's master CAN flip that zombie's master switch to Agora > by announcement." > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Saturday, February 2, 2019 10:04 PM, D. Margaux >> wrote: >> >> I think the second action fails for the same reason, no? >> >>>> On Feb 2, 2019, at 4:25 PM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3744 Assigned to D. Margaux
> On Jul 1, 2019, at 1:47 AM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > I’m strongly tempted to move to reconsider this, and apologize for failing > to provide arguments earlier (honestly, I totally forgot about this case). > I really don’t think this opinion adequately considers the other sensible > possibility: that the proposal fails entirely. Rule 2350 says: "A proposal is a type of entity consisting of a body of text and other attributes. A player CAN create a proposal by announcement, specifying its text and optionally specifying any of the following attributes: * An associated title. * A list of co-authors (which must be persons other than the author). * An adoption index." Under this rule, there are only a few necessary conditions that need to be satisfied before a proposal gets created. There needs to be an announcement. A player needs to be the one to do the announcing. And the proposal-to-be probably needs to have some text, though even that isn't necessarily 100% clear, because of how that clause is phrased. If a message meets those criteria, then the CAN clause above seems to be satisfied. There is no requirement that the message be clear, unambiguous or unobfuscated. If a player does all that and also specifies that AI=e, I don't see why that makes the CAN clause fail. The AI term is optional; optional means non essential to the execution of the action, I think. I see no forward-reasoned textual basis for deeming the CAN to be unsatisfied based on the wrong specification of an AI that isn't required to be specified anyway. The stuff about referential transparency seems to be non-forward reasoning right?
DIS: Re: BUS: Birthday Ribbon
Happy birthday Agora. I award myself a magenta ribbon > On Jun 29, 2019, at 12:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Happy Birthday, Agora!! > > >> On 6/29/2019 9:32 AM, James Cook wrote: >> It's Agora's birthday. Happy Birthday, Agora! >> I award myself a Magenta ribbon.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3765 Assigned to Jason Cobb
I think the Ossification judgement should address what it means to make a single rule "change," as opposed to multiple rule changes. That would help us know what it would mean for an arbitrary rule change to be IMPOSSIBLE. In particular, i would like to know: if I can draft a single new rule that is IMPOSSIBLE to enact, would that be sufficient to demonstrate Ossification? Because I am confident that I can draft such a rule. Or is it the case that the enactment of a single new rule might involve multiple "rule changes"? And if that's the case, then what does it mean to have a "single" or "multiple" rule change? Is each sentence of a new rule a separate "change"? Or each clause? Or is it divided into separate changes in some other way? In my opinion, when you have a single rule being enacted, then there really is no principled way to say whether it's a single rule change or multiple changes, except I guess if the new rule consisted of changing a single letter or number... > On Aug 2, 2019, at 8:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > A little gratuitous for CFJ 3765-3766: > > It's likely that an "arbitrary rule change" can be made by first > making other rule changes to remove any impediments, and then making the > arbitrary change. However, in judging whether some kind of change is > POSSIBLE, we judge based on the current ruleset - not the hypothetical > ruleset in which a few other changes have been made. This point (in what > the judgement covers) is worth addressing explicitly.
Re: DIS: Draft Judgement in CFJ 3765
> On Aug 2, 2019, at 11:27 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > The caller also provides this as an example: > >> "Repeal Rule 1698 (Ossification). >> Enact a power 100 rule that procides, 'It is IMPOSSIBLE to change the Rules, >> rules to the contrary notwithstanding.'" > > Again, this is not a rule change. This time it consists of two rule changes, > and it is possible to cause each one of them in a four week period, as > described above. A couple responses to the proto judgement: 1. The Ossification rule says "arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted"--that's plural changeS/proposalS. Based on the text of the rule, Agora is Ossified if there is a combination of rule changes and/or proposals that are IMPOSSIBLE to adopt in a four week period. And I think it's undisputed that there are combinations of rule changes that are IMPOSSIBLE. For example, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to enact the following pairs of "rule changes": 1a. Enact a rule of sufficient power to give effect to its terms that states: "No further rule changes can be made." Then enact a rule that states: "Foo." 1b. Enact a rule of sufficient power to give effect to its terms that states: "The Ruleset is restored to what it was on 2 August 2019." Then enact a power 4 rule that states, "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any further rule changes are IMPOSSIBLE." 2. I believe there are single rule changes that are also IMPOSSIBLE, i.e., where attempts to perform that single rule change would be unsuccessful. For example: 2a. Enact a Rule of power sufficient to give effect to its terms that states: "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Ruleset consists of this rule, the Ruleset that was in existence on 1 August 2019, and nothing else. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, further rule changes are IMPOSSIBLE." 2b. Enact a Rule of power sufficient to give effect to its terms that states: "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Ruleset consists of this Rule and the rules in existence on 1 August 2019. It is and always has been IMPOSSIBLE to enact this Rule by any means." 2c. Enact a rule of power sufficient to give effect to its terms that states: "Any attempt to enact this rule is IMPOSSIBLE."
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux
> On Aug 15, 2019, at 6:41 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > * R869 doesn't prohibit rules or proposals from making a non-player a > player. That may be true. But it does prevent a proposal from using the method of "registration" to make a person become a player if that person recently deregistered.
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Patent Titles
> On Aug 25, 2019, at 3:33 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I think the below is common sense if not directly obvious - do people > agree or is a case needed? > > I CFJ: When a CFJ judgement finds that conditions for awarding a > contested patent title are valid, that constitutes the "announcement > of the authorizing conditions" for the REQUIREMENT to make the award > in a timely fashion. > > Arguments > > R649 reads in part: >> 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. > > If there is an open judicial case on the Patent Title conditions when > the original time limit expires, and the judgement later finds that > the conditions for the award were valid, then the options for > interpreting this clause are (1) a retroactive setting of the timing > requirement to the original announcement conditions, which is quite > problematic, (2) an elimination of the requirement entirely, because > the time limit never passes under the right conditions, which is also > unintended, or (3) treating the judgement as the announcement of the > authorizing conditions. Option 3 makes the best sense. Option 3 makes sense but seems unsupported by the text. Option 2 seems to be what a straight forward reading would require.
DIS: Re: BUS: Ossification CFJs
> On Jul 31, 2019, at 4:54 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > Gratuitous: > > The 4 week period gives plenty of time for all of these rule changes to be > effected in ~2 weeks. > > Start of Week 0: write proposal that repeals any protections (including > AIAN). Distribute this proposal. > > Week 0: voting on proposal to repeal protections. > > End of Week 0: resolve decision to adopt proposal to repeal all protections. > > Start of Week 1: write proposal that does whatever the hell you want. > > Week 1: voting on proposal to do whatever. > > End of Week 1: resolve decision to adopt proposal to do whatever. > > [Obviously there's some extra time there because proposals aren't distributed > and assessed instantly, but you get the point.] > > Thus arbitrary rule changes are possible in 2-3 weeks, assuming that > distributing/voting on/assessing proposals counts as a "reasonable > combination of actions by players". > > Jason Cobb I disagree for a variety of reasons. First, your example here would be an inseparable group of changes that result in Agora being ossified. Under the Rule, "If any . . . inseperable group of changes to the gamestate would cause Agora to become ossified . . . it is cancelled and does not occur, rules to the contrary notwithstanding." Second, all I need to do is identify one rule change that is IMPOSSIBLE to enact in 4 weeks, and I think it's trivially easy to do that. Here's a rule change that is trivially IMPOSSIBLE to enact: "Enact a power 100 Rule that states: 'It is, and always has been, IMPOSSIBLE to enact this rule.'" Or: "Re-enact the Ossification protections (if they have been repealed), and then Ossify Agora."
DIS: Re: BUS: Ossification CFJs
> On Jul 31, 2019, at 4:53 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" > wrote: > > Gratuitous: four weeks is enough time to change the rules such that > those amendments are possible, and still get in the example proposals > afterwards. There's no rule that the change has to be accomplished with > a single proposal. (For example, you could repeal rule 1698 with one > proposal, perhaps removing other protections with a second, then enact > the desired rule change with another.) You can't repeal Rule 1698, and then remove other protections, and then ossify Agora--because that chain of events would be prohibited by Rule 1698. In addition, there are clearly rule changes that are prohibited by Rule 1698--otherwise what's the point of the rule? For example, Rule 1698 clearly prohibits this rule change: "Ossify Agora AND leave all other rules as they were on 31 July 2019 (including Rule 1698)." Because Rule 1698 prohibits at least SOME rule changes or combinations of Rule changes, that means "arbitrary rule changes" CANNOT be completed within 4 weeks, and Agora is already ossified.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ossification CFJs
On Jul 31, 2019, at 5:35 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk"
wrote:
>> Here's a rule change that is trivially IMPOSSIBLE to enact: "Enact a
>> power 100 Rule that states: 'It is, and always has been, IMPOSSIBLE
>> to enact this rule.'"
> It's not IMPOSSIBLE to enact that in the future. (Agora /doesn't/
> regulate the state of the past, but that doesn't mean it /couldn't/.
> Besides, nothing implies that that rule would have force; we could
> redefine "Power 100" to mean "has no legal effect" or "means the
> opposite of what it says" or whatever in less than two weeks.)
Ok--how about this:
///
{
Adopt a proposal with AI and other characteristics minimally sufficient to give
full effect to its terms, providing as follows:
{ The gamestate and ruleset are changed to what they were on 31 July 2019.
Then enact a Rule of power 4 entitled "Blah" that provides: "It is and
always has been IMPOSSIBLE to adopt any proposal that purports to enact this
Rule." }
}
///
It is IMPOSSIBLE to make THAT particular rule change. The reason is because (1)
it requires reverting the gamestate to a time when the Ossification rule and
power definitions are unchanged and then (2) purports to enact a high powered
rule that retroactively makes the enactment of that very rule change
IMPOSSIBLE.
I don't see any way to maks THAT set of rule changes that isn't tautologically
IMPOSSIBLE
...
Or what about this:
///
{
Adopt a proposal with AI and other characteristics minimally sufficient to give
full effect to its terms, providing as follows:
{ The gamestate and ruleset are changed to what they were on 31 July 2019.
Then enact a Rule entitled "Foo" of power 4 that provides: "It is
IMPOSSIBLE to adopt, repeal, amend, or change any rules, rules to the contrary
notwithstanding." }
}
///
That is IMPOSSIBLE too because it re-enacts the Ossification rule (if it was
repealed) and then immediately violates it, which would be IMPOSSIBLE if the
Ossification rule were working properly.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] Re-up judge interest please
I remain interested in judging cases > On Aug 1, 2019, at 1:37 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 7:56 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> Please reply to this thread to indicate interest in judging. >> >> We've had people favor cases lately that are technically "uninterested" by >> my tracking, and also people technically "interested" dropping cases. So >> time for a refresh. >> >> If you want your favoring requests to be honored, please sign up as >> interested and be willing to help clear cases in general. >> (since I've got cases to assign, I'm still going to keep people who have >> been timely at judging recently on the list, so this is a partial refresh). > > > H. Arbitor, I only sporadically have the time to judge cases, given the > fluctuation in my other workload (both IRL and Agoran). When I do, I think > my opinions are generally pretty decent. Do you mean you will no longer > accept my favoring of cases? > > -Aris > >> >>
DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] Re-up judge interest please
> On Aug 1, 2019, at 10:52 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > D. Margaux (semi-timely, noted e was being busy, but still on list - weekend) I've only had one CFJ in recent weeks and I believe I judged it in a timely fashion, didn't i? Or were there CFJs that I missed? Admittedly it's been hard for me to keep up with large volume of email traffic recently, but I like judging CFJs and I try to be punctual about it.
DIS: The Vault
A protocontract to protect coins from being pilfered upon zombification. Wonder
if it could have other uses too.
{
1. The name of this contract is the Vault. Any player CAN become a party to the
contract by announcement. A party CAN leave the contract by announcement if the
contract would still have 2 or more players left. A party CAN amend or
terminate the contract only if all other parties consent.
2. A coin account is a integer switch with default value 0. Every player has a
coin account and the Vault itself has a coin account.
3. Any player CAN make a deposit by announcement by transferring a positive
integer number of coins to the Vault. When a player makes a deposit, eir
account is once increased by the number of coins e transferred to the Vault.
4. Any player acting on behalf of emself CAN cause the contract to transfer to
em a number of coins by announcement that specifies a positive integer number
of coins that is equal to or less than eir account. This is called making a
withdrawal. A master CANNOT make a withdrawal on behalf of eir zombie.
5. When a player successfully makes a withdrawal, eir account is immediately
reduced by the specified number of coins and the Vault transfers that number of
coins to the payee.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214
On Jul 18, 2019, at 8:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> 8195A Aris, omd, Jason Cobb 3.0 Timeline Control Ordnance v2 > AGAINST. Very much not keen on timeline control given the > sensitivity of our game to time (one of the ways to kill the > game entirely with a lower-powered rule, potentially). I forget how I voted on this, but it worried me too. I couldn't find any bugs in the proposal, but it was complicated enough that it made me think there could be unanticipated results.
Re: DIS: Fwd: [Referee] Weekly Report
Yes, that makes sense. Seems like the best reading of the rules G. quoted above. On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 10:48 AM Aris Merchant wrote: > > You are indeed missing something. Per the assets rule (or technically > rules, but the ruleset doesn’t reflect that yet) saying that e is > recordkeepor is more or less equivalent to what you added. It also implies > that the report is self-ratifying. > > -Aris > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 7:25 AM D Margaux wrote: > > > I just noticed that there's no explicit requirement for the Referee to > > actually submit a weekly report at all. Seems like a glitch. Here's > > a draft proposal to fix it, which I'll submit and pend later, unless > > someone tells me I'm missing something: > > > > > > ///// > > > > Title: Referee Weekly Report Fix > > AI: 1.0 > > Author: D. Margaux > > > > Amend Rule 2555 to add the following sentence: > > > > "The Referee SHALL track in eir Weekly Report the number of blots > > possessed by each impure person." > > > > immediately after this sentence: > > > > "The Referee is an office, and the recordkeepor for blots." > > > > / > > > > > > -- Forwarded message - > > From: D Margaux > > Date: Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 8:16 PM > > Subject: [Referee] Weekly Report > > To: > > > > > > I believe my prior action successfully installed me as interim > > Referee. If I am already the interim Referee, I hereby submit the > > below as the Referee's Weekly Report. If I am not already the interim > > Referee, I hereby deputise for the Referee to submit the below as the > > Referee's Weekly Report. > > > > > > > > The Police Blotter (Referee's Weekly Report) > > > > > > > > Date of last report: 26 Jul 2018 > > Date of this report: 27 Aug 2018 > > (all times UTC) > > > > > > BLOT HOLDINGS (asset record - self-ratifying) > > > > PersonBlots > > - > > Murphy 3 > > V.J. Rada2 > > Kenyon 10 > > Corona 7 > > Publius 1 > > ATMunn 1 > > > > > > > > BLOT HISTORY > > > > PersonChange Date Reason > > -- - --- > > G. -1 03 Jun 2018 with incense > > Corona -4 12 Jun 2018 with incense (overpaid) > > ATMunn +2(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Tailor Monthly > > Kenyon +2(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Rulekeepor Monthly > > Corona +3(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Treasuror Weekly > > Kenyon +4(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Rulekeepor Weekly > > Corona -3 13 Jun 2018 with incense > > ATMunn -2 13 Jun 2018 with incense > > Trigon -3 18 Jun 2018 with incense > > Corona +2(S) 20 Jun 2018 Late Herald Tournament > > V.J. Rada +1(S,D)15 Jul 2018 Late Referee Weekly > > ATMunn +1(S) 15 Jul 2018 Late CFJ > > Publius+1(S) 15 Jul 2018 Late CFJ > > Corona +1(f) 26 Jul 2018 Late Registrar Weekly > > Corona +1(f) 26 Jul 2018 Late Registrar Weekly > > V.J. Rada -1 26 Jul 2018 Expunged > > Murphy -1 31 Jul 2018 Expunged > > Corona +3(f) 26 Aug 2018 Late action on CoE > > > > > > (f)=forgivable by R2557 > > (D)=loses next monthly salary for noted office by R2559 > > (S)=Summary Judgement by R2479 > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly report: Old censer found down back of sofa, incense reintroduced to economy
Under the theory advanced below, I think there is no error in the current Treasuror Weekly Report. The current Report does not expressly say that anyone has "0" incense; it simply leaves that field blank. And under the theory advanced below, this blank field does not necessarily imply "0". Another theory would be that the blank field implicitly states that everyone else has the default amount of incense, i.e., 0. In that interpretation, the current Report is also correct, because then prior Reports have already self-ratified everyone else's incense into oblivion. So, under either theory, it seems to me that there is no error in the current Report. As a result, one way to handle this mess is to deny the CoE for lack of any error in the Report, and then use the first CFJ below to determine which of the two theories is correct (if any). DM On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 3:22 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > No, I think you're right (though I'm not absolutely sure either). I > initially assumed the lack of a specified incense balance meant it was at > its default value (0), but rule 2166/26 defines any "portion of [a > recordkeepor]'s report" that is "a list of all instances of [a class of > assets] and their owners" - not the entirety of the recordkeepor's report - > as a self-ratifying document. > > An interesting repercussion, if that interpretation is correct, is that > CoEs can be made against the balances for _specific asset classes_, without > blocking the rest of the report from self-ratifying. This might potentially > mean that many, many previous CoEs against the Treasuror report (and > possibly other reports?) have never been valid doubts, because the way we > usually phrase it - "CoE: X is wrong" - is ambiguous: it might be a CoE > against any one of the self-ratifying documents that make up the Treasuror > report. > > What a headache. > > I CFJ: "A player other than D. Margaux owns at least 1 incense." > I CFJ: "The Treasuror's report of August 27, 2018, or a portion thereof, > is doubted." > > If G.'s claim of error is in fact a doubt, then in response to it, I cite > the first above CFJ (which I believe relieves me of the obligation to > either revise the report or deny the CoE in a timely fashion). > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On August 27, 2018 5:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > CoE: If incense is defined in the new ruleset, it was never repealed > > and we should all have whatever we had when it was last reported, > > unless a report ratified that explicitly stated Incense was 0. > > Only changes would be if, say, some of us transferred it using "all > > liquid currencies" or the like. > > > > Since each asset-type report self-ratifies independently (I think), the > > Treasuror's Reports that were missing incense data should be interpreted > > as just not having that data and being incomplete reports, with no > > implication that the missing data were self-ratified to 0. > > > > (This is just a guess idk, I'm not that bothered but let's not lose all > > our useless stuff if we still got it :P ). > > > > On Mon, 27 Aug 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > UNREFINABLE CURRENCIES > > > > > > === > > > > > > Rules summary: > > > > > > - Coins are obtained every month at Payday and used to buy zombies > and > > > Land Units at auctions. > > > > > > - Stones are obtained from Mines and used to build, upgrade and > maintain > > > most Production Facilities. > > > > > > - Apples are obtained from Orchards and used to move around the map > and > > > change the colour of Land Units. > > > > > > - Corn is obtained from Farms and used for the same actions as > Apples, > > > but at a cheaper rate. > > > > > > - Incense is useless and exists only due to a ruleset bug. > > > > > > ++--++--+--+--++---+ > > > ||Coins ||Stones|Apples| Corn ||Incense| > > > > > > > > > > > > +--++--++--+--+--++---+ > > > |ATMunn || 94 || 6 | 42 | 3 || > > > |Aris || 132 || 5 | 40 | 12 || > > > |Corona || 153 || 64 | 129 | 49 || > > > |CuddleBeam|| 70 || 11 | 28 | 9 ++---+ > > > |D. Margaux|| 10 || 5 | 10 | 0 || 5 | > > > |G. || 435 || 0 | 0 | 0 ++---+ > > > |Murphy || 96 || 114 | 174 | 31 || > > > |omd || 30 || 0 |
DIS: Fwd: [Referee] Weekly Report
I just noticed that there's no explicit requirement for the Referee to actually submit a weekly report at all. Seems like a glitch. Here's a draft proposal to fix it, which I'll submit and pend later, unless someone tells me I'm missing something: / Title: Referee Weekly Report Fix AI: 1.0 Author: D. Margaux Amend Rule 2555 to add the following sentence: "The Referee SHALL track in eir Weekly Report the number of blots possessed by each impure person." immediately after this sentence: "The Referee is an office, and the recordkeepor for blots." / -- Forwarded message - From: D Margaux Date: Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 8:16 PM Subject: [Referee] Weekly Report To: I believe my prior action successfully installed me as interim Referee. If I am already the interim Referee, I hereby submit the below as the Referee's Weekly Report. If I am not already the interim Referee, I hereby deputise for the Referee to submit the below as the Referee's Weekly Report. The Police Blotter (Referee's Weekly Report) Date of last report: 26 Jul 2018 Date of this report: 27 Aug 2018 (all times UTC) BLOT HOLDINGS (asset record - self-ratifying) PersonBlots - Murphy 3 V.J. Rada2 Kenyon 10 Corona 7 Publius 1 ATMunn 1 BLOT HISTORY PersonChange Date Reason -- - --- G. -1 03 Jun 2018 with incense Corona -4 12 Jun 2018 with incense (overpaid) ATMunn +2(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Tailor Monthly Kenyon +2(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Rulekeepor Monthly Corona +3(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Treasuror Weekly Kenyon +4(f) 13 Jun 2018 Late Rulekeepor Weekly Corona -3 13 Jun 2018 with incense ATMunn -2 13 Jun 2018 with incense Trigon -3 18 Jun 2018 with incense Corona +2(S) 20 Jun 2018 Late Herald Tournament V.J. Rada +1(S,D)15 Jul 2018 Late Referee Weekly ATMunn +1(S) 15 Jul 2018 Late CFJ Publius+1(S) 15 Jul 2018 Late CFJ Corona +1(f) 26 Jul 2018 Late Registrar Weekly Corona +1(f) 26 Jul 2018 Late Registrar Weekly V.J. Rada -1 26 Jul 2018 Expunged Murphy -1 31 Jul 2018 Expunged Corona +3(f) 26 Aug 2018 Late action on CoE (f)=forgivable by R2557 (D)=loses next monthly salary for noted office by R2559 (S)=Summary Judgement by R2479
Re: DIS: Fwd: [Referee] Weekly Report
Taking G.'s suggestion, I've added some more material to the draft rule that makes explicit the material that should be tracked in the Referee weekly report. Much of this seems to have been tracked in the past, even though it's not part of the current rule. Comments welcome. / Title: Referee Weekly Report Contents AI: 1.0 Author: D. Margaux Amend Rule 2555 to add the following as a new paragraph: "The Referee's Weekly Report SHALL include the following: 1. A list of each impure person and the number of blots possessed by each. 2. A list identifying every action taken since the last Weekly Report or within the current Weekly Report that created (or destroyed) one or more blots, including listing the following information: the name of the person in whose possession the blot(s) were created (or destroyed), the number of blots that were created (or destroyed), the date on which those blot(s) were created (or destroyed), a brief description of the reason why those blot(s) were created (or destroyed), and an indication of whether any created blot(s) are forgiveable or whether they deprive an officeholder of eir monthly salary per Rule 2559. 3. A description and the current status of all instances since the most recent Weekly Report in which any of the following occurred: Summary Judgement was imposed (or attempted to be imposed), a Finger was Pointed (or attempted to be Pointed), an investigation into a Pointed Finger was concluded, or a formal apology under Rule 2557 was made (or attempted). In addition, the Referee MAY announce in this section of the Weekly Report the conclusion of any investigation of a Pointed Finger for which the Referee is the investigator." immediately after this paragraph: "The Referee is an office, and the recordkeepor for blots." / On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 11:26 AM D Margaux wrote: > > Yes, that makes sense. Seems like the best reading of the rules G. > quoted above. > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 10:48 AM Aris Merchant > wrote: > > > > You are indeed missing something. Per the assets rule (or technically > > rules, but the ruleset doesn’t reflect that yet) saying that e is > > recordkeepor is more or less equivalent to what you added. It also implies > > that the report is self-ratifying. > > > > -Aris > > > > On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 7:25 AM D Margaux wrote: > > > > > I just noticed that there's no explicit requirement for the Referee to > > > actually submit a weekly report at all. Seems like a glitch. Here's > > > a draft proposal to fix it, which I'll submit and pend later, unless > > > someone tells me I'm missing something: > > > > > > > > > / > > > > > > Title: Referee Weekly Report Fix > > > AI: 1.0 > > > Author: D. Margaux > > > > > > Amend Rule 2555 to add the following sentence: > > > > > > "The Referee SHALL track in eir Weekly Report the number of blots > > > possessed by each impure person." > > > > > > immediately after this sentence: > > > > > > "The Referee is an office, and the recordkeepor for blots." > > > > > > / > > > > > > > > > -- Forwarded message - > > > From: D Margaux > > > Date: Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 8:16 PM > > > Subject: [Referee] Weekly Report > > > To: > > > > > > > > > I believe my prior action successfully installed me as interim > > > Referee. If I am already the interim Referee, I hereby submit the > > > below as the Referee's Weekly Report. If I am not already the interim > > > Referee, I hereby deputise for the Referee to submit the below as the > > > Referee's Weekly Report. > > > > > > > > > > > > The Police Blotter (Referee's Weekly Report) > > > > > > > > > > > > Date of last report: 26 Jul 2018 > > > Date of this report: 27 Aug 2018 > > > (all times UTC) > > > > > > > > > BLOT HOLDINGS (asset record - self-ratifying) > > > > > > PersonBlots > > > - > > > Murphy 3 > > > V.J. Rada2 > > > Kenyon 10 > > > Corona 7 > > > Publius 1 > > > ATMunn 1 > > > > > > > > > > > > BLOT HISTORY > > > > > > Pers
DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Humiliating Public Reminder to Vote on Proposal 8089
I vote PRESENT on proposal 8089. On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 11:04 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > This time, Proposal > 8089 has three votes; > we need seven, please. > > Slackers: > ATMunn, Aris, Corona, CuddleBeam, D. Margaux, Murphy, omd, P.S.S., Trigon, > V.J. Rada, Gaelan, nichdel, o, Ouri, pokes, Quazie, Telnaior and 天火狐. > > Above reminder, > as rule 2168 says, > should humiliate. > > New voting deadline: > the second of September, > 6:19 AM. > > -twg >
DIS: Fwd: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auction - 4 zombies
FWIW, I believe this auction has terminated by virtue of there having been no bids made or withdrawn in the past 96 hours. -- Forwarded message - From: D Margaux Date: Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 8:27 AM Subject: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auction - 4 zombies To: Agora Business I bid one coin in this auction. On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 2:12 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I bid 35 coins in this auction. > > On Sun, 2 Sep 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I initiate a zombie auction, with the following lots (each zombie a > > separate lot) ordered as follows (highest-bid first): > > > > 1. Gaelan > > 2. nichdel > > 3. pokes > > 4. 天火狐 > > > > Agora is the Auctioneer, and the Registrar is the Announcer. The > > currency is Coins with a minimum bid of 1. > > -- D. Margaux
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly report: Please don't summarily judge me
In the coming days, unless persuaded otherwise, I plan to uphold this Finger Pointing and impose a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 12:28 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I favor this case. > > On Sun, 9 Sep 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > On August 27, 2018, I initiated a CFJ inquiring into the statement "The > Treasuror's report of August 27, 2018, or a portion thereof, is doubted." > > > > I Point my Finger at the Arbitor (Murphy) for violating Rule 991/27, > "Calls for Judgement", by not assigning an eligible player to be that CFJ's > judge in a timely fashion after its initiation. > > > > -twg > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Sunday, 9 September 2018 16:12, Timon Walshe-Grey > wrote: > > > > > CoE on the most recent Treasuror report: Aris' payment of 30 coins is > listed in the "recent changes" section but not reflected in eir balance. > > > > > > CoE on the coin balances in the most recent Treasuror report: Aris' > payment of 30 coins is listed in the "recent changes" section but not > reflected in eir balance. > > > > > > I accept whichever of the above CoEs is a valid doubt and publish the > following revisions: > > > > > > ++--++ > > > ||Coins || > > > +--++--++ > > > |Aris || 122 || > > > +--++--++ > > > |Agora || 1042 || > > > +--++--++ > > > > > > -twg > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Some moves and such
Ack! I missed that. Too bad. Thanks for catching. On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 1:53 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > On Sunday, 9 September 2018 17:48, D Margaux > wrote: > > I cause nichdel pay 3 apples to stake a land claim to (-3, 1) with > > land type Black. > > > > I cause nichdel to transfer the land at (-3, 1) to D. Margaux. > > > > I cause nichdel to pay 1 apple to move to (-2, 1). > > These three actions fail; zombies cannot stake land claims. >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8090-8093
I vote and cause nichdel to vote as follows: > 8090* D Margaux 1.7 Shenanigans For INEFFECTIVE Fines (v2) FOR > 8091* Murphy, Oerjan 2.0 Slow your quorum v1.1 FOR > 8092* twg 1.0 Yet Another Economics Patch AGAINST. > 8093* Aris 1.0 Proposal Re-insertion FOR On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 8:20 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I vote, and act on behalf of Gaelan to vote: > > > 8090* D Margaux 1.7 Shenanigans For INEFFECTIVE Fines (v2) > FOR > > > 8091* Murphy, Oerjan 2.0 Slow your quorum v1.1 > AGAINST. I like the current quorum rules - they worked as intended > when not-too-many people were around this past month - and don't see > the value-added in this complicated thing. > > > 8092* twg 1.0 Yet Another Economics Patch > FOR. > > > 8093* Aris1.0 Proposal Re-insertion > AGAINST. For goodness sake get over it and just put new proposal > copies in. > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly report: Old censer found down back of sofa, incense reintroduced to economy
Actually, I think there’s an easier resolution to all this. Proposal 8066 (“Separation of church and state”), adopted on July 26, contained the language: “Destroy all incense.” > On Aug 27, 2018, at 8:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I agree that this current report implies (with a labelled column > containing blanks) that everyone except you has 0. That's why I CoE'd > this report. > > Because, see Rule 2379: for a report to imply anything about incense, it > would need to have a labelled blank section (labeled as "incense > ownership" or similar, or be a statement that actually says "no one has > any incense"). > > When we thought incense was repealed, the entire column was missing from > the Treasuror's Report, and there was nothing that said "incense". So by > R2379, those reports have no information whatsoever that could be ratified > about incense (if you don't label the blank list, you're not reporting it > and it doesn't self-ratify). So the true incense values that have in fact > self-ratified are from the last time the column was included (non-zero > values for almost everyone). > >> On Mon, 27 Aug 2018, D Margaux wrote: >> Under the theory advanced below, I think there is no error in the current >> Treasuror Weekly Report. The current Report does not expressly say that >> anyone has "0" incense; it simply leaves that field blank. And under the >> theory advanced below, this blank field does not necessarily imply "0". >> >> Another theory would be that the blank field implicitly states that >> everyone else has the default amount of incense, i.e., 0. In that >> interpretation, the current Report is also correct, because then prior >> Reports have already self-ratified everyone else's incense into oblivion. >> >> So, under either theory, it seems to me that there is no error in the >> current Report. As a result, one way to handle this mess is to deny the >> CoE for lack of any error in the Report, and then use the first CFJ below >> to determine which of the two theories is correct (if any). >> >> DM >> >>> On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 3:22 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >>> >>> No, I think you're right (though I'm not absolutely sure either). I >>> initially assumed the lack of a specified incense balance meant it was at >>> its default value (0), but rule 2166/26 defines any "portion of [a >>> recordkeepor]'s report" that is "a list of all instances of [a class of >>> assets] and their owners" - not the entirety of the recordkeepor's report - >>> as a self-ratifying document. >>> >>> An interesting repercussion, if that interpretation is correct, is that >>> CoEs can be made against the balances for _specific asset classes_, without >>> blocking the rest of the report from self-ratifying. This might potentially >>> mean that many, many previous CoEs against the Treasuror report (and >>> possibly other reports?) have never been valid doubts, because the way we >>> usually phrase it - "CoE: X is wrong" - is ambiguous: it might be a CoE >>> against any one of the self-ratifying documents that make up the Treasuror >>> report. >>> >>> What a headache. >>> >>> I CFJ: "A player other than D. Margaux owns at least 1 incense." >>> I CFJ: "The Treasuror's report of August 27, 2018, or a portion thereof, >>> is doubted." >>> >>> If G.'s claim of error is in fact a doubt, then in response to it, I cite >>> the first above CFJ (which I believe relieves me of the obligation to >>> either revise the report or deny the CoE in a timely fashion). >>> >>> -twg >>> >>> >>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >>>> On August 27, 2018 5:47 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> CoE: If incense is defined in the new ruleset, it was never repealed >>>> and we should all have whatever we had when it was last reported, >>>> unless a report ratified that explicitly stated Incense was 0. >>>> Only changes would be if, say, some of us transferred it using "all >>>> liquid currencies" or the like. >>>> >>>> Since each asset-type report self-ratifies independently (I think), the >>>> Treasuror's Reports that were missing incense data should be interpreted >>>> as just not having that data and being incomplete reports, with no >>>> implication that the missing data w
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Slow your quorum
Yes that occurred to me too. I think if this proposal is adopted the quorum will basically always be 2. On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 8:50 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote: > 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. > > > > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] New Year's Honours
> On Jan 2, 2019, at 1:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > However if you really feel strongly about this one I'm open to > reclassification if there's a consensus - to me it seemed that the added > "rule then-make announcement a week later" seemed to be a fairly minor > part of the process when (as per the CFJ) the winning set was primarily > determined by the voting pattern, but YMMV. I don’t feel strongly at all. This outcome seems reasonable enough. Just wanted to confirm that that was in fact the reasoning, rather than an unintentional oversight.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
> On Jan 16, 2019, at 4:10 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Hold on, isn't that exactly what happened here? "rau" is effectively (if we > strip away all the fluff about constructed languages, which was a fun excuse > but isn't really relevant) a secret code devised for communication between > the resolver (me) and the person who first used it in a public message > (coincidentally, also me). I think this is different. If you said, “I communicated a number to myself, on pain of no faking,” I think that would maybe be valid. But as I understood it, you said “the number is rau,” with rau being a word in a private language that seemingly has no fixed meaning to translate into English. So I think that’s the same as no choice all. > > If the original attempt failed at all, I would have expected it to be because > of R2466's prohibition of sending-messages-on-behalf. I realise that > contradicts CFJ 3649 but to be honest I'm not 100% certain, in hindsight, > that that judgement was correct anyway. I agree that CFJ 3649 is poorly reasoned and probably shouldn’t be followed. It’s not obvious that the judge of that CFJ knew of the prohibition against sending messages when “acting on behalf.”
DIS: Space Battle 0002
I note that G. has privately communicated to me the amount of energy e wishes to spend in this battle. > On Jan 15, 2019, at 9:02 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > And, revision: > > - SPACE BATTLE 0002 - > 2019-01-15 - UNRESOLVED > SECTOR 07 > Aggressor: twg VS. Defender: G. > Energy: ?? Energy: ?? > Resolver: D. Margaux > > -twg
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8143-8145 and 8142
> On Jan 16, 2019, at 3:48 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Even if I made that pledge, nobody would trust me, and rightly so. FWIW, I would trust you if you made that pledge. Theoretically, the pledge has a loophole if you’re the Referee, since you could decide any pointer finger regarding that pledge yourself. To make the pledge more airtight, you could also pledge that, if you remain as Referee at the time any finger is pointed for an alleged violation of the pledge, you would appoint the holder of the Arbitor’s office to act on your behalf to be investigator. (If you broke THAT pledge, I think that would be a violation related to your duties as referee, which the Arbitor could then investigate be announcement.)
Re: DIS: the other CFJ (Re: extremely ridiculous)
> On Jan 17, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > That's worth thinking about, but first I was curious at other people's > thoughts between #1 and #2. I prefer interpretation #2. The person being communicated to is the resolver; what is necessary is that e has knowledge sufficient to determine the number being communicated. > If we find in favor of #2, there's a secondary question: whether we take > twg's word that e had set a definition for tau ahead of time, so that D. > Margaux's 'tau+1' communication uniquely defined a value when it was made. So > it's basically a "what standard of evidence do we accept?" case rather than a > "what constitutes communication". It is not clear to me that twg said that e had determined a value for “rau” in advance of the communication. In eir initial message, e communicated that the value was “rau,” a word in eir own language, but I don’t think e said that “rau” had a fixed determinate value at that point. And later messages indicate that “rau” had a Humpty Dumpty/Alice in Wonderland quality to it, where it came to mean different things according to what twg was inclined at any given time. So that’s why I think rau and rau+1 actually didn’t communicate any value at the times they were communicated.
DIS: Poll: Abuse of Office
How annoyed would people be if I abused an office to exploit a gamebreaking bug in one of our mini-games?
Re: DIS: Poll: Abuse of Office
Nope but that’s a good one too! > On Jan 20, 2019, at 1:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Is this the one where you initiate 500 trivial CFJs, assign them to yourself > and judge them for Costume Conservatives favours? > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Sunday, January 20, 2019 5:29 PM, D. Margaux >> wrote: >> >> How annoyed would people be if I abused an office to exploit a gamebreaking >> bug in one of our mini-games? > >
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8143-8145 and 8142
Yes, but you could award yourself a single blot as a fine for breaking the pledge. But in any case i trust you not to break it regardless. > On Jan 20, 2019, at 1:56 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Upon examination of R2478, I think that falsely declaring a Finger Pointing > to be Shenanigans may be IMPOSSIBLE, or if not, is certainly ILLEGAL. And > that would be a violation that the Arbitor _could_ take over the > investigation of. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 4:20 PM, D. Margaux >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Jan 16, 2019, at 3:48 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: >>> Even if I made that pledge, nobody would trust me, and rightly so. >> >> FWIW, I would trust you if you made that pledge. >> >> Theoretically, the pledge has a loophole if you’re the Referee, since you >> could decide any pointer finger regarding that pledge yourself. To make the >> pledge more airtight, you could also pledge that, if you remain as Referee >> at the time any finger is pointed for an alleged violation of the pledge, >> you would appoint the holder of the Arbitor’s office to act on your behalf >> to be investigator. (If you broke THAT pledge, I think that would be a >> violation related to your duties as referee, which the Arbitor could then >> investigate be announcement.) > >
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8143-8145 and 8142
This scam would be pretty dangerous. Initiating 495 excess cases would result in at least that many blots if someone pointed a finger at me for it! > On Jan 20, 2019, at 1:56 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Upon examination of R2478, I think that falsely declaring a Finger Pointing > to be Shenanigans may be IMPOSSIBLE, or if not, is certainly ILLEGAL. And > that would be a violation that the Arbitor _could_ take over the > investigation of. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 4:20 PM, D. Margaux >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Jan 16, 2019, at 3:48 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: >>> Even if I made that pledge, nobody would trust me, and rightly so. >> >> FWIW, I would trust you if you made that pledge. >> >> Theoretically, the pledge has a loophole if you’re the Referee, since you >> could decide any pointer finger regarding that pledge yourself. To make the >> pledge more airtight, you could also pledge that, if you remain as Referee >> at the time any finger is pointed for an alleged violation of the pledge, >> you would appoint the holder of the Arbitor’s office to act on your behalf >> to be investigator. (If you broke THAT pledge, I think that would be a >> violation related to your duties as referee, which the Arbitor could then >> investigate be announcement.) > >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8139-8141
Another issue that has just arisen in my battle is, what do you do when the resolver controls a zombie that’s engaged in the battle? Don’t really know how the zombie can “communicate” the choice to the resolver there! Hash would be fine if it worked, but it may be broken. It doesn’t work for the master to send a private message to emself on behalf of the zombie. That’s because under Rule 2466, “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.” In fact this may be a problem for any zombie battle, not just when zombie is controlled by the relevant resolver. > On Jan 15, 2019, at 4:07 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > See this would all have been very useful feedback BEFORE the proposal > passed... :P > > I don't think this entirely breaks spaaace as a whole, because each combatant > (if e actually wants to play the subgame) is motivated to get a number in > before the deadline (as otherwise e would automatically lose), and has a > working method to do so (private message to the resolver). But it would be > cool if we could get the hashes working. I'll have a think about it. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Tuesday, January 15, 2019 6:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 1/15/2019 5:44 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >>> >>> In a timely fashion after a Space Battle is initiated, the >>> combatants SHALL each once communicate to the resolver the amount >>> of Energy they wish to spend in the battle, via any method that >>> cannot be understood by the other combatant until e has also >>> fulfilled this obligation. For example: >>> >>> - by publishing a salted cryptographic hash, and revealing its text >>>after the other combatant has also communicated the Energy e will >>>spend; >>> >>> - by sending the amount to the resolver in a private message; >>> - by publishing the amount, if the other combatant has already >>>communicated the Energy e will spend. >>> >> >> So here's an issue: if I'm using the hash method, and my opponent sends >> eir amount to the resolver privately, how do I know when it's safe to >> reveal the hash's contents? There's no requirement for anyone to tell >> me that the other party has done so. >> >> Moreover, there's also a loop-trap here if both parties decide to use hashes >> (because "communicate" here is defined to include the "reveal after the >> other party communicates", neither party can complete this operation). >> Overall, the trouble is that "communicate" is used in two ways >> throughout this paragraph - in the framing, "communicate" includes the >> reveal, but in the first and third bullet, "already/after the other >> combatant communicated" means the opponent has performed the secret step but >> not the reveal). >> >> Finally, if a combatant tries to break the logjam by just publishing eir >> energy clearly after seeing an opponent's hash, the opponent can publish >> a new hash (because the first communication is only half-completed, it >> can be abandoned/ignored). >> >>> After both combatants have communicated the Energy they will spend, >>> or if the time limit to do so has expired, the resolver CAN... >> >> Here, "communicate" clearly needs to include the reveal to work. >> >> Note: this is all very interesting to see if we can get it working, >> we've talked many times about hashes and have used it for contracts >> and other private arrangements, but this is the first time in my >> memory that we've tried it directly in the rules. > >
DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
> On Jan 15, 2019, at 4:18 PM, 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".) > Our emails crossed just now—interesting idea! I have no idea how this resolves. One reason this *might* not work is that the rule requires Tenhigitsune to “communicate” eir choice, and Rule 2466 prohibits you from acting on behalf of em to send a “message” (or synonymously, to “publish” something). The only thing you can do is take the underlying game action on eir behalf—but here there seems to be no action separate from the very act of sending a message (i.e., “communicat[ing]”).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
> On Jan 15, 2019, at 5:49 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Actually, at the time you posted the quoted message, "rau" meant "a pigeon or > dove", so your statement is clearly incorrect. twgese is, after all, an > evolving language - the meanings of words change all the time. I apologize, I should have been more precise. I spend rau + 1 energy, but I use the word “rau” in this context in an anachronistic sense to mean what “rau” meant in twgese at the time you sent your first message with the word “rau.” Hope this clarifies things. :-) > Also, I think your attempt to announce the Energy you will spend fails, > because I have no idea what you thought "rau" meant, so your message did not > communicate that information to me. I don’t think this is quite right. You can never know precisely what I think anything means, because you can’t perceive directly into my mind. Accordingly, it cannot be a precondition to successful communication that you must know my private mental meanings if any (because that could never be satisfied). Instead, what you can perceive are the signs and symbols that I convey to you; and those signs and symbols are imbued with meaning by their history of usage by a community of language speakers/writers. So you don’t need to know what (if anything) I “thought rau meant” in my mind; instead, all that is required for successful communication is that you evaluate the meaning of the signs and symbols I convey to you in their full social context. Here, evidently, rau is a twgese word that had a particular meaning that you yourself know at the time you first used it. So that’s what I’ve communicated to you in my message. :-) [[As a more serious aside, I think the logic I’m laying out in this email is essentially the reason why the later Wittgenstein demonstrated that private languages such as twgese are impossible. So actually “rau” has no meaning in either of our emails. But it’s been a long time since I had to think about Wittgenstein, so I may have garbled the logic of it.]]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but
Here’s a thought experiment to sharpen the point. Imagine that I don’t know any Spanish at all, but I’ve been told that “uno” is a number in that language (but not which number it is). I then give the message, “I spend uno energy.” If twg speaks Spanish and knows that word, then have I communicated to him a choice of energy expenditure here? I think yes: the communicative content of the message does not depend on my internal mental state, but instead upon the signs that I am transmitting in broader social context, which is one where “uno” definitely means “one” (even if I don’t know that myself). Or what if I am told that -e^(i * pi) is a positive integer, but don’t know which one it is and refuse to google it. Do I communicate a valid choice if I tell twg that I choose -e^(i * pi)? If “rau” signifies a number in a legitimate language that twg understands (twgese), then my election of rau+1 should work in the same way as “uno” and “e^(i * pi)” do in the above hypotheticals. However, I think that “rau” actually doesn’t signify a number in any language (because private languages are impossible), and so twg didn’t actually communicate a number when e sent eir message and my election of rau+1 also doesn’t work. > On Jan 15, 2019, at 6:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > >> On Jan 15, 2019, at 5:49 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> >> Actually, at the time you posted the quoted message, "rau" meant "a pigeon >> or dove", so your statement is clearly incorrect. twgese is, after all, an >> evolving language - the meanings of words change all the time. > > I apologize, I should have been more precise. > > I spend rau + 1 energy, but I use the word “rau” in this context in an > anachronistic sense to mean what “rau” meant in twgese at the time you sent > your first message with the word “rau.” Hope this clarifies things. :-) > >> Also, I think your attempt to announce the Energy you will spend fails, >> because I have no idea what you thought "rau" meant, so your message did not >> communicate that information to me. > > I don’t think this is quite right. You can never know precisely what I think > anything means, because you can’t perceive directly into my mind. > Accordingly, it cannot be a precondition to successful communication that you > must know my private mental meanings if any (because that could never be > satisfied). Instead, what you can perceive are the signs and symbols that I > convey to you; and those signs and symbols are imbued with meaning by their > history of usage by a community of language speakers/writers. So you don’t > need to know what (if anything) I “thought rau meant” in my mind; instead, > all that is required for successful communication is that you evaluate the > meaning of the signs and symbols I convey to you in their full social context. > > Here, evidently, rau is a twgese word that had a particular meaning that you > yourself know at the time you first used it. So that’s what I’ve communicated > to you in my message. :-) > > [[As a more serious aside, I think the logic I’m laying out in this email is > essentially the reason why the later Wittgenstein demonstrated that private > languages such as twgese are impossible. So actually “rau” has no meaning in > either of our emails. But it’s been a long time since I had to think about > Wittgenstein, so I may have garbled the logic of it.]]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] The Agoran Directory
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. Next time nichdel is resold, eir resale value will decline by 1 again. > On Dec 2, 2018, at 3:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 2 Dec 2018, ATMunn wrote: >>> On 12/2/2018 1:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> CoE: it is self-comtradictory to list Nichdel as a zombie if eir >>> master switch is emself - e is not a zombie and has no resale value. >> >> Right. I'm a derp. I accept this CoE and publish the following revision: > > Keeping a zombie in the game via setting eir master switch back to emself > is a cool, non-intuitive trick that I never thought about until Gaelan > did eir thing. I really like that unexpected feature - it reminds me of > the genie's third wish in Aladdin. Todo: rename "zombies" as "genies" > (more positive connotation if we're not trying to scare each other). > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ Assignments
> On Dec 2, 2018, at 8:05 PM, ATMunn wrote: > > CFJ 3690, that is. > >> On 12/2/2018 8:04 PM, ATMunn wrote: >> What message thread was CFJ 2690 called under? Here is the CFJ Email thread: Cfj > -- Forwarded message - > From: Timon Walshe-Grey > Date: Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 7:19 PM > Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [minority] Report > To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org > > > With which in mind: > > I Impose the Cold Hand of Justice by levying a fine of 1 blot on G. for > Tardiness in failing to publish a Herald monthly report in the month of > November 2018. This has been reduced from the base value of 2 blots because e > was aware and apologetic for eir mistake, it didn't have any significant game > effect, and we got an interesting CFJ out of it. > > This violation is forgivable. G. CAN, in a timely fashion, expunge 1 blot > from emself by publishing a formal apology of at least 200 words containing > the words "indolence", "sin-ridden", "underhanded", "delinquent" and > "buffalo", explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for > self-improvement. > > CFJ: "G. possesses at least one blot." > > If the above Imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice failed, then by > definition this Finger Pointing must be Shenanigans, so I announce that fact. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Friday, November 30, 2018 11:26 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey > wrote: > > > I... can't see any specific reason why it wouldn't work, unless this is one > > of those black-magic emergent properties of the rules that come up > > occasionally. R2531 blocks punishment for a crime more than 14 days before > > the Pointed Finger, but it doesn't explicitly say anything about crimes > > after the Pointed Finger (although there is an implicit time limit because > > the Referee has to resolve the Finger in a timely fashion, and if the > > violation hasn't occurred by then then it would have to be Shenanigans). > > > > 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. > > > > -twg > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Friday, November 30, 2018 11:18 PM, Kerim Aydin > > ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: > > > > > > > I point my finger at G., for failure to publish the Herald's Monthly > > > Report in November. > > > Disclaimer: Referee, please note the time/date of the finger point. This > > > is not an attempt to avoid consequences, nor mislead anyone on the > > > effectiveness of the above action. I spaced out on getting the report > > > done, and forgot until now that I need to go back and look at that batch > > > of winning earlier, and won't be able to do it in time, so deserve > > > appropriate consequences for that. > > > At the same time, I'm damn curious about whether it works... > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
In the interests of clarity, I suggest re-dismissing the CFJ and reformulating the language so that it more clearly captures what Gaelan is saying. Maybe something like, “If a player votes by endorsing another player, and the endorsed player casts a valid vote, then the endorsing player’s vote is necessarily later than the endorsed player’s vote.” I would assign that CFJ to G. On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 1:34 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > This is why the Caller should always provide arguments, because otherwise > the judge doesn't know the point of contention (e.g. if it was a question > about specific ballots, and not the proposal-language, the arguments should > reflect that). > > I self-file a motion to reconsider this judgement. > > > On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > Not that it matters, but I’m not convinced about this ruling. > Proposal/decision issue aside, in this situation: > > > > Gaelan votes “ENDORSE G” > > Then G votes “FOR” > > > > Who was the last one to vote FOR? The CFJ would argue that G does, > because e were the last one to submit a ballot that evaluates to FOR. But > another reasonable interpretation would be that I do, because my > conditional vote isn’t evaluated until the end of the voting period, so > until then I haven’t really voted FOR. This isn’t really addressed in the > judgement. > > > > Gaelan > > > > > On Dec 3, 2018, at 7:07 AM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, D. Margaux wrote: > > >> 3691 called by Jacob Arduino 2 December 2018, assigned to G. 2 > > >> December 2018: "'the last person to vote FOR a proposal' is the last > > >> person to submit a ballot regarding that proposal which evaluates to > > >> FOR." > > > > > > I judge CFJ 3691 as follows: > > > > > > The rules do not describe voting on [or FOR] proposals at all. The > > > rules describe voting on "decisions to adopt proposals". To see that > > > this is a consequential variation (in terms of technicalities), note > > > that a proposal can be part of more than one decision to adopt it > (e.g., > > > if it fails quorum). > > > > > > As part of our long-standing shorthand, people casting votes by > > > announcement do so, generally, by stating that they are voting on the > > > proposals, not on the decisions to adopt proposals. This is very > useful > > > shorthand and valid, as there is no ambiguity that their votes refer to > > > Decisions. However, if someone wrote actual formal rules text that > > > described what happened when someone "voted FOR proposals", it would > > > quickly be pointed out that "voting FOR proposals" is not a regulated, > > > described action. > > > > > > So the answer to this question is: it depends. If "the last person to > > > vote FOR a proposal" was used colloquially (say within another player's > > > conditional vote), this CFJ would be TRUE. If that text was used > within > > > a Rule, it would be FALSE, as the rules don't map "voting FOR a > > > proposal" to "submitting a valid ballot of FOR on the decision to adopt > > > the proposal", so that would be referring to some other (perhaps > > > non-existent, unregulated, or impossible-to-perform) process. > > > > > > If the text is contained within a proposal (midway between the > formality > > > of rules and colloquial shorthand for actions), I think it would err on > > > the side of rules text (i.e. it would refer to a non-existent process), > > > due to the technical and precise level on which proposals function. > > > > > > Since the answer to the CFJ is therefore "it depends on context", I > > > judge DISMISS (insufficient information). > > > > > > > > > > > -- D. Margaux
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy
I also wanted to test whether my statement of “I’m apathetic” was made at the right time. It was in the same message as the intent, so was it simultaneous with the intention? Or was it stated between “now” and the execution of the intent, as required by the intent? > On Dec 9, 2018, at 7:40 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Yes, I guessed as much. Would have been interesting to CFJ. > > And if your attempt _hadn't_ succeeded, would Jacob Arduino's TTttPF have > counted? We may never know. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >> On Monday, December 10, 2018 12:37 AM, Kerim Aydin >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Personally I was going to test (with that particular phrasing) whether >> merely quoting the original message counted. >> >>> On Sun, 9 Dec 2018, D. Margaux wrote: >>> >>> No, nothing specifically in mind about that. That’s just how my phone >>> renders quote marks for some reason. >>>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 7:19 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: >>>> >>>> Now that this has been defused: D. Margaux, did you have anything in mind >>>> about curved vs. straight quotes in mind with this? i.e., "I’m apathetic" >>>> working where "I'm apathetic" would not? >>>> -twg >>>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >>>> On Thursday, December 6, 2018 6:20 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Very clever. I'm sure one of the long-timers will object to it just on >>>>> principle, but I’m apathetic, at least! :) >>>>> (NB This is not Faking: I am actually extremely tired and lacking in >>>>> motivation this evening.) >>>>> -twg >>>>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >>>>> On Thursday, December 6, 2018 3:13 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Things have been pretty quiet this week. Some might say apathetic. >>>>>> I intend without objection to declare apathy specifying all players >>>>>> who, between now and the time of declaration, have sent a public message >>>>>> that includes the phrase, “I’m apathetic.” >>>>> >>>>>> I’m apathetic. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> D. Margaux > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Agora Weekly Advertisement Pledge
I don’t think you can withdraw a pledge, but perhaps that should be possible—but only when withdrawing the pledge does not upset someone else’s reasonable expectations that the pledge will be fulfilled. Maybe it could be withdrawn by announcement provided that no other person has taken any action, or omitted to take any action, in reliance upon the pledge. Or maybe it could be withdrawn without objection. > On Dec 9, 2018, at 9:00 PM, ATMunn wrote: > > Good point. I forget how the pledge rules work; am I allowed to withdraw this > pledge now? > >> On 12/9/2018 8:44 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> I believe it is not reasonably possible for you to know whether there is a >> person who meets these conditions, and if so, who it is, unless you have >> been keeping meticulous records of all previous transfers of coins to you. >> Does that mean the pledge is INEFFECTIVE? Or EFFECTIVE but impossible to >> violate? Or are you already violating it, or unable to avoid violating it on >> December 16? I have no idea. >> -twg >> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ >>> On Monday, December 10, 2018 1:38 AM, ATMunn >>> wrote: >>> I pledge that if there is a person who meets all following conditions >>> before 16 December 2018, I will place the text e wishes to advertise in >>> the December 16 Agora Weekly newspaper. >>> >>> Conditions: >>> -Is active >>> -Has transferred a total number of coins to ATMunn that is at least 10 >>> -Has transferred more coins to ATMunn than any other person >>> -Has submitted a text that e wishes to advertise
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8139-8145
True... > On Jan 9, 2019, at 5:58 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Oh, and: > >> On Wednesday, January 9, 2019 11:22 PM, D. Margaux >> wrote: >>anyone who >> wants to can feel free to change my vote using the SPOOKY contract. > > Warning to anybody who's considering taking D. Margaux up on this: Eir pledge > not to modify the SPOOKY contract to grant emself the ability to arbitrarily > act on behalf of any party to it expired recently. > > -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: Voodoo
Speaking of zombies, hasn’t it been a while since we’ve had a zombie auction? I think we are overdue > On Jan 6, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > I intend, With Notice: > - to flip Hālian's master switch to Agora; > - to flip L.'s master switch to Agora; and > - to flip Publius Scribonius Scholasticus's master switch to Agora. > > -twg > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voodoo
Arg. The registrar resignation and subsequent emails got caught in my spam filter. Sorry. On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 8:15 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > The Registrar just resigned, but it was due first week of Jan. > > The auctions may still be broken. > > On 1/9/2019 4:41 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > Speaking of zombies, hasn’t it been a while since we’ve had a zombie > auction? I think we are overdue > > > >> On Jan 6, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > >> > >> I intend, With Notice: > >> - to flip Hālian's master switch to Agora; > >> - to flip L.'s master switch to Agora; and > >> - to flip Publius Scribonius Scholasticus's master switch to Agora. > >> > >> -twg > >> > >> > -- D. Margaux
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction
> On Jan 10, 2019, at 1:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I terminate this auction, as per R2552. > > > I CFJ: The zombie auction for January 2019 has been terminated. Gratuitous counterarguement: The CFJ is FALSE, because a necessary implication of the Rules is that Agora CAN transfer a zombie pursuant to a properly initiated Rule 1885 zombie auction. Under Rule 2545 (power=2), “An Auction is a way for entities to give away items in exchange for a currency.” By necessarily implication, if a Rule with high enough power authorizes some player to initiate an auction with a particular item as a lot, then that Rule also necessarily authorizes that player to initiate a process that would “give away [that] item[] in exchange for a currency.” That’s what an auction _is_ under the Rules. Under Rule 1885 (power=2), at the start of the month, “the Registrar CAN put [a] zombie [that meets certain conditions] (along with any other zombies that fulfill the same conditions) up for auction.” By necessary implication, read in conjunction with Rule 2545, that means that a zombie can be transferred pursuant to that auction. Otherwise it wouldn’t be an auction at all—a way of transferring an item for currency. It would be something else entirely. This interpretation is consistent with the best interests of the game and ordinary language. There’s no reason to adopt a contrary interpretation, which would break auctions and zombies.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction
Meant to reply to twg’s comments on the zombie auction CFJ earlier, but got a bit busy this week. A few thoughts for your consideration: > Twg wrote: > > The implication would seem to be that rules can redefine what other rules > mean. This does seem to me to be one reasonable approach to interpreting a code of rules—to interpret a provision in light of provisions in other rules, in a manner that tries to harmonize the rules into a consistent whole. That might feel reasonable to me because it’s a common discursive move in the area of my specialty (law). People from other backgrounds might find it less satisfying or reasonable, though, which could be an example of the sort of diversity of interpretive method that I think can be very cool about Agora. > But if, say, we had a rule saying "All rules begin with the word 'Tangelo'.", > a statement which is manifestly untrue (at least at present), surely that > should not be interpreted as a requirement to play the game _as if_ every > rule began with the word "Tangelo". (Perhaps it could be interpreted as a > redefinition of the word "rule", but then it would need to be at least power > 3, to override rule 2141.) I think the logic is similar. In this hypothetical, i can see several approaches: Maybe the Tangelo Rule would have no effect if it were contradicted by a higher powered rule (e.g., Rule 105, which purports to be the “only mechanism by which rules can be created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become a rule or cease to be a rule”). Absent a contradictory higher powered Rule, I think the Tangelo Rule (1) could invalidate any lower powered Rule that does not begin with Tangelo, on the theory that it wouldn’t actually be a Rule, or (2) alternatively, it could cause us to insert the word “Tangelo” at the beginning of any lower powered Rule, on the theory that the lower powered Rule, qua Rule, must include the word “Tangelo” at the start. And for higher powered Rules, we might either (1) insert “Tangelo” at the start (if that does not affect the functioning of the higher powered rule) or else (2) ignore the Tangelo Rule altogether (because contradicted by higher powered Rules). I suppose we could also just decide that the Tangelo Rule states an untrue fact about the world and therefore has no effect, but that approach seems to me to be in tension with Rule 217: “When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence.” Simply disregarding as factually wrong a high-enough-powered Tangelo Rule, I think, would give precedence to something other than the text of the rules. Maybe.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Well, let's see what happens
Lol, great idea! If all of these proposals pass, then I think any resulting CFJ can have only two possible outcomes: (1) it would read “Tangelo” into the beginning of every rule, or (2) it would somehow maneuver to give the rule no practical effect (basically the same outcome). Otherwise, Rule 991 would cease to be a “rule,” and CFJs themselves would become impossible (a so-called performative contradiction). It would also make enough other rules cease to be “rules” that Agora would become ossified (in violation of a power=4 rule). > On Jan 13, 2019, at 9:03 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > I submit the following three proposals. > > (The automatic repeal clause is in case it does actually end up breaking > something important.) > > -twg > > // > Title: Powerless Tangeloes > Adoption index: 0.1 > Author: twg > > > Enact a new rule "The Tangelo Rule" (Power=0.1) with the following > text: > > Tangelo. All rules begin with the word "Tangelo". This rule > automatically repeals itself 10 days after it is enacted. > > // > Title: Powerful Tangeloes > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: twg > > > If a rule named "The Tangelo Rule" exists, set its Power to 3.0. > > Otherwise, enact a new rule "The Tangelo Rule" (Power=3.0) with the > following text: > > Tangelo. All rules begin with the word "Tangelo". This rule > automatically repeals itself 10 days after it is enacted. > > // > Title: Tangeloes Taking Precedence > Adoption index: 0.1 > Author: twg > > > If a rule named "The Tangelo Rule" exists, amend it by replacing the > text "All rules" with "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, all > rules". > > //
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Declaration of Apathy
Fascinating. In US law, courts sometimes require a "clear statement" that the legislature intended a particular outcome before it will interpret a statute in a particular way. See, e.g., Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) (rejecting a particular interpretation unless congress "mak[es] its intention unmistakably clear in the language of the statute"). I think an obfuscated statement of intent would be "clear" in that sense, as long as the intent is apparent once the obfuscated statement is decoded. That interpretation does not collapse the distinction between "clear" and "unambiguous," I think, because a statement can be unambiguous (having a single sense), but that single sense could be vague or indeterminate (and thus not clear). But I can see legitimate arguments on all sides, I think. On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:04 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Followup after quick rules search: we use "clear" a heck of a lot in the > rules, for things we have varying standards for (and for which standards > have varied over time). It *may* be a pretty weak standard the way we're > currently using it, so maybe that's not a scam-killer. > > 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.' > > > > I don't think anyone was arguing that this attempt wasn't intentionally > > obfuscated - while D Margaux's counterarguments show you can point to > > each required element and say "it's there" (and meets the standard for > > "unambiguous"), the net effect is obfuscation. > > > > So if the "clear" in R1728's "unambiguously and clearly" is going to mean > > anything at all going forward, the judgement should tell us exactly what > > "clear" means - does it include "unobfuscated"? Do we have to amend the > > rule to "super-abundantly clear and we really mean it"? >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Deputy-[Herald] Scroll of Agora
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.” 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). 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. D Margaux > On Sep 15, 2018, at 9:35 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > >> 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.
DIS: Fwd: BUS: left foot in || right foot out
Brilliant. What a beautiful proposal. Here's one possible (and unexpected) way to resolve its effect: Under Rule 2429 (Bleach), we can replace any amount of whitespace with another amount of whitespace (apart from paragraph breaks). By that rule, we can restyle the proposal as set forth below. When restyled in this manner, the first paragraph basically becomes gibberish that is impossible to parse (and therefore has no effect?). Then under the paragraphs that follow, everyone wins the game. Proposal Restyled per Rule 2429 (Bleach) -- In this proposal, any text to the || In this proposal, any text to the right of double pipe marks are || left of double pipe marks are comments with no effect. || comments with no effect. || The following players win the game: || The following players win the game: Corona || Publius Scribonius Scholasticus Cuddle Beam || VJ Rada Trigon || Murphy G. || omd Aris || twg ATMunn || D. Margaux -- -- Forwarded message - From: Kerim Aydin Date: Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 2:46 PM Subject: BUS: left foot in || right foot out To: Agora Business I submit the following Proposal, Left||Right, AI=1, and pend it: -- In this proposal, any text to the || In this proposal, any text to the right of double pipe marks are || left of double pipe marks are comments with no effect.|| comments with no effect. || The following players win the game: || The following players win the game: Corona || Publius Scribonius Scholasticus Cuddle Beam|| VJ Rada Trigon || Murphy G. || omd Aris || twg ATMunn || D. Margaux -- [Comment, not part of proposal: Left v Right was randomly but evenly determined for all active players.]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Finger Points & CFJs
I agree. I could not think of any reasons why it would be FALSE, but just wanted to be sure. On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 7:16 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Sun, 16 Sep 2018, Edward Murphy wrote: > > D Margaux wrote: > > > > > I initiate two CFJs as follows: > > > > > > (1) The Referee CAN act on behalf of eir zombie to Point the > zombie’s > > > Finger at a player. > > > > This is CFJ 3660. I assign it to G. > > This seems like a straightforward TRUE (even if it's another abuse of > zombies, I can't see a prohibition in the Rules). D. Margaux, do you > have any arguments as to why the Referee CANNOT? > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: PTPMFUBGOFTDAODWTVOAWIC
I’m not sure this is actually necessary. If the win is contested, the Prime Minister can still comply with the rule by saying, “I appoint X to be Speaker if and only if e won the game,” and that conditional would be resolved when the CFJ is resolved. On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 5:58 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > I submit and pend the following proposal. > > // > Title: Protect The Prime Minister From Unfairly Being Guilty Of Failing To > Discharge An Official Duty When The Validity Of A Win Is Contested > (PTPMFUBGOFTDAODWTVOAWIC) > Adoption index: 2.0 > Author: twg > Co-authors: D. Margaux > > Amend Rule 103, "The Speaker", by changing the second paragraph to: > The player or players who have most recently been awarded the > Patent Title Champion are called Laureled. If at any time the > office of Speaker is vacant, or when one or more players are > awarded the Patent Title Champion, then the Prime Minister CAN and > and SHALL, once and in a timely fashion, appoint a Laureled player > to the office of Speaker by announcement. > > // > > (I'm not very good at titles. I'm sorry.) > > -twg >
DIS: Re: BUS: Declaration of Apathy
:-D >From Aris: > > And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the value of > N and/or T for each method)". In eir announcement of intent, e refers to > 1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that N=1. > While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 is not the "default" > N for 1728(1) if the words "without objection" are left out. Saying > "if any one objects then I won't" is a stated plan, but it is not > synonymous with nor generally accepted (i.e. "clear") shorthand for N=1. > My response: The intent did clearly and unambiguously set N=1. As a result, the CFJ is TRUE. In particular, as Aris emself acknowledges, my reference to Rule 1728(1) made it clear and unambiguous that I intended to take action under the "without N Objections" method. That is not in dispute. My announcement set N=1 when I said I would not perform the intended action if any one (1) person objected: "if any /one/ objects, then I won't [undertake the stated intent]." That language is clear and unambiguous. It clearly states that the intent would not be executed if I received any one (1) objection. It unambiguously set N=1, because the intent cannot be read to set N equal to any other number besides 1. Aris's reasons do not establish any unclarity or ambiguity about whether N=1. E says that "'if any one objects then I won't' is a stated plan", but it was not a "plan"--it was a clear statement that I would not execute the intent if "one" person objected (thereby setting N=1). Aris does not explain why anyone could be "unclear" about the number of objections required to prevent me from taking the action. And Aris does not claim it is "ambiguous", I think, because e does not offer an interpretation of the intent that would set N equal any number other than 1. In sum, the announcement clearly and unambiguously declared that the stated intent would not be executed if there was one (1) objection, and that is all the Rule requires to set N=1. The CFJ should be judged TRUE. On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:50 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Fun!! > > CFJ, barring D Margaux (and noting to the Arbitor that twg is self- > interested): > > D Margaux has won the game by apathy. > > > Arguments: > > There's strong language in the rules for specifying intent announcements, > and I believe precedents hold that you have to be really really darn > clear about intent announcements: > > R1728: >1. A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the > action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and > method(s) (including the value of N and/or T for each method), > at most fourteen days earlier. > > "Unambiguously and clearly" is a strong standard, and I'm not sure the > announcement in question is "clear". > > And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the value of > N and/or T for each method)". In eir announcement of intent, e refers to > 1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that N=1. > While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 is not the "default" > N for 1728(1) if the words "without objection" are left out. Saying > "if any one objects then I won't" is a stated plan, but it is not > synonymous with nor generally accepted (i.e. "clear") shorthand for N=1. > > > [Not part-of-arguments note: I'm maybe 50/50 on this, a v. nice attempt, > but one way or the other definitely worth a CFJ!] > > > On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote: > > Having heard no objection, I DECLARE APATHY pursuant to Rule 2465, > > specifying all players currently located at (-2, 2), in particular, myself > > and twg. > > > > In celebration thereof, > > > > I give one incense to Agora, as an offering to the Gods of the Game, > > and > > > > I give one incense to twg, in gratitude to em for not raining on this > > parade. > > > > -D Margaux > > > > -- Forwarded message - > > From: D Margaux > > Date: Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 3:09 PM > > Subject: Fair Warning re Blots/Reports/Etc. > > To: Agora Business > > > > > > The enforcement of late reports has been lax in recent weeks, so it seems > > only fair to warn everyone--I plan to issue 2 blot unforgiveable fines this > > upcoming Thursday for any weekly/monthly reports that are due today and are > > not submitted by end of day on this upcoming Wednesday. If there are more > > than 3 such late rep
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Declaration of Apathy
Arg! Sorry :-) On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 4:39 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Point of order: You are replying to G., not to Aris. > > I favour the CFJ initiated by G. earlier in this thread and intend to > assign it to myself Without 3 Objections, just in case anyone isn't paying > attention... > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 8:27 PM, D Margaux > wrote: > > > :-D > > > > From Aris: > > > > > And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the value > of > > > N and/or T for each method)". In eir announcement of intent, e refers > to > > > 1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that N=1. > > > While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 is not the "default" > > > N for 1728(1) if the words "without objection" are left out. Saying > > > "if any one objects then I won't" is a stated plan, but it is not > > > synonymous with nor generally accepted (i.e. "clear") shorthand for > N=1. > > > > My response: > > > > The intent did clearly and unambiguously set N=1. As a result, the CFJ > is TRUE. > > > > In particular, as Aris emself acknowledges, my reference to Rule > > 1728(1) made it clear and unambiguous that I intended to take action > > under the "without N Objections" method. That is not in dispute. > > > > My announcement set N=1 when I said I would not perform the intended > > action if any one (1) person objected: "if any /one/ objects, then I > > won't [undertake the stated intent]." That language is clear and > > unambiguous. It clearly states that the intent would not be executed > > if I received any one (1) objection. It unambiguously set N=1, > > because the intent cannot be read to set N equal to any other number > > besides 1. > > > > Aris's reasons do not establish any unclarity or ambiguity about > > whether N=1. E says that "'if any one objects then I won't' is a > > stated plan", but it was not a "plan"--it was a clear statement that I > > would not execute the intent if "one" person objected (thereby setting > > N=1). Aris does not explain why anyone could be "unclear" about the > > number of objections required to prevent me from taking the action. > > And Aris does not claim it is "ambiguous", I think, because e does not > > offer an interpretation of the intent that would set N equal any > > number other than 1. > > > > In sum, the announcement clearly and unambiguously declared that the > > stated intent would not be executed if there was one (1) objection, > > and that is all the Rule requires to set N=1. The CFJ should be > > judged TRUE. > > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:50 PM Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu > wrote: > > > > > Fun!! > > > CFJ, barring D Margaux (and noting to the Arbitor that twg is self- > > > interested): > > > > > > D Margaux has won the game by apathy. > > > > > > > > > Arguments: > > > There's strong language in the rules for specifying intent > announcements, > > > and I believe precedents hold that you have to be really really darn > > > clear about intent announcements: > > > R1728: > > > 1. A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the > > > action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and > > > method(s) (including the value of N and/or T for each method), > > > at most fourteen days earlier. > > > "Unambiguously and clearly" is a strong standard, and I'm not sure the > > > announcement in question is "clear". > > > And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the value > of > > > N and/or T for each method)". In eir announcement of intent, e refers > to > > > 1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that N=1. > > > While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 is not the "default" > > > N for 1728(1) if the words "without objection" are left out. Saying > > > "if any one objects then I won't" is a stated plan, but it is not > > > synonymous with nor generally accepted (i.e. "clear") shorthand for > N=1. > > > [Not part-of-arguments note: I'm maybe 50/50 on this, a v. nice > attempt, > > > but one way or the other definitely worth a CFJ!] > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Declaration of Apathy
>>> For what it's worth, I think the only potential reason this could fail is that it doesn't actually use the word "intend” I think “plan” is sufficiently synonymous with “intend”, especially because I expressly invoked the “method” of Rule 1728(1) (that is, the without-objection-intent method). >>> This is clever enough that I want to allow it regardless, though. Thanks! :-D On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 7:46 PM Alex Smith wrote: > On Thu, 2018-09-13 at 13:42 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I'm G., not Aris (I should remember to sign things, sorry!) :) > > > > I'll add that this covers two very different "good of the game" sort of > > questions for the judge to consider: > > > > 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. > > > > 2. The Nomic Tradition: It's a game, and this was clever, and did > > specify everything (in an obfuscated way). > > > > I'm not sure what side to err on here, but thought it worth pointing out > > the tension (which is why I'm 50/50 personally). > > It's also worth pointing out that we're getting lax. A message such as > that would likely have drawn an "I object" simply out of general > principles if it were made a few years ago. Perhaps this atmosphere of > general paranoia is something that it'd be useful to restore, just in > case considerably worse scams than this come along. (It's also good to > see the "scam lightning rod" effect of Apathy working; part of its > reason for existence was the hope that people who found a viable scam > against dependent actions would simply use it for the Apathy win rather > than something that could do rather more damage than that.) > > For what it's worth, I think the only potential reason this could fail > is that it doesn't actually use the word "intend", which may have been > defined away from its normal English meaning at some point. (We have > history of allowing "I intend to do X" even in situations where the > rules require players to tell the truth, and the player doesn't > actually have a natural-language intention to do X, on the basis that > that's a speech action rather than a statement of plans. However, that > may have been based on a good-of-the-game argument that "sometimes you > need to leave floating intents around to, e.g., guard against scams".) > > This is clever enough that I want to allow it regardless, though. > > -- > ais523 >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Declaration of Apathy
Very sorry for misnaming you, G. :-) Further responses: >>> I wrote it but initially edited out - it's "reasonably" clear, but there are other (1)'s in 1728, and I'm also writing after the fact (when Without Objection has been mentioned), so it may not be "unambiguously" clear. The announcement of intent stated that I planned to take an action using the “method” in R1728(1). There is only one paragraph numbered (1) in Rule 1728 that specifies a method for taking an action—the “without N objections” method. It clearly and unambiguously could not mean any other paragraph, because no other paragraph 1 specifies any relevant method. And it is even /more/ clear and unambiguous when we take account of the fact that the intent says it will be executed unless there’s “any one” objection. So, in my view, there is no ambiguity here at all (and I think you aren’t saying you necessarily think there is). >>> I agree, [that the intent] was a clear statement that you *would* not [take the action if there were an objection], but it isn't a clear statement that you *could* not, which is what "without objection" legally needs to imply. The Rule itself does not make that distinction though. Under the Rule, this sentence is obviously OK: “I will take [an action] without 1 objection.” That doesn’t say the person “could not” take that action if an objection is registered; instead it implies that the person “will not” take it. The Rule does not require someone to say that they “CANNOT take the action with 1 objection”, but only requires that a person clearly and unambiguously specify the number of objections that they set N equal to. I submit that I did that clearly and unambiguously. > parliamentary vs. nomic traditions Seems to me that the stated intent is well within the spirit of the game. The rules could, but do not, specify a particular formulation of words to state a “without objection” intent. That seems to me to be a loophole that should be exploited in accordance with the spirit of nomic. Fun! :-D On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 4:44 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I'm G., not Aris (I should remember to sign things, sorry!) :) > > I'll add that this covers two very different "good of the game" sort of > questions for the judge to consider: > > 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. > > 2. The Nomic Tradition: It's a game, and this was clever, and did > specify everything (in an obfuscated way). > > I'm not sure what side to err on here, but thought it worth pointing out > the tension (which is why I'm 50/50 personally). > > Some detail responses: > > In particular, as Aris [sic] emself acknowledges, my reference to Rule > > 1728(1) made it clear and unambiguous that I intended to take action > > under the "without N Objections" method. That is not in dispute. > > I wrote it but initially edited out - it's "reasonably" clear, but > there are other (1)'s in 1728, and I'm also writing after the fact > (when Without Objection has been mentioned), so it may not be > "unambiguously" clear. > > > it was a clear statement that I would not execute the intent if "one" > > person objected > > I agree, it was a clear statement that you *would* not, but it isn't a > clear statement that you *could* not, which is what "without objection" > legally needs to imply. > > -G. > > > On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote: > > > :-D > > > > From Aris: > > > > > > > > And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the value > of > > > N and/or T for each method)". In eir announcement of intent, e refers > to > > > 1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that N=1. > > > While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 is not the "default" > > > N for 1728(1) if the words "without objection" are left out. Saying > > > "if any one objects then I won't" is a stated plan, but it is not > > > synonymous with nor generally accepted (i.e. "clear") shorthand for > N=1. > > > > > > > My response: > > > > The intent did clearly and unambi
DIS: Re: BUS: Finger Points & CFJs
For what it’s worth, Corona is an interested party in that CFJ—e was one of the players that was fined and the CFJ question is whether that fine against Corona is effective. On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 6:41 PM Edward Murphy wrote: > D Margaux wrote: > > > I initiate two CFJs as follows: > > > > (1) The Referee CAN act on behalf of eir zombie to Point the > zombie’s > > Finger at a player. > > This is CFJ 3660. I assign it to G. > > > (2) The fines attempted to be imposed in this message are > EFFECTIVE. > > This is CFJ 3661. I assign it to Corona. > > >
Re: DIS: Fwd: BUS: left foot in || right foot out
One way to make it more airtight is to define variables for each string, and then have the proposal execute them. On further consideration, I think the whitespace/bleach solution has a flaw. The rule says that whitespace “generally” doesn’t matter. This situation is one where that “general” rule probably doesn’t apply. On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:51 AM Cuddle Beam wrote: > I love the proposal, I just I dislike the ambiguity because it might defuse > it and then there's no fun lol > > I like the whitespace angle too, it opens the doors to another style of > "paradox" (and scam, quite likely). > > Maybe we could figure out a way to make L||R more watertight and resubmit > it. > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 2:44 AM Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Alex Smith wrote: > > > This may actually suggest a general principle for avoiding ambiguities > > > like this one: as the formatting of text is irrelevant, an attempt to > > > specify something in a way that doesn't have a clear "start-to-finish" > > > order is failing to uniquely specify the text in question, and thus is > > > too ambiguous to work. > > > > First, non-"start-to-finish" text has been allowed to have effects > > before: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1267 > > > > But here's the new bit! The following text that was added to R106 in > > July this year: > > > > > Clearly marked comments are considered > > > to be removed from the proposal before it takes effect, unless > > > otherwise stated by the proposal. > > > > (at least that's the text I was trying to get at, D. Margaux's Bleach > > argument is a clever alternative). > > > > The thing is, marking comments often relies on textual formatting, at > > least for end-of-line comments (not so much for parenthetical comments, > > perhaps). So what does the "marking" in "clearly marking" mean? Can > > we use formatting clues? (formatting clues *do* "mark" things). And > > if a comment marks itself as a comment (but it is otherwise "considered > > removed") it might still count as a comment "before" it is removed. > > > > Ignoring the rest of the rules and focusing on this clause, I could > > imagine at least four outcomes: > > > > 1. The comments are ambiguous, therefore not "clearly marked", > > therefore nothing in the proposal is removed, and there's enough > > textual clarity (e.g. the marks demonstrated intended readings) in > > both halves that both halves are effective. > > > > 2. As #1, but you're forced to read L to R which leads to > > ineffective nonsense. > > > > 3. The comments mark each other, and then are considered removed, > > so the whole thing is a big comment and does nothing. > > > > 4. Similar to CFJ 1267, we decide that one portion is "naturally in > > front" of the other (probably the left portion, given CFJs 3534-3535) > > and that portion succeeds in removing the other portion as a comment. > > > > > > > > > -- D. Margaux
Re: DIS: Fwd: BUS: left foot in || right foot out
For example, this protoproposal would resolve the bleach issue: 1. For the purposes of paragraph 2 of this proposal, let the following terms have the following definitions: “Execute X” means to insert into the proposal the value of X, where X is a text variable with a value set in this proposal. “L” is a text variable with the following value: “All text to the right of the double pipe marks is a comment. The following players win the game: [names].” “R” is a text variable with the following value: “All text to the left of the double pipe marks and to the right of the paragraph number is a comment. The following players win the game: [names].” “double pipe marks” is the name given to two back-to-back instances of the symbol “|”. 2. Execute L || Execute R On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 8:32 AM D Margaux wrote: > One way to make it more airtight is to define variables for each string, > and then have the proposal execute them. > > On further consideration, I think the whitespace/bleach solution has a > flaw. The rule says that whitespace “generally” doesn’t matter. This > situation is one where that “general” rule probably doesn’t apply. > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 4:51 AM Cuddle Beam wrote: > >> I love the proposal, I just I dislike the ambiguity because it might >> defuse >> it and then there's no fun lol >> >> I like the whitespace angle too, it opens the doors to another style of >> "paradox" (and scam, quite likely). >> >> Maybe we could figure out a way to make L||R more watertight and resubmit >> it. >> >> On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 2:44 AM Kerim Aydin >> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Alex Smith wrote: >> > > This may actually suggest a general principle for avoiding ambiguities >> > > like this one: as the formatting of text is irrelevant, an attempt to >> > > specify something in a way that doesn't have a clear "start-to-finish" >> > > order is failing to uniquely specify the text in question, and thus is >> > > too ambiguous to work. >> > >> > First, non-"start-to-finish" text has been allowed to have effects >> > before: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1267 >> > >> > But here's the new bit! The following text that was added to R106 in >> > July this year: >> > >> > > Clearly marked comments are considered >> > > to be removed from the proposal before it takes effect, unless >> > > otherwise stated by the proposal. >> > >> > (at least that's the text I was trying to get at, D. Margaux's Bleach >> > argument is a clever alternative). >> > >> > The thing is, marking comments often relies on textual formatting, at >> > least for end-of-line comments (not so much for parenthetical comments, >> > perhaps). So what does the "marking" in "clearly marking" mean? Can >> > we use formatting clues? (formatting clues *do* "mark" things). And >> > if a comment marks itself as a comment (but it is otherwise "considered >> > removed") it might still count as a comment "before" it is removed. >> > >> > Ignoring the rest of the rules and focusing on this clause, I could >> > imagine at least four outcomes: >> > >> > 1. The comments are ambiguous, therefore not "clearly marked", >> > therefore nothing in the proposal is removed, and there's enough >> > textual clarity (e.g. the marks demonstrated intended readings) in >> > both halves that both halves are effective. >> > >> > 2. As #1, but you're forced to read L to R which leads to >> > ineffective nonsense. >> > >> > 3. The comments mark each other, and then are considered removed, >> > so the whole thing is a big comment and does nothing. >> > >> > 4. Similar to CFJ 1267, we decide that one portion is "naturally in >> > front" of the other (probably the left portion, given CFJs 3534-3535) >> > and that portion succeeds in removing the other portion as a comment. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- > D. Margaux > -- D. Margaux
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy
No, nothing specifically in mind about that. That’s just how my phone renders quote marks for some reason. On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 7:19 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > Now that this has been defused: D. Margaux, did you have anything in mind > about curved vs. straight quotes in mind with this? i.e., "I’m apathetic" > working where "I'm apathetic" would not? > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 6:20 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey > wrote: > > > Very clever. I'm sure one of the long-timers will object to it just on > principle, but I’m apathetic, at least! :) > > > > (NB This is not Faking: I am actually extremely tired and lacking in > motivation this evening.) > > > > -twg > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Thursday, December 6, 2018 3:13 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > Things have been pretty quiet this week. Some might say apathetic. > > > I intend without objection to declare apathy specifying all players > who, between now and the time of declaration, have sent a public message > that includes the phrase, “I’m apathetic.” > > > I’m apathetic. > > > -- D. Margaux
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Scam Part 2
> On Jan 20, 2019, at 7:25 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > It’s definitely 1,000,000,000 actions, according to CFJ 3597, but > I think that CFJ may also suggest that we can only levy one fine (I’m not > sure about that though). I admit that I don’t fully understand this CFJ decision. However, aren’t there CFJs that say, essentially, that a player cannot use a shorthand “I perform an action X times,” when X is a number large enough that the player couldn’t reasonably spell out all of those actions separately in the message? If I am remembering that right, and if the creation of each unit of influence is a separate action, then perhaps the attempt create 1,000,000,000 units of influence failed under that reasoning. > In any case, I think it's clear that e must be given the maximum possible > sentence. After all "The fine SHOULD be increased to the degree that the > violation is willful, profitable, egregious, or an abuse of an official > position.", and this is all of the above. This is probably true. And there is some poetic justice and comedy value in the idea of imposing a billion blot fine. Starting to regret finding this exploit!
Re: DIS: ~still alive~
Space went over well, but twg has been busy so there hasn’t been an astronomor for a while. The Ritual proposal also passed, but it hasn’t really been the source of much activity yet. Overall, not much new has happened recently because a lot of people have stopped actively playing. But maybe you can shake things up a little! > On May 17, 2019, at 9:54 AM, ATMunn wrote: > > I just recently finished school, so I thought I'd come back to Agora. Dunno > how active I'll be, but we'll see. It seems like my space idea has gone over > fairly well though. Anything else noteworthy since I was last playing? > (There's no way I'm going to go read through the 1000+ messages lol)
DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
It may be worthwhile to wait a couple days. If the reports self-ratify without
any claim of error, then the information therein will be retroactively
accurate... I think?
> On May 25, 2019, at 9:31 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> I accept. I'll have to read up on the relevant rules, and I don't have
> the time at the moment. That said, this case is pretty simple, so I'll
> probably have a verdict in the next day or two.
>
> -The Arbitor
>
>> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 3:54 PM D. Margaux wrote:
>>
>> If the H. Arbitor agrees, then I authorize the holder of the Office of
>> Arbitor to act on my behalf to investigate and conclude the investigation
>> of the finger pointed against me in the message quoted below, and for no
>> other purpose.
>>
>>> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 6:02 PM omd wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 3:20 AM D. Margaux wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The below reports are false. The reason for ratifying them is because
>>> the games are defunct and because it’s too hard to figure out what the
>>> gamestate of either of them is.
>>>>
>>>> I deputise for Astronomor to publish this report: {there are no entities
>>> in existence for which the Astronomor is the recordkeepor other than those
>>> created directly by the Rules. All switches for which the Astronomor is
>>> recordkeepor have their default value.}
>>>>
>>>> I deputise for Clork to publish this report: {there are no entities in
>>> existence for which the Clork is the recordkeepor other than those directly
>>> created by the Rules. All switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have
>>> their default value.}
>>>
>>> I Point my Finger at D. Margaux for violating rule 2143 by publishing
>>> information that is inaccurate within two documents purporting to be
>>> two offices' weekly reports. (The documents don't explicitly purport
>>> to be *weekly* reports, but this can be reasonably inferred from the
>>> attempt to deputise to publish them.)
>>>
>> --
>> D. Margaux
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
I was concerned that ratification without objection might inadvertently
break something outside of those subgames. In contrast, issuing blank Clork
and Astronomor reports would not risk causing something to break outside
those games. It would be self-contained.
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 5:12 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don’t know what the implication of that is for the sentencing, but I
> don’t think I’m going to wait. I’d prefer to resolve it now and avoid the
> ambiguity.
>
> Why did you use self-ratification, rather than something else like
> ratification without objection?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 2:09 PM D. Margaux wrote:
>
> > It may be worthwhile to wait a couple days. If the reports self-ratify
> > without any claim of error, then the information therein will be
> > retroactively accurate... I think?
> >
> > > On May 25, 2019, at 9:31 PM, Aris Merchant <
> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I accept. I'll have to read up on the relevant rules, and I don't have
> > > the time at the moment. That said, this case is pretty simple, so I'll
> > > probably have a verdict in the next day or two.
> > >
> > > -The Arbitor
> > >
> > >> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 3:54 PM D. Margaux
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> If the H. Arbitor agrees, then I authorize the holder of the Office of
> > >> Arbitor to act on my behalf to investigate and conclude the
> > investigation
> > >> of the finger pointed against me in the message quoted below, and for
> no
> > >> other purpose.
> > >>
> > >>> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 6:02 PM omd wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 3:20 AM D. Margaux
> > wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The below reports are false. The reason for ratifying them is
> because
> > >>> the games are defunct and because it’s too hard to figure out what
> the
> > >>> gamestate of either of them is.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I deputise for Astronomor to publish this report: {there are no
> > entities
> > >>> in existence for which the Astronomor is the recordkeepor other than
> > those
> > >>> created directly by the Rules. All switches for which the Astronomor
> is
> > >>> recordkeepor have their default value.}
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I deputise for Clork to publish this report: {there are no entities
> in
> > >>> existence for which the Clork is the recordkeepor other than those
> > directly
> > >>> created by the Rules. All switches for which the Clork is
> recordkeepor
> > have
> > >>> their default value.}
> > >>>
> > >>> I Point my Finger at D. Margaux for violating rule 2143 by publishing
> > >>> information that is inaccurate within two documents purporting to be
> > >>> two offices' weekly reports. (The documents don't explicitly purport
> > >>> to be *weekly* reports, but this can be reasonably inferred from the
> > >>> attempt to deputise to publish them.)
> > >>>
> > >> --
> > >> D. Margaux
> >
>
--
D. Margaux
DIS: Re: BUS: Wait, what? How many of these clauses are there?
I think the statement in the proposal is paradoxical, and therefore the CFJ is perhaps FALSE (because the statement in the proposal is not necessarily false?). On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 9:30 PM omd wrote: > I pledge not to create any proposals containing false statements for > the next week. > > I CFJ on the statement: "It would be LEGAL for me to create a proposal > with text 'omd violated Rule 2450 by creating this proposal' and no > optional attributes." > -- D. Margaux
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
> On May 26, 2019, at 5:37 PM, omd wrote: > > Ratification changes the gamestate to what it would be if the report > had been accurate... but it doesn't *literally* make it retroactively > accurate, so it doesn't change whether there was a rule violation. Why not? Part of the gamestate is the fact that a violation was (or wasn’t) committed by publishing the report. After ratification, the gamestate is changed to what it would have been if the report were as true and accurate as possible. That means that the gamestate also changes whether a violation was committed—because that’s part of the gamestate itself. To put it another way, blot holdings are part of the gamestate too. It would be INEFFECTIVE to punish me with any blots if the reports were true and accurate at the time they were published. Upon ratification the gamestate is changed to what it would be if the reports were as true and accurate as possible (which is 100% true and accurate). That means that the game state is changed to make any blot levying INEFFECTIVE.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
> On May 26, 2019, at 8:51 PM, omd wrote:
>
> I searched the archives a bit, and the situation seems to be more
> complex than I remembered.
>
> In CFJ 3337, G. ruled that statements about the past *could* be
> ratified, but that it wasn't in that particular case because the scope
> of what was actually ratified was limited by self-ratification:
>
>> I agree with scshunt that history CAN be subject to ratification, but
>> *not* that it is subject to self-ratification. That is, the self-
>> ratification of a report fact ("as of this date, scshunt was a player")
>> does not ratify the state of play the instant before that report was
>> made. In particular, R2139 explicitly only governs the set of players
>> at a particular instant (the instant of the report), and R2138 only
>> governs the older of each office at a particular instant. The strict
>> wording of *exactly* what is self-ratified (state) precludes any
>> ratification of when or how that state came to be, historically.
>>
>> An explicit ratification process could do so, by (e.g. without
>> objection) ratifying that the statement in question was true at an
>> earlier date from the report.
>
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3337
>
> ...However, in retrospect, I'm not sure that judgement actually makes
> sense. Rule 1551 states (and stated at the time):
>
> When a public document is ratified, rules to the contrary
> notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified to what it would be if,
> at the time the ratified document was published, the gamestate had
> been minimally modified to make the ratified document as true and
> accurate as possible; [...]
>
> The self-ratifying statements were about the current state at the time
> they were published, but when they were ratified, the gamestate was
> set to "what it would be" if publishing them had changed things to
> make them true. If the gamestate includes the past, "what it would
> be" necessarily includes the fact that they were true when they were
> published (or at least immediately afterward).
>
> Not sure what to take away from that. I don't see any more recent
> CFJs about the issue.
I think G.’s judgement in that CFJ is correct (if I understand it right).
G.’s decision says that when a report self-ratifies, it does not change
anything about the gamestate immediately prior to the publication of the
report. That makes sense to me. However, self-ratification CAN retroactively
change the EFFECTIVENESS of actions taken during the time between the report’s
publication and its later self-ratification—I think that is consistent with
G.’s decision.
It is also demonstrated by the failure of my recent attempted PARADOX scam.
I had a PARADOX scam that hinged on an ambiguity about who the Prime Minister
was—me or ATMunn. If intents remained broken then it was one of us; if intents
were retroactively fixed then it was the other one of us. I tried to create a
PARADOX by using the Manifesto power to distribute a proposal that would fix
intents retroactively. Trying to resolve that Agoran decision would create an
infinite loop where the identity of the PM would cycle around and the
EFFECTIVENESS of the distribution-by-Manifesto cycled too.
It was foiled by the retroactive effect of a self-ratified ADoP report.
At the time I issued the attempted Manifesto, the ADoP report had been
published but had NOT self-ratified. If I had CoE’d it before ratification,
then the identity of the PM would be ambiguous and so the Manifesto attempt
would have had ambiguous EFFECTIVENESS. But I missed the ADoP report and it
later self ratified—causing the Manifesto attempt to be unambiguously
INEFFECTIVE. Which was very, very frustrating.
The facts are recounted in detail in CFJs 3722, 3723, 3724, and 3725.
I think that conclusively shows that the attempted blot levy was INEFFECTIVE.
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
I favour this CFJ
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:49 AM Rebecca wrote:
> This is an interesting case. Although I believe that the best reading of
> the rule holds all players liable, I call for judgement on the following
> question, barring Aris
> {If no player activates Rule 2596 'The Ritual' in a certain week, all
> players playing the game that week have violated the rule, which provides
> that (1) "Any player CAN perform The Ritual" and (2) "The Ritual MUST be
> performed at least once in every Agoran week."} I suspect that the text is
> not clear and therefore the four-part test must be applied. I believe it is
> in the best interest of the game to impose criminal liability for the
> violation of the Rules as much as possible. I also believe that it is
> perfectly reasonable as a matter of text to impose criminal liability on
> "any player" who by failing to act in "performing the ritual" (despite
> being able to do so) leads to a violation of the command that "the ritual
> must be performed".
>
> I note that we don't apply American law here, just like we don't apply
> Klingon law, unless it is specifically stated in the rules. Although
> American law principles may be applied as a part of the four part test,
> American law is of course occasionally atextual common law (or atextual
> statutory interpretation). Agora specifically provides that the text
> controls, precluding a test of "wrongness" in deciding whether something is
> a criminal violation in the first place, appearing nowhere in the text..
>
> I call this CFJ because whatever the final decision of the Referee, it will
> be contested.
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 2:34 PM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This would be true if failing to perform The Ritual was itself harmful
> > (malum in se). However, it is wrong only because the rules say so (malum
> > prohibitum), and I see no reason why we should extent their prohibition
> > farther than they explicitly do so. It is also a principle of American
> > criminal law that if the statue is ambiguous it may be void for
> vagueness,
> > so this law, which doesn’t make it clear who is responsible, should be
> too
> > vague to impose a criminal penalty.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:20 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jun 3, 2019, at 11:47 PM, Aris Merchant <
> > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Under the present conditions,
> > > > however, each player can quite reasonably claim that someone else
> > should
> > > > have performed The Ritual, and that it wasn’t *their* fault that it
> > > wasn’t
> > > > performed. Unless the rule explicitly states that the responsibility
> > > falls
> > > > on each player jointly and severally (i.e. it’s each player’s
> > > > responsibility to see that The Ritual is performed), there is no way
> to
> > > > prove from the text of the rules involved that this should be the
> case.
> > >
> > > I am delighted that you raised the idea of joint and several liability!
> > > That analogy occurred to me too; I didn’t mention it in my proto
> because
> > > it’s not a rules based concept. But it did perhaps influence my
> thinking
> > > somewhat.
> > >
> > > This Ritual stuff seems interestingly analogous to a specific situation
> > in
> > > which American law generally *does* recognize joint and several
> > liability:
> > > it is the situation where multiple careless or bad actors, each acting
> > > independently of one another, are each an independent legal cause of
> the
> > > entire harm that is suffered by the wronged party. For example, imagine
> > > that an elderly person walking on a sidewalk is carelessly bumped into
> > the
> > > road by a distracted pedestrian, and that the elderly person is then
> > struck
> > > by a speeding and reckless drunk driver, and e suffers very serious
> > > injuries. The distracted pedestrian and the drunk driver each were
> legal
> > > causes the entire harm—if either of them had been acting with due care,
> > > then the elderly person would not have been struck by the car. And the
> > > harm to the elderly person cannot be apportioned in any principled way
> as
> > > between the two wrongful actors. So American tort law holds them both
> > > jointly and severally liable, even though each of them individually
> would
> >
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
From the beginning, this issue was always going to become a CFJ. I’m not an
interested party in the outcome, in the sense that the decision doesn’t give me
any particular benefit in the game. And the caller of the CFJ isn’t appealing
my reasoning, but instead agrees with it.
I did give my tentative views on the subject, but I pledge to re-evaluate the
issue in good faith in light of the arguments that have been raised if I am
assigned this CFJ. I don’t have any commitment to any particular result,
except that I thought it was the correctly reasoned one, but I remain open to
being persuaded otherwise. (That’s partly why I labeled my prior email a
proto, rather than an actual decision on the pointed finger.)
> On Jun 4, 2019, at 12:56 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
>
> I’m not sure how I feel about assigning you an appeal against your own
> reasoning. I generally intend to respect the favoring of cases, but I'm not
> sure that it's appropriate in this instance.
>
> -Aris
>
>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:45 AM D. Margaux wrote:
>>
>> I favour this CFJ
>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:49 AM Rebecca wrote:
>>>
>>> This is an interesting case. Although I believe that the best reading of
>>> the rule holds all players liable, I call for judgement on the following
>>> question, barring Aris
>>> {If no player activates Rule 2596 'The Ritual' in a certain week, all
>>> players playing the game that week have violated the rule, which provides
>>> that (1) "Any player CAN perform The Ritual" and (2) "The Ritual MUST be
>>> performed at least once in every Agoran week."} I suspect that the text
>> is
>>> not clear and therefore the four-part test must be applied. I believe it
>> is
>>> in the best interest of the game to impose criminal liability for the
>>> violation of the Rules as much as possible. I also believe that it is
>>> perfectly reasonable as a matter of text to impose criminal liability on
>>> "any player" who by failing to act in "performing the ritual" (despite
>>> being able to do so) leads to a violation of the command that "the ritual
>>> must be performed".
>>>
>>> I note that we don't apply American law here, just like we don't apply
>>> Klingon law, unless it is specifically stated in the rules. Although
>>> American law principles may be applied as a part of the four part test,
>>> American law is of course occasionally atextual common law (or atextual
>>> statutory interpretation). Agora specifically provides that the text
>>> controls, precluding a test of "wrongness" in deciding whether something
>> is
>>> a criminal violation in the first place, appearing nowhere in the text..
>>>
>>> I call this CFJ because whatever the final decision of the Referee, it
>> will
>>> be contested.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 2:34 PM Aris Merchant <
>>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This would be true if failing to perform The Ritual was itself harmful
>>>> (malum in se). However, it is wrong only because the rules say so
>> (malum
>>>> prohibitum), and I see no reason why we should extent their prohibition
>>>> farther than they explicitly do so. It is also a principle of American
>>>> criminal law that if the statue is ambiguous it may be void for
>>> vagueness,
>>>> so this law, which doesn’t make it clear who is responsible, should be
>>> too
>>>> vague to impose a criminal penalty.
>>>>
>>>> -Aris
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:20 PM D. Margaux
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 3, 2019, at 11:47 PM, Aris Merchant <
>>>>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Under the present conditions,
>>>>>> however, each player can quite reasonably claim that someone else
>>>> should
>>>>>> have performed The Ritual, and that it wasn’t *their* fault that it
>>>>> wasn’t
>>>>>> performed. Unless the rule explicitly states that the
>> responsibility
>>>>> falls
>>>>>> on each player jointly and severally (i.e. it’s each player’s
>>>>>> responsibility to see that The Ritual is performed), there is no
>> way
>>> to
>>>>>> prove from the text of the rules involved that this shoul
DIS: Let’s Get Serious
A proto-proposal offered to shake things up a little. I’ve been curious about how Agora would operate under different rules of interpretation. Title: Let’s Get Serious AI: 3 Author: D. Margaux Co-Author(s): A. Amend Rule 217 as follows: 1. Delete the following text from Rule 217: “Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined concepts is false does not constitute proof that it is true.” 2. Insert the following text at the end of the first paragraph of 217: “Because Agora is a Very Serious Game, Agorans MUST whenever reasonably possible interpret and apply each Rule in a manner that does not yield absurd results. The previous sentence notwithstanding, when interpreting and applying any Rule that is Ridiculous, the definitions and prescriptions in that Rule are to be applied only using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, any absurdity that can be concluded from the assumption that a particular interpretation or application of a Ridiculous Rule is true does not constitute proof that that interpretation or application is false.” 3. Insert the following text as a new paragraph at the end of Rule 217: “A Rule is Ridiculous if it is designated Ridiculous by its own text or by a Rule of equal or higher power to that Rule. This Rule is Ridiculous.” B. Create a new power 3 Rule entitled “Absurdity Safety Valve” with the following text: “No earlier than 1 July 2019, any player CAN on 7 days notice and without 2 objections cause the text of Rule 217 to revert to what it was on 1 June 2019. No earlier than 1 August 2019, any player CAN with 7 days’ notice cause this Rule to repeal itself. This Rule is Ridiculous.”
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal 8177
I’m finding this discussion so very confusing; I’m sure I’m missing something obvious. To me, the important point is that, by default, ratification changes the gamestate so that the ratified document is as true and accurate as possible on the day of PUBLISHING, not the day of RATIFICATION. That means that there can be retroactive changes to the PRACTICAL effect of certain actions taken in between publication and ratification. For example, an action might be EFFECTIVE under the pre-ratification gamestate, but the post-ratification gamestate might go forward AS IF that action had been INEFFECTIVE. We could ask, is that action “EFFECTIVE” or “INEFFECTIVE”? I guess that question is ambiguous, and so should be DISMISSED as a CFJ. Ultimately I think we maybe all agree on the practical consequences under most situations—though there may be special cases, e.g., how we interpret the restriction that CANNOT change the rule set (as omd pointed out). To test whether we agree in practice, let’s imagine this timeline: Day 0 - All players have 0 blots. The Promotor distributes Proposal 1000, which has AI=10 and would change a Rule. Day 2 - Referee publishes a report stating . Day 3 - Referee attempts to exile Fugitive. Referee casts a contingent vote on Proposal 1000: Fugitive and Blotted attempt to cast ballots AGAINST Proposal 1000. Day 7 - Close of the voting period for Proposal 1000. Day 9 - The Referee report self-ratifies without any CoE. Day 10 - The Assessor resolves Proposal 1000. *** Here are the hypotheticals and my answers: 1) Is Fugitive in exile on Day 10? — Yes. Upon ratification of the Referee’s report on Day 9, the gamestate is changed to what it would have been if Fugitive has 100 blots on Day 2. Under that hypothetical gamestate, Referee’s attempted exile would be EFFECTIVE. Therefore, Fugitive is in exile on Day 10. 2) At the time of assessment on Day 10, does Hapless have any voting strength on Proposal 1000? — No. Upon ratification of the Referee’s report on Day 9, the gamestate is changed to what it would have been if Hapless had 100 blots on Day 2. Under that hypothetical gamestate, Hapless would have 100 blots at all times after on Day 2, and that means 0 voting strength when assessed on Day 10. (Incidentally, are the rules clear about when voting strength is determined? At the time of end of voting period or time of assessment?) — The ratification still changes the voting strength even though that affects the outcome of Proposal 1000. Rule 1551 says that ratification generally CANNOT “include rule changes,” but the ratification here did not directly change any rule or “include any rule changes.” Instead, it changed a player’s voting strength on an Agoran decision. The Assessor’s resolution of Proposal 1000 is what does or doesn’t change the rule, not ratification itself. That has to be true, otherwise the Assessor wouldn’t be able to count on Referee reports as reflecting accurate blot totals, and there could be divergent blot counts for assessment purposes! 3) Should the Assessor count Referee’s vote as FOR or AGAINST? — FOR. Upon ratification of the Referee’s report on Day 9, the gamestate is changed to what it would have been if Hapless had 100 blots on Day 2. Under that hypothetical gamestate, Referee’s ballot would have resolved to FOR. When the Assessor resolves Proposal 1000, e should use that hypothetical gamestate. 4) What would happen if the Assessor resolved Proposal 1000 before ratification? —If resolved prior to ratification, Proposal 1000 would be REJECTED, with Fugitive, Hapless, and Referee all casting votes AGAINST with 3 strength. BUT after Day 9, the Assessor should change the result to ADOPTED if there is a CoE. >>> On May 28, 2019, at 8:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:26 PM omd wrote: >>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 7:05 AM D Margaux wrote: >>> Additionally, I do not think the conditional vote “required the report >>> ratification to go through before the voting period ended”; did it? If the >>> empty reports self-ratify tomorrow, wouldn’t your vote still resolve to >>> FOR? That is because, upon self-ratification, the Clork and Astronomor >>> switches would revert to their default values at the time of the report >>> publication, which would be before the end of the voting period. >>> >>> So I could have waited until report self-ratification and assessed the >>> votes the same way on Wednesday (but didn’t have to because of my >>> ratification without objection). >> >> That's another case that depends on whether ratification creates a >> legal fiction about the past. If it does, that would work. If it >> doesn't... well, it depends on whether you read R2127's "a condi
Re: DIS: What authorizes the Referee to impose the Cold Hand of Justice?
Interesting catch! Is there any argument that, in this circumstance, MUST implies CAN? I think probably that argument doesn’t work, but here’s what it might say: There is no method for the Referee to discharge eir mandatory duties except by imposing the Cold Hand of Justice when warranted. If e CANNOT impose the Cold Hand of Justice when e MUST do so, then there is no LEGAL way for the Referee to perform eir duties. A *player*, of course, has in eir control a method to satisfy eir mandatory obligations—e can resign the office of Referee. But that result runs contrary to the implicit presuppositions that underlie the very creation of the Office of Referee—i.e., that a player could in theory assume that office and discharge its responsibilities. Unless the Referee CAN impose the Cold Hand when warranted, then there is no way for a player to assume the office of Referee and discharge its duties as required by rule. MUST would not imply CAN in all circumstances. For example, a player could pledge to deregister every other player; based on that pledge, e MUST do that but e probably CANNOT. What e *could* have done, however, is to not make the pledge in the first place. As a result, e had in eir control a method to satisfy eir mandatory obligations (not make the pledge in the first place). And that wouldn’t contradict any implicit presuppositions underlying the Rules, since the Rules presuppose that players may make pledges they can’t satisfy. The obvious problem with this whole interpretation is that imposing the Cold Hand is a regulated action under Rule 2125; regulated actions CAN be performed only by methods explicitly provided by rule; and there is no *explicit* mechanism for imposing the Cold Hand, only the implicit one described above. So I think, Kant notwithstanding, in this case MUST probably does not imply CAN... > On May 31, 2019, at 9:46 PM, James Cook wrote: > > In preparing judgements for CFJs 3726 and 3727, I realized I don't > know why the Referee CAN impose the Cold Hand of Justice. > > R2478 says the investigator SHALL, but not that e CAN. > > R2557 says that e CAN do so if the rules "authorize" em to, but I > don't see any rules authorizing anyone to do so. > > Am I missing something?
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727
Hmm. If the intent didn’t work, the report self-ratification did. So I
think we are in the same place anyway.
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM James Cook wrote:
> I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D.
> Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir document.
> E said:
>
> > I intend without objection to ratify the following document as true at
> the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
>
> But there is no mechanism for em to do that. Ratifying D. Margaux's
> document according to 1551 would make it true at the time it was
> published, not at "00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019". (R1551 has a provision
> for when "the document explicitly specifies a different past time as
> being the time the document was true" but the document itself, clearly
> delineated with {...}, does not contain that past date.
>
> So, I'm currently of the opinion that the ratification didn't work
> after all, and so the fine was EFFECTIVE and D. Margaux still has
> blots. Or is there some reason to think the intent worked?
>
> On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 03:59, James Cook wrote:
> >
> > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> > 3726 a couple of times.
> >
> > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
> > the next couple of days.
> >
> >
> >
> > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> >
> > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
> >
> > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
> > more than 0 blots."
> >
> > 1. Arguments
> >
> >
> > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
> > when D. Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
> > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> > everything here.
> >
> > 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> > =
> >
> > 2019-05-20 01:25
> >
> > The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
> > blots.
> >
> > 2019-05-20 20:32
> >
> > D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to ratify
> > it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
> >
> > { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
> > have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
> >
> > Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
> > Spaaace Rules has its default value.
> >
> > There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
> > Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
> > the Spaaace Rules. }
> >
> > 2019-05-21 10:20
> >
> > D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
> > weekly reports:
> >
> > {there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
> > recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
> > switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
> > value.}
> >
> > {there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
> > recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
> > switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default value.}
> >
> > 2019-05-25 22:02
> >
> > omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
> > information in the above reports.
> >
> > 2019-05-25 22:54
> >
> > D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
> > behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
> > pointed".
> >
> > 2019-05-26 22:43
> >
> > Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand of
> > Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following message:
> >
> > > Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information
> in the
> > > report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the
> good of
> > > the game, but there were also other options available (proposal, or
> > > ratification without objection, which would have been unlikely to
> cause any
> > > problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for the good
> of the
> > > game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the circumstances
> though,
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727
I think the self ratification makes it retroactively accurate though...
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:22 PM James Cook wrote:
> Wasn't omd's finger-pointing about publishing inaccurate information in the
> reports?
>
> On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:18 Aris Merchant, <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why would the legality of publishing the report matter?
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:16 PM James Cook wrote:
> >
> > > In R1551's hypothetical timeline the gamete was minimally modified when
> > the
> > > report was published... it seems tricky to determine whether it was
> false
> > > at that exact time.
> > >
> > > Even if we assume the self-ratification made it retroactively legal to
> > > publish, I'm not sure CFJ 3726 is about the revised timeline. I think
> it
> > > was called before the report self-ratified, and CFJs are to be judged
> > > according to the legal situation at the time. I'm not completely sure,
> > but
> > > I lean toward saying it's TRUE.
> > >
> > > I'd be interested to hear about precedent or arguments about
> > > self-ratification of reports making them retroactively legal to
> publish,
> > or
> > > whether CFJs judgements should change after ratification events.
> > >
> > > On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:04 D. Margaux,
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hmm. If the intent didn’t work, the report self-ratification did. So
> I
> > > > think we are in the same place anyway.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM James Cook
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D.
> > > > > Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir
> > document.
> > > > > E said:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I intend without objection to ratify the following document as
> true
> > > at
> > > > > the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
> > > > >
> > > > > But there is no mechanism for em to do that. Ratifying D. Margaux's
> > > > > document according to 1551 would make it true at the time it was
> > > > > published, not at "00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019". (R1551 has a
> provision
> > > > > for when "the document explicitly specifies a different past time
> as
> > > > > being the time the document was true" but the document itself,
> > clearly
> > > > > delineated with {...}, does not contain that past date.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, I'm currently of the opinion that the ratification didn't work
> > > > > after all, and so the fine was EFFECTIVE and D. Margaux still has
> > > > > blots. Or is there some reason to think the intent worked?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 03:59, James Cook
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth
> on
> > > > > > 3726 a couple of times.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it
> out
> > > > > > the next couple of days.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> > > > > > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was
> > > > effective."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D.
> Margaux
> > > has
> > > > > > more than 0 blots."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Arguments
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting
> > around
> > > > > > when D. Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread
> > > > "[Referee]
> > > > > > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> > > > > > everything here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> > > > > > =
> > >
DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
Below is a proto-decision on the fingers pointed by Falsifian regarding the Ritual; comments welcome. * * * The key question seems to be whether a fine for failure to perform the Ritual CAN be imposed on players consistently with Rule 2531. Under Rule 2531, among other things, a fine is INEFFECTIVE if > (2) it attempts to levy a fine on a person for an action or inaction which e > (more likely than not) did not commit; [or] > > (3) it attempts to levy a fine for an action or inaction which is not > prohibited by the rules . . . . In this case, I think a fine MUST be imposed because those requirements (and the other requirements) are satisfied by the players’ failure to perform the Ritual. Under Rule 2596 (the Ritual), “[a]ny player CAN perform the Ritual by paying a fee of 7 coins,” and “[t]he Ritual MUST be performed at least once in every Agoran week.” Under Rule 2152 (Mother, May I?), “MUST” means that “[f]ailing to perform the described action violates the rule in question.” Last week, the “described action” (the Ritual) was not “performed.” That violation came to pass because each player declined to perform the Ritual last week. In my view, because “failing to perform the [Ritual]” at least once last week “violates the rule in question,” that means that any player or entity capable of performing the Ritual violated the Rule through eir “inaction” when it turned out that the Ritual was not performed on time. Falsifian pointed eir finger at players each of whom could have performed the Ritual. As a result, each such player violated the Rule. Ais523 suggests that the Ritual itself may have violated the Rule. I think I disagree. In my view, the Ritual is the action required to be performed; it is not an entity that violates the Rule when it is not performed. Imagine the Rule instead said, “any player CAN hop on one foot” and “a hopping upon one foot MUST be performed at least once in every Agoran week.” We wouldn’t say that the rule is violated by the “hopping upon one foot,” because that’s an action not an entity. Same with the Ritual. >> On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 02:38 +, James Cook wrote: >> I Point my Finger at every player, in the following order: >> >>omd, Aris, Gaelan, G., Cuddle Beam, Trigon, Murphy, ATMunn, twg, >> D. Margaux, Jacob Arduino, Falsifian, Bernie, Rance, o, Jason Cobb, >> Walker, PSS, Corona, V.J. Rada, L, Hālian, Tarhalindur, Telnaior, >> Baron von Vaderham >> >> for failing to perform The Ritual in the previous Agoran week. >> >> Explanation for how each player P violated the rules: >> * Rule 2596 required The Ritual to be performed. >> * P had a method available to perform The Ritual. Therefore P is >> responsible if The Ritual was not performed. >> >> (I had honestly intended to perform it at the last minute once again >> this week, but forgot. I intended to do this because I try to follow >> the rules. Though, honestly, I'm happy that we finally missed a week >> so that we get to see what happens.) >
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
That may make some intuitive sense, but I’m not sure which provision(s) of the rules you think I’ve either overlooked or misinterpreted, and what your interpretation of those provisions is. I think if we ground the analysis in the text of the Rules then there will be more clarity about why we may disagree. > On Jun 3, 2019, at 9:57 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > The fact that any player CAN perform The Ritual and the fact that someone > SHALL do so do not logically or by common sense entail the fact that the > responsibility to do so falls on any player. Until we know exactly who > SHALL do so, punishing anyone is premature. Even assuming that the action > isn’t required to perform itself, that still doesn’t tell us who exactly > SHALL do it. > > -Aris > >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:45 PM Rebecca wrote: >> >> I think that this decision is corrrect as a matter of text. The rules >> should be amended to give one player the responsibility, and each player >> the ability for the ritual. But as the rules stand, "failing to perform >> [the ritual] violates" the rules and "any player CAN perform the ritual". I >> think this decision provides the best reading of the text at issue. It also >> accords with Agoran practice in that abstract actions are usually not >> required to perform themselves. >> >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 9:07 AM Aris Merchant < >> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I object. The rule says that The Ritual SHALL be performed; it doesn't >>> specify who shall do the performing. In the absence of such a >>> specification, holding any individual player responsible is clearly >>> unreasonable, since their individual responsibility to perform The Ritual >>> was never explicitly stated. >>> >>> -Aris >>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 12:59 PM D Margaux wrote: >>>> >>>> Below is a proto-decision on the fingers pointed by Falsifian regarding >>>> the Ritual; comments welcome. >>>> >>>> * * * >>>> >>>> The key question seems to be whether a fine for failure to perform the >>>> Ritual CAN be imposed on players consistently with Rule 2531. Under >> Rule >>>> 2531, among other things, a fine is INEFFECTIVE if >>>> >>>>> (2) it attempts to levy a fine on a person for an action or inaction >>>> which e (more likely than not) did not commit; [or] >>>>> >>>>> (3) it attempts to levy a fine for an action or inaction which is not >>>> prohibited by the rules . . . . >>>> >>>> In this case, I think a fine MUST be imposed because those requirements >>>> (and the other requirements) are satisfied by the players’ failure to >>>> perform the Ritual. >>>> >>>> Under Rule 2596 (the Ritual), “[a]ny player CAN perform the Ritual by >>>> paying a fee of 7 coins,” and “[t]he Ritual MUST be performed at least >>> once >>>> in every Agoran week.” Under Rule 2152 (Mother, May I?), “MUST” means >>> that >>>> “[f]ailing to perform the described action violates the rule in >>> question.” >>>> >>>> Last week, the “described action” (the Ritual) was not “performed.” >> That >>>> violation came to pass because each player declined to perform the >> Ritual >>>> last week. In my view, because “failing to perform the [Ritual]” at >>> least >>>> once last week “violates the rule in question,” that means that any >>> player >>>> or entity capable of performing the Ritual violated the Rule through >> eir >>>> “inaction” when it turned out that the Ritual was not performed on >> time. >>>> Falsifian pointed eir finger at players each of whom could have >> performed >>>> the Ritual. As a result, each such player violated the Rule. >>>> >>>> Ais523 suggests that the Ritual itself may have violated the Rule. I >>>> think I disagree. In my view, the Ritual is the action required to be >>>> performed; it is not an entity that violates the Rule when it is not >>>> performed. Imagine the Rule instead said, “any player CAN hop on one >>> foot” >>>> and “a hopping upon one foot MUST be performed at least once in every >>>> Agoran week.” We wouldn’t say that the rule is violated by the >> “hopping >>>> upon one foot,” because that’s an action not an entity. Same with the >>>> Ritual.
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
> On Jun 3, 2019, at 11:47 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > Under the present conditions, > however, each player can quite reasonably claim that someone else should > have performed The Ritual, and that it wasn’t *their* fault that it wasn’t > performed. Unless the rule explicitly states that the responsibility falls > on each player jointly and severally (i.e. it’s each player’s > responsibility to see that The Ritual is performed), there is no way to > prove from the text of the rules involved that this should be the case. I am delighted that you raised the idea of joint and several liability! That analogy occurred to me too; I didn’t mention it in my proto because it’s not a rules based concept. But it did perhaps influence my thinking somewhat. This Ritual stuff seems interestingly analogous to a specific situation in which American law generally *does* recognize joint and several liability: it is the situation where multiple careless or bad actors, each acting independently of one another, are each an independent legal cause of the entire harm that is suffered by the wronged party. For example, imagine that an elderly person walking on a sidewalk is carelessly bumped into the road by a distracted pedestrian, and that the elderly person is then struck by a speeding and reckless drunk driver, and e suffers very serious injuries. The distracted pedestrian and the drunk driver each were legal causes the entire harm—if either of them had been acting with due care, then the elderly person would not have been struck by the car. And the harm to the elderly person cannot be apportioned in any principled way as between the two wrongful actors. So American tort law holds them both jointly and severally liable, even though each of them individually would have caused NO harm if the other had not ALSO independently been acting wrongfully! See Restatement (2d) of Torts § 879 (“If the tortious conduct of each of two or more persons is a legal cause of harm that cannot be apportioned, each is subject to liability for the entire harm, irrespective of whether their conduct is concurring or consecutive.”). The Ritual strikes me as an analogous situation. Each player’s inaction is a cause of the harm, and the harm that was caused cannot be apportioned among the players in a principled way. As a result, it is not unjust that each player is considered liable for the entire harm (jointly and severally as it were), even though (as you said) “each player can quite reasonably claim that someone else should have performed The Ritual, and that it wasn’t *their* fault that it wasn’t performed.” Same with the distracted pedestrian and the drunk driver—each of them could say that the other should have done the prudent thing to avoid the accident, and that “it wasn’t their fault” the injury occurred. Here, each individual player should have done the prudent thing and performed the Ritual, and the fact that no other player performed it does not absolve the others of their moral responsibility. (I suppose that point goes to rebut the supposed injustice of holding people liable, rather than for whether they violated the Rules.)
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8178-8179
I may have miscounted; it does not appear to affect the result though. Apologies > On Jun 5, 2019, at 10:08 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > > >> On Jun 3, 2019, at 5:38 PM, D. Margaux wrote: >> >> Proposal 8179 >> === >> AGAINST: Aris, Falsifian, omd, Rance, V.J. Rada*, twg+ >> Present: Rance, o, Trigon > > On what grounds am I PRESENT and not AGAINST? > > -o >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] there's no confidence in the economy, so...
If e didn’t, then the election announcement did not have a clear list of the valid options and is therefore invalid per CFJ No Number! On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 10:59 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > I vote for Corona in the ongoing Prime Minister election. > > CFJ: "In the message quoted below, Corona gave eir 'explicit or reasonably > implied consent', as required by Rule 1006, to be made the holder of Prime > Minister." > > (Not that I actually expect enough votes for this to arise, but it would > be hilarious if it did.) > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Friday, July 6, 2018 10:58 AM, Corona > wrote: > > > I become a candidate for Prime Minister. > > > > Platform: Not being the other guy, who currently supports unpopular and > > somewhat misguided reforms. > > > > ~Corona > -- D. Margaux
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] a minor fix I think is important
I think this could be ambiguous — it could provide a reward for the first decision resolved in a week, or for the first time that any particular decision is resolved in a week (so only one reward for a decision resolved FAILED QUORUM and then REJECTED within a single week). What about: “Resolving an Agoran Decision on whether to adopt a proposal, provided that no other Agoran Decision on whether to adopt that or any other proposal had been resolved earlier in that Agoran week.” > On Jun 2, 2019, at 5:11 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > > I submit the following proposal: > > - > Title: Paying our Assessor > AI: 1 > Author: Trigon > > [ Comment: This is something I didn't include from the version of > Rule 2496 that I didn't include for whatever reason. ] > > To Rule 2496 "Rewards" add the following bullet point after the third one: > "Resolving an Agoran Decision on whether to adopt a proposal for the first > time this week: 5 coins." > > -- > Trigon
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
What if we kept the existing language but changed SHALL NOT to CANNOT--"the
rules CANNOT be interpreted..."?
> On Jun 13, 2019, at 1:50 AM, Rebecca wrote:
>
> It wouldn't gut contracts because anything specified by a Contract _is_
> regulated under the rules. It's just designed to prohibit _criminal_
> liability for "interpret[ing]" the rules.
>
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 1:56 PM James Cook wrote:
>>
>> On Proposals 8180 through 8187 I vote as follows, where "AGAINST IF
>> VETO ELSE" means "conditional vote: AGAINST if a Notice of Veto has
>> been published specifying this proposal, otherwise"
>>
>>> IDAuthor(s) AITitle
>>>
>> -------
>>> 8180 Trigon, D Margaux 1.0 Paying our Assessor
>> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
>>> 8181 D Margaux, [1]1.7 Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1)
>> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
>>> 8182 Jason Cobb3.0 Add value to zombies
>> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
>>> 8183 V.J. Rada, Tiger 3.0 Regulated Actions Reform
>> AGAINST (per o, and also, I would like to see the context behind the
>> decision to use the current bizarre wording before changing it)
>>> 8184 G.3.0 power-limit precedence
>> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
>>> 8185 Trigon3.0 OUGHT we?
>> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE PRESENT ("ought" seems nicer than contractions,
>> but still seems unnecessary)
>>> 8186 Jason Cobb3.0 Minor currency fixes
>> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
>>> 8187 Jason Cobb3.0 Not so indestructible now, eh?
>> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
>>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots
I could see this coming out either way. It's the sort of hyper literalist
interpretation that Agorans seem to adopt sometimes.
It's really interesting to me, because within my discipline (law), those sorts
of hyperliteralist interpretations simply wouldn't work. Lawyers would just
intuitively know somehow that this kind of interpretive move would be out of
bounds--I'm not really sure why. But it's not necessary out of bounds in Agora,
and I'm not sure why that is either.
> On Jun 10, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
>
> Interesting catch.
>
> It's the difference between "except by a proposal or rule" versus
> "except as described by a proposal or rule" which is the usual phrasing
> that would work fine - so the question is can we infer the "as described"
> part - which might be a hard sell given how picky we usually are on
> attributing causality. No this hasn't been adjudicated before to my
> knowledge.
>
>> On 6/10/2019 12:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>> CFJ: "A Player with Blots CAN destroy a Blot in eir possession if e has
>> neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from emself in the current
>> Agoran week."
>> Caller's Evidence = Excerpt from Rule 2555/2 ("Blots")
>> [Power=2]
>> Blots are an indestructible fixed currency with ownership
>> restricted to persons.
>> [...]
>> To expunge a blot is to destroy it.
>> [...]
>> If a player has neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from
>> emself in the current Agoran week, e CAN expunge 1 blot from
>> emself by announcement.
>> Excerpt from Rule 2577/1 ("Asset Actions") [Power=3]
>> An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement,
>> subject to modification by its backing document. An indestructible
>> asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and CANNOT be
>> destroyed except by a proposal or rule, other than this one,
>> specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible assets
>> or that asset in particular; any other asset is destructible.
>> Caller's Arguments
>> ==
>> I argue that when a player announces that e expunges a Blot from emself,
>> then e is the one destroying the Blot. Thus, under Rule 2577, the Blot
>> CANNOT be destroyed, as it was not destroyed "by a proposal or rule, other
>> than [Rule 2577], specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible
>> assets or that asset in particular", but rather by the Player.
>> I argue that Rule 2240 ("No Cretans Need Apply") does not apply, as the
>> definition of an asset being "indestructible" does not occur in Rule 2555,
>> but Rule 2555 rather defers to Rule 2577 for the definition, and then later
>> attempts to override the definition in Rule 2577. Thus the conflict is
>> between two Rules, rather than within the text of a certain rule.
>> If the above two arguments are found valid, then Rule 1030 ("Precedence
>> between Rules") states that the Rule with the higher Power takes precedence.
>> In this case that is Rule 2577. This would mean that Blots CANNOT be
>> destroyed.
>> I thus argue that the ruling on this CFJ should be FALSE.
>> [NB: if there is precedent that I am missing, please tell me and I will
>> withdraw this. I didn't see any historical rulings on "indestructible"
>> assets, and the ones that I found on Blots seemed not to be relevant. I was
>> unable to find precedent on conflicts with definitions solely by searching
>> the statements of CFJs.]
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
> On Jun 18, 2019, at 11:59 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > In eir first judgement, > Judge Trigon opined that, in R2125, in this list: > >> An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or >> permit its performance; > > include synonyms for CAN, CANNOT, and MAY, but no synonyms for SHALL or > SHALL NOT (e.g. "forbid" or "require"). Therefore, things that are > governed solely by a SHALL or SHALL NOT (e.g. "SHALL act in accordance > with that contract") are not regulated at all. (I was trying to > remember precedents but couldn't - though I'm guessing someone must have > opined on it at some point?) Is it clear what an "action" is? Plausibly, there is no stable distinction between "action" and "inaction." That is because every "inaction" can be rephrased as an "action" (i.e., the act of omitting from doing something). If that's true, then a SHALL would "limit" the "action" of "omitting-from-doing-something" and a SHALL NOT would "limit" the "action" of "omitting-from-not-doing-something." That would make SHALLs and SHALL NOTs regulated. Are the reasons why that logic does not hold?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Rule 2479 Cleanup
Instead of this:
> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
>Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by announcement.
I would recommend moving "by announcement" like so:
> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, by announcement
> impose Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game.
Under the original wording it is ambiguous. Could have been read to say that SJ
could be imposed on a person-who-plays-by-announcement.
> On Jun 18, 2019, at 7:32 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> Probably a good idea.
>
> I withdraw my most recently submitted proposal.
>
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.1)
>
> Author: Jason Cobb
>
> Adoption Index: 1.7
>
> Text:
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
>
> Replace the text
>
>>The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
>>Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
>>of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
>>Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
>>proceeding.
>
> with the text
>
>>The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
>>Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by announcement.
>>When e does so, e levies a fine of up to 2 Blots on em. If e
>>does not specify the number of Blots in the fine, the attempt to
>>impose Summary Judgment is INEFFECTIVE. Summary Judgement is
>>imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in response to
>>any official proceeding.
>
> }
>
>
> Jason Cobb
>
>> On 6/18/19 7:27 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> You might want to say that e must specify the number of Blots.
>>
>> -Aris
>>
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 4:25 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>>>
>>> I submit the following proposal:
>>>
>>> Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup
>>>
>>> Author: Jason Cobb
>>>
>>> Adoption Index: 1.7
>>>
>>> Text:
>>>
>>> {
>>>
>>> Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
>>>
>>> Replace the text
>>>
The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
proceeding.
>>> with the text
>>>
The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by announcement.
When e does so, e levies a fine of up to 2 Blots on em. Summary
Judgement is imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in
response to any official proceeding.
>>> }
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jason Cobb
>>>
>>>
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3732 assigned to Murphy
Gratuitous arguement: Seems to be TRUE to me. Corona subsequently became a zombie, but I see no rules that would retract a player's consent to holding office upon becoming a zombie, nor are there any prohibitions against zombies being elected to offices. Not sure what I'm missing, but seems straight forward to me. On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:16 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > The below CFJ is 3732, I assign it to Murphy. > > === CFJ 3732 === > >In the message quoted below, Corona gave eir 'explicit or >reasonably implied consent', as required by Rule 1006, to be made >the holder of Prime Minister. > > == > > Caller:twg > > Judge: Murphy > > == > > History: > > Called by twg:02 Jun 2019 14:59:08 > Assigned to Murphy: (as of this message) > > == > > Caller's Evidence: > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 10:58 AM, Corona wrote: > > > I become a candidate for Prime Minister. > > > > Platform: Not being the other guy, who currently supports unpopular and > > somewhat misguided reforms. > > > > ~Corona > > == >
