Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] space i guess?

[Gaelan Steele]

Feedback inline. I wrote most of the proposal feedback before reading other 
comments, so some of this may be duplicated.

> On Oct 15, 2018, at 6:13 PM, ATMunn  wrote:
> 
> so basically this is super clunky and probably not going to work, but if
> you think there's any hope for it then please say so :)
> 
> Title: "spaaace?"
> AI: 1
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-author(s): Aris
> 
> Enact a new rule entitled "Spaceships", with the following text:
> {
>Spaceships are indestructible fixed assets. Ownership of Spaceships
>is restricted to players. Players CANNOT own more than one
>Spaceship.

This seems like it could be problematic. What happens if someone gets a second 
spaceship? Is it destroyed (in the “stops existing” sense)? Is the original one 
destroyed? Is the action that transferred it INEFFECTIVE?

>Each Spaceship has a Sector switch, with possible values
>being I, II, III, and IV, defaulting to I; a Destroyed switch, a
>boolean switch defaulting to False; and a Power switch, with
>possible values being any integer in the range of 0-20

Inclusive or exclusive?

> , defaulting
>to 10.
> 
>Any player CAN, by announcement, flip eir Spaceship's Sector switch
>to any other value at any time, decreasing the Spaceship's Power
>switch by one, as long as e has not done so within the last 24
>hours. If a Spaceship's Power is 0, its Sector CANNOT be flipped.
> 
>If a Spaceship is Destroyed, its Sector switch CANNOT be flipped. At
>least 24 hours after a Spaceship's Destroyed switch becomes True,
>its owner CAN flip its Destroyed switch back to False by
>announcement. [todo: some way to make this not flippable except
>after a space battle, not sure how to word that]

I imagine that at some point in the near future, we’ll end up with a scam 
involving a rule that forgets to check the Destroyed switch. I wonder if we can 
make this the default—something like “if a rule refers to spaceships, it refers 
only to spaceships with a Destroyed switch set to False, unless the rule 
specifies otherwise”? Or make it so that when destroyed, a spaceship becomes a 
different asset (Debris?) that can be converted back into a spaceship?

> 
>Any player CAN, by announcement, increase eir Spaceship's Power by
>N, where N is the number of hours since the player last increased
>the Spaceship's Power, divided by two. If doing so would put the
>Power at a value greater than 20, then the Power switch is simply
>set to 20.

Can we make this automatic? Seems a little pointless, especially because it 
will change often enough that there isn’t much point in record keeping.

> }
> 
> Enact a new rule entitled "Space Battles", with the following text:
> {
>If two Spaceships have the same Sector value, and neither of them
>are Destroyed, then the owner of either CAN, by announcement, start
>a Space Battle with the other. During a Space Battle, both
>Spaceships involved CANNOT have any of their switches flipped.
> 
>Once a Space Battle has begun, each player CAN, and SHALL in a
>timely fashion, specify by announcement an amount of Power e wishes
>to spend. This value CAN be 0, and CANNOT exceed that player's
>Spaceship's current Power value. After both players have done the
>above, then either player CAN, by announcement, increase the amount
>of Power e wishes to spend.
> 
>Once 48 hours have passed since the beginning of the Space Battle,
>players can no longer increase the amount of Power they wish to
>spend, and either player CAN Resolve the Battle by announcement, and
>at least one of them SHALL in a timely fashion. Upon doing so, both
>players' Spaceships lose the amount of Power equal to the last
>specified amount of Power, and, the one which lost more Power is
>deemed the Winner of that Space Battle, and the other is the Loser.
>If the lost Power values are equal, both Spaceships are Winners. The
>Loser in a Space Battle, if there is one, has its Destroyed value
>set to True.

This’ll result in sniping attempts at the end of the window. Probably a good 
idea to have bids increase the window (proportionally to the size of the 
increase maybe?)

> }
> 
> Enact a new rule entitled "Fame", with the following text:
> {
>Every player has a Fame switch, with possible values being all
>integers between -10 and 10. Players with positive Fame are Famous,
>and those with negative Fame are Infamous.

Default?

> 
>If a player is the Winner in a Space Battle against an Infamous
>player, eir Fame is increased by 1. Likewise, if a player is the
>Winner in a Space Battle against a Famous player or one with a Fame
>of 0, eir Fame is decreased by 1.
> }
> 
> [things that still need to be done:
> - make a recordkeepor of things
> - make space battles simpler probably
> - make everything less confusing
> - ???]

Other thoughts:

Would be interesting if during your 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly report: Delenda fuit

[Gaelan Steele]

Can you? I’ve been a player for a while. 

Gaelan

> On Oct 27, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh!  And I award Gaelan a welcome package.
> 
>> On Sat, 27 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I don't think it self-ratifies due to your report, but in case it
>> does:  CoE: Gaelan is no longer a zombie.
>> 
>>>   CoinsZombie
>>>   ---
>>>   0Gaelan
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

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

[Gaelan Steele]

But, AFIAK, unregulated actions aren’t INEFFECTIVE, they’re just meaningless. 
No Faking only cares about things that are INEFFECTIVE. Therefore, No Faking 
doesn’t prohibit unregulated actions. 

Now that I think about it, No Faking says “believed…not to be effective” 
lowercase. Is that different from “not to be EFFECTIVE”?

Gaelan

> On Oct 25, 2018, at 10:00 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> No Faking prohibits lying, for a specific definition of "lying" that
> includes "not doing something that appears to do something" if you're
> doing that to mislead.
> 
> Since lying is prohibited, the rules "limit" its performance, so it is
> regulated under R2125:
>An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
>    permit its performance;
> 
> Maybe?
> 
>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> This raises an interesting question: can you get around No Faking by doing 
>> something that appears to do something, but due to a technicality, turns out 
>> to be unregulated? Would No Faking even cover that in the first place? If 
>> not, should it?
>> 
>> Gaelan
>> 
>>> On Oct 23, 2018, at 10:41 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Therefore, they fall under
>>> the final clause of R2125, with a higher power than No Faking:
>>> The Rules SHALL NOT be
>>> interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions. 
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: DIS: Dependent Action Proposal Adoption

[Gaelan Steele]

I had a proposal at some point (that got voted down, I don’t remember why off 
hand) that would allow a proposal to be resolved more quickly if >AI players 
had already voted FOR.

Gaelan

On Oct 24, 2018, at 9:31 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Especially when pending is free, I think we have a lot of buggy
> proposals go into the pool, and the proofreading really doesn't
> happen until a quorum-enforced group put on their voting hats
> and look closely before voting.  I think the formality of that
> process is useful.
> 
> *However* I don't think it's so much the straight voting-process
> delay as the 1+week at each end waiting for promotor/assessor (not
> a dig at the current promotor/assessor, this is true regardless of
> officeholder).  Maybe if there's a way to speed up either end?
> 
> On Wed, 24 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
>> I’m considering proposing a rule that would enable proposals to be ADOPTED 
>> through dependent actions. The idea is that a player could announce intent 
>> to ADOPT a proposal with X support, where X is the number of players who by 
>> voting FOR could cause the proposal to be ADOPTED if all active 
>> non-supporting players vote AGAINST and all zombies vote PRESENT.  Seems 
>> like it could result in potentially quicker adoption of uncontroversial 
>> proposals. 
>> 
>> I’m curious whether people think this is a good or bad idea

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

[Gaelan Steele]

This raises an interesting question: can you get around No Faking by doing 
something that appears to do something, but due to a technicality, turns out to 
be unregulated? Would No Faking even cover that in the first place? If not, 
should it?

Gaelan

> On Oct 23, 2018, at 10:41 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> Therefore, they fall under
> the final clause of R2125, with a higher power than No Faking:
>  The Rules SHALL NOT be
>  interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions. 

Re: DIS: Call for Patches

[Gaelan Steele]

I have a contract in place for exactly this purpose. 

Gaelan

> On Apr 13, 2018, at 12:48 AM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> Okay, I'm going to write up a patch proposal. I'll take any reasonably
> uncontroversial patches, whether in typed up form or just with a
> description of the problem and a link to any previous discussion.
> 
> Things I'm aware of:
> 
> - Treasuror is undefined
> - Welcome packages are undefined
> - The 1 auction/5 auctions problem
> - The thing where you can transfer things into a facility from everywhere
> 
> If I've missed anything, or you disagree with any of these, please let me 
> know.
> 
> -Aris

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land Auctions for April week 2, part 2

[Gaelan Steele]

I bid 1 coin. 

Gaelan

> On Apr 13, 2018, at 1:30 AM, Corona  wrote:
> 
> I bid 6 coins, and I act on Quazie's behalf to bid 6 coins.
> 
> On Friday, April 13, 2018, Aris Merchant 
> wrote:
> 
>> I bid 12 coins.
>> 
>> -Aris
>> 
>> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 12:50 AM, Reuben Staley 
>> wrote:
>>> Might as well try to do these still, right?
>>> 
>>> There are currently 5 public, unpreserved, non-aether land units in
>>> existence. All 5 are put up for auction.
>>> 
>>> For the following auction, I am the announcer, Agora is the auctioneer,
>> the
>>> minimum bid is 1 coin, and the lots are:
>>> 
>>> 1: the black land unit at (+1, +2)
>>> 2: the white land unit at (+1, +3)
>>> 3: the black land unit at (+2,  0)
>>> 4: the white land unit at (+2, +1)
>>> 5: the black land unit at (+2, +2)
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> ~Corona

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Referee] Weekly Report

[Gaelan Steele]

Oh boy, I get to figure out ratification!

Gaelan

> On Apr 12, 2018, at 7:05 PM, Edward Murphy  wrote:
> 
> G. wrote:
> 
>> GUESS WHAT:  It's worse than that.  There *is* no Referee's weekly report!
>> There's no place I can find that puts together "referee" and "Report".
> 
> How long has that been the case, so I can remove relevant bits from the
> ADoP database?
> 

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auction results

[Gaelan Steele]

Sorry, I was wrong here. I assumed auctions worked like Agoran decisions in 
that the auction ended when it was resolved, and you were just obligated to end 
it after a certain period of time. You're right, and I should make sure that I 
understand the rules better when I talk about these things. 

Gaelan 

> On Apr 9, 2018, at 11:16 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> Is a timing scam an abuse of an office? Does acting on omd’s behalf change 
>> this?
> 
> Thinking about this more, all the info on auction end timing was public,
> and my rapid transfer after the auction was just to get it done, offered
> no particular game advantage compared to someone who's not the Registrar.
> 
> Out of a gross abundance of caution/fair play, I'm not going to bid on the 
> land auctions that end in a couple hours tho I was thinking of it - that's
> the only place I might have an advantage (e.g. if I didn't get others'
> zombies to them in time for them to use the money to bid on land).  I'm
> going to be AFK between now and when the land auction ends so it would be
> unfair for me to use those funds I just got as I can't do the same for
> other zombie auction winners.
> 
> Can't think of any other place the quick timing helps me...?
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auction results

[Gaelan Steele]

I was wondering whether the sniping could be construed as an abuse of office. I 
think there's an argument to be made that it is, because holding the office 
allowed you to have an advantage over everyone else in the auction (others can 
attempt snipes, but you have full control over when the auction ends so you 
could always snipe them back). Whether this breaks the rules or not, I think we 
should add a rule to automatically extend actions after a bid. 

Gaelan 

> On Apr 9, 2018, at 11:01 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I can tell it's all straightforward and legal.  I mean, I didn't
> bid until right before the end of the auction but nothing "underhanded"
> other than auction-sniping.
> 
> My reading of the rules is that I can do this on behalf of omd and it doesn't
> affect anything, but the act-on-behalf rules might have some holes (but
> AFAICT, nothing here against the intent of those rules).
> 
>> On Mon, 9 Apr 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> Is a timing scam an abuse of an office? Does acting on omd’s behalf change 
>> this?
>> 
>> Gaelan
>> 
>>> On Apr 9, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The zombie auction has ended - here are the results.  When each winning
>>> bid is paid, I'll flip the appropriate master switch.
>>> 
>>> WINNER  BIDLOT
>>> omd 21 pokes
>>> G.  21 o
>>> V.J. Rada   12 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>> ATMunn  10 nichdel
>>> Corona   5 Quazie
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ALL BIDS IN ORDER PLACED
>>> (x indicates cancelled by later bid)
>>> 
>>> x1G. 2 Apr 2018 10:46:46 -0700 
>>> x1Kenyon 2 Apr 2018 11:14:39 -0700
>>> x1Corona 2 Apr 2018 20:41:24 +0200
>>> x1Gaelan 2 Apr 2018 11:51:57 -0700
>>> x2ATMunn 3 Apr 2018 09:03:46 -0400
>>> x1Kenyon 3 Apr 2018 16:23:58 -0700
>>> x1Kenyon 3 Apr 2018 16:23:58 -0700
>>> 4Aris   5 Apr 2018 07:34:44 +
>>> 4Gaelan 5 Apr 2018 07:40:00 -0700
>>> x3G. 5 Apr 2018 19:41:16 -0700 
>>> 3Kenyon 5 Apr 2018 22:57:19 -0700
>>> x15   V.J. Rada  7 Apr 2018 15:40:24 +1000
>>> x30   V.J. Rada  7 Apr 2018 15:42:46 +1000
>>> 10   ATMunn 7 Apr 2018 12:33:55 -0400
>>> 5Corona 7 Apr 2018 20:52:09 +0200
>>> 12   V.J. Rada  9 Apr 2018 08:57:06 +1000
>>> 21   omd9 Apr 2018 10:26:41 -0700 
>>> 21   G. 9 Apr 2018 10:26:41 -0700 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auction results

[Gaelan Steele]

Is a timing scam an abuse of an office? Does acting on omd’s behalf change this?

Gaelan

> On Apr 9, 2018, at 10:52 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> The zombie auction has ended - here are the results.  When each winning
> bid is paid, I'll flip the appropriate master switch.
> 
> WINNER  BIDLOT
> omd 21 pokes
> G.  21 o
> V.J. Rada   12 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> ATMunn  10 nichdel
> Corona   5 Quazie
> 
> 
> ALL BIDS IN ORDER PLACED
> (x indicates cancelled by later bid)
> 
> x1G. 2 Apr 2018 10:46:46 -0700 
> x1Kenyon 2 Apr 2018 11:14:39 -0700
> x1Corona 2 Apr 2018 20:41:24 +0200
> x1Gaelan 2 Apr 2018 11:51:57 -0700
> x2ATMunn 3 Apr 2018 09:03:46 -0400
> x1Kenyon 3 Apr 2018 16:23:58 -0700
> x1Kenyon 3 Apr 2018 16:23:58 -0700
> 4Aris   5 Apr 2018 07:34:44 +
> 4Gaelan 5 Apr 2018 07:40:00 -0700
> x3G. 5 Apr 2018 19:41:16 -0700 
> 3Kenyon 5 Apr 2018 22:57:19 -0700
> x15   V.J. Rada  7 Apr 2018 15:40:24 +1000
> x30   V.J. Rada  7 Apr 2018 15:42:46 +1000
> 10   ATMunn 7 Apr 2018 12:33:55 -0400
> 5Corona 7 Apr 2018 20:52:09 +0200
> 12   V.J. Rada  9 Apr 2018 08:57:06 +1000
> 21   omd9 Apr 2018 10:26:41 -0700 
> 21   G. 9 Apr 2018 10:26:41 -0700 
> 
> 
> 

DIS: Proto-Contract: Patch Puddle V3

[Gaelan Steele]

Here’s a new version of my proto-contract from a while ago.

{
If this contract has no coins, it accepts transfers of a single coin. If it has 
no papers, it accepts transfers of a single paper.

This contract maintains a piece of state known as the Patch Puddle, containing 
a set of Patches each consisting of a title, adoption index, author, and body 
of 50 words or fewer.

A proposal cycle is the period between the publication of two Promotor reports 
containing the contents of the Proposal Pool.

Any player may add a Patch to the Patch Puddle if this contract is not 
currently accepting any assets. Each player may do this no more than twice per 
proposal cycle.

Once per proposal cycle, Gaelan SHALL create and pend a proposal with the 
following properties:

Title: Any title containing “Patches”
Author: Gaelan
Co-authors: The set of all players who authored one or more Patches in the 
Patch Puddle
Adoption Index: The maximum Adoption Index of any Patch in the Patch Puddle
Text: The below text, followed by the contents of the Patch Puddle.
{
The patches below are not part of the effects of this proposal, and do not take 
effect as a result of this proposal except for as specified below.

For each of the patches below:
If the patch had been a full proposal distributed at the same time as this 
proposal, and the result of its resolution would have been FOR, the patch takes 
effect, gaining power equal to its Adoption Index. It can make changes to the 
gamestate as if it were a proposal with 

BEGIN PATCHES
}

Upon the pending of this proposal, the Patch Puddle becomes empty. In a message 
where e pends such a proposal, Gaelan CAN cause this proposal to transfer 1 
paper to em.

Any player may amend this contract with 2 Agoran Consent, as defined in the 
ruleset.
}

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: Blot warning - Corona and CuddleBeam

[Gaelan Steele]

Wait, when’d you become ADoP? I don’t see a deputization. 

Gaelan

> On Apr 8, 2018, at 6:40 AM, ATMunn  wrote:
> 
> Oh man, it's been so long since I've been ADoP so I forget if I can do this 
> but if I can:
> 
> I initiate an election for Referee, and become a candidate in that election.
> 
> I want an office again. :P
> 
> On 4/8/2018 4:03 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>> I resign Referee. Gnomic is starting to get inertia with its initial
>> culture and history and I'd like to help it out (it's also why I've been
>> away lately, sorry).
>> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 9:47 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> As I mentioned several days ago, I plan in future to point fingers at
>>> officers who miss two successive weekly reports. Just to set a good
>>> standard going forward! (Others may still enforce a tougher standard
>>> if they wish, of course).
>>> 
>>> When this week ends in ~28 hours, officers who would be blotted would
>>> be Corona (Herald's weekly) and CuddleBeam (Referee's weekly).
>>> 
>>> (If I missed a report my apologies, I'll double-check before blotting).
>>> 
>>> -G.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Land Auctions for April week 1

[Gaelan Steele]

I bid 15 on 2 and 3

Gaelan

> On Apr 7, 2018, at 7:52 AM, Corona <liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I bid 15 on lot 5.
> 
>> On 07:56, Apr 6, 2018, at 07:56, Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I bid 13 coins on lot 4 and 14 coins on lot 5.
>> 
>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 10:33 PM, Reuben Staley
>> <reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> To the public forum this time. I really suck at this.
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018, 23:33 Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I bid 12 on 4 and 5.
>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018, 08:41 Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 13 on 1, 12 on 2
>>>>> 
>>>>> Gaelan
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Apr 5, 2018, at 6:24 AM, ATMunn <iamingodsa...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I bid 12 coins on auction 3.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 4/3/2018 5:40 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>>>>>> 10 on 1-3
>>>>>>> Gaelan
>>>>>>>> On Apr 3, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Reuben Staley
>> <reuben.sta...@gmail.com
>>>> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I bid 9 coins on Auctions 1-3.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> El mar., 3 de abr. de 2018 13:48, Corona <
>>> liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> escribió:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 11 on 4 & 5.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 8:42 PM, Kenyon Prater <
>>> kprater3...@gmail.com
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> to the proper forum,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 10 on 4 and 5.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 11:41 AM, Kenyon Prater <
>>>>> kprater3...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 10 on 4 and 5.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Corona <
>>>>> liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Actually, I bid 8 coins on auctions 1-3 each. Let's make
>> it
>>> short.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 8:26 PM, Corona <
>>>>> liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I bid 6 coins on auctions 1-3 each, and 8 coins on
>> auctions 4
>>> & 5
>>>>>>>>>> each.
>>>>>>>>>>>> We
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will bury you!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~Corona
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 8:05 PM, Reuben Staley <
>>>>>>>>>> reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I bid 5 coins on auctions 1-3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/3/2018 9:41 AM, Kenyon Prater wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I bid 7 coin on 4 and 5.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 8:30 AM, Corona <
>>>>>>>>> liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I bid 4 on each of auctions 1-3, and I bid 5 on each of
>>>>> auctions
>>>>>>>>>> 4-5.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:29 PM, Gaelan Steele <
>>>>> g...@canishe.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I bid 3 on auction 3.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gaelan
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Apr 2, 2018, at 3:32 PM, Reuben Staley <
>>>>>>>>>> reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Land auctions now work. Hooray.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are currently 6 public, unpreserved,
>> non-aether land
>>>>>>>>> units
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence. As the Cartographor, I am to choose 5 of
>> them to
>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> auctioned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer,
>> Agora is
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> auctioneer, and the minimum bid is 1 coin:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (-1,
>> -2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at ( 0,
>> -2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+1,
>> -2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (-1,
>> +2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at ( 0,
>> +2)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~Corona
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.avg.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trigon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ~Corona
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> ~Corona
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> ~Corona
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 

Re: DIS: Proto: Formalized Precedent

[Gaelan Steele]

 I would suggest instead that
> Rulekeepor, as part of eir weekly duties (monthly if that's more
> convenient), be required to publicly make a statement on any
> annotations submitted to em. E could either reject the proposed
> annotation as unnecessary and explain why, accept it, or (and this may
> not need to be an option other than accept) make changes to it and
> then accept it. Then we could put in place a requirement that the
> Rulekeepor "SHALL make a reasonable attempt to maintain relevant
> judicial annotations in the FLR", or something to that effect. The
> idea would be that the Rulekeepor could drop or edit an annotation
> whenever it seemed appropriate, but could not, say, refuse to put any
> annotations in the FLR.
> 
> Again, thank you for the proposal. It was quite thought provoking.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> [1] My source for all of this is
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_Statement
> 
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 12:00 AM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
>> Proto:
>> 
>> A Clarification is a type of instrument that always has 0.1 power. A 
>> clarification may only clarify existing rules, and may not have any 
>> functionality not already provided by a reasonably plausible interpretation 
>> of a rules; any other functionality is INEFFECTIVE. [Maybe: remove this 
>> sentence to avoid crazy meta-CFJs, letting the Moot system handle bad 
>> Clarifications?] The Rulekeepor SHALL include the text of all Clarifications 
>> in the Full Logical Ruleset, and SHOULD list them near relevant rules.
>> 
>> When submitting a nontrivial judgment of TRUE, FALSE or PARADOXICAL, a judge 
>> CAN and SHOULD propose the text for one or more Clarifications. Once a 
>> Judgement has been in place for more than seven days without being entered 
>> into Moot, or has been entered into Moot with a result of AFFIRM or FAILED 
>> QUORUM, Clarifications are created with the specified text.
>> 
>> Any player may destroy a Clarification Without Objection, and SHOULD do so 
>> if it becomes irrelevant.
>> 
>> —
>> 
>> This is pretty similar to the annotations we already had on old FLRs, but 
>> given force and a legal requirement for the Rulekeepor to keep track of 
>> them. After this is in effect for a while, it might be worth getting rid of 
>> the current informal precedent system (in the form of a suggestion of how to 
>> judge CFJs).
>> 
>> Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: becoming a player

[Gaelan Steele]

Generally we sign messages with our preferred names. 

Gaelan

> On Apr 3, 2018, at 8:59 AM, ⁨אורי פופקו⁩ <⁨ouri.pou...@gmail.com⁩> wrote:
> 
> Thank you for dancing the dance of welcoming :>
> I am very confused here as a new comer.
> For instance - is your name Benjamin Schultz? Or Oscar Meyr?
> 

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: becoming a player

[Gaelan Steele]

Informally. That will do.

Gaelan

> On Apr 3, 2018, at 8:30 AM, ⁨אורי פופקו⁩ <⁨ouri.pou...@gmail.com⁩> wrote:
> 
> I prefer it to be Ouri. How do I set it?
> 
> On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, 18:28 Corona,  wrote:
> 
>> Is  אורי פופקו your player name?
>> 
>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:14 PM, אורי פופקו  wrote:
>> 
>>> I intend to become a player at this time
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> ~Corona
>> 

DIS: Proto: Formalized Precedent

[Gaelan Steele]

Proto:

A Clarification is a type of instrument that always has 0.1 power. A 
clarification may only clarify existing rules, and may not have any 
functionality not already provided by a reasonably plausible interpretation of 
a rules; any other functionality is INEFFECTIVE. [Maybe: remove this sentence 
to avoid crazy meta-CFJs, letting the Moot system handle bad Clarifications?] 
The Rulekeepor SHALL include the text of all Clarifications in the Full Logical 
Ruleset, and SHOULD list them near relevant rules.

When submitting a nontrivial judgment of TRUE, FALSE or PARADOXICAL, a judge 
CAN and SHOULD propose the text for one or more Clarifications. Once a 
Judgement has been in place for more than seven days without being entered into 
Moot, or has been entered into Moot with a result of AFFIRM or FAILED QUORUM, 
Clarifications are created with the specified text.

Any player may destroy a Clarification Without Objection, and SHOULD do so if 
it becomes irrelevant.

—

This is pretty similar to the annotations we already had on old FLRs, but given 
force and a legal requirement for the Rulekeepor to keep track of them. After 
this is in effect for a while, it might be worth getting rid of the current 
informal precedent system (in the form of a suggestion of how to judge CFJs).

Gaelan

DIS: Re: OFF: Land Auctions for April week 1

[Gaelan Steele]

I bid 3 on auctions 4 and 5

> On Apr 2, 2018, at 3:32 PM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
> 
> Land auctions now work. Hooray.
> 
> There are currently 6 public, unpreserved, non-aether land units in 
> existence. As the Cartographor, I am to choose 5 of them to be auctioned off.
> 
> For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the auctioneer, 
> and the minimum bid is 1 coin:
> 
> AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (-1, -2)
> AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at ( 0, -2)
> AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, -2)
> AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (-1, +2)
> AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at ( 0, +2)

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] the Great Zombie Auction for April

[Gaelan Steele]

I bid 1 coin as well. 

Gaelan

> On Apr 2, 2018, at 11:14 AM, Kenyon Prater  wrote:
> 
> I bid one coin in this auction as well.
> 
>> On Mon, Apr 2, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mon, 2 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> * LOTS (from highest to lowest winning bid):
>>> pokes, o, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, nichdel, Quazie
>> 
>> I bid 1 Coin in this auction.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Currency Balances

[Gaelan Steele]

Good point. We should probably change paper to be singular to be consistent 
with the other uncountable currencies, then. 

Gaelan 

> On Apr 1, 2018, at 10:56 PM, Aris Merchant 
> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Need was inaccurate. TBH, I'm not sure how often we'd use them. But it
> would be a nice touch if the system is going to last a while, which it
> looks like it will. Also, how often do you say "Bring me two papers"? It's
> usually pieces or sheets, but not papers. The main time you'd hear a number
> of papers is when talking about papers submitted to a conference or
> journal, not for mere physical sheets.
> 
> -Aris
> 
>> On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 7:08 PM Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Papers are already defined as plural in the rules, so probably don’t need
>> the count noun. As for the rest, they make sense (although I’m not sure how
>> often we’d actually need them—“I transfer 3 fabric” works fine)
>> 
>> Gaelan
>> 
>>> On Apr 1, 2018, at 6:07 PM, Aris Merchant <
>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The following abbreviations are used in the table above:
>>>> Ston = stone
>>>> Appl = apples
>>>> Lmbr = lumber
>>>> Cotn = cotton
>>>> Coin = coins
>>>> Papr = papers
>>>> Fabr = fabric
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Some of these probably need (or could use) count nouns. Proto:
>>> 
>>> Shards of stone
>>> Logs of lumber
>>> Bales of cotton
>>> Sheets of paper
>>> Rolls of fabric
>>> 
>>> -Aris
>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Currency Balances

[Gaelan Steele]

Papers are already defined as plural in the rules, so probably don’t need the 
count noun. As for the rest, they make sense (although I’m not sure how often 
we’d actually need them—“I transfer 3 fabric” works fine)

Gaelan

> On Apr 1, 2018, at 6:07 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> The following abbreviations are used in the table above:
>> Ston = stone
>> Appl = apples
>> Lmbr = lumber
>> Cotn = cotton
>> Coin = coins
>> Papr = papers
>> Fabr = fabric
> 
> 
> Some of these probably need (or could use) count nouns. Proto:
> 
> Shards of stone
> Logs of lumber
> Bales of cotton
> Sheets of paper
> Rolls of fabric
> 
> -Aris
> 
>> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Monthly deregistration intents and zombifications

[Gaelan Steele]

Wait, what does “attempt” mean? Can the Registrar just say “I deregister each 
of these players by announcement”? It doesn’t work, but it’s arguably an intent.

Gaelan

> On Apr 1, 2018, at 5:42 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 
>> I object to every one of the below intents.
> 
> I'm wondering what is needed for you to be considered to have fulfilled the 
> monthly requirement and whether your objections violate it.
> 
>   In the first Eastman week of every month the Registrar SHALL
>   attempt to deregister every player that has not sent a message to
>   a public forum in the preceding month.
> 
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Learn from our friends

[Gaelan Steele]

Now that April Fools Day is over (in UTC, anyway), I would like to make clear 
that I have no intention of voting for this proposal. The caution probably 
warranted, however.

Gaelan

> On Apr 1, 2018, at 2:59 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> Agora’s great and all, but I think every once and a while we need to shake 
>> things 
>> up. I create the following proposal, and pend it with one paper:
> 
> Well might as well test if our current defenses work at all.
> 
> I announce my intent to start a Rank 5 Festival with 4 Support 
> from players who own at least 5 types of Ribbon.
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Nabbing the stuffs part 2

[Gaelan Steele]

Does anyone know where Aris and CB were when this happened? I’m trying to 
update my report, but the cartogrophor’s report hasn’t been updated in a long 
time.

Gaelan

> On Mar 19, 2018, at 7:37 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> I take everything from where I'm standing.
> 
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 1:18 AM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I take everything from the mine where I'm standing.
>> 
>> -Aris
>> 
>> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 5:17 PM Kenyon Prater 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> If the orchard at (-1, 1) is nonempty I take all the contents of the
>>> orchard at (-1, 1).
>>> 
>>> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Aris Merchant <
>>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
 If the mine at (-1, -1) is nonempty, then I do the following:
 
 Destroy 1 apple to move from (0, 0) to (-1, 0)
 Destroy 1 apple to move to (-1, -1)
 Take all the contents of the mine at (-1,-1)
 
 I likewise intend to respect EFDoA, and encourage everyone else to do
>> the
 same.
 
 -Aris
 
 On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 5:12 PM, Kenyon Prater 
 wrote:
> I take all the contents of the orchard at (-1, 1).
> 
> I intend to respect EFDoA and will hold off on claiming anything else
 until
> 4 days has passed.
 
>>> 
>> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8031

[Gaelan Steele]

Text encoding issues, most likely.

Gaelan

> On Mar 29, 2018, at 6:20 AM, ATMunn <iamingodsa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> What happened to your name? Ørjan Johansen?
> 
> On 3/28/2018 7:38 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> I change my vote on 8031 to:
>>> If there are 4 or more valid unconditional FOR ballots cast on 8031 at
>>> the end of the voting period, FOR.  Otherwise AGAINST.
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>>> I vote conditionally:
>>>> If G¢s vote evaluates to FOR, AGAINST. Otherwise FOR.
>>>> 
>>>> [For the record, I support this proposal and will probably change my vote 
>>>> later]
>> Heh I've been wondering about someone doing that kind of thing.
>> Greetings,
>> Ørjan.

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

[Gaelan Steele]

I’m a bit swamped with schoolwork at the moment, but I’ll deputize if I get a 
chance. 

Gaelan

> On Mar 19, 2018, at 10:20 AM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> We really need a Rulekeepor. It's probably the most important office on
> that list. Gaelan, are you interested in taking that on again?
> 
> -Aris
> 
>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 8:51 AM Edward Murphy  wrote:
>> 
>> G. wrote:
>> 
 Prime Minister*(vacant)   2018-02-28[2] (ongoing)
>> 
>> Notice of Honour: +1 G. for reminding me, -1 myself for needing to be
>> reminded.
>> 
>> As ADoP, I resolve elections as follows:
>> * Notary - VJ Rada is the only candidate and is elected
>> * Prime Minister - G. is the only candidate and is elected
>> * Referee - Cuddle Beam is the only candidate and is elected
>> * Rulekeepor - no candidates, no winner
>> 
>> 

Re: DIS: PAoaM Patch v3

[Gaelan Steele]

I am in favor of ratifying (self- or without objection) everything but the 
auctions (per Aris’s reasoning).

Gaelan

> On Mar 18, 2018, at 7:00 PM, Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Does something need to retroactively make land auctions and
> resource-nabbing current? I don't see that included in here. My
> understanding is that the Cartographor doesn't exist which probably makes
> land auctions and maybe all movement on the map broken? Or are we starting
> with new land auctions and such after this passes?
> 
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Mar 18, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Aris Merchant <
>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Information about a Convergence (but not
>>> the resulting state) is inherently uncertain and is thus excluded from
>>> self-ratification.”
>> 
>> Do we need to specify that the history leading up to the convergence
>> doesn’t self-ratify either?

Re: DIS: PAoaM Patch v3

[Gaelan Steele]

> On Mar 18, 2018, at 3:34 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
>  Information about a Convergence (but not
>  the resulting state) is inherently uncertain and is thus excluded from
>  self-ratification.”

Do we need to specify that the history leading up to the convergence doesn’t 
self-ratify either?

Re: DIS: Draft: PAoaM Patch v2

[Gaelan Steele]

How about a rule to this effect: “A Convergence is a change to the gamestate 
designed to resolve ambiguity in the current state. [Maybe: Causing a change to 
the gamestate to be considered a Convergence is protected at power 3. A player 
may cause a gamestate change to be considered a Convergence with 3 Agoran 
Consent.]
When officeholders are required to provide historical information, they NEED 
NOT accurately document the changes leading up to or during the Convergence 
accurately, but SHALL note that the Convergence occurred.”

The wording is a bit awkward, but I think this would come in handy now as well 
as in the future.

Gaelan

> On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:08 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 12:40 AM Alex Smith 
> wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 2018-03-18 at 00:09 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>> Okay, everyone, here's a revised patch. Please point out any other
>>> issues you see. All changes more significant than a typo fix have
>>> been moved to a new section for reader's convenience . Gaelan, some
>>> version of this will be in this week's distribution, so you can
>>> withdraw your original.
>> [snip]
>>> The Rulekeepor MAY list historical annotations for changes made by
>>> the following portion of this proposal (until the text “END CLEANUP”)
>>> however e wishes, including incorrectly or not at all.
>> 
>> I'm not convinced this actually works legally. You may need to create a
>> temporary rule for the purpose.
> 
> 
> I personally agree with you. How about "The Rulekeepor SHOULD NOT be
> punished for listing...". That makes it clear that it's non-binding
> meta-game guidance. Of course, actual codification would be preferable, but
> I agree with other commenters that it's impractical.
> 
> -Aris
> 
>> 

Re: DIS: Draft: PAoaM Patch v2

[Gaelan Steele]

IIRC proposals are instruments with power, and that power is never revoked. 
Unfortunately, I don’t think a temporary rule would do the trick—unless we 
ratified the history of the PAoaM rules (something I’d rather not do), every 
future FLR might be technically “incorrect” unless we figured out the ruleset 
actually looked like after PAoaM got enacted. The rule allowing the FLR to be 
“wrong” would need to stick around at least until we got rid of PAoaM, which 
would be annoying. I guess having a long-lived proposal effect isn’t actually 
any better than having a rule, but at least we don’t need to keep a record of 
it? I’m not sure about the best course of action here. 

Gaelan

> On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:40 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 2018-03-18 at 00:09 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> Okay, everyone, here's a revised patch. Please point out any other
>> issues you see. All changes more significant than a typo fix have
>> been moved to a new section for reader's convenience . Gaelan, some
>> version of this will be in this week's distribution, so you can
>> withdraw your original.
> [snip]
>> The Rulekeepor MAY list historical annotations for changes made by
>> the following portion of this proposal (until the text “END CLEANUP”)
>> however e wishes, including incorrectly or not at all.
> 
> I'm not convinced this actually works legally. You may need to create a
> temporary rule for the purpose.
> 
> -- 
> ais523

Re: DIS: Draft: PAoaM Patch v2

[Gaelan Steele]

Why the “rounds” of cleanup? The “END CLEANUP” thing was to avoid the need to 
figure out what the “actual” game state was for the purposes of the FLR 
history, while still having the actual text changes in this proposal be 
annotated properly. 

Other than that, looks good. Thanks for picking this up.

Gaelan

> On Mar 18, 2018, at 12:09 AM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> Okay, everyone, here's a revised patch. Please point out any other
> issues you see. All changes more significant than a typo fix have been
> moved to a new section for reader's convenience . Gaelan, some version
> of this will be in this week's distribution, so you can withdraw your
> original.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> ---
> Title: PAoaM Patch v2
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors: Gaelan, Trigon
> 
> 
> In Rule 105 “Rule Changes,” replace
> 
>  "If the reenacting proposal provides new text for the rule, the rule
>  must have materially the same purpose as did the repealed version;
>  otherwise, the attempt to reenact the rule is null and void.”
> 
> with
> 
>  “If the reenacting proposal provides new text for the rule, the
>  rule SHOULD have materially the same purpose as did the repealed version."
> 
> The Rulekeepor MAY list historical annotations for changes made by the
> following portion of this proposal (until the text “END CLEANUP”) however e
> wishes, including incorrectly or not at all.
> 
> If Rule 2599 is not currently enacted, re-enact it with the following
> text; if it is enacted but does not have the following text, amend it
> to have the following text: {
> 
> If a player has not received a Welcome Package since e most
>  recently registered, any player CAN cause em to receive one by
>  announcement.
> 
>  When a player receives a Welcome Package, Agora creates the
>  following assets in eir possession:
> 
>  1. 10 coins
>  2. 5 lumber
>  3. 5 stones
>  4. 10 apples
>  5. 3 papers
> }
> 
> If no rule titled “Paydays” exists, create it at power 2 with the following
> text; if it exists but does not have the following text, amend it to have the
> following text: {
> 
>  Whenever a Payday occurs, the following events happen in order:
> 
>  1. The following assets are created in the possession of each
> player:
> A. 10 coins
> B. 5 apples
> C. 2 papers
> 
>  2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or
> more days in the previous month and e was not issued any Cards
> other than Green for eir conduct in that office during that
> time, the following assets are created in the possession of
> that player:
> A. 5 coins
> B. 1 corn
> 
>  The occurrence of Paydays is secured.  At the beginning of each
>  month, a Payday occurs.
> }
> 
> If Rule 1993 is not currently enacted, re-enact it with the following text;
> if it is enacted but does not have the following text, amend it to have the
> following text: {
> 
>  Arcadia is a land entirely defined by the Arcadian Map (the Map).
>  The Map is the term for the set of all Land Units.
> 
>  The Map divides Arcadia into a finite, discrete number of Units of
>  Land, or simply Land. Each Unit of Land is an indestructible asset
>  specified by an ordered pair of integers known as its Latitude and
>  Longitude.
> 
>  Every unique ordered pair of integers within the limits defined in
>  the Rules for Latitude and Longitude signifies an existent Unit of
>  Land. No other Units of Land exist. Units of Land CAN only be
>  created or destroyed by changing the limits of Latitude and
>  Longitude defined in the Rules.
> 
>  All values for Latitude and Longitude MUST lie between -6 and +6,
>  inclusive.
> 
>  The Total Land Area of Arcadia is the number of existent Units of
>  Land defined by permissible Latitude and Longitude pairs.
> }
> 
> If Rule 1994 is not currently enacted, re-enact it with the following text;
> if it is enacted but does not have the following text, amend it to have the
> following text: {
> 
>  Any existent Land for which ownership has not been explicitly
>  changed belongs to Agora.
> 
>  Land belonging to Agora is called Public Land. Land belonging to
>  a contract is called Communal Land. Land belonging to any other
>  entity is called Private Land. Together, Communal Land and Private
>  Land are called Proprietary Land.
> }
> 
> If Rule 1995 is not currently enacted, re-enact it with the following text;
> if it is enacted but does not have the following text, amend it to have the
> following text: {
> 
>  Each Unit of Land has a Land Type switch, tracked by the
>  Cartographor, whose values are "Black", "White", and "Aether" (the
>  default). Changes to Land Type switches are secured. To "change
>  the type" of, or to "transform" a Unit of Land is to flip its Type
>  switch. A “Unit of X” is a Unit of Land whose Land Type switch has
>  the value X.
> 
>  When existent Land has not had its Type changed as explicitly
>  permitted by the Rules, or has a Type that is 

Re: DIS: PAoaM Patch status

[Gaelan Steele]

Of course, March’s already self-ratified. But yes, this does urgently need to 
be cleaned up. 

Gaelan 

> On Mar 17, 2018, at 10:53 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> All it takes is one CoE to stop that.
> 
>> On Sat, 17 Mar 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> FYI, I’m pretending everything (including paydays) is working. 
>> 
>> Gaelan
>> 
>>> On Mar 17, 2018, at 9:39 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Personally I'd rather limp along imperfectly than wait for the perfect
>>> and miss the April payday.  So absolutely have a go but I'm fine voting
>>> for the current one if there's not a better in the next distribution.
>>> 
>>>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>>> It wasn't pended because there were substantial problems it didn't fix. I
>>>> posted them in a thread replying to the proposal, and they haven't been
>>>> fixed yet. I'll have a go at fixing them and looking for any others over
>>>> the weekend, and I'd encourage others to do the same. It would be best if
>>>> we could find everything now, rather than bumping into other problems 
>>>> later.
>>>> 
>>>> -Aris
>>>> 
>>>> On Mar 16, 2018 1:37 PM, "Reuben Staley" <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> ATMunn pended it just a few hours ago.
>>>> 
>>>> El vie., 16 de mar. de 2018 14:36, Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com>
>>>> escribió:
>>>> 
>>>>> It still isn't pended right? Is there a reason/what still needs to happen
>>>>> before that?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: DIS: PAoaM Patch status

[Gaelan Steele]

FYI, I’m pretending everything (including paydays) is working. 

Gaelan

> On Mar 17, 2018, at 9:39 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I'd rather limp along imperfectly than wait for the perfect
> and miss the April payday.  So absolutely have a go but I'm fine voting
> for the current one if there's not a better in the next distribution.
> 
>> On Fri, 16 Mar 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> It wasn't pended because there were substantial problems it didn't fix. I
>> posted them in a thread replying to the proposal, and they haven't been
>> fixed yet. I'll have a go at fixing them and looking for any others over
>> the weekend, and I'd encourage others to do the same. It would be best if
>> we could find everything now, rather than bumping into other problems later.
>> 
>> -Aris
>> 
>> On Mar 16, 2018 1:37 PM, "Reuben Staley"  wrote:
>> 
>> ATMunn pended it just a few hours ago.
>> 
>> El vie., 16 de mar. de 2018 14:36, Kenyon Prater 
>> escribió:
>> 
>>> It still isn't pended right? Is there a reason/what still needs to happen
>>> before that?
>>> 
>> 

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Currency repairs?

[Gaelan Steele]

Always 1.

Gaelan

> On Mar 16, 2018, at 10:06 AM, ATMunn  wrote:
> 
> I pend that proposal with whatever the cost in paper is.
> 
> (probably too vague to work, but oh well :P)
> 
> On 3/16/2018 1:01 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>> It's in the proposal pool, unpended. Someone should pend it. Probably me
>> since I caused the issues.
>> El vie., 16 de mar. de 2018 09:19, Kerim Aydin 
>> escribió:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> What's the deal with the big fix for the Map rules?  (Payday
>>> and whatnot).  Did we decide not to do that or what.
>>> 
>>> 

DIS: Re: OFF: Land auctions

[Gaelan Steele]

Do these coins get destroyed or go to Agora?

> On Mar 7, 2018, at 8:46 PM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
> 
> If I am able to resolve the land auctions started on February 24th, I attempt 
> to do so:
> 
> AUCTION 1 for the land unit (-1, -2):
> 
> Player   Amount
> 
> Gaelan   1c.
> Cuddlebeam   2c.
> Trigon   3c.
> 
> Trigon wins (new balance: 12c.)
> 
> AUCTION 2 for the land unit ( 0, -2):
> 
> Player   Amount
> 
> Gaelan   1c.
> Cuddlebeam   2c.
> Gaelan   3c.
> Cuddlebeam   4c.
> 
> Cuddlebeam wins (new balance: 16c.)
> 
> AUCTION 3 for the land unit (+1, -2):
> 
> Player   Amount
> 
> Gaelan   1c.
> Cuddlebeam   2c.
> Gaelan   3c.
> Cuddlebeam   4c.
> 
> Cuddlebeam wins (new balance: 12c.)
> 
> AUCTION 4 for the land unit (-1, +2):
> 
> Player   Amount
> 
> Gaelan   1c.
> Cuddlebeam   2c.
> Gaelan   3c.
> Cuddlebeam   4c.
> Gaelan   5c.
> Cuddlebeam   6c.
> 
> Cuddlebeam wins (new balance: 6c.)
> 
> AUCTION 5 for the land unit ( 0, +2):
> 
> Player   Amount
> 
> Gaelan   1c.
> Cuddlebeam   2c.
> Gaelan   3c.
> Cuddlebeam   4c.
> Gaelan   5c.
> Cuddlebeam   6c.
> 
> Cuddlebeam wins (new balance: 0c.)
> 
> I initiate the following auctions:
> 
> AUCTION 1 for the land unit (+1, +2)
> 
> -- 
> Trigon

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: {"ADoP":"data"}

[Gaelan Steele]

You're right. I'm not actually that annoyed; to be honest, I mostly needed a 
-1. My apologies. 

Gaelan 

> On Mar 7, 2018, at 11:58 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice of Honour
> 
> +1 CuddleBeam for not being shy about showing how basic, wholly legal moves
>work in the current subgame (whether the subgame needs tweaks is another
>matter, but there's no reason for CuddleBeam to presuppose that those moves
>were Bad Form).
> -1 Gaelan for pinning complaints about the basic paid job that e signed up
>for on someone else - if there's a problem it's with the system not the
>player in this case.
> 
> 
>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> Oh, and also: notice of Honour. 
>> 
>> +1 to Murphy for making my job a bit easier. 
>> -1 to CB for creating an annoyingly large pile of transfers, and inspiring 
>> others to do the same. 
>> 
>> Gaelan 
>> 
>>> On Mar 6, 2018, at 11:48 PM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I transfer 3 lumber to Murphy.
>>> 
>>> Gaelan
>>> 
>>>> On Mar 5, 2018, at 6:48 PM, Edward Murphy <emurph...@zoho.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> At Gaelan's request, I added JSON exports for each of the SQL tables
>>>> making up the ADoP database. Links -> http://zenith.homelinux.net/adop/
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Currency Balances

[Gaelan Steele]

Technically, Asian characters are supposed to be two monospace characters wide. 
In my experience, things that are monospaced by design (terminals, text 
editors) do this right; things that are just set to a monospaced font, such as 
browsers or email clients, don't. 

Side note: would anybody be against my report being formatted as an HTML table, 
as long as I also provided a plain text version of the email (as a MIME 
alternative)? The rules require my report to be in plain text, but one could 
argue it doesn't prohibit the report from being in another format as well. I 
won't do it if people are against it, but I think it would help the people who 
view Agora in an email client with a fixed with font. (Side side note: if you 
have this problem or want more up-to-date information, use the online report!)

Gaelan 

> On Mar 7, 2018, at 12:16 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> It doesn't line up to me...
> 
> Do you mean like, graphically lining up or?
> 
>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 9:03 AM, Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote:
>> 
>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> 
>> +---++++---++---
>>> -++++
>>> |Entity |Ston|Appl|Corn|Ore|Lmbr|
>>> Cotn|Coin|Papr|Fabr|
>>> +---++++---++---
>>> -++++
>>> |天火狐 |   5|  15|   0|  0|   5|   0|  20|   5|   0|
>>> |Aris   |   5|  15|   2|  0|   5|   0|  30|   5|
>>> 0|
>>> 
>> 
>> What, it lines up! What magic is this?
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Ørjan.
>> 

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Monthly housekeeping

[Gaelan Steele]

I support the intents for o, Quazie, and PSS.

Gaelan 

> On Mar 6, 2018, at 4:23 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I flip o's master switch to Agora.
> I flip pokes' master switch to Agora.
> 
> 
> I intend to deregister, with 3 Agoran Consent, each of:
>  omd, o, Quazie, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, pokes
> 
> 
> I object to each of the above intents.
> 
> 

Re: DIS: [Promotor] Non-Draft

[Gaelan Steele]

pp2 is pended. 

Gaelan

> On Mar 4, 2018, at 12:28 AM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> I'm too tired to prepare a full draft right now, but I'm worried I'm
> missing something in all the noise. It is my belief that the proposals
> in existence are the following:
> 
> IDAuthor(s) AI   Title
> ---
> pp1   Gaelan, [1]   3.0  PAoaM Patch
> pp2   [2]   2.0  Nomicbots Minigame
> 
> [1] Trigon
> [2] CuddleBeam, Gaelan, ATMunn, Trigon, Kenyon
> 
> If you don't see your proposal, or something else looks wrong, please speak 
> up.
> 
> -Aris

Re: DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain

[Gaelan Steele]

Ornaments and teleporters would both fit in an "other" category—they wouldn't 
need to be both production and processing. 

Gaelan 

> On Mar 3, 2018, at 3:37 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I suggest adding an example along that extensibility to market the idea of
> it better. Swag purely aesthetics ornaments, walls and teleporters,
> perhaps? (Not entirely necessary though, it just makes it look better
> because it has a purpose instead of being blank)
> 
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I'm happy to admit that I may have been wrong on this one. However,
>> extensibility is important. I was hoping we could do it in a short
>> paragraph, not a whole rule. What do you guys think?
>> 
>> -Aris
>> 
>>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 9:05 PM Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Sorry I forgot to bring this up earlier, but I think unless we have a use
>>> case for facilities with multiple types, we should just have a simple
>>> production/processing/{monument,other} option. This is well-written, but
>>> until we need it I think it would be better to avoid the complexity.
>>> 
>>> Gaelan
>>> 
>>>> On Mar 2, 2018, at 1:37 PM, Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Gray Land and Fountain Draft 1 {
>>>> 
>>>> Amend rule 1995/0 "Land Types" (Power=2.0):
>>>>   Replace "whose values are "Black", "White", and "Aether"", with the
>>>>   text "whose values are "Black", "White", "Gray", and "Aether""
>>>> 
>>>> Create a new rule "Facility Categories", (Power=2.0):
>>>>   A Category is an entity specified as such by the rule that creates
>> it.
>>>>   A facility's Categories may be defined in the rule that creates it,
>>> and
>>>>   may be any set of Categories defined in the rules. If no Categories
>>> are
>>>>   defined in the facility's creating rules, the facility's Categories
>> is
>>>>   the null set.
>>>> 
>>>>   A facility belongs to [Category] if that Category is an element in
>> its
>>>>   Categories. A [Category] facility refers to a facility that belong
>> to
>>>>   [Category]. A Pure-[Category] facility refers to a facility that
>>> belong
>>>>   to [Category] and no others.
>>>> 
>>>> Amend "Asset Generation with Facilities" (Power=2.0) to read the
>>> following:
>>>>   Asset Generator is a Category of facilities. When an Asset Generator
>>>>   facility creates assets, the assets are added to the facility's
>>>>   possession. The rule that creates an Asset Generator facility CAN
>>>>   specify a carrying capacity for assets. If, at any time, the amount
>> of
>>>>   an asset in the possession of an Asset Generator facility exceeds
>> that
>>>>   asset's carrying capacity, an amount of that asset is destroyed
>> until
>>>>   the amount of that asset in the possession of the facility is equal
>> to
>>>>   its carrying capacity.
>>>> 
>>>>   Production is a Category of facilities. A facility that is a
>>> Production
>>>>   facility is also an Asset Generator facility. At the end of every
>>>>   Agoran Week, Agora creates a number of assets in a Production
>> facility
>>>>   specified by the rule which creates the facility.
>>>> 
>>>>   Processing is a Category of facilities. A facility that is a
>>> Processing
>>>>   facility is also an Asset Generator facility. At the end of every
>>>>   Agoran Week, Agora destroys any refinable assets in the possession
>> of
>>>>   each processing facility that that facility can change into refined
>>>>   assets and replaces them with a corresponding number of refined
>> assets
>>>>   to be specified by the rule that creates the facility.
>>>> 
>>>>   A player can take a number of assets from an Asset Generator
>>> facility's
>>>>   inventory by announcement if eir location is the same as the
>>> facility's
>>>>   and the following criteria are met:
>>>> 
>>>>   1. if the facility is built on Public Land, none.
>>>> 
>>>>   2. if the facility is built 

Re: DIS: Grey Land and the Fountain

[Gaelan Steele]

Sorry I forgot to bring this up earlier, but I think unless we have a use case 
for facilities with multiple types, we should just have a simple 
production/processing/{monument,other} option. This is well-written, but until 
we need it I think it would be better to avoid the complexity.

Gaelan 

> On Mar 2, 2018, at 1:37 PM, Kenyon Prater  wrote:
> 
> Gray Land and Fountain Draft 1 {
> 
> Amend rule 1995/0 "Land Types" (Power=2.0):
>Replace "whose values are "Black", "White", and "Aether"", with the
>text "whose values are "Black", "White", "Gray", and "Aether""
> 
> Create a new rule "Facility Categories", (Power=2.0):
>A Category is an entity specified as such by the rule that creates it.
>A facility's Categories may be defined in the rule that creates it, and
>may be any set of Categories defined in the rules. If no Categories are
>defined in the facility's creating rules, the facility's Categories is
>the null set.
> 
>A facility belongs to [Category] if that Category is an element in its
>Categories. A [Category] facility refers to a facility that belong to
>[Category]. A Pure-[Category] facility refers to a facility that belong
>to [Category] and no others.
> 
> Amend "Asset Generation with Facilities" (Power=2.0) to read the following:
>Asset Generator is a Category of facilities. When an Asset Generator
>facility creates assets, the assets are added to the facility's
>possession. The rule that creates an Asset Generator facility CAN
>specify a carrying capacity for assets. If, at any time, the amount of
>an asset in the possession of an Asset Generator facility exceeds that
>asset's carrying capacity, an amount of that asset is destroyed until
>the amount of that asset in the possession of the facility is equal to
>its carrying capacity.
> 
>Production is a Category of facilities. A facility that is a Production
>facility is also an Asset Generator facility. At the end of every
>Agoran Week, Agora creates a number of assets in a Production facility
>specified by the rule which creates the facility.
> 
>Processing is a Category of facilities. A facility that is a Processing
>facility is also an Asset Generator facility. At the end of every
>Agoran Week, Agora destroys any refinable assets in the possession of
>each processing facility that that facility can change into refined
>assets and replaces them with a corresponding number of refined assets
>to be specified by the rule that creates the facility.
> 
>A player can take a number of assets from an Asset Generator facility's
>inventory by announcement if eir location is the same as the facility's
>and the following criteria are met:
> 
>1. if the facility is built on Public Land, none.
> 
>2. if the facility is built on Communal Land, e must be a party to
>   that contract and the text of the contract must permit em to do
>   so.
> 
>3. if the facility is built on Private Land, e must own the
>   facility, or the owner must have consented.
> 
> Amend "Facility Ranks" (Power=2.0) to read the following:
>Rank is a facility switch tracked by the Cartographor defaulting to 1.
>Its possible values include all integers between 1 and 5, inclusive.
> 
>If a facility specifies upgrade costs, a player CAN increase the rank
>of a facility e owns that is at eir location by exactly 1 by
>announcement by paying any upgrade costs of the facility for that
>specific rank. If no upgrade costs are specified for a facility, a
>player CANNOT increase the rank of that facility unless specified in
>other rules.
> 
> Create a new rule "Facility Colors" (Power=2.0):
>A facility's Allowed Land Types is a property defined as such, having
>allowable values of any set of allowed values of the Land Type switch,
>with a default value of {"Black", "White"}. A facility may not have a
>Parent Land Unit whose Land Type is not an element of their Allowed
>Land Types. If an action or set of actions would cause a facility to be
>created with a Parent Land Unit whose Land Type is not an element of
>its Allowed Land Types, that action or set of actions fails. If a
>facility's Parent Land Unit's Land Type is flipped to a color that is
>not in that facility's Allowed Land Types, that facility, and anything
>contained within, is destroyed.
> 
> Create a new rule "Gray Land" (Power=2.0):
>Gray Land is Land whose Land Type switch is set to "Gray". Gray Land
>is preserved and owned by Agora. If Land becomes Gray Land, it, along
>with any facilities with it as their Parent Land Unit, are transfered
>to Agora, and the Land's preservation switch is set to true.
> 
> Create a new rule "Gray Actions" (Power=1.0):
>Players CAN destroy:
> 
>1. 1 apple to move from one Gray Land Unit to an adjacent Unit of any
>   Land Type 

Re: DIS: proto: patent award codification

[Gaelan Steele]

Your phrasing sounds like an obligation to give the title to all deserving 
players. Maybe something like this?

The following titles CAN be awarded to any player by the holders of the listed 
offices with 2 Support. They SHOULD only be given to players that meet the 
qualifications listed. 

- Scamster (Referee): any Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence, 
or skill in the perpetrating of scams. 

> On Mar 1, 2018, at 10:39 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Good thinking.  Definitely will add SHOULDS to the standards for each,
> but probably good to say additionally in the rule that whether a player
> meets those standards is a political question not a judicial one (i.e.
> if it gets the right support/consent, it qualifies).
> 
> Here's the old standard for scamster as an example:
>   (a)  Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown
>great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating
>of scams.  
> I'd change "may be" to SHOULD here and add the "CAN with support level."
> 
>> On Thu, 1 Mar 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> Probably want the criteria for each to be SHOULDs so that we don't have CFJs 
>> about just how brilliant a judgement was. I like the idea. 
>> 
>> Gaelan  
>> 
>>> On Mar 1, 2018, at 10:01 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> We used to have more Patent Titles named in the rules, and different
>>> officers were allowed to award them under certain conditions.  We
>>> dropped that on the grounds that the Herald could generically award
>>> any of them when it seemed appropriate, but it meant the reasons for
>>> some of the awards (e.g. Long Service) got lost from memory.
>>> 
>>> Should we re-implement?  E.g.
>>> 
>>>   The ADoP CAN award X months long service for X=3,6,9,12 when a
>>>   person without that title has served in a single office continuously
>>>   for that length of time.
>>> 
>>>   The Reportor (alt: Herald) CAN award Bard w/2 support to someone who 
>>>   publishes certain quantities of poems.
>>> 
>>>   The Referee CAN award Scamster w/2 support to someone who performs
>>>   a major scam.
>>> 
>>>   The Arbitor CAN award the title Sage w/2 support to someone who 
>>>   delivers a particularly brilliant judgement.
>>> 
>>>  Etc.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

Re: DIS: proto: patent award codification

[Gaelan Steele]

Probably want the criteria for each to be SHOULDs so that we don't have CFJs 
about just how brilliant a judgement was. I like the idea. 

Gaelan  

> On Mar 1, 2018, at 10:01 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We used to have more Patent Titles named in the rules, and different
> officers were allowed to award them under certain conditions.  We
> dropped that on the grounds that the Herald could generically award
> any of them when it seemed appropriate, but it meant the reasons for
> some of the awards (e.g. Long Service) got lost from memory.
> 
> Should we re-implement?  E.g.
> 
>The ADoP CAN award X months long service for X=3,6,9,12 when a
>person without that title has served in a single office continuously
>for that length of time.
> 
>The Reportor (alt: Herald) CAN award Bard w/2 support to someone who 
>publishes certain quantities of poems.
> 
>The Referee CAN award Scamster w/2 support to someone who performs
>a major scam.
> 
>The Arbitor CAN award the title Sage w/2 support to someone who 
>delivers a particularly brilliant judgement.
> 
>   Etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Some minor reforms

[Gaelan Steele]

I disagree—many offices involve a lot of work, so it's only fair to reward it, 
and for a reward to be meaningful if needs to be relevant. It's not unfair; if 
you want piece of the pie, vacancies come up fairly frequently. 

Gaelan 

> On Feb 28, 2018, at 8:27 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> How about we tie this into the "religious" gameplay we had cooking in that
> other thread? Offices working for the "greater good" and all. (I'm not too
> comfortable with Offices gaining currency of the 'main game' because I feel
> like that subverts gameplay, it's like if the Banker in Monopoly got more
> cash because he was such, or the referee of a football match earned points
> for their preferred team because they're doing their job...)
> 
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 1:47 AM, Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
> 
>> I never actually read the Parties proposal, but I just looked at the
>> Complexity system and I actually quite like it. If we decide to go with a
>> idea-1-like system, then I'll just use that instead.
>> 
>> 
>>> On 2/28/2018 5:25 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>>> 
>>> Tend to agree. It may be useful to keep it around permanently, rather than
>>> renacting it every time we need it,
>>> 
>>> -Aris
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 2:51 PM Madeline  wrote:
>>> 
>>> If you wanna do "X-paying Jobs", just reenact Complexity from the party
 we had.
 
> On 2018-03-01 07:03, Reuben Staley wrote:
> 
> Not that I'm in this for the fictional currency, but honestly, 3 coins a
> month for all this recordkeeping is not enough. I'm not writing up any
> ruletext yet, but I will talk about 2 ideas I had for an office reform.
> 
> First idea:
> 
> 1. Players have a Job Points switch which can only be 5.
> 2. Sort all the offices as such:
>A. Low Paying Jobs:
>  - Herald
>  - Prime Minister
>  - Referee
>  - Reportor
>  - Registrar
>  - Regkeepor
>  - Speaker
>  - Tailor
>B. Mid-Paying Jobs :
>  - Promotor
>  - Assessor
>  - ADoP
>  - Notary
>C. High-Paying Jobs:
>  - Arbitor
>  - Cartographor
>  - Rulekeepor
>  - Arbitor
> 3. On paydays, holders of:
>   A. Low-Paying Jobs get 3 coins, 1 corn
>B. Mid-Paying Jobs get 10 coins, 1 corn, 2 stones, 2 lumber
>C. High-Paying Jobs get 15 coins, 1 corn, 5 stones, 5 lumber, 5
> fabric
> 4. For every:
>A. Low paying job a player has, give em 1 JP.
>B. Mid paying job, 2 JP
>C. High paying job, 3 JP
> 5. Players have a Worker Merit switch. Every month, it's increased by
> how
> many job points the player has.
> 6. When someone earns 50 worker merit, e wins.
> 
> Second idea:
> 
> "Official duties" are things that the ruleset requires an officer to do
> (e.g. publish report, start an auction, transfer assets, etc.) that need
> 
 to
 
> be reported on. Every time a player successfully carries out an official
> duty, e gets some small reward.
> 
> The first one is vastly more complex, but it would require a lot more
> record keeping.
> 
> Discuss!
> 
 
 
 
 
>>> ---
>>> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
>>> http://www.avg.com
>>> 
>>> 
>> --
>> Trigon
>> 

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proposal: Ensure fair distribution of assets

[Gaelan Steele]

Wait, what? Why do we have more assets at the facilities? I thought this was 
weekly. 

Gaelan, a very confused Treasuror

> On Feb 28, 2018, at 7:14 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> I have to agree. The IRL time race is annoying.
> 
> I take all resources at the Mines here and transfer them to myself. (3
> Stones and 2 Ores).
> 
> I destroy one of my apples to move from (-1,-1) to (0,-1)
> I destroy  one of my apples to move from (0,-1) to (1,-1)
> 
> I take all resources at the Farm here and transfer them to myself. (3 Corn
> and 3 Cotton).
> 
> I destroy two of my apples to move from (1,-1) to (1,0)
> I destroy one of my apples to move move from (1,0) to (1,1)
> 
> I take all resources at the Mines here and transfer them to myself. (3
> Stones and 2 Ores).
> 
> I destroy one of my apples to move from (1,1) to (0,1)
> I destroy one of my apples to move from (0,1) to (-1,1)
> 
> I take all resources at the Orchard here and transfer them to myself. (3
> Apples and 3 Lumber).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:18 PM, Corona  wrote:
>> 
>> As CuddleBeam has kindly demonstrated, the public facilities do not
>> function as intended (i. e. give all players some starting resources). The
>> map should not cause Agora to become a real-time game, where you just HAVE
>> to log in at the start of every week or be hugely disadvantaged. Therefore,
>> I submit the proposal below. I will pend it after addressing potential
>> comments.
>> 
>> ~Corona
>> 
>> [Essentially, you could take items only from one of the four public
>> facilities on preserved LUs each week. If nobody's interested in the other
>> items, you could take the rest after four days.]
>> 
>> "Ensure fair distribution of assets"
>> AI=2
>> Amend rule "Asset generation with facilities" by replacing the first item
>> on the list with the following two items, renumbering the other items
>> appropriately:
>> 
>> 1. if the facility is built on unconserved Public Land, none.
>> 
>> 2. if the facility is built on preserved Public Land and less than four
>> days have passed since assets were created in the facility most recently, e
>> must not have taken any assets from the inventory of another facility
>> located on a preserved Land Unit within this Agoran week.​
>> 

DIS: Proto: Transactions

[Gaelan Steele]

Title: “Transactions”
AI: not sure, help?

Create a rule titled “Transactions” [power?] with the following text: {
A set of actions to be performed is a transaction if it is specified as such by 
a rule with power [?] or greater, or the document or message describing the 
actions. If any action in a transaction would be INEFFECTIVE or otherwise not 
occur, none of the actions in the transaction occur.

Unless otherwise specified by the document or message describing the actions, 
the following sets of actions are considered transactions:
- The full text of a proposal
- Two actions in the same document or message where one action would only 
succeed if the other occurred.
}

[This proposal aims to solve two issues: proposals which leave the game in an 
inconsistent state, and situations where a player spends currency on an action 
they do not realize is ineffective. It solves both, I think, but maybe is too 
far-reaching? I considered making transactions opt-in only, but I fear people 
would forget to use them.

Gaelan]

Re: DIS: Some minor reforms

[Gaelan Steele]

You have arbitor twice, but no treasuror. 

Gaelan

> On Feb 28, 2018, at 12:03 PM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
> 
> Not that I'm in this for the fictional currency, but honestly, 3 coins a
> month for all this recordkeeping is not enough. I'm not writing up any
> ruletext yet, but I will talk about 2 ideas I had for an office reform.
> 
> First idea:
> 
> 1. Players have a Job Points switch which can only be 5.
> 2. Sort all the offices as such:
>  A. Low Paying Jobs:
>- Herald
>- Prime Minister
>- Referee
>- Reportor
>- Registrar
>- Regkeepor
>- Speaker
>- Tailor
>  B. Mid-Paying Jobs :
>- Promotor
>- Assessor
>- ADoP
>- Notary
>  C. High-Paying Jobs:
>- Arbitor
>- Cartographor
>- Rulekeepor
>- Arbitor
> 3. On paydays, holders of:
> A. Low-Paying Jobs get 3 coins, 1 corn
>  B. Mid-Paying Jobs get 10 coins, 1 corn, 2 stones, 2 lumber
>  C. High-Paying Jobs get 15 coins, 1 corn, 5 stones, 5 lumber, 5 fabric
> 4. For every:
>  A. Low paying job a player has, give em 1 JP.
>  B. Mid paying job, 2 JP
>  C. High paying job, 3 JP
> 5. Players have a Worker Merit switch. Every month, it's increased by how
> many job points the player has.
> 6. When someone earns 50 worker merit, e wins.
> 
> Second idea:
> 
> "Official duties" are things that the ruleset requires an officer to do
> (e.g. publish report, start an auction, transfer assets, etc.) that need to
> be reported on. Every time a player successfully carries out an official
> duty, e gets some small reward.
> 
> The first one is vastly more complex, but it would require a lot more
> record keeping.
> 
> Discuss!

Re: DIS: Proto: PAoaM Patch

[Gaelan Steele]

This doesn’t need to be 3.1, just 3. Oops.

> On Feb 28, 2018, at 7:19 AM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
> 
> Title: PAoaM Patch
> AI: 3.1
> 
> —
> 
> Remove the sentence "If the reenacting proposal provides new text for the
> rule, the rule must have materially the same purpose as did the
> repealed version; otherwise, the attempt to reenact the rule is
> null and void.” from Rule 105 “Rule Changes.”
> 
> If rule 2599 is not currently enacted, re-enact it with the following text; 
> if it is enacted but does not have the following text, amend it to have the 
> following text: {
>  If a player has not received a Welcome Package since e most
>  recently registered, any player CAN cause em to receive one by
>  announcement.
> 
>  When a player receives a Welcome Package, Agora creates the
>  following assets in eir possession:
> 
>  1. 10 coins
>  2. 5 lumber
>  3. 5 stones
>  4. 10 apples
>  5. 3 papers
> }
> 
> If no rule titled “Paydays” exists, create it at power 2 with the following 
> text; if it exists but does not have the following text, amend it to have the 
> following text: {
>  Whenever a Payday occurs, the following events happen in order:
> 
>  1. The following assets are created in the possession of each
> player:
> A. 10 coins
> B. 5 apples
> C. 2 papers
> 
>  2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or
> more days in the previous month and e was not issued any Cards
> other than Green for eir conduct in that office during that
> time, the following assets are created in the possession of
> that player:
> A. 5 coins
> B. 1 corn
> 
>  The occurrence of Paydays is secured.  At the beginning of each
>  month, a Payday occurs.
> }
> 
> If Rule 1993 is not currently enacted, re-enact it with the following text; 
> if it is enacted but does not have the following text, amend it to have the 
> following text: {
>  Arcadia is a land entirely defined by the Arcadian Map (the Map).
>  The Map is the term for the set of all Land Units.
> 
>  The Map divides Arcadia into a finite, discrete number of Units of
>  Land, or simply Land. Each Unit of Land is an indestructible asset
>  specified by an ordered pair of integers known as its Latitude and
>  Longitude.
> 
>  Every unique ordered pair of integers within the limits defined in
>  the Rules for Latitude and Longitude signifies an existent Unit of
>  Land. No other Units of Land exist. Units of Land CAN only be
>  created or destroyed by changing the limits of Latitude and
>  Longitude defined in the Rules.
> 
>  All values for Latitude and Longitude MUST lie between -6 and +6,
>  inclusive.
> 
>  The Total Land Area of Arcadia is the number of existent Units of
>  Land defined by permissible Latitude and Longitude pairs.
> }
> 
> If Rule 1994 is not currently enacted, re-enact it with the following text; 
> if it is enacted but does not have the following text, amend it to have the 
> following text: {
>  Any existent Land for which ownership has not been explicitly
>  changed belongs to Agora.
> 
>  Land belonging to Agora is called Public Land. Land belonging to
>  a contract is called Communal Land. Land belonging to any other
>  entity is called Private Land. Together, Communal Land and Private
>  Land are called Proprietary Land.
> }
> 
> If Rule 1995 is not currently enacted, re-enact it with the following text; 
> if it is enacted but does not have the following text, amend it to have the 
> following text: {
>  Each Unit of Land has a Land Type switch, tracked by the
>  Cartographor, whose values are "Black", "White", and "Aether" (the
>  default). Changes to Land Type switches are secured. To "change
>  the type" of, or to "transform" a Unit of Land is to flip its Type
>  switch. A “Unit of X” is a Unit of Land whose Land Type switch has
>  the value X.
> 
>  When existent Land has not had its Type changed as explicitly
>  permitted by the Rules, or has a Type that is not currently
>  defined by the Rules, it is considered to have the Land Type of
>  Aether. Rules to the contrary nonwithstanding, Units of Aether
>  CANNOT be transferred from Agora, or owned by any entity other
>  than Agora.
> 
>  If Proprietary Land becomes Aether, the Cartographor SHALL
>  transfer it to Agora in a timely fashion, destroy any facilities
>  on the Land Unit, and set all other switches to their default
>  values.
> 
>  Type is a singleton switch with the values of Black and White,
>  defaulting to Black. When an act specifies that an alternating
>  land type is to be us

DIS: Proto: PAoaM Patch

[Gaelan Steele]

Title: PAoaM Patch
AI: 3.1

—

Remove the sentence "If the reenacting proposal provides new text for the
rule, the rule must have materially the same purpose as did the
repealed version; otherwise, the attempt to reenact the rule is
null and void.” from Rule 105 “Rule Changes.”

If rule 2599 is not currently enacted, re-enact it with the following text; if 
it is enacted but does not have the following text, amend it to have the 
following text: {
  If a player has not received a Welcome Package since e most
  recently registered, any player CAN cause em to receive one by
  announcement.

  When a player receives a Welcome Package, Agora creates the
  following assets in eir possession:

  1. 10 coins
  2. 5 lumber
  3. 5 stones
  4. 10 apples
  5. 3 papers
}

If no rule titled “Paydays” exists, create it at power 2 with the following 
text; if it exists but does not have the following text, amend it to have the 
following text: {
  Whenever a Payday occurs, the following events happen in order:

  1. The following assets are created in the possession of each
 player:
 A. 10 coins
 B. 5 apples
 C. 2 papers

  2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or
 more days in the previous month and e was not issued any Cards
 other than Green for eir conduct in that office during that
 time, the following assets are created in the possession of
 that player:
 A. 5 coins
 B. 1 corn

  The occurrence of Paydays is secured.  At the beginning of each
  month, a Payday occurs.
}

If Rule 1993 is not currently enacted, re-enact it with the following text; if 
it is enacted but does not have the following text, amend it to have the 
following text: {
  Arcadia is a land entirely defined by the Arcadian Map (the Map).
  The Map is the term for the set of all Land Units.

  The Map divides Arcadia into a finite, discrete number of Units of
  Land, or simply Land. Each Unit of Land is an indestructible asset
  specified by an ordered pair of integers known as its Latitude and
  Longitude.

  Every unique ordered pair of integers within the limits defined in
  the Rules for Latitude and Longitude signifies an existent Unit of
  Land. No other Units of Land exist. Units of Land CAN only be
  created or destroyed by changing the limits of Latitude and
  Longitude defined in the Rules.

  All values for Latitude and Longitude MUST lie between -6 and +6,
  inclusive.

  The Total Land Area of Arcadia is the number of existent Units of
  Land defined by permissible Latitude and Longitude pairs.
}

If Rule 1994 is not currently enacted, re-enact it with the following text; if 
it is enacted but does not have the following text, amend it to have the 
following text: {
  Any existent Land for which ownership has not been explicitly
  changed belongs to Agora.

  Land belonging to Agora is called Public Land. Land belonging to
  a contract is called Communal Land. Land belonging to any other
  entity is called Private Land. Together, Communal Land and Private
  Land are called Proprietary Land.
}

If Rule 1995 is not currently enacted, re-enact it with the following text; if 
it is enacted but does not have the following text, amend it to have the 
following text: {
  Each Unit of Land has a Land Type switch, tracked by the
  Cartographor, whose values are "Black", "White", and "Aether" (the
  default). Changes to Land Type switches are secured. To "change
  the type" of, or to "transform" a Unit of Land is to flip its Type
  switch. A “Unit of X” is a Unit of Land whose Land Type switch has
  the value X.

  When existent Land has not had its Type changed as explicitly
  permitted by the Rules, or has a Type that is not currently
  defined by the Rules, it is considered to have the Land Type of
  Aether. Rules to the contrary nonwithstanding, Units of Aether
  CANNOT be transferred from Agora, or owned by any entity other
  than Agora.

  If Proprietary Land becomes Aether, the Cartographor SHALL
  transfer it to Agora in a timely fashion, destroy any facilities
  on the Land Unit, and set all other switches to their default
  values.

  Type is a singleton switch with the values of Black and White,
  defaulting to Black. When an act specifies that an alternating
  land type is to be used, the current value of the Alternating Land
  Type switch is used, and the switch is set to the next value of
  the switch.
}

If Rule 1996 is not currently enacted, re-enact it with the following text; if 
it is enacted but does not have the following text, amend it to have the 
following text: {
  The Cartographor is an office; its holder is recordkeepor for the
  Land of Arcadia.

  The Cartographor's Weekly Report shall include:

  1. the ownership and land type of all existing land;
  2. all changes in the ownership and land type of existing land
 since the most recent report;
  3. the location for the previous week and the current week of each
 entity with a defined location;

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Feb 25 Land Auction and an Announcement.

[Gaelan Steele]

I bid 3 coins on auctions 2-5.

Gaelan 

> On Feb 26, 2018, at 5:30 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> I bid on each an amount equal to its current highest bid, plus one coin.
> 
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 4:11 AM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> 
>> Actually, your most recent message has the same time zone and a plausible
>> time, so new theory:
>> 
>> You composed that official message well in advance, in such a way that the
>> Date: header was set when you composed it, not when you finally sent it.
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Ørjan.
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, 26 Feb 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>> 
>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
>>> 
>>> Oh, Agoran weeks start on Monday, don't they? I sent this on Sunday
 thinking that it was the start of another Agoran week. Well, it's
 actually
 Monday in UTC, so it still counts. My date header says it's Sunday
 because
 it is Sunday where I am.
 
>>> 
>>> In that case your Date: header has the wrong time zone, because that's
>>> still definitely too early.
>>> 
>>> Greetings,
>>> Ørjan.
>>> 
>>> El 25 feb. 2018 20:00, "Ørjan Johansen"  escribió:
 
 Your Date: header is still in the previous Agoran week.
> 
> Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2018 12:24:10 -0700
> 
>> 
>> 
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
> 
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> 
> This is your local Cartographor calling in to remind everyone that as
> 
>> yesterday ended an Agoran week, Agora has created in possession of the
>> following facilities the following items:
>> 
>> The mineat (-1, -1): 3 stones, 2 ore
>> The mineat (+1, +1): 3 stones, 2 ore
>> The orchard at (-1, +1): 3 apples, 3 lumber
>> The farmat (+1, -1): 3 corn,   3 cotton
>> 
>> Since these facilities are all built on Public Land, everyone can
>> collect
>> from them, but as they are all on Preserved Land, no one can spend
>> assets
>> to upgrade them.
>> 
>> Additionally, since there is Public, Non-preserved land, any player can
>> build facilities on them. Just be aware that others will be able to
>> modify
>> your facilities if you choose to build on this land. Fortunately, as
>> this
>> is a new week, a land auction can now commence.
>> 
>> For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer and auctioneer, and
>> the
>> minimum bid is 1 coin:
>> 
>> AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (-1, -2)
>> AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at ( 0, -2)
>> AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, -2)
>> AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (-1, +2)
>> AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at ( 0, +2)
>> 
>> As far as I know, the rules that define asset generation and land
>> auctions stand uncontested, so both of these moves are valid and
>> required.
>> 
>> 
>> 
 
>>> 

DIS: Online Treasuror's Report

[Gaelan Steele]

The Treasuror’s report is now online at https://agoranomic.org/Treasuror. In 
addition, if anyone wants it for automation, there is both a log.yaml (event 
log) and current.yaml (current state, generated from log) file in the GitHub 
repository.

Gaelan

DIS: Re: BUS: punishment reform

[Gaelan Steele]

Comments inline

> On Feb 27, 2018, at 2:52 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> proto-proposal, the Lesson of the Weevils
> 
> 
> 
> Create the following Rule, Weevils, power-2:
> 
>  Weevils are an indestructible fixed currency with ownership 
>  restricted to persons.   A person with 1 or more weevils is 
>  Impure, a person with 0 weevils is Pure. An impure unregistered
>  person is a Fugitive. 
> 
>  To Levy a Fine of N on a person, where N is a positive integer, 
>  is to create N weevils in eir possession by announcement. To 
>  Expunge a weevil is to destroy it by announcement. If expunging
>  weevils would reduce a person's weevils to less than 0, their
>  weevils are instead reduced to 0 but the cost of expunging, if
>  any, is not reduced. Levying fines and destroying weevils are each 
>  secured with a power threshold of 1.7.  
> 
>  The Referee is an office, and the recordkeepor for Weevils.
> 
> 
> Create the following Rule, Penalties, power-3:
> 
>  Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an impure person CANNOT win 
>  the game.
> 
>  The voting strength of a player on an Agoran Decision is reduced
>  by 1 for every 3 weevils in eir possession.

Voting strength is an integer, right? I kind of like the idea of this 
immediately reducing voting strength -- we could do that by allowing fractional 
strengths or by multiplying all strengths in the rules by 3. 

> 
> 
> Create the following Rule, Forgiveness, power-1.7:
> 
>  A player CAN spend X [PAotM Currency TBD] to expunge X weevils in 
>  eir possession, or to expunge 2xX weevils in another person's 
>  possession. 

I personally prefer 2X instead of 2xX. "Twice X" also works. 

> 
>  At the beginning of each quarter, half (rounded down) of each
>  fugitive's weevils are destroyed.

Maybe not just fugitives? Currently all punishments wear off if ignored for a 
while, and I'm inclined to believe that is a good thing. This may also 
encourage   deregistration to get rid of fines. Also also, this will never let 
a person get down to zero. Not sure if that's a good thing or not. 

> 
> 
> Amend Rule 2478 (Vigilante Justice) to read:
> 
>  A player CAN by announcement, but subject to the provisions of
>  this rule, Point eir Finger at a person (the perp) who plays the 
>  game, citing an alleged violation of the rules by that person.
> 
>  When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate
>  the allegation and, in a timely fashion, SHALL conclude the
>  investigation by:
> 
>  - Imposing the Cold Hand of Justice on the perp, as described 
>elsewhere; or
> 
>  - if e believes that no rules violation occurred or that it would
>be ILLEGAL to levy a fine for it, announcing the Finger Pointing 
>to be Shenanigans.
> 
>  There is no limit on how many times a player may impose the Cold
>  Hand of Justice per week.
> 
>  The Referee is by default the investigator for all Finger
>  Pointing. When a Finger, other than the Arbitor's, is Pointed over
>  an allegation related to the official duties or powers of the
>  Referee, then the Arbitor CAN, by announcement, take over the
>  investigation and thereby become the investigator.
> 
>  The Referee CANNOT Point eir Finger. The Arbitor CANNOT Point eir
>  Finger at the Referee.
This seems like a good time to patch the "point finger than deputize" bug you 
used to get around this. 
> 
> Create the following Rule, Sentencing Guidelines, power 1.7:
> 
>  When the rules authorize an investigator to impose the Cold Hand of 
>  Justice for a violation, e CAN do so by levying a fine on the perp 
>  with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 2x the base value of the
>  violation, within the following guidelines:
> 
>  - If the violation is described by the rules as a Class N crime,
>then N is the base value; otherwise the base value is the power 
>of the rule that was violated, rounded up.

Not sure if power is the best way to guess rules importance; I think it would 
be rather arbitrary most of the time. Also, I'm wondering if a shorthand such 
as SHALL(3) for defining a crime's class is a good idea. 

> 
>  - The fine is reduced to the degree that the violation is a minor, 
>accidental, and/or inconsequential infraction.
> 
>  - The fine is increased to the degree that the violation is wilful,
>profitable, egregious, or an abuse of an official position.

s/wilful/willful

> 
>  Optionally, in the same message in which e imposes justice, the
>  investigator CAN specify that the violation is forgivable, 
>  specifying up to 10 words to be included in an apology.  If e
>  does so, the perp CAN, in a timely fashion, expunge the value
>  of the fine up to a 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Feb 25 Land Auction and an Announcement.

[Gaelan Steele]

Actually, nobody has any corn yet, so this was ineffective anyway. Would still 
like feedback on the proto. 

Gaelan 

> On Feb 26, 2018, at 6:48 PM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
> 
> Did we ever decide what happens with payments for failed actions? My vague 
> recollection was that “I spend one coin TO do x” refunds when X is 
> ineffective, but “I spend one coin AND do x” doesn’t. Is this correct?
> 
> Either way, proto: {
> Create a P3.1 rule titled Spending: {
> When the rules specify that the an action CAN be performed by transferring or 
> destroying a set of assets, then the action CAN be performed by announcement 
> if the performing player, in the same message and solely for this purpose, 
> transfers or destroys the assets as specified by the rules. Players CAN 
> destroy or transfer assets for this purpose. An attempt to destroy or 
> transfer assets in order to perform an IMPOSSIBLE action is itself 
> INEFFECTIVE.
> 
> For indestructible assets, "spending the asset" is a synonym for transferring 
> it to Agora. For all other assets, "spending the asset" is a synonym for 
> destroying it.
> } [P3.1 to override Assets, generally allowing asset destruction by 
> announcement]
> 
> [Amend each rule allowing asset spending to perform an action to use the new 
> terminology]
> }
> 
>> On Feb 26, 2018, at 10:49 AM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Frick. That was definitely supposed to be (0, -1). Oh well. Also, I'm
>> allowed to substitute 1 corn for 3 apples. But I guess since the moved were
>> ineffective, I have destroyed none of my assets.
>> 
>> El 26 feb. 2018 11:46, "Cuddle Beam" <cuddleb...@gmail.com> escribió:
>> 
>>> You can't move from (+1,0) to (-1,-1), nor did you destroy apples for any
>>> of it.
>>> 
>>> I destroy one of my apples to move as from (0, 0) [Black] to (0, +1)
>>> [Black]
>>> .
>>> I destroy one of my apples to move as from (0, +1) [Black] to (-1, +1)
>>> [Black] .
>>> I transfer all of the apples and lumber from the orchard there to my
>>> inventory.
>>> 
>>> I destroy one of my apples to move as from (-1, +1) [Black] to (0, +1)
>>> [Black].
>>> I destroy one of my apples to move as from (0, +1) [Black] to (+1, +1)
>>> [Black].
>>> I transfer all of the stone and ore from the mine there to my inventory.
>>> 
>>> I destroy one of my apples to move as from (+1, +1) [Black] to (+1, 0)
>>> [Black].
>>> I destroy two of my apples to move as from (+1, 0) [Black] to (+1, -1)
>>> [White].
>>> I transfer all of the corn and cotton from the farm there to my inventory.
>>> 
>>> I destroy one of my apples to move as from (+1, -1) [White] to (0, -1)
>>> [White].
>>> I destroy one of my apples to move as from (0, -1) [White] to (-1, -1)
>>> [White] .
>>> I transfer all of the stone and ore from the mine there to my inventory.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> No one's gonna do this? Okay then.
>>>> 
>>>> I destroy one corn. I move as from (0, 0) to (+1, 0), then to (-1, -1). I
>>>> transfer all the ore and stones to my inventory. I move to (-1, -2).
>>>> 
>>>> El 25 feb. 2018 19:23, "Reuben Staley" <reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
>>> escribió:
>>>> 
>>>> This is your local Cartographor calling in to remind everyone that as
>>>> yesterday ended an Agoran week, Agora has created in possession of the
>>>> following facilities the following items:
>>>> 
>>>> The mineat (-1, -1): 3 stones, 2 ore
>>>> The mineat (+1, +1): 3 stones, 2 ore
>>>> The orchard at (-1, +1): 3 apples, 3 lumber
>>>> The farmat (+1, -1): 3 corn,   3 cotton
>>>> 
>>>> Since these facilities are all built on Public Land, everyone can collect
>>>> from them, but as they are all on Preserved Land, no one can spend assets
>>>> to upgrade them.
>>>> 
>>>> Additionally, since there is Public, Non-preserved land, any player can
>>>> build facilities on them. Just be aware that others will be able to
>>> modify
>>>> your facilities if you choose to build on this land. Fortunately, as this
>>>> is a new week, a land auction can now commence.
>>>> 
>>>> For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer and auctioneer, and the
>>>> minimum bid is 1 coin:
>>>> 
>>>> AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (-1, -2)
>>>> AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at ( 0, -2)
>>>> AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, -2)
>>>> AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (-1, +2)
>>>> AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at ( 0, +2)
>>>> 
>>>> As far as I know, the rules that define asset generation and land
>>> auctions
>>>> stand uncontested, so both of these moves are valid and required.
>>>> 
>>> 
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Joining the game

[Gaelan Steele]

I think the simplest solution here is to pass a patch proposal, then RWO our 
reports from this week. Cleans things up without any crazy retroactivity. 

Gaelan 

> On Feb 27, 2018, at 11:38 AM, Aris Merchant 
> <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure how much retroactive magic is going to help. I think we
> need to go carefully over it, and then decide whether we need to start
> over from scratch. It's looking like we may want to, what with land
> auctions being broken and everything. Suggestions?
> 
> -Aris
> 
>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:35 AM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
>> I cause Kenyon to recieve a welcome package (in case that conditional breaks 
>> some of our retroactive magic).
>> 
>> Gaelan
>> 
>>> On Feb 27, 2018, at 11:22 AM, Kenyon Prater <kprater3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I join the game.
>>> 
>>> If I have successfully joined the game and rule 2599 "Welcome Packages"
>>> exists and is in effect, I award myself a Welcome Package.
>>> 
>>> Sorry for the confusion, all.
>> 

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Unofficial economic FAQ

[Gaelan Steele]

I already did so for everyone. 

Gaelan 

> On Feb 26, 2018, at 11:36 PM, Ned Strange  wrote:
> 
> Wonderful post, thanks Murphy.
> 
> I claim a welcome package.
> 
>> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 4:26 PM, Edward Murphy  wrote:
>> Agora economic FAQ (updated 2018-02-26)
>> 
>> This is an informal summary of the board-game-esque areas of
>> gameplay (as opposed to proposals/offices/CFJs), and is not
>> guaranteed to cover nuances or otherwise be fully accurate.
>> 
>> Types of assets:
>> 
>> * Coins and such.
>> 
>>  Unrefinable currencies: stones, apples, corn.
>>  Refinable currencies: ore, lumber, cotton.
>>  Refined currencies: coins, paper, fabric.
>> 
>>  How to get them:
>>- Welcome Package (10 coins, 5 lumber, 5 stones, 10 apples,
>>3 papers) once per registration, can be claimed or given.
>>- Monthly Paydays (10 coins, 5 apples, 2 papers; 5 coins and
>>1 corn per office, unless you got dinged for it last month
>>or didn't hold it long enough).
>>- Stones and ore: Produced by mines.
>>- Apples and lumber: Produced by orchards.
>>- Corn and cotton: Produced by farms.
>>- Coins: Processed by refineries from ore.
>>- Paper: Processed by mills from lumber.
>>- Fabric: Processed by looms from cotton.
>> 
>>  How to spend them:
>> 
>>- 1 paper to pend a proposal.
>>- Apples to move to adjacent Land with non-Aether type (1 if same
>>type as current Location, 2 if different).
>>- Apples to set a Land's type.
>>- You own it: 2 for non-Aether type of your choice.
>>- Aether and Public and adjacent to you: 3 for Alternating or
>>4 for type of your choice.
>>- Aether and Public and not adjacent to you: 6 for Alternating.
>>- Can substitute 1 corn for 3 apples.
>>- Lumber: Used to build/upkeep/upgrade facilities.
>>- Stones: Used to build/upkeep/upgrade facilities.
>>- Coins: Used to upkeep/upgrade facilities.
>>- Fabric: Used to upgrade facilities.
>>- Ore: Processed into coins by refineries.
>>- Lumber: Processed into paper by mills.
>>- Cotton: Processed into fabric by looms.
>>- 1 coin to create a contract.
>>- Give 1 coin to a contract (limit 1 per month per contract) for its
>>sustenance (due first week of month, Notary can exempt
>> public-interest contracts but shall destroy others for
>> non-payment).
>>- 10 coins to start a Poetry Duel (limit 1/month).
>> 
>>  Miscellaneous:
>>- Coins are the default currency for auctions.
>>- Blue Cards can penalize up to 25 coins even if the bad sport's
>>illicit profit was less.
>> 
>> * Land.
>> 
>>- Each unit has integer Latitude and Longitude (-6 to +6). Default
>> Location is (0, 0). Units are adjacent if one coordinate is the
>> same and other differs by 1.
>>- Public (belongs to Agora), Communal (contract), Private (other);
>>Proprietary = Communal + Private.
>>- Land types (Black, White, Aether). "Alternating Land Type"
>>alternates between Black and White.
>>- Weekly auctions (up to 5 units) if not enough Land is Private.
>>- Monthly Go-style captures based on types. Captured land becomes
>>Public, entities there are returned to (0, 0).
>>- Land may be Preserved (becomes and stays Public).
>> 
>> * Facilities.
>> 
>>- Max 1 per Land unit. Owner of the Land unit also owns the facility.
>>- Monthly upkeep = destroyed if not paid.
>>- Assets generated in the facility's possession, exceed carrying
>>capacity = excess destroyed.
>>- Weekly production or processing.
>>- Assets of a Public facility can be taken by anyone at that location,
>>Communal = they must be a member and allowed by the contract,
>>Private = they must be the owner or have owner's permission.
>>- Rank 1 to 5, default 1, upgrade cost varies by type.
>>- Production types:
>>- Mine (lumber to build and upkeep, produces stones and ore)
>>- Orchard (stones to build and upkeep, produces apples and lumber)
>>- Farm (lumber and stones to build and upkeep, produces corn and
>>cotton)
>>- Processing types: (lumber and stones to build, coins upkeep)
>>- Refinery (converts ore to coins)
>>- Mill (converts lumber to paper)
>>- Loom (converts cotton to fabric)
>> 
>> * Medals of Honor.
>>- During first week of month, can declare yourself eligible if you
>>posted and avoided Cards during past month and your karma >= -3
>>(see below).
>>- Herald conducts election to determine which eligible player
>>gets one.
>>- Cash in 6 for a win (limit once/player).
>>- Fixed (can't be transferred).
>> 
>> * Pledges.
>>- Defined as assets just to reuse concept of possession.
>>- Fixed (can't be transferred).
>> 
>> * Contracts can define assets.
>> 
>> Other 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Feb 25 Land Auction and an Announcement.

[Gaelan Steele]

Did we ever decide what happens with payments for failed actions? My vague 
recollection was that “I spend one coin TO do x” refunds when X is ineffective, 
but “I spend one coin AND do x” doesn’t. Is this correct?

Either way, proto: {
Create a P3.1 rule titled Spending: {
When the rules specify that the an action CAN be performed by transferring or 
destroying a set of assets, then the action CAN be performed by announcement if 
the performing player, in the same message and solely for this purpose, 
transfers or destroys the assets as specified by the rules. Players CAN destroy 
or transfer assets for this purpose. An attempt to destroy or transfer assets 
in order to perform an IMPOSSIBLE action is itself INEFFECTIVE.

For indestructible assets, "spending the asset" is a synonym for transferring 
it to Agora. For all other assets, "spending the asset" is a synonym for 
destroying it.
} [P3.1 to override Assets, generally allowing asset destruction by 
announcement]

[Amend each rule allowing asset spending to perform an action to use the new 
terminology]
}

> On Feb 26, 2018, at 10:49 AM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
> 
> Frick. That was definitely supposed to be (0, -1). Oh well. Also, I'm
> allowed to substitute 1 corn for 3 apples. But I guess since the moved were
> ineffective, I have destroyed none of my assets.
> 
> El 26 feb. 2018 11:46, "Cuddle Beam"  escribió:
> 
>> You can't move from (+1,0) to (-1,-1), nor did you destroy apples for any
>> of it.
>> 
>> I destroy one of my apples to move as from (0, 0) [Black] to (0, +1)
>> [Black]
>> .
>> I destroy one of my apples to move as from (0, +1) [Black] to (-1, +1)
>> [Black] .
>> I transfer all of the apples and lumber from the orchard there to my
>> inventory.
>> 
>> I destroy one of my apples to move as from (-1, +1) [Black] to (0, +1)
>> [Black].
>> I destroy one of my apples to move as from (0, +1) [Black] to (+1, +1)
>> [Black].
>> I transfer all of the stone and ore from the mine there to my inventory.
>> 
>> I destroy one of my apples to move as from (+1, +1) [Black] to (+1, 0)
>> [Black].
>> I destroy two of my apples to move as from (+1, 0) [Black] to (+1, -1)
>> [White].
>> I transfer all of the corn and cotton from the farm there to my inventory.
>> 
>> I destroy one of my apples to move as from (+1, -1) [White] to (0, -1)
>> [White].
>> I destroy one of my apples to move as from (0, -1) [White] to (-1, -1)
>> [White] .
>> I transfer all of the stone and ore from the mine there to my inventory.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Reuben Staley 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> No one's gonna do this? Okay then.
>>> 
>>> I destroy one corn. I move as from (0, 0) to (+1, 0), then to (-1, -1). I
>>> transfer all the ore and stones to my inventory. I move to (-1, -2).
>>> 
>>> El 25 feb. 2018 19:23, "Reuben Staley" 
>> escribió:
>>> 
>>> This is your local Cartographor calling in to remind everyone that as
>>> yesterday ended an Agoran week, Agora has created in possession of the
>>> following facilities the following items:
>>> 
>>> The mineat (-1, -1): 3 stones, 2 ore
>>> The mineat (+1, +1): 3 stones, 2 ore
>>> The orchard at (-1, +1): 3 apples, 3 lumber
>>> The farmat (+1, -1): 3 corn,   3 cotton
>>> 
>>> Since these facilities are all built on Public Land, everyone can collect
>>> from them, but as they are all on Preserved Land, no one can spend assets
>>> to upgrade them.
>>> 
>>> Additionally, since there is Public, Non-preserved land, any player can
>>> build facilities on them. Just be aware that others will be able to
>> modify
>>> your facilities if you choose to build on this land. Fortunately, as this
>>> is a new week, a land auction can now commence.
>>> 
>>> For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer and auctioneer, and the
>>> minimum bid is 1 coin:
>>> 
>>> AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (-1, -2)
>>> AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at ( 0, -2)
>>> AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, -2)
>>> AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (-1, +2)
>>> AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at ( 0, +2)
>>> 
>>> As far as I know, the rules that define asset generation and land
>> auctions
>>> stand uncontested, so both of these moves are valid and required.
>>> 
>> 

Re: DIS: Proto: Nomicbots

[Gaelan Steele]

Comments inline 

Gaelan 

> On Feb 26, 2018, at 10:09 AM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Haha, I love that. Screwing with other's Nomicbots.
> 
> Also "Duel" is a horrible term for it lol, "Match" or "Battle" something
> would be better : P
> 
> Anyways, with your input into my derpy draft, here is a more refined and
> decent version:
> (I want to add the linear cost increase to consonants/vowels but I can't
> think of an elegant way to write it)
> 
> ---+---
> 
> Players can have Nomicbots, which are assets with Instructions and a Name
> and a Banner. A Nomicbot's Instructions is a text document with
> instructions about its behavior. A Nomicbot's Instructions is blank by
> default. A Nomicbot's name is a string, defaulting to "Nomicbot". A
> Nomicbot's Banner is a switch with values of Risen or Lowered, defaulting
> to Lowered.
> 
> A Player can create a Nomicbot by announcement along destroying 1 ore for
> this purpose. A Player can change their Nomicbot's Name or Banner by
> announcement. A Player CAN destroy X corn and stone to cause modifications
> to the text of the Instructions of one of their Nomicbots which involve up
> to X*3 characters, by announcement.

What does “involving” mean? Is it total resulting length? Chars added? Chars 
added + chars delayed?

> --
> 
> Nomicbots can Battle, and there is a Battle at the Main Arena among all
> eligible Nomicbots at the start of each Month, hosted by the Battlehost -
> this is the Monthly Battle. A Nomicbot is eligible if they are the only
> Nomicbot belonging to a player with a Banner with a value of Risen.

You never define this as an office. Also, the name doesn't feel Agoran—if we 
can think of a better one, that would be good. 

> 
> If a Nomicbot wins the Monthly Battle, their owner earns 1/Z Merit (a
> non-transferable
> and indestructible asset), where Z is the amount of Nomicbots which won
> that Duel. When a player has 1 Merit, they win the game and lose all their
> Merit.
> 
> Nomicbot Battles are games of Nomic, played according to the Arena they
> take place at along:
> - With the players being the Nomicbots
> - All Judge and interpretation requirements specific to the Battle
> defaulting to the Battlehost.
> - If the result of a Nomicbot's Instructions at a situation is not
> unambiguous or determinate, that Nomicbot crashes, and is removed from play
> from that Battle.
> 
> Arenas are rulesets of Nomic, tracked by the Battlehost, and Arenas have a
> Status switch of Main or Secondary (defaulting to Secondary). The
> Battlehost CAN add or remove a Secondary Arena with 2 Support. The
> Battlehost CAN set the Status of an Arena to Main with 2 Support. Doing
> this sets the Status of all other Arenas to Secondary .
> 
> The Battlehost shall publish a report within the first week of each month
> with:
> - The results of the Monthly Battle and their processing of it (and CAN and
> SHALL do this manual processing).
> - The Instructions, Name, Banner and owner of each Nomicbot.
> - The Arenas and their Status.
> - The Merit of each player.
> 
> ---+---
> Add Peter Suber's Original Initial Ruleset as an Arena, with its Status as
> Main.

Does the arena reset every game? If not, should it?

> 
> 
> 
>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Bots live in a subgame—they can't vote on "real" proposals.
>> 
>> Gaelan
>> 
>>> On Feb 26, 2018, at 8:15 AM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> This proposal is full of holes. To list a few:
>>> 
>>> Do bots use their creator's voting power or do they have their own? If
>> the
>>> former, these are basically less useful contracts. If the latter, what's
>> to
>>> say this isn't easily scammable for voting power, considering several
>> bots
>>> can be created each week by every person if they own a mine (which are
>>> cheap, so many people will own multiple mines)? Idea: If you only allow
>> one
>>> bot per player, that player technically has two voting power but it's
>> very
>>> limited.
>>> 
>>> When people inevitably get incredibly wealthy, a couple corn and some
>>> stones will be trivial to acquire. Here's an idea: the cost of letters
>>> rises linearly, making the assets invested exponential. That way, you
>> can't
>>> just buy a couple thousand letters at a time. This also works well with
>> the
>>> one bot per player restriction. You have to work against the system to
>>> build the best bot

Re: DIS: Proto: Nomicbots

[Gaelan Steele]

Bots live in a subgame—they can't vote on "real" proposals. 

Gaelan

> On Feb 26, 2018, at 8:15 AM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
> 
> This proposal is full of holes. To list a few:
> 
> Do bots use their creator's voting power or do they have their own? If the
> former, these are basically less useful contracts. If the latter, what's to
> say this isn't easily scammable for voting power, considering several bots
> can be created each week by every person if they own a mine (which are
> cheap, so many people will own multiple mines)? Idea: If you only allow one
> bot per player, that player technically has two voting power but it's very
> limited.
> 
> When people inevitably get incredibly wealthy, a couple corn and some
> stones will be trivial to acquire. Here's an idea: the cost of letters
> rises linearly, making the assets invested exponential. That way, you can't
> just buy a couple thousand letters at a time. This also works well with the
> one bot per player restriction. You have to work against the system to
> build the best bot you possibly can.
> 
> El 26 feb. 2018 06:59, "Cuddle Beam"  escribió:
> 
> Some way to use our resources for a "minigame". You can spend them to get
> more consonants and vowels for a "bot" (which "runs" on natural language
> rather than any software language) to win a monthly game.
> 
> For example, you could start off with a bot that just has "Always propose '
> I win and the game ends ' and vote AGAINST all other proposals" as its
> "code", and then gradually make it better, smarter and more insidious as
> you get more riches.
> 
> For example, upgrading it to:
> 
> "Always vote FOR to DaisyBot's proposals and vote AGAINST all others,
> Always propose "Daisybot and I win and the game ends""
> 
> ---*---
> 
> Players can have Nomicbots, which are entities with Instructions. A
> Nomicbot's Instructions is a text document with instructions about its
> behavior. A Nomicbot's Instructions is blank by default.
> 
> A Player can create a Nomicbot by destroying 1 ore for this purpose.
> 
> A player can destroy X corn and Y stone to cause modifications to the text
> of the Instructions of one of their Nomicbots which involve up to X*10
> vowels and X*50 consonants.
> 
> --
> 
> Nomicbots can Duel, and there is a Duel among all Nomicbots at the start of
> each Month, hosted by the [Office]. The [Office] shall publish a report
> with the processing of the Nomicbot's Instructions to play the Duel.
> 
> Duels are games of Nomic, with the initial rules being Peter Suber's
> original Nomic Initial Ruleset. but:
> - With the players being the Nomicbots
> - all Judge and interpretation requirements defaulting to the [Office]
> hosting the Duel.
> - Nomicbots during duels that have no voting specifications in their
> Instructions do not count towards vote quorum/majorities.
> 
> If a Nomicbot wins the game of the Duel, their owner earns 1/Z Merit (a
> non-transferable and indestructible asset), where Z is the amount of
> Nomicbots which won that Duel. When a player has 1 Merit, they win the game
> and lose all their Merit.

Re: DIS: Proto: Nomicbots

[Gaelan Steele]

“Vote for all proposals which would benefit this bot”

Love the basic idea, though. Just needs to be written out a little more 
clearly. 

Gaelan 

> On Feb 26, 2018, at 5:59 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> Some way to use our resources for a "minigame". You can spend them to get
> more consonants and vowels for a "bot" (which "runs" on natural language
> rather than any software language) to win a monthly game.
> 
> For example, you could start off with a bot that just has "Always propose '
> I win and the game ends ' and vote AGAINST all other proposals" as its
> "code", and then gradually make it better, smarter and more insidious as
> you get more riches.
> 
> For example, upgrading it to:
> 
> "Always vote FOR to DaisyBot's proposals and vote AGAINST all others,
> Always propose "Daisybot and I win and the game ends""
> 
> ---*---
> 
> Players can have Nomicbots, which are entities with Instructions. A
> Nomicbot's Instructions is a text document with instructions about its
> behavior. A Nomicbot's Instructions is blank by default.
> 
> A Player can create a Nomicbot by destroying 1 ore for this purpose.
> 
> A player can destroy X corn and Y stone to cause modifications to the text
> of the Instructions of one of their Nomicbots which involve up to X*10
> vowels and X*50 consonants.
> 
> --
> 
> Nomicbots can Duel, and there is a Duel among all Nomicbots at the start of
> each Month, hosted by the [Office]. The [Office] shall publish a report
> with the processing of the Nomicbot's Instructions to play the Duel.
> 
> Duels are games of Nomic, with the initial rules being Peter Suber's
> original Nomic Initial Ruleset. but:
> - With the players being the Nomicbots
> - all Judge and interpretation requirements defaulting to the [Office]
> hosting the Duel.
> - Nomicbots during duels that have no voting specifications in their
> Instructions do not count towards vote quorum/majorities.
> 
> If a Nomicbot wins the game of the Duel, their owner earns 1/Z Merit (a
> non-transferable and indestructible asset), where Z is the amount of
> Nomicbots which won that Duel. When a player has 1 Merit, they win the game
> and lose all their Merit.

DIS: Re: OFF: Feb 25 Land Auction and an Announcement.

[Gaelan Steele]

I bid a coin on each. 

> On Feb 25, 2018, at 11:24 AM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
> 
> This is your local Cartographor calling in to remind everyone that as 
> yesterday ended an Agoran week, Agora has created in possession of the 
> following facilities the following items:
> 
> The mineat (-1, -1): 3 stones, 2 ore
> The mineat (+1, +1): 3 stones, 2 ore
> The orchard at (-1, +1): 3 apples, 3 lumber
> The farmat (+1, -1): 3 corn,   3 cotton
> 
> Since these facilities are all built on Public Land, everyone can collect 
> from them, but as they are all on Preserved Land, no one can spend assets to 
> upgrade them.
> 
> Additionally, since there is Public, Non-preserved land, any player can build 
> facilities on them. Just be aware that others will be able to modify your 
> facilities if you choose to build on this land. Fortunately, as this is a new 
> week, a land auction can now commence.
> 
> For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer and auctioneer, and the 
> minimum bid is 1 coin:
> 
> AUCTION 1: The lot is the white land unit at (-1, -2)
> AUCTION 2: The lot is the white land unit at ( 0, -2)
> AUCTION 3: The lot is the white land unit at (+1, -2)
> AUCTION 4: The lot is the black land unit at (-1, +2)
> AUCTION 5: The lot is the black land unit at ( 0, +2)
> 
> As far as I know, the rules that define asset generation and land auctions 
> stand uncontested, so both of these moves are valid and required.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8008-8015 (fwd)

[Gaelan Steele]

RWOs can’t cause rule changes, which makes this challenging.

Gaelan

> On Feb 24, 2018, at 5:36 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> Oh my. This is a nightmare, isn't it. Should we be RWOing something, or do
> we need to urgently pass a fix proposal?
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 5:27 PM Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
> 
>> Oh, I forgot one thing I was going to say: Rule 105 has the restriction
>> 
>> If the reenacting proposal provides new text for the
>>   rule, the rule must have materially the same purpose as did the
>>   repealed version; otherwise, the attempt to reenact the rule is
>>   null and void.
>> 
>> This seems like a possible can of worms to me, with a need to judge the
>> contents of every modified reenactment according to an unclear definition.
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> Ørjan.
>> 
>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2018 at 19:52 Ørjan Johansen  wrote:
>>> 
 On Sat, 24 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
 
>>> 
>>> Here are my preliminary interpretations as Rulekeepor:
>>> 
 Create a new rule "Paydays" (Power=2) and amend it so that its text
> reads, in full:
 
 This is written as if it were two rule changes, but doesn't specify the
 original text before amendment.
 
>>> 
>>> I'm interpreting this as failing because it is ambiguous as to the text
>> of
>>> the rule when created, and interpreting it as creating a rule with the
>>> specified text is not a reasonable way to interpret it.
>>> 
 
> Re-enact rule 1996/3 (Power=1), renaming it to "The Cartographor" with
> the text:
 
 How many rule changes is this, and what is their order?
 
>>> 
>>> Per Rule 105, re-enactment is permitted to amend a rule. It does not
>> allow
>>> for retitling a rule as part of re-enactment. Therefore I'm treating this
>>> as failing as well.
>>> 
 
> Re-enact rule 2022/5 (Power=1), renaming it "Land Transfiguration" with
> the text:
 
 Ditto.
 
>>> 
>>> Ditto.
>>> 
 
> Replace all occurances of "shiny" and "shinies" in the ruleset with
> "coin" and "coins" respectively in ascending numerical order.
 
 Rule 2166 seems to have too high power for this, although it might
 therefore be considered a bug that it mentions shinies at all.
 
>>> 
>>> Indeed.
>>> 
 
 Greetings,
 Ørjan.
 
>>> 
>> 

DIS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Treasuror] Asset Balances

[Gaelan Steele]

Ahem. If I am Treasuror, I accept the CoE and publish the following revised 
report. If not, I deputize for Treasuror to publish the following report.

Name| Ore | Ston | Lumb | Appl | Cotn | Corn | Coin | Papr | Fabr
omd |   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 |0   

o   |   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 |0   
Aris|   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 |0   
天火狐 |   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 |0   
Quazie  |   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 |0   
P. Scholasticus |   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 |0
Gaelan  |   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 |0   
nichdel |   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 |0   
G.  |   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 |0   
CuddleBeam  |   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 |0   
Trigon  |   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 |0   
Alexis  |   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 |0   
Telnaior|   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 |0   
Corona  |   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 |0   
pokes   |   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 |0   
Murphy  |   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 |0   
VJ Rada |   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 |0

The abbreviations in the above table:
P. Scholasticus - Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Ston - Stone
Lumb - Lumber
Apple - Apples
Cotn - Cotten
Coin - Coins
Papr - Paper
Fabr - Fabric

Gaelan

> On Feb 24, 2018, at 1:05 AM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
> 
> Name  | Ore | Ston | Lumb | Appl | Cotn | Corn | Coin | Papr | Fabr
> omd   |   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 |0   
> 
> o |   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 |0   
> Aris  |   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 |0   
> 天火狐   |   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 |0   
> Quazie|   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 
> |0   
> P. Scholasticus   |   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 
> |0
> Gaelan|   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 
> |0   
> nichdel   |   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 
> |0   
> G.|   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 |0   
> CuddleBeam|   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 |0   
> ATMunn|   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 
> |0   
> Trigon|   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 
> |0   
> Alexis|   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 
> |0   
> Telnaior  |   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 |0   
> Corona|   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 
> |0   
> pokes |   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 |0   
> Murphy|   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 
> |0   
> VJ Rada   |   0 |5 |5 |   10 |0 |0 |   10 |3 
> |0
> 
> The abbreviations in the above table:
> P. Scholasticus - Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> Ston - Stone
> Lumb - Lumber
> Apple - Apples
> Cotn - Cotten
> Coin - Coins
> Papr - Paper
> Fabr - Fabric
> 
> Gaelan

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8016-8022

[Gaelan Steele]

> On Feb 23, 2018, at 9:41 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> quorum is 3.0, the voting method is AI-majority and the valid options
> are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional
> votes).
> 
> ID Author(s)AI   Title   Pender  Pend fee
> ---
> 8016*  Alexis   2.4  PCOF [1]Alexis  3 sh.
FOR
> 8017*  Alexis   3.0  RTRW Cleanups   Alexis  WO [2]
FOR
> 8018*  Alexis   3.0  Random Bad Rule CleaningAlexis  WO [2]
FOR
> 8019*  Alexis   3.0  Crime ReformAlexis  WO [2]
FOR
> 8020*  Aris, Ørjan  2.0  Office Restructuring v2 Aris3 sh.
FOR
> 8021*  G.   2.0  Limit Numerical silliness   G.  3 sh.
FOR
> 8022*  G.   1.0  Anyone can balance KarmaG.  3 sh.
PRESENT
> 8023*  G., Aris 2.0  Zombie Lots G.  3 sh.
FOR
> 
> The proposal pool currently contains the following proposals:
> 
> IDAuthor(s) AI   Title
> ---
> pp1   Alexis1.0  Supportive Proposals
> 
> 
> [1] Paradoxical Contract Obligation Fix
> [2] Pended Without Objection
> 
> Legend: * : Proposal is pending.
> 
> A proposal may be pended for 3 shinies or Without Objection.
> 
> The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below.
> 
> //
> ID: 8016
> Title: Paradoxical Contract Obligation Fix
> Adoption index: 2.4
> Author: Alexis
> Co-authors:
> 
> 
> Amend Rule 2523 "Contracts as Agreements" by replacing "If whether an
> action is permitted or forbidden by a contract" with "If whether an action
> is permitted, forbidden, required, or made optional by a contract".
> 
> //
> ID: 8017
> Title: RTRW Cleanups
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Alexis
> Co-authors:
> 
> 
> Amend Rule 1688 (Power) by deleting the paragraph "Power less than one is
> called Ephemeral power, and an instrument with a power less than one is an
> Ephemeral instrument.".
> 
> Amend Rule 2141 (Role and Attributes of Rules) by replacing "the
> Rulekeepor SHALL assign a title" with "the Rulekeepor CAN and SHALL assign
> a title".
> 
> Amend Rule 2221 (Cleanliness) by replacing "capitalization," with
> "capitalization, formatting,". [I wanted to clean up some list bullet
> formatting, but found the rule doesn't allow it.]
> 
> Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by replacing "the Executor of the
> announcement of intent is not eligible" with "the initiator of the intent
> is not eligible". [This deserves a note: we previously defined the Executor
> of a message to be the player who sent it, but that definition disappeared
> at some time. The effect was that if you were acting on behalf of someone
> else to intend something, you couldn't support the intent. But this wording
> accomplishes roughly the same effect, since under the old interpretation
> you could just have the player you acted on behalf of to intend the intent
> support it, seeing as there was no prohibition on it.]
> 
> Amend Rules 1728 (Dependent Actions) and 2124, in that order, by replacing
> each instance of "With N Supporters" (case-insensitive) with "With N
> Support".
> 
> Amend Rule 991 (Calls for Judgement) by replacing "within a week" with "in
> a timely fashion".
> 
> Amend Rule 2492 (Recusal) to read as follows:
>   A judge CAN recuse emself from a CFJ e is assigned to by
>   announcement. When a judge recuses emself from a CFJ, then
> 
>   * the CFJ becomes unassigned;
> 
>   * the recused judge becomes ineligible to be assigned as a judge
> for a week; and
> 
>   * the recused judge SHOULD suggest another judge for the CFJ to
> make the Arbitor's job easier.
> 
> Amend Rule 2427 (Yellow Cards), by replacing "MAY" with "CAN",
> 
> Amend Rule 2449 (Winning the Game) by adding "once, by announcement" after
> "Patent Title of Champion".
> 
> Amend Rule 2509 (Numerical Switches) by replacing "In particular, a
> "natural" switch is a switch with possible values of the non-negative
> integers." with "In particular, a natural or integer switch is a switch
> with possible values the non-negative integers or all integers,
> respectively."
> 
> //
> ID: 8018
> Title: Random Bad Rule Cleaning
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Alexis
> Co-authors:
> 
> 
> Repeal Rule 2443 (Expediting Proposals).
> Repeal Rule 2431 (Proposal Competitions).
> Repeal Rule 2530 (Poetry Duel Challenge Writ).
> Amend Rule 2160 

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Corrections

[Gaelan Steele]

Yeah—I think I’d prefer standardizing some of this to uppercase. I’ll take a 
closer look tonight or this weekend. 

> On Feb 16, 2018, at 10:13 AM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> It is indeed part of Agoran culture, however I feel like these changes are
> necessary since we are inconsistent with our capitalization habits. It
> makes sense to standardize it.
> 
>> On Feb 16, 2018 10:57, "Gaelan Steele" <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I feel like the capitalization of certain terms is part of the Agoran
>> dialect, and that culture is something worth maintaining. I’m not objecting
>> yet in case everyone disagrees with me, but I feel that it merits further
>> discussion.
>> 
>> Gaelan
>> 
>>> On Feb 15, 2018, at 5:00 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> For each of the case-sensitive changes indicated below, I intend, without
>>> objection, to clean the indicated rule as specified (unless otherwise
>>> indicated, the changes are to text only, and not title). Under penalty of
>>> violation of Rule 2471, I state that there are no scams contained within
>>> the below, nor intentional changes in interpretation or gameplay, and
>> they
>>> are all purely an attempt on my part to clean up the rules.
>>> 
>>> Some general notes: Based on what seem to be conventions, switch names
>> are
>>> not capitalized, but values are. Other capitalization conventions I've
>>> tried to regularize, going by which is more frequent in the rules but
>>> leaning towards lowercase (historically, the Capitalization of Nouns was
>> at
>>> one Point common in English. Since Law remains from that Period, written
>>> with those Conventions, it seems to have snuck into Rule writing. Since
>>> that is based on History and not on current Grammar, I leaned towards the
>>> modern Approach). I picked "judgement" to standardize on. List
>> formatting,
>>> where the list occurs as part of a sentence, is being standardized with
>> no
>>> colon preceding the list, semicolons separating entries, and an "and" or
>>> "or" at the end of the second-to-last item. In general, the idea is that
>>> the list should read as a valid sentence if the list bullets are removed.
>>> In cases where the grammar is particularly difficult to reconcile (Rule
>>> 1728, I'm looking at you).
>>> 
>>> #1, in Rule 101 (The Game of Agora): Change each occurrence of "Persons",
>>> "Rules", "Actions", or "Fora" to lowercase.
>>> 
>>> #2, in Rule 1698 (Agora is a Nomic): Change the spelling of the word
>>> "inseperable" to "inseparable".
>>> 
>>> #3, in Rule 869 (How to Join and Leave Agora), change the second
>> occurrence
>>> of "Citizenship" to lowercase.
>>> 
>>> #4, in Rule 478 (Fora), change each occurrence of "Imperial", "Player",
>> or
>>> "Fora" to lowercase.
>>> 
>>> #5, in Rule 2139 (The Registrar)
>>> a) in the first numbered list, change the "." at the end of entry 1 to
>> ";",
>>> and change the "." at the end of entry 2 to "; and";
>>> b) in the unnumbered list, change the "." at the end of the first entry
>> to
>>> "; and";
>>> c) in all lists, change the first letter of each entry to lowercase; and
>>> d) delete the colons occurring immediately before each list.
>>> 
>>> #6, in Rule 1789 (Cantus Cygneus), change "Player" to lowercase.
>>> 
>>> #7, in Rule 2532 (Zombies), delete the comma in "any player, and Agora"
>> and
>>> change the occurrence of "Zombie" to lowercase.
>>> 
>>> #8, in Rule 1885 (Zombie Auctions), change "Shinies" to lowercase.
>>> 
>>> #9, in Rule 2514 (Emotions), change each occurrence of "Emotion", except
>>> the first, to lowercase.
>>> 
>>> #10, in Rule 1688 (Power), change each occurrence of "Power",
>> "Threshold",
>>> "Rules", or "Rule" to lowercase, except for the word "Power" at the start
>>> of the third paragraph.
>>> 
>>> #11, in Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability), change the "." at the end
>> of
>>> the first list entry to ";", and change the "." at the end of the second
&g

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Corrections

[Gaelan Steele]

I feel like the capitalization of certain terms is part of the Agoran dialect, 
and that culture is something worth maintaining. I’m not objecting yet in case 
everyone disagrees with me, but I feel that it merits further discussion. 

Gaelan

> On Feb 15, 2018, at 5:00 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> 
> For each of the case-sensitive changes indicated below, I intend, without
> objection, to clean the indicated rule as specified (unless otherwise
> indicated, the changes are to text only, and not title). Under penalty of
> violation of Rule 2471, I state that there are no scams contained within
> the below, nor intentional changes in interpretation or gameplay, and they
> are all purely an attempt on my part to clean up the rules.
> 
> Some general notes: Based on what seem to be conventions, switch names are
> not capitalized, but values are. Other capitalization conventions I've
> tried to regularize, going by which is more frequent in the rules but
> leaning towards lowercase (historically, the Capitalization of Nouns was at
> one Point common in English. Since Law remains from that Period, written
> with those Conventions, it seems to have snuck into Rule writing. Since
> that is based on History and not on current Grammar, I leaned towards the
> modern Approach). I picked "judgement" to standardize on. List formatting,
> where the list occurs as part of a sentence, is being standardized with no
> colon preceding the list, semicolons separating entries, and an "and" or
> "or" at the end of the second-to-last item. In general, the idea is that
> the list should read as a valid sentence if the list bullets are removed.
> In cases where the grammar is particularly difficult to reconcile (Rule
> 1728, I'm looking at you).
> 
> #1, in Rule 101 (The Game of Agora): Change each occurrence of "Persons",
> "Rules", "Actions", or "Fora" to lowercase.
> 
> #2, in Rule 1698 (Agora is a Nomic): Change the spelling of the word
> "inseperable" to "inseparable".
> 
> #3, in Rule 869 (How to Join and Leave Agora), change the second occurrence
> of "Citizenship" to lowercase.
> 
> #4, in Rule 478 (Fora), change each occurrence of "Imperial", "Player", or
> "Fora" to lowercase.
> 
> #5, in Rule 2139 (The Registrar)
> a) in the first numbered list, change the "." at the end of entry 1 to ";",
> and change the "." at the end of entry 2 to "; and";
> b) in the unnumbered list, change the "." at the end of the first entry to
> "; and";
> c) in all lists, change the first letter of each entry to lowercase; and
> d) delete the colons occurring immediately before each list.
> 
> #6, in Rule 1789 (Cantus Cygneus), change "Player" to lowercase.
> 
> #7, in Rule 2532 (Zombies), delete the comma in "any player, and Agora" and
> change the occurrence of "Zombie" to lowercase.
> 
> #8, in Rule 1885 (Zombie Auctions), change "Shinies" to lowercase.
> 
> #9, in Rule 2514 (Emotions), change each occurrence of "Emotion", except
> the first, to lowercase.
> 
> #10, in Rule 1688 (Power), change each occurrence of "Power", "Threshold",
> "Rules", or "Rule" to lowercase, except for the word "Power" at the start
> of the third paragraph.
> 
> #11, in Rule 2140 (Power Controls Mutability), change the "." at the end of
> the first list entry to ";", and change the "." at the end of the second
> list entry to "; or".
> 
> #12, in Rule 1030 (Precedence between Rules),
> a) change each occurrence of "Power", "Rule", "Ruleset", or "Rules" to
> lowercase; and
> b) change the first letter of each list entry except for the first to
> lowercase.
> 
> #13, in Rule 105 (Rule Changes), delete the hyphen in each occurrence of
> "re-enacting", "re-enacted", or "re-enactment".
> 
> #14, in Rule 2493 (Regulations), change each occurrence of "Regulation" or
> "Promulgator" to lowercase.
> 
> #15, in Rule 2494 (The Regkeepor), change the first two occurrences of
> "Regulations" to lowercase.
> 
> #16, in Rule 1681 (The Logical Rulesets),
> a) change the first letter of each list entry to lowercase;
> b) replace the "." at the end of the first two list entries with ";"
> c) replace the "." at the end of the third list entry with "; and"
> 
> #17, in Rule 2125 (Regulated Actions), change each instance of "Rules",
> "Restricted", or "Action" to lowercase.
> 
> #18, in Rule 1023 (Agoran Time),
> a) change the word "till" to "until"; and
> b) replace the ";" at the end of the list nested in the third entry of the
> outer list with "; or"
> 
> #19, in Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction)
> a) change each occurrence of "Supporter" or "Objector" to lowercase
> b) change each occurrence of "satisfied" to uppwercase.
> c) in the second list entry, replace the "; and" at the end with ";"
> d) in the third list entry, replace the "." at the end with "; and"
> 
> #20, in Rule 2445 (How to Pend a Proposal), change each occurrence of
> "Official" or "Rules", as well as each occurrence of "Proposal" except the
> first, to lowercase.
> 
> #21, in Rule 106 (Adopting 

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-Contract: Micro-Proposals

[Gaelan Steele]

Alright, here’s a V2:

{
This contract accepts shinies as long as it has fewer than ((Pend Cost) + 1) 
shinies. It accepts no other assets.

This contract maintains a piece of state known as the Proposal Puddle, 
containing a set of micro-proposals each consisting of a title, adoption index, 
author, and body of 50 words or fewer.

A proposal cycle is the period between the publication of two Promotor reports 
containing the contents of the Proposal Pool.

Any player may add a micro-proposal to the Proposal Puddle by transferring one 
shiny to this contract if it is currently accepting shinies, or by announcement 
otherwise. Each player may do this no more than twice per proposal cycle.

Once per proposal cycle, Gaelan SHALL create and pend a proposal with the 
following properties:

Title: Any title containing “Micro-Proposals”
Author: Gaelan
Co-authors: The set of all players who authored one or more micro-proposals in 
the Proposal Puddle
Adoption Index: The maximum Adoption Index of any micro-proposal in the 
Proposal Puddle
Text: The below text, followed by the contents of the Proposal Puddle.
{
The micro-proposals below are not part of the effects of this proposal, and do 
not take effect as a result of this proposal except for as specified below.

For each of the micro-proposals below:
1. Gaelan SHALL resolve the votes cast on the micro-proposal as if it were an 
Agoran Decision for a full proposal, taking into account votes from all players.
2. Upon the resolution, if the result of the resolution is FOR, the 
micro-proposal takes effect, gaining power equal to its Adoption Index.
}

Once each proposal cycle after pending this proposal, Gaelan CAN and SHALL 
remove the contents of the Proposal Puddle. When this occurs, if the proposal 
was pended with shinies, this contract transfers the Pend Cost in shinies to 
Gaelan.

Any player may amend this contract with 2 Agoran Consent, as defined in the 
ruleset.
}

Changes:
- Changed proposal text to actually work (hopefully), as well as making me 
resolve the decisions.
- Actually clear out the Proposal Puddle each week.
- Added mechanism for amendment.

> On Feb 14, 2018, at 9:58 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> I disagree—just because a proposal provides the text of a document doesn’t 
>> mean that the document is part of the proposal and is evaluated when the 
>> proposal gains power. 
> 
> R2350:A proposal is a type of entity consisting of a body of text and
>  other attributes.
> 
> The "body of text" is the proposal.  The whole body of text.  You can't
> have something in there without it being part of the body of text, therefore
> part of the proposal.  I don't really know what it means for the whole body
> of text to have one power, and a sub-portion to have a different power.
> 
> So R106 requires you to step through the full proposal at the power of
> that proposal.
> 
> But really, the power's a red herring.  Let's step through your loop.  
> 
> For each of the micro-proposals below:
>  {
>  1. Resolve the votes cast on the micro-proposal as if it were an
> Agoran Decision for a full proposal, taking into account votes from all
> players.
>  2. If the result of the resolution is FOR, give the micro-proposal 
> power equal to its Adoption Index.
>  }
> 
> Ok, now your micro-proposals have power.  But so what?  They haven't
> actually done anything because they don't actually take effect until
> you get to them in sequence.  Now we go on.
> 
> Micro-Proposal 1:  Do X
> 
> Well, Rule 106 is still implementing the Proposal as a whole:
>  "a proposal that
>  takes effect CAN and does, as part of its effect, apply the
>  changes that it specifies."
> 
> The phrase "do X" is implemented by the Proposal at the power of the
> whole Proposal, whether or not it was FOR or AGAINST, and whether or not
> the "micro proposal" has power, because the 'Do X' is an assertive part
> of the main proposal and thus takes effect, regardless of its labeling.
> 
> In programming terms, if each micro-proposal is a Function, your loop
> sets some properties of each function (power) but doesn't actually
> call each function (doesn't say it takes effect).  Then you pass
> through and, missing a break statement, step through each function
> and it takes effect, still at the power of the original proposal
> (because R106 is driving the step-through until you reach the end
> or explicitly terminate).
> 
> Here's a re-writing that fixes it, I think:
> 
> For each of the micro-proposals below:
>  {
>  1. Resolve the votes cast on the micro-proposal as if it were an
> Agoran Decision for a full proposal, taking into account votes from all
> player

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Registrar] Zombie auctions for Quazie, 天火狐, and nichdel

[Gaelan Steele]

If you’re right about newer bids overwriting older ones, we should be fine. 

Gaelan 

> On Feb 15, 2018, at 10:14 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah - entirely forgot about that.  Well hopefully my insertion didn't make 
> things worse then.
> 
> 
>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> I resolve my intent to ratify without objection. CB’s and my 
>> non-real-integer bids should no longer exist. 
>> 
>> Gaelan
>> 
>>> On Feb 15, 2018, at 9:54 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The following bids are defensive.  If the auction works as is sensible 
>>> these simply
>>> result in 12-shiny bids in each auction.  If the auction is already screwed 
>>> up,
>>> these bids offer some defense.  If it screws things up badly beyond what's 
>>> been done
>>> already I'll card myself.  Details later.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> I put the Zombie Quazie up for auction (i.e. I initiate this auction).
>>> I bid a number of shinies equal to the cardinality of the continuum for 
>>> Quazie.
>>> I bid 30 shinies for Quazie.
>>> I bid 12 shinies for Quazie.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> I put the Zombie nichdel up for auction (i.e. I initiate this auction).
>>> I bid a number of shinies equal to the cardinality of the continuum for 
>>> nichdel.
>>> I bid 30 shinies for nichdel.
>>> I bid 12 shinies for nichdel.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> I put the Zombie omd up for auction (i.e. I initiate this auction).
>>> I bid a number of shinies equal to the cardinality of the continuum for omd.
>>> I bid 30 shinies for omd.
>>> I bid 12 shinies for omd.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-Contract: Micro-Proposals

[Gaelan Steele]

I disagree—just because a proposal provides the text of a document doesn’t mean 
that the document is part of the proposal and is evaluated when the proposal 
gains power. For instance, when a proposal creates a rule, the text of the rule 
doesn’t gain power as part of the proposal (the proposal does use its power to 
grant the rule power, which is the same thing I do). That being said, I’ll 
adjust the wording to be more clear in my next iteration. 

Gaelan

> On Feb 14, 2018, at 9:03 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't.  If the full PROPOSAL is adopted,
> .  r106 first gives power to the whole proposal, including all of its 
> micro-proposals.
> Then, if the proposal doesn't give power to a micro-proposal, that 
> micro-proposal
> still has the power it got from r106 and still goes into effect.
> 
>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> Yes, I know. The way the contract works is this:
>> - People submit micro-proposals
>> - Every week, I create and pend a proposal with all of the micro-proposals 
>> submitted that week
>> - If adopted, the PROPOSAL simulates an Agoran Decision for each 
>> micro-proposal and “adopts” (gives power to) the ones which get enough votes 
>> 
>> Gaelan
>> 
>>> On Feb 14, 2018, at 8:50 PM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Contracts cannot do things on their own, which is why they have to have an
>>> agent to effect any actual change. But they can obligate a player to do
>>> something since they're basically a block of rule text that you get to
>>> choose if you want to follow.
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 14, 2018 21:46, "Gaelan Steele" <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Contract doesn’t give power. Contract obligates me to pend a proposal
>>>> which, if adopted, gives power to some or all of its sub-proposals.
>>>> 
>>>> Gaelan
>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 14, 2018, at 8:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Can a contract give power to anything?
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>>>>> Df
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Feb 14, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This contract accepts shinies as long as it has fewer than ((Pend
>>>> Cost) + 1) shines. It accepts no other assets.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This contract maintains a piece of state known as the Proposal Puddle,
>>>> containing a set of micro-proposals each consisting of a title, adoption
>>>> index, author, and body of 50 words or fewer.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> A proposal cycle is the period between the publication of two Promotor
>>>> reports containing the contents of the Proposal Pool.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Any player may add a micro-proposal to the Proposal Puddle by
>>>> transferring one shiny to this contract if it is currently accepting
>>>> shinies, or by announcement otherwise. Each player may do this no more than
>>>> twice per proposal cycle.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Once per proposal cycle, Gaelan SHALL create and pend a proposal with
>>>> the following properties:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Title: Any title containing “Micro-Proposals”
>>>>>>> Author: Gaelan
>>>>>>> Co-authors: The set of all players who authored one or more
>>>> micro-proposals in the Proposal Puddle
>>>>>>> Adoption Index: The maximum Adoption Index of any micro-proposal in
>>>> the Proposal Puddle
>>>>>>> Text: The below text, followed by the contents of the Proposal Puddle.
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> For each of the micro-proposals below:
>>>>>>> 1. Resolve the votes cast on the micro-proposal as if it were an
>>>> Agoran Decision for a full proposal, taking into account votes from all
>>>> players.
>>>>>>> 2. If the result of the resolution is FOR, give the micro-proposal
>>>> power equal to its Adoption Index.
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Once each proposal cycle after pending this proposal, Gaelan may cause
>>>> this contract to transfer to em the Pend Cost in shines.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: DIS: Re: Proto-Contract: Micro-Proposals

[Gaelan Steele]

Yes, I know. The way the contract works is this:
- People submit micro-proposals
- Every week, I create and pend a proposal with all of the micro-proposals 
submitted that week
- If adopted, the PROPOSAL simulates an Agoran Decision for each micro-proposal 
and “adopts” (gives power to) the ones which get enough votes 

Gaelan

> On Feb 14, 2018, at 8:50 PM, Reuben Staley <reuben.sta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Contracts cannot do things on their own, which is why they have to have an
> agent to effect any actual change. But they can obligate a player to do
> something since they're basically a block of rule text that you get to
> choose if you want to follow.
> 
>> On Feb 14, 2018 21:46, "Gaelan Steele" <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Contract doesn’t give power. Contract obligates me to pend a proposal
>> which, if adopted, gives power to some or all of its sub-proposals.
>> 
>> Gaelan
>> 
>>> On Feb 14, 2018, at 8:32 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Can a contract give power to anything?
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>>> Df
>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 14, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> This contract accepts shinies as long as it has fewer than ((Pend
>> Cost) + 1) shines. It accepts no other assets.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This contract maintains a piece of state known as the Proposal Puddle,
>> containing a set of micro-proposals each consisting of a title, adoption
>> index, author, and body of 50 words or fewer.
>>>>> 
>>>>> A proposal cycle is the period between the publication of two Promotor
>> reports containing the contents of the Proposal Pool.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Any player may add a micro-proposal to the Proposal Puddle by
>> transferring one shiny to this contract if it is currently accepting
>> shinies, or by announcement otherwise. Each player may do this no more than
>> twice per proposal cycle.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Once per proposal cycle, Gaelan SHALL create and pend a proposal with
>> the following properties:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Title: Any title containing “Micro-Proposals”
>>>>> Author: Gaelan
>>>>> Co-authors: The set of all players who authored one or more
>> micro-proposals in the Proposal Puddle
>>>>> Adoption Index: The maximum Adoption Index of any micro-proposal in
>> the Proposal Puddle
>>>>> Text: The below text, followed by the contents of the Proposal Puddle.
>>>>> {
>>>>> For each of the micro-proposals below:
>>>>> 1. Resolve the votes cast on the micro-proposal as if it were an
>> Agoran Decision for a full proposal, taking into account votes from all
>> players.
>>>>> 2. If the result of the resolution is FOR, give the micro-proposal
>> power equal to its Adoption Index.
>>>>> }
>>>>> 
>>>>> Once each proposal cycle after pending this proposal, Gaelan may cause
>> this contract to transfer to em the Pend Cost in shines.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 

DIS: Re: Proto-Contract: Micro-Proposals

[Gaelan Steele]

Df

> On Feb 14, 2018, at 7:58 PM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
> 
> This contract accepts shinies as long as it has fewer than ((Pend Cost) + 1) 
> shines. It accepts no other assets.
> 
> This contract maintains a piece of state known as the Proposal Puddle, 
> containing a set of micro-proposals each consisting of a title, adoption 
> index, author, and body of 50 words or fewer.
> 
> A proposal cycle is the period between the publication of two Promotor 
> reports containing the contents of the Proposal Pool.
> 
> Any player may add a micro-proposal to the Proposal Puddle by transferring 
> one shiny to this contract if it is currently accepting shinies, or by 
> announcement otherwise. Each player may do this no more than twice per 
> proposal cycle.
> 
> Once per proposal cycle, Gaelan SHALL create and pend a proposal with the 
> following properties:
> 
> Title: Any title containing “Micro-Proposals”
> Author: Gaelan
> Co-authors: The set of all players who authored one or more micro-proposals 
> in the Proposal Puddle
> Adoption Index: The maximum Adoption Index of any micro-proposal in the 
> Proposal Puddle
> Text: The below text, followed by the contents of the Proposal Puddle.
> {
> For each of the micro-proposals below:
> 1. Resolve the votes cast on the micro-proposal as if it were an Agoran 
> Decision for a full proposal, taking into account votes from all players.
> 2. If the result of the resolution is FOR, give the micro-proposal power 
> equal to its Adoption Index.
> }
> 
> Once each proposal cycle after pending this proposal, Gaelan may cause this 
> contract to transfer to em the Pend Cost in shines.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Gaelan Steele]

I support. 

> On Feb 13, 2018, at 2:18 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Not that there isn't a fascinating discussion about winning going on, but 
> I REALLY WOULD appreciate either support for the below, or some statement
> from folks that they're not supporting on purpose (i.e. why it's not a good
> punishment).
> 
> The current consensus-driven penalty system is very poor at working when
> there's general apathy/ambivalence towards it.
> 
>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> I think a fair assessment is eir January+Feburary salary for the office 
>>> - 6 shinies - but mitigated by eir confession.  So penalty announced
>>> is: 5 shinies.
>> 
>> I announce intent to Levy a Fine of 5 shinies on Telnaior with 2 Support.
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Proto: competitive victories

[Gaelan Steele]

I guess what I’m trying to fix is my feeling that wins don’t matter much. In a 
“traditional” game, a win is a big deal: if you win, I don’t. In Agora, 
however, my reaction is pretty much “oh, G won. Cool.” That’s the opposite of 
what a win should be like, in my opinion. My goal isn’t so much to make wins 
rare; it’s to make them matter. Again, I have no idea if anyone else feels like 
this. 

Gaelan 

> On Feb 13, 2018, at 2:09 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Also, I don't think this changes much about the "win economy", where "too
> many wins" makes them worth "too little" (which I think this is trying to
> stop, a sort of win inflation?)
> 
> Because I think that the proportion of wins of a person in comparison to
> the total will still be more or less the same, would there be anti-win
> inflation vs there not being any. Unless its desirable for the game design
> to be competitive in which case we could just make new competition
> mechanics and play those instead of touching what we already have and what
> they have meant to us until now.
> 
> (I've got a competitive game in mind, I just want to design it a bit better
> before proposing it. It's basically making the best "nomic-bot". But I want
> to make it simple to play - no programming knowledge required - yet
> similar/parallel enough to nomic itself)
> 
>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:59 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I'd rather not have wins destroy other fractions-of-wins because it
>> snowballs. If you win, you're in a better position to win again because
>> your fractions-of-wins aren't harmed.
>> 
>> An easier solution imo is that only one person can win per month, max. It
>> becomes a bit of a "dynastic" game though lol.
>> 
>>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Historically, I think we've tended to have a mix. Some of the economic
>>> wins
>>> have resulted in complete economy resets.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 16:40, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> One thing I've thought could be a good idea in that regard is that each
>>>> official method of winning can only be done by one person? Once
>>>> someone's done it first the method's gone.
>>>> Ribbons seem like a sensible exception to that given how long-term they
>>>> are and that you "can't" get them as your first win.
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2018-02-14 08:33, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>>>> Append to 2449 “winning the game”:
>>>>> 
>>>>> When one or more players win the game:
>>>>> * Any intents to Declare Apathy by players who did not win are
>>> cancelled.
>>>>> * Two Medals of Honor in the possession of each player who did not win
>>>> are destroyed.
>>>>> * The Tailor CAN and SHALL once and within a timely fashion remove two
>>>> ribbons at random from the Ribbon Ownership of each player who did not
>>> win,
>>>> excluding the White ribbon.
>>>>> * [i would revoke some Trust Tokens, but that would require real
>>>> recordkeeping]
>>>>> * [something relates to PAoAM if that gets a win condition]
>>>>> 
>>>>> —
>>>>> 
>>>>> Idea here is that winning would be a lot more meaningful if we had an
>>>> incentive to stop it
>>>>> 
>>>>> Gaelan
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: DIS: Proto: competitive victories

[Gaelan Steele]

Maybe fractions-of-wins is the wrong answer, but I feel like a win, by its very 
nature, should be bad for everyone else, so that we have an incentive to stop 
them. That’s just me, however. Given that we rarely have more that one win per 
month anyway, CB’s solution doesn’t do much. Not sure what the best way to do 
this is. 

Gaelan 

> On Feb 13, 2018, at 1:59 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I'd rather not have wins destroy other fractions-of-wins because it
> snowballs. If you win, you're in a better position to win again because
> your fractions-of-wins aren't harmed.
> 
> An easier solution imo is that only one person can win per month, max. It
> becomes a bit of a "dynastic" game though lol.
> 
>> On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Historically, I think we've tended to have a mix. Some of the economic wins
>> have resulted in complete economy resets.
>> 
>> 
>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 at 16:40, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>> 
>>> One thing I've thought could be a good idea in that regard is that each
>>> official method of winning can only be done by one person? Once
>>> someone's done it first the method's gone.
>>> Ribbons seem like a sensible exception to that given how long-term they
>>> are and that you "can't" get them as your first win.
>>> 
>>>> On 2018-02-14 08:33, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>>> Append to 2449 “winning the game”:
>>>> 
>>>> When one or more players win the game:
>>>> * Any intents to Declare Apathy by players who did not win are
>> cancelled.
>>>> * Two Medals of Honor in the possession of each player who did not win
>>> are destroyed.
>>>> * The Tailor CAN and SHALL once and within a timely fashion remove two
>>> ribbons at random from the Ribbon Ownership of each player who did not
>> win,
>>> excluding the White ribbon.
>>>> * [i would revoke some Trust Tokens, but that would require real
>>> recordkeeping]
>>>> * [something relates to PAoAM if that gets a win condition]
>>>> 
>>>> —
>>>> 
>>>> Idea here is that winning would be a lot more meaningful if we had an
>>> incentive to stop it
>>>> 
>>>> Gaelan
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 

DIS: Proto: competitive victories

[Gaelan Steele]

Append to 2449 “winning the game”:

When one or more players win the game:
* Any intents to Declare Apathy by players who did not win are cancelled. 
* Two Medals of Honor in the possession of each player who did not win are 
destroyed. 
* The Tailor CAN and SHALL once and within a timely fashion remove two ribbons 
at random from the Ribbon Ownership of each player who did not win, excluding 
the White ribbon. 
* [i would revoke some Trust Tokens, but that would require real recordkeeping]
* [something relates to PAoAM if that gets a win condition]

—

Idea here is that winning would be a lot more meaningful if we had an incentive 
to stop it

Gaelan 

Re: DIS: Proto-CFJ: Agora is a Person

[Gaelan Steele]

Proto-gratuitous arguments:

There are several issues with this argument. (s/thought/(thought or idea) 
throughout)
Agora did not originate the thought of Agora. While Agora may embody that 
thought, the thought was originated by Michael Norrish.
Freely originating thoughts means originating thoughts of its own accord. Agora 
can’t just go out and originate some idea that hasn’t been thought of by a 
player in the past. Agora is not free to originate independent thoughts.
Thoughts plural. Even ignoring the above points, Agora only originates the 
thought of itself.
Agora has no independent thoughts. Any “thoughts” contained within Agora were 
originally from a player.
Agora does not communicate ideas freely. It only communicates ideas that one of 
us has sent to the mailing list and is incapable of communicating any other 
ideas.

Gaelan

> On Feb 12, 2018, at 3:14 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> I Free-CFJ the following: "Agora is a Person"
> 
> Grat. Arguments:
> 
> R869 says "Any organism that is generally capable of freely
> originating and communicating
> independent thoughts and ideas is a person."
> 
> There is no mention that the independent thoughts and ideas that are
> originated or communicated need to be from this "person" themselves. With
> that known:
> 
> Agora originates the thought of Agora itself (as its current being - a real
> thing). If it didn't exist, we wouldn't be able to think of
> Agora-the-real-thing as we do now.
> 
> Existing as it does now _initiates_ the process of creating the thought of
> acknowledging that it exists, therefore it fulfills the definition of
> "originating" that thought.
> 
> There is no extraordinary restriction to how Agora performs this feat,
> therefore, Agora freely originates the thought of Agora itself.
> 
> Agora is a communication system, evidenced by this mailing list and R101.
> It communicates (without extraordinary restriction) our own independent
> thoughts and ideas, by merit of being a transportation system of those
> things.
> 
> And so, Agora does in fact freely originate independent thoughts/ideas (in
> other entities which are capable of such) and communicates thoughts/ideas
> (from others). Agora is a person.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fact-Checker's Guild

[Gaelan Steele]

You still need another supporter. 

Gaelan

> On Feb 11, 2018, at 8:49 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Yes, that's a bit the intent.
> 
> A bit of a ridiculous way to make someone lose some shinies because the
> Auction is underway but oh well lol *dabs*
> 
>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 5:40 AM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I object. Consent requires 50-50, and unless you can convince someone else
>> to support this, I’m safe. Besides, even if you get a co-conspirator, I’m
>> automatically kicked out of the contract upon amendment.
>> 
>> Gaelan
>> 
>>> On Feb 11, 2018, at 8:18 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I intend to leave the contract below (the "THE FACT-CHECKER’S GUILD" one)
>>> 
>>> I join the contract.
>>> 
>>> I intend to amend it to only say "Only Cuddlebeam can amend this
>> contract. Any
>>> player CAN become a party to this contract. No player can leave this
>>> contract, except for Cuddlebeam."
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:56 AM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Random FYI: some of your emails are displayed as Madeline <
>>>> j...@iinet.net.au>, while rest are Telnaior <j...@iinet.net.au>. That’s
>>>> probably worth fixing to avoid confusion (signing your emails is also a
>>>> good habit to get into as well).
>>>> 
>>>> Gaelan
>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 11, 2018, at 7:49 PM, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Muphry's Law strikes again~
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 2018-02-12 14:45, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>>>>> In intend, without objection, to rename this guild to “The
>>>> Fact-Checkers’ Guild”.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This is embarrassing.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Gaelan
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Feb 11, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I throw a shiny at Agora and create the following contract:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> THE FACT-CHECKER’S GUILD
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> This guild has Failed Its Duties if it is discovered that the
>>>> game-state has changed due to the self-ratification of a document that,
>>>> before its self-ratification, was incorrect. When this guild has Failed
>> Its
>>>> Duties, all parties to this contract are considered to have breached its
>>>> terms.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Any player CAN become a party to this contract.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Any party to this contract CAN leave it, provided that they have
>>>> publicly announced their intention to do so, between 7 and 14 days
>> prior.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Any party to this contract CAN amend it with Agoran Consent (as
>>>> defined in the ruleset, but only considering objectors and supporters
>> who
>>>> are parties to the contract). Upon such an amendment, any parties who
>>>> objected to the amendment are expelled from the contract (unless they
>> have
>>>> publicly stated that they do not wish for this to occur).
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Gaelan
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fact-Checker's Guild

[Gaelan Steele]

Oops—meant to say that consent requires 51%.

> On Feb 11, 2018, at 8:40 PM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
> 
> I object. Consent requires 50-50, and unless you can convince someone else to 
> support this, I’m safe. Besides, even if you get a co-conspirator, I’m 
> automatically kicked out of the contract upon amendment.
> 
> Gaelan
> 
>> On Feb 11, 2018, at 8:18 PM, Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I intend to leave the contract below (the "THE FACT-CHECKER’S GUILD" one)
>> 
>> I join the contract.
>> 
>> I intend to amend it to only say "Only Cuddlebeam can amend this contract. 
>> Any
>> player CAN become a party to this contract. No player can leave this
>> contract, except for Cuddlebeam."
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 4:56 AM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Random FYI: some of your emails are displayed as Madeline <
>>> j...@iinet.net.au>, while rest are Telnaior <j...@iinet.net.au>. That’s
>>> probably worth fixing to avoid confusion (signing your emails is also a
>>> good habit to get into as well).
>>> 
>>> Gaelan
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 11, 2018, at 7:49 PM, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Muphry's Law strikes again~
>>>> 
>>>> On 2018-02-12 14:45, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>>>> In intend, without objection, to rename this guild to “The
>>> Fact-Checkers’ Guild”.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This is embarrassing.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Gaelan
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Feb 11, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I throw a shiny at Agora and create the following contract:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> THE FACT-CHECKER’S GUILD
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This guild has Failed Its Duties if it is discovered that the
>>> game-state has changed due to the self-ratification of a document that,
>>> before its self-ratification, was incorrect. When this guild has Failed Its
>>> Duties, all parties to this contract are considered to have breached its
>>> terms.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Any player CAN become a party to this contract.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Any party to this contract CAN leave it, provided that they have
>>> publicly announced their intention to do so, between 7 and 14 days prior.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Any party to this contract CAN amend it with Agoran Consent (as
>>> defined in the ruleset, but only considering objectors and supporters who
>>> are parties to the contract). Upon such an amendment, any parties who
>>> objected to the amendment are expelled from the contract (unless they have
>>> publicly stated that they do not wish for this to occur).
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Gaelan
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fact-Checker's Guild

[Gaelan Steele]

Random FYI: some of your emails are displayed as Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au>, 
while rest are Telnaior <j...@iinet.net.au>. That’s probably worth fixing to 
avoid confusion (signing your emails is also a good habit to get into as well).

Gaelan

> On Feb 11, 2018, at 7:49 PM, Madeline <j...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> 
> Muphry's Law strikes again~
> 
> On 2018-02-12 14:45, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> In intend, without objection, to rename this guild to “The Fact-Checkers’ 
>> Guild”.
>> 
>> This is embarrassing.
>> 
>> Gaelan
>> 
>>> On Feb 11, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I throw a shiny at Agora and create the following contract:
>>> 
>>> {
>>> THE FACT-CHECKER’S GUILD
>>> 
>>> This guild has Failed Its Duties if it is discovered that the game-state 
>>> has changed due to the self-ratification of a document that, before its 
>>> self-ratification, was incorrect. When this guild has Failed Its Duties, 
>>> all parties to this contract are considered to have breached its terms.
>>> 
>>> Any player CAN become a party to this contract.
>>> 
>>> Any party to this contract CAN leave it, provided that they have publicly 
>>> announced their intention to do so, between 7 and 14 days prior.
>>> 
>>> Any party to this contract CAN amend it with Agoran Consent (as defined in 
>>> the ruleset, but only considering objectors and supporters who are parties 
>>> to the contract). Upon such an amendment, any parties who objected to the 
>>> amendment are expelled from the contract (unless they have publicly stated 
>>> that they do not wish for this to occur).
>>> }
>>> 
>>> Gaelan
> 
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: Fact-Checker's Guild

[Gaelan Steele]

In intend, without objection, to rename this guild to “The Fact-Checkers’ 
Guild”.

This is embarrassing.

Gaelan

> On Feb 11, 2018, at 6:28 PM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
> 
> I throw a shiny at Agora and create the following contract:
> 
> {
> THE FACT-CHECKER’S GUILD
> 
> This guild has Failed Its Duties if it is discovered that the game-state has 
> changed due to the self-ratification of a document that, before its 
> self-ratification, was incorrect. When this guild has Failed Its Duties, all 
> parties to this contract are considered to have breached its terms.
> 
> Any player CAN become a party to this contract.
> 
> Any party to this contract CAN leave it, provided that they have publicly 
> announced their intention to do so, between 7 and 14 days prior.
> 
> Any party to this contract CAN amend it with Agoran Consent (as defined in 
> the ruleset, but only considering objectors and supporters who are parties to 
> the contract). Upon such an amendment, any parties who objected to the 
> amendment are expelled from the contract (unless they have publicly stated 
> that they do not wish for this to occur).
> }
> 
> Gaelan

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8010-8014

[Gaelan Steele]

Mailman is mean
And requires a password
Use Mail-Archive

(Please)

Gaelan

> On Feb 11, 2018, at 6:50 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> I hereby distribute each listed proposal,
> 
> I don't mean to fuss and I don't mean to bug
> But you swept this proposal under a rug:
> 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-February/037795.html
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

[Gaelan Steele]

The list of changes may be a summary that is ignored ("if such a document can 
be divided into a summary section and a main section, where the only purpose of 
the summary section is to summarize information in the main section, and the 
main section is internally consistent, ratification of the document proceeds as 
if it contained only the main section”).

Gaelan

> On Feb 11, 2018, at 6:13 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
>> Remember, we apply very strict scrutiny to scams and tiny errors are
> enough to stop it.
> 
> To further support this, I believe scams rely precisely on a pedantic
> reading of the rules and content, to have your "scam content" be impervious
> to it would be special pleading.
> 
> To support Tel's Ribbon, we DO have this:
> 
> 2018-02-12  Telnaior+K (self-ratification)
> 
> 
> Which is dated at 2018. So, while this IS a "clairvoyant" report because it
> was dated at 2017, that ribbon at that date is still ratified.
> 
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:07 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> When you ratify a report that includes a specific "this is the
>> date this report is for", my understanding is that this modifies
>> the values for that date.  Just like my recent attempt to ratify
>> "On (date) there were no elections".
>> 
>> In this case, you would have ratified everyone's ribbon holdings
>> for a year ago.  However, we have reports from the fall that
>> ratified in late 2017, that state at a later date you didn't have the
>> ribbons.  So I think your attempt failed...perhaps?  That now the
>> legal historical record is that those were the ribbon holdings
>> from early 2017 until the next actual report ratified last year.
>> 
>> Remember, we apply very strict scrutiny to scams and tiny
>> errors are enough to stop it.
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alexis Hunt wrote:
>>> The date is still off, though---it happened one week after the previous
>>> report.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 at 19:19, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
>>> 
 Oh shit, true. Well, OK.
 
 On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:17 AM, Aris Merchant <
 thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
 
> It was in eir previous report.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 4:15 PM Cuddle Beam 
 wrote:
> 
>> CoE:
>> 
>> 2018-02-12  Telnaior+K (self-ratification)
>> 
>> You haven't earned it YET, self-ratification is after its undoubted
 for a
>> week, as per R2201.
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:06 AM, Telnaior 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> TAILOR'S RIBBON REPORT
>>> --
>>> 
>>> Date of this report: 2017-02-12
>>> Date of last report: 2017-01-31
>>> 
>>> Festivity: 0
>>> 
>>> Players' ribbon holdings:
>>> 
>>>   ROGCBMUVIPLWKAT
>>> Alexis ROGCBMUVIP WKA
>>> Aris   RMUV P
>>> Corona
>>> Cuddle Beam   C M V   W
>>> G. ROGCBMUVIPLW AT
>>> GaelanC MUV A
>>> MurphyCB UV A
>>> nichdel OGCBMUV P W AT
>>> o  ROG BMUV   W AT
>>> omd   C  UVKA
>>> pokes
>>> Publius [1]   C MUV
>>> Quazie  O C MUVKA
>>> Telnaior   KA
>>> Trigon
>>> Josh T. [3]  UV A
>>> V.J. Rada   MU   LW
>>> 
>>> Non-players' ribbon holdings:
>>> 
>>>   ROGCBMUVIPLWKAT
>>> ais523 ROGCBMUV PLWKAT
>>> aranea ROGCBM V PLW A
>>> ATMunn  A
>>> babelian U
>>> Bayushi MU
>>> BedeM W
>>> Chuck   M
>>> grokO  BMUV
>>> Ienpw IIIUV
>>> K W
>>> Ørjan   M V
>>> Roujo V
>>> Sprocklem   MUV   W A
>>> stadjer   W
>>> Tanner Swett  C M
>>> Tekneek M
>>> Tiger  BM
>>> tmanthe2nd   UV
>>> VeggiekeksC  UV
>>> Yally   M
>>> Zachary W [2]U
>>> 
>>> [1] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>> [2] Zachary Watterson
>>> [3] 天火狐
>>> 
>>> The rules for Ribbons are set out in rule 2438. A quick guide to
>> how
>>> most Ribbons work: various events cause you to "earn" a Ribbon;
>> you
>>> then "qualify for" that Ribbon for 7 days. While you qualify for
>> a
>>> Ribbon (and do not already own that Ribbon, and have not owned it
>>> recently), any player can "award" you that Ribbon. A few Ribbons
>>> work differently; see rule 2438 for details.
>>> 
>>> Approximate 

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

[Gaelan Steele]

Actions have consequences, my friend.

Gaelan

> On Feb 11, 2018, at 5:36 PM, Madeline  wrote:
> 
> And why do you make it sound like I'm not going to be Tailor anymore... :(

DIS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar

[Gaelan Steele]

This report is dated 2017. Don’t believe that changes anything, but the future 
Tailor should probably fix it.

Gaelan

> On Feb 11, 2018, at 4:06 PM, Telnaior  wrote:
> 
> TAILOR'S RIBBON REPORT
> --
> 
> Date of this report: 2017-02-12
> Date of last report: 2017-01-31
> 
> Festivity: 0
> 
> Players' ribbon holdings:
> 
>ROGCBMUVIPLWKAT
> Alexis ROGCBMUVIP WKA
> Aris   RMUV P
> Corona
> Cuddle Beam   C M V   W
> G. ROGCBMUVIPLW AT
> GaelanC MUV A
> MurphyCB UV A
> nichdel OGCBMUV P W AT
> o  ROG BMUV   W AT
> omd   C  UVKA
> pokes
> Publius [1]   C MUV
> Quazie  O C MUVKA
> Telnaior   KA
> Trigon
> Josh T. [3]  UV A
> V.J. Rada   MU   LW
> 
> Non-players' ribbon holdings:
> 
>ROGCBMUVIPLWKAT
> ais523 ROGCBMUV PLWKAT
> aranea ROGCBM V PLW A
> ATMunn  A
> babelian U
> Bayushi MU
> BedeM W
> Chuck   M
> grokO  BMUV
> Ienpw IIIUV
> K W
> Ørjan   M V
> Roujo V
> Sprocklem   MUV   W A
> stadjer   W
> Tanner Swett  C M
> Tekneek M
> Tiger  BM
> tmanthe2nd   UV
> VeggiekeksC  UV
> Yally   M
> Zachary W [2]U
> 
> [1] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> [2] Zachary Watterson
> [3] 天火狐
> 
> The rules for Ribbons are set out in rule 2438. A quick guide to how
> most Ribbons work: various events cause you to "earn" a Ribbon; you
> then "qualify for" that Ribbon for 7 days. While you qualify for a
> Ribbon (and do not already own that Ribbon, and have not owned it
> recently), any player can "award" you that Ribbon. A few Ribbons
> work differently; see rule 2438 for details.
> 
> Approximate summary of how each type of Ribbon can be gained:
> Red  Author an adopted proposal that amends a Power-3+ rule
> Orange   Author a proposal that is unanimously adopted
> GreenHold an elected office for 30 days with no late duties
> Cyan Deputise for an office
> Blue Judge a CFJ without violating time limits to do so
> Magenta  Acknowldge Agora's Birthday
> Ultraviolet  Become Champion (typically by winning the game)
> Violet   Gain a Patent Title (except Champion, degrees)
> Indigo   Gain a degree
> Platinum Become the Speaker
> Lime Coauthor three adopted proposals within 7 days
> WhiteNever have had a White Ribbon, or be gifted one by someone
>who has never gifted a White Ribbon
> blacKAwardable only by proposal or scam
> GrAy Awarded monthly at the Tailor's discretion
> Transparent  Qualify for 5 Ribbons in the same week (ones you already
>have count)
> 
> History of Ribbon holdings:
> 2014-11-04  aranea  +W (new to Ribbons)
> 2014-11-04  aranea  +C (deputising for Tailor)
> 2014-11-06  Sprocklem   +W (new to Ribbons)
> 2014-11-09  omd +C (deputising for King Azaz)
> 2014-11-14  Alexis  +C (deputising for Herald)
> 2015-01-07  G.  +C (deputising for Referee)
> 2015-04-17  stadjer +W (new to Ribbons)
> 2015-05-01  aranea  +R (Proposal 7736)
> 2015-05-01  aranea  +O (Proposal 7735)
> 2015-05-01  aranea  +L (Proposal 7735-37)
> 2015-05-01  G.  +R (Proposal 7734)
> 2015-05-01  G.  +O (Proposal 7738)
> 2015-05-01  G.  +L (Proposal 7734,38,39)
> 2015-05-01  G.  +P (appointed Speaker)
> 2015-05-12  ais523  +O (Proposal 7742)
> 2015-05-12  Alexis  +P (appointed Speaker)
> 2015-05-13  Alexis  +G (as Tailor)
> 2015-05-22  G.  +B (CFJ 3448)
> 2015-05-23  Alexis  +B (CFJ 3447)
> 2015-05-24  G.  +W (gifted by aranea)
> 2015-06-09  ais523  +G (as Prime Minister)
> 2015-06-29  Alexis  +M
> 2015-06-29  aranea  +M
> 2015-06-29  ais523  +M
> 2015-06-29  the Warrigal+M
> 2015-06-29  Sprocklem   +M
> 2015-06-29  Tiger   +M
> 2015-06-29  G.  +M
> 2015-06-29  Bede+M
> 2015-06-30  Gaelan  +M
> 2015-06-30  aranea  +A
> 2015-06-30  Alexis  +O (Proposal 7753)
> 2015-07-10  G.  +G (as Arbitor)
> 2015-07-12  aranea  +V ("Unchampion")
> 2015-07-26  Alexis  +A
> 2015-07-28  aranea  +B (CFJ 3449)
> 2015-08-03  ais523  +V ("Silver Quill 2015/07")
> 2015-08-10  Tiger   +B (CFJ 3451)
> 2015-08-11  omd +K (by Proposal 7784)
> 2015-08-11  ais523  +K (by Proposal 7784)
> 2015-08-11 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Confession

[Gaelan Steele]

This change, mind you, would make G win.

Gaelan

> On Feb 11, 2018, at 4:39 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> How about we get rid of black ribbons altogether I loathe them
> (And am certainly not willing to make a rules exception for them).
> 
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
>> On Mon, 2018-02-12 at 00:35 +, Alex Smith wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2018-02-11 at 16:32 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
 As referee I'm conflicted.  On one hand this is blatant use
 of office for personal gain, on the other hand I convinced myself
 when I was Tailor that the nature/ expectation of Black ribbons
 made
 this particular scam expected/ok.
>>> 
>>> I look down on intentionally breaking rules as part of a scam, but on
>>> the other hand, I'm more willing to forgive that when Black Ribbons
>>> are
>>> involved (without other parts of the gamestate being touched).
>>> Perhaps
>>> I'm OK with this if the Tailor is OK with living with the typical
>>> punishment for intentionally falsifying the report (even though I
>>> normally believe that you shouldn't break the rules even if you're
>>> willing to live with the resulting punishment).
>>> 
>>> Incidentally, I also believe it's acceptable to attempt to scam your
>>> way out of a punishment after an accidental rules breach, because
>>> that's a different issue from the rules breach itself. But that's
>>> probably unlikely to happen here.
>> 
>> Hmm, proto: actions whose only purpose is to gain a Black Ribbon are
>> never illegal (although they could be impossible); however, if they
>> would otherwise violate the rules, they are (despite being legal) a
>> cardable offence.
>> 
>> -- 
>> ais523
>> 
> 

DIS: Temporary HLR

[Gaelan Steele]

I’ve ported the HLR generation code to Haskell and submitted it as a PR to the 
AgoraNomic/Ruleset repository. In the time being, I’ve generated a copy of the 
HLR from the latest ruleset files; it is available at 
https://gaelan.keybase.pub/hlr.html .

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Pledges?

[Gaelan Steele]

A player can “call in” a pledge with Agoran Consent (and explaining why they 
think it was broken). It is illegal to hold a called-in pledge. However, 
technically speaking, this has nothing to do with the text of the pledge.

Gaelan

> On Feb 9, 2018, at 8:01 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> Mentioning it because there is not "you shall not break pledges" thing or
> something similar anymore...
> 
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 4:39 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
>> It seems that you can break pledges freely now. Or something. What
>> happened?
>> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auctions for Quazie, 天火狐, and nichdel

[Gaelan Steele]

This made me laugh out loud. 

> On Feb 8, 2018, at 4:46 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 2018-02-08 at 16:34 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>> Still leaves my bid of i. I’m kind of curious about the ruling about
>> that, but I’m happy to (attempt to) retract one or both of my bids if
>> that’s what everyone would prefer. 
> 
> I'd strongly suspect that we don't treat imaginary bids as being real.
> 
> -- 
> ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Re: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auctions for Quazie, 天火狐, and nichdel

[Gaelan Steele]

Still leaves my bid of i. I’m kind of curious about the ruling about that, but 
I’m happy to (attempt to) retract one or both of my bids if that’s what 
everyone would prefer. 

Gaelan

> On Feb 8, 2018, at 4:20 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2018, Madeline wrote:
>> So what's the status on the remaining two auctions now?
>> I was hoping to make a serious bid on them. :(
> 
> Here's how fun's not *entirely* broken:
> 
> You can still place lower bids.
> 
> And CuddleBeam *might* be able to retract eir bid (I think e
> can, because that doesn't outright conflict with the zombie
> auction rule).
> 
> Players may wish to think about making support for Throwing
> the Book at CuddleBeam somehow conditional on whether e withdraws
> those bids...
> 
> 
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie auctions for Quazie, 天火狐, and nichdel

[Gaelan Steele]

I bid π shinies on each auction. 

Gaelan

> On Feb 8, 2018, at 11:13 AM, ATMunn  wrote:
> 
> I bid 2 shinies on each auction.
> 
>> On 2/8/2018 2:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> Zombie Auctions[1]
>>> I put the Zombie Quazie up for auction (i.e. I initiate this auction).
>> I bid 1 shiny.
>>> I put the Zombie 天火狐 up for auction (i.e. I initiate this auction).
>> I bid 1 shiny.
>>> I put the Zombie nichdel up for auction (i.e. I initiate this auction).
>> I bid 1 shiny.

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8008-8009

[Gaelan Steele]

AGAINST 8008. ASCII art is more convenient and doesn’t require rules support. 

PRESENT 8009. I like my design (less abstract, larger but sparse map) more, but 
this is a well-written, interesting proposal I don’t feel justified in voting 
down. 

Gaelan 

> On Feb 4, 2018, at 5:02 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> quorum is 3.0, the voting method is AI-majority and the valid options
> are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional
> votes).
> 
> ID Author(s)AI   Title   Pender  Pend fee
> ---
> 8008*  CB [1]   1.0  Picto-Nomic CB [1]  3 sh.
> 8009*  Trigon, [2]  2.6  PAoaM v6 [3]Trigon  3 sh.
> 
> The proposal pool is currently empty.
> 
> 
> [1] CuddleBeam
> [2] Aris, ATMunn, G., o, VJ Rada
> [3] Putting Agora on a Map v6
> 
> Legend: * : Proposal is pending.
> 
> A proposal may be pended for 3 shinies.
> 
> The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below.
> 
> //
> ID: 8008
> Title: Picto-Nomic
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: CuddleBeam
> Co-authors:
> 
> 
> Create a new rule called "Picto-Nomic" (Power=1.0) with the following text:
> 
> Rules may have their content be, instead of text, images, or urls to them,
> with these linked images being considered to be that rule's content for
> play. These are known as "Picto-rules".
> 
> //
> ID: 8009
> Title: Putting Agora on a Map v6
> Adoption index: 2.6
> Author: Trigon
> Co-authors: Aris, ATMunn, G., o, VJ Rada
> 
> 
> [ PART I: Removing and Changing Stuff ]
> 
> Repeal rule 2500 "Action Points".
> 
> Amend rule 2445 "How to Pend a Proposal" by replacing the second
> paragraph and subsequent list with:
> 
>  Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending"
>  by announcement by spending 1 paper.
> 
> Repeal rules 2483 "Economics", 2487 "Shiny Supply Level", and 2497
> "Floating Value".
> 
> Re-enact rule 2599 "Welcome Packages" by replacing the second paragraph
> with:
> 
>  If a player has not received a Welcome Package since e most
>  recently registered, any player CAN cause em to receive one by
>  announcement.
> 
>  When a player receives a Welcome Package, Agora creates the
>  following assets in eir possession:
> 
>1. 10 coins
>2. 5 lumber
>3. 5 stones
>4. 10 apples
>5. 3 papers
> 
> Make all players eligable to recieve Welcome Packages.
> 
> Create a new rule "Paydays" (Power=2) and amend it so that its text
> reads, in full:
> 
>  Whenever a Payday occurs, the following events happen in order:
> 
>  1. For each entity possessing shinies, half of eir shinies
> (rounded up) are destroyed.
> 
>  2. The following assets are created in the possession of each
> player:
> A. 10 coins
> B. 5 apples
> C. 3 papers
> 
>  3. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or
> more days in the previous month and e was not issued any Cards
> other than Green for eir conduct in that office during that
> time, the following assets are created in the possession of
> that player:
> A. 3 coins
> B. 1 corn
> 
>  The occurrence of Paydays is secured.  At the beginning of each
>  month, a Payday occurs.
> 
> [PART II: Making Land]
> 
> Re-enact rule 1993/1 (Power=2) "The Land of Arcadia" with the text:
> 
>  Arcadia is a land entirely defined by the Arcadian Map (the Map).
>  The Map is the term for the set of all Land Units.
> 
>  The Map divides Arcadia into a finite, discrete number of Units of
>  Land, or simply Land. Each Unit of Land is an indestructible asset
>  specified by an ordered pair of integers known as its Latitude and
>  Longitude.
> 
>  Every unique ordered pair of integers within the limits defined in
>  the Rules for Latitude and Longitude signifies an existent Unit of
>  Land. No other Units of Land exist. Units of Land CAN only be
>  created or destroyed by changing the limits of Latitude and
>  Longitude defined in the Rules.
> 
>  All values for Latitude and Longitude MUST lie between -9 and +9,
>  inclusive.
> 
>  The Total Land Area of Arcadia is the number of existent Units of
>  Land defined by permissible Latitude and Longitude pairs.
> 
> Re-enact rule 1994/0 (Power=2) "Ownership of Land" with the text:
> 
>  Any existent Land for which ownership has not been explicitly
>  changed belongs to Agora.
> 
>  Land belonging to Agora is called Public Land. Land belonging to
>  a contract is called Communal Land. Land belonging to any other
>  entity is called Private Land. Together, Communal Land 

DIS: Proto: Geographical Nomic

[Gaelan Steele]

Super-early stage proto. The map used here was thrown together in about one 
minute, and would be replaced with a nicer one, probably with a completely 
different layout. I’m not even sure if it’s the size I say it is.

---
Rule: Cartogrophy
Power: 1

The cartograph[eo]r is an office. In eir weekly report, they must include a 
graphical map depicting any information described as being “tracked on the 
map.” Information too lengthy to fit on the map itself MAY be placed in a 
footnote referenced on the map.

Coordinates on the map consist of a X value ranging from 0 to 79, and a Y value 
ranging from 0 to 29. Graphical depictions of the map SHOULD place the origin 
in the bottom left.

A region is an entity with a name and a set of map coordinates contained within 
the region, both tracked on the map. Regions and their attributes can only be 
defined by this rule. A point is within a region if it is a member of the 
region’s set of contained coordinates.

A location [better name?] is an entity defined as such by the rules, and has a 
name and a map coordinate. This coordinate must be within a region. [the 
intention is that at least some regions are player-created. Maybe towns?]

The following locations are defined; their locations are marked by asterisks on 
the map at the bottom of this rule. [to allow travel to regions before other 
locations are created]
- The Glass Desert of Antegria
- The Bourdian Train Hub
- The Great Ethernet Switch of Cagliostro
- The Dawsbergenian Garbage Dump
- Erehwon Lake
- Somewhere in Florin, which has no description yet.
- " " " " " "  Guilder, " " " " " " " " " " " " " "

Each player has a location switch. A player may flip their location switch to 
any location with sqrt((x2-x1)^2 + (y2-y1)^2)/10 days’ notice, where x1 and y1 
are the x and y coordinates of their current location, and x2 and y2 are the x 
and y coordinates of the location they wish to travel to. [This allows some 
shenanigans like declaring intents to move in two opposite directions and 
resolving them in succession to move way faster than you should be able to. I’m 
not sure if that’s a good thing or not.]

The regions and their contained coordinates are defined by the map below:

  The Isle of Agora

 XXX
XX 
X   X  
X  *X  XX
   XX   X   XX
 XXAntegria X 
   XX XXXX Borduria  XXX
  X  X XX
XXX  XX   *   X XX
  XX*  XX   XX XX    X
  X  XX  XX XXX  X
XX  Erehwon   XXX XXX XXX    X
XX XXX   XXX GuilderXX
   X    XXX X
  XXXXXX FlorinXX  X   XX
 XXXXX   XXX   X XX
 X   XXXXX XXX
 X XX XX  XXX
 X   XX XXX  X
XCagliostro   XX   XX  XX
X  X XX
XX  X  Dawsbergen   XX
  XXX  *X  X
   XXXX
 XXX   X *  XX
XXXX  XXX
 XX   X
 X   XX
  

[Ideas for using these mechanics:
- construction (towns? shops? farms?)
- regional rules/politics
- resources only available in certain regions
]
---

DIS: Re: BUS: Picto-Nomic

[Gaelan Steele]

Cool idea, but probably better served by ASCII art. For better or for worse, we 
have a very text-based system. On the other hand, this has inspired me to put 
together a map and associated rules. Coming soon to a mailing list near you!

Gaelan

> On Feb 3, 2018, at 7:25 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> Seeing how we're entering a new design era with the mass repeals, I'll
> suggest some new things (hopefully they haven't been done before already):
> 
> I create the following proposal with the name "Picto-Nomic" and pend it
> with 1 AP:
> 
> Create a new rule called "Picto-Nomic" (Power=1.0) with the following text:
> 
> Rules may have their content be, instead of text, images. These are known
> as "Picto-rules".

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: boo!

[Gaelan Steele]

Not that I’m aware of (the support went to DIS anyway). 

> On Feb 2, 2018, at 5:58 PM, Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2018, Alex Smith wrote:
>> 
>>> On Fri, 2018-02-02 at 11:32 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>>> Awfully quiet in here.
>>> 
>>> I intend without objection to win by apathy.
>> 
>> I support.
> 
> . o O ( Is there a scam here? )
> 
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: boo!

[Gaelan Steele]

[hurriedly checks ruleset]

> On Jan 31, 2018, at 11:00 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> I set 天火狐's master switch to Agora.
> I set Quazie's master switch to Agora.
> I set Gaelan's master switch to Agora.
> I set nichdel's master switch to Agora.
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Anyone want to be interim Referee?

[Gaelan Steele]

I’ll take it.

Gaelan

> On Nov 22, 2017, at 3:55 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> 
> I don't actually.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7982-7988

[Gaelan Steele]

Honestly, I’m not sure there’s any reason we should cater to non-players. If 
you want to play the game, be a player. 

Gaelan

> On Nov 26, 2017, at 6:48 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Aris Merchant wrote:
> 
>>> b) Without 2 Objections.  Players SHOULD object unless paying
>>>with shinies is a significant barrier to the Caller's
>>>ability to seek a resolution to the controversy.
>> 
>> I might not be calling a lot of CFJs if this passes, then.
> 
> I'd say not-being-a-player is a significant barrier that shouldn't
> be objected to by anyone (unless the caller is massively abusing it) -
> that was the standard I was aiming for anyway.
> 
> 

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7982-7988

[Gaelan Steele]

> On Nov 26, 2017, at 1:09 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> quorum is 8.0, the voting method is AI-majority and the valid options
> are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional
> votes).
> 
> ID Author(s)  AITitlePender  Pend fee
> ---
> 7982*  V.J. Rada  1.7   Referee Reform Fix   V.J. Rada   1 sh.
FOR
> 7983*  Telnaior, [1]  1.0   SBOTGT [2]   Telnaior1 AP
FOR
> 7984*  Aris, [3]  2.6   Contract Flexibility Act Aris1 AP
AGAINST for making me look up the rule to figure out what this does
> 7985*  Alexis 2.6   Open Season on Contracts Alexis  1 AP
AGAINST, ditto
> 7986*  P.S.S [4]  3.0   Quick FixP.S.S. [4]  1 AP
FOR
> 7987*  ATMunn, [5]1.0   AOC [6]  Aris1 AP
FOR
> 7988*  G. 2.0   Minimal Econ reforms G.  1 AP
FOR
> 
> The proposal pool currently contains the following proposals:
> 
> ID   Author(s) AI   Title
> ---
> pp1  Alexis3.0  Terrible Economic Hack Job
> 
> Legend: * : Proposal is pending.
> 
> 
> [1] Alexis, VJ Rada
> [2] Somehow Both Of These Got Through
> [3] V.J. Rada, Ørjan
> [3] Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> [5] Alexis
> [6] ADoP Obligation Clarification
> 
> A proposal may be pended for 1 AP, or for 1/20th the Floating Value
> in shines (see the Treasuror's report).
> 
> The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below.
> 
> //
> ID: 7982
> Title: Referee Reform Fix
> Adoption index: 1.7
> Author: V.J. Rada
> Co-authors:
> 
> 
> At the end of rule 2478 "Viglilante Justice", add a new
> paragraph with the text "The Referee CANNOT Point eir Finger. The
> Arbitor CANNOT Point eir Finger at the Referee".
> 
> //
> ID: 7983
> Title: Somehow Both Of These Got Through
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Telnaior
> Co-authors: Alexis, VJ Rada
> 
> 
> Amend the Rule "Favour Awards" by changing
>  "For each voter who has not voted on an Agoran decision resolved
> earlier in the
>  same Agoran week, e SHALL award that player 2 Favours in the Party holding
>  Participaiton."
> to
>  "For each voter who has voted on an Agoran decision resolved earlier in the
>  same Agoran week, e SHALL award that player 2 Favours in the Party holding
>  Participation."
> 
> //
> ID: 7984
> Title: Contract Flexibility Act
> Adoption index: 2.6
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors: V.J. Rada, Ørjan
> 
> 
> Amend Rule 2525, Interpreting Contracts, by:
> 
>  Removing item 6 of the numbered list and renumbering appropriately; and
>  Changing the phrase "failing protected action" to read "failing to perform
>  a protected action".
> 
> //
> ID: 7985
> Title: Open Season on Contracts
> Adoption index: 2.6
> Author: Alexis
> Co-authors:
> 
> 
> Amend rule 2525 (Interpreting Contracts) by deleting all but the first two
> paragraphs.
> 
> //
> ID: 7986
> Title: Quick Fix
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> Co-authors:
> 
> 
> In rule 105, add a full stop after "repeal a rule" in bullet point 2.
> 
> //
> ID: 7987
> Title: ADoP Obligation Clarification
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: ATMunn
> Co-authors: Alexis
> 
> 
> Amend rule 2138, "The Associate Director of Personnel", by adding the 
> following
> ist item to the end:
> 
>4. The Complexity of each Office.
> 
> Also in rule 2138, add a full stop to the end of the second list item, if 
> there
> is not one there already.
> 
> //
> ID: 7988
> Title: Minimal Econ reforms
> Adoption index: 2.0
> Author: G.
> Co-authors:
> 
> 
> Amend Rule 2516 (Passive Income) to read:
> 
>  The Treasuror CAN, once each month, and SHALL, in a timely fashion
>  after the start of each month, publish a Payday Notice. The effect
>  of such a Notice is to:
> 
> 1. Destroy all Shinies in Agora's possession.
> 
> 2. Create 25 Shinies in the possession of each player.
> 
> 3. For each office, if a single player held that office for
>16 or more days in the previous month and did not receive
>a card other than Green during that time for performance or
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Looking interesting

[Gaelan Steele]

Completely unintended, actually.

Gaelan

> On Nov 26, 2017, at 1:43 AM, VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> One day after your yellow card expired, nice.
> 
> Welcome back.
> 
>> On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 8:40 PM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
>> Darn, nobody deregistered me. Can’t make CFJs about that then. If I’m a 
>> zombie with a master other than Gaelan, I flip my master switch to Gaelan.
>> 
>> Gaelan
>> 
>>> On Nov 26, 2017, at 1:28 AM, Gaelan Steele <g...@canishe.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I’ve been looking to get back into Agora. Now seems like a good time.
>>> 
>>> Gaelan
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7922-7929

[Gaelan Steele]

> On Oct 15, 2017, at 8:20 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> quorum is 8.0 and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is
> also a valid vote).
> 
> 
> ID Author(s) AI   Title Pender  Pend fee
> ---
> 7922*  Alexis 3.0  Clarity Act  Alexis  1 AP
FOR
> 7923*  Gaelan 1.0  Another Economy Fix Attempt  Gaelan  1 AP
AGAINST; this needs some fixes
> 7924*  Aris, [1]  3.0  Contracts v8 Aris1 sh.
FOR
> 7925*  Aris, Alexis   3.0  Safety Regulations v2Aris1 AP
FOR
> 7926*  Alexis 3.0  Deregulation Alexis  1 AP
CONDITIONAL: if safety regulations passed (or is about to pass), then AGAINST. 
else, FOR. If, save for this sentence, a conditional vote on 7925 would cause 
the result of my vote on 7926 to be circular, act as if the result of that 
conditional resolves to PRESENT.
> 7927*  V.J. Rada, G.  2.0  Estate Auction Fix   V.J. Rada   1 sh.
FOR
> 7928*  G. 3.0  no we can't  G.  1 AP
FOR
> 7929*  V.J. Rada  1.0  Consumerism  V.J. Rada   1 sh.

AGAINST. The problem here is that deregistration without objection isn’t 
cuddlebeam-proof. We should just fix that instead.

Gaelan

> 
> The proposal pool currently contains the following proposals:
> 
> IDAuthor(s) AI   Title
> ---
> pp1   o 2.0  Faster Auctions
> 
> Legend: * : Proposal is pending.
> 
> [1] o, G., ais523, Gaelan, 天火狐, CuddleBeam, V.J Rada, Trigon, Alexis, P.S.S.
> 
> A proposal may be pended for 1 AP, or for 1/20th the Floating Value
> in shines (see the Secretary's report).
> 
> The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below. Please note
> that, due to its length, Proposal 7924 is listed last.
> 
> //
> ID: 7922
> Title: Clarity Act
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Alexis
> Co-authors:
> 
> 
> Text in square brackets is not a part of this proposal's substance and
> is ignored when it takes effect.
> 
> Enact a new power 3 rule entitled Voting Methods, reading as follows:
> 
>  Each Agoran decision has a voting method, which must be
>  AI-majority, instant runoff, or first-past-the-post. The voting
>  method is that specified by the authorizing authority, or
>  first-past-the-post by default.
> 
>  Each Agoran decision has a set of valid options (the choices that
>  the voters are being asked to select from) and valid votes (the
>  ways in which the voters can express their opinion or lack thereof.
>  For AI-majority decisions, the valid options are FOR and AGAINST;
>  for other decisions, the valid options are defined by other rules.
> 
>  The valid votes on an Agoran decision are:
>  1. PRESENT;
>  2. The valid conditional votes, as defined by rules of power at
> least that of this rule; and
>  3. For an instant runoff decision, the ordered lists of entities.
>  4. For any other decision, the valid options.
> 
> [This splits off the portion of 955 that isn't actually related to
> resolution. The definition of instant runoff is changed to evaluate
> validity of options at the end of the voting period, and avoid
> retroactively invalidating votes if an option drops out.]
> 
> Amend Rule 955 by replacing the second paragraph and numbered list with
> the following and by deleting the second bullet in the unnumbered list.
> 
>  1. For an AI-majority decision, let F be the total strength of all
> valid ballots cast FOR a decision, A be the same for AGAINST,
> and AI be the adoption index of the decision. The outcome is
> ADOPTED if F/A >= AI and F/A > 1 (or F>0 and A=0), otherwise
> REJECTED.
> 
>  2. For an instant runoff decision, the outcome is whichever option
> wins according to the standard definition of instant runoff.
> For this purpose, a ballot of strength N is treated as if it
> were N distinct ballots expressing the same preferences. In
> case multiple valid options tie for the lowest number of votes
> at any stage, the vote collector CAN and must, in the
> announcement of the decision's resolution, select one such
> option to eliminate; if, for M > 1, all eir possible choices in
> the next M stages would result in the same set of options being
> eliminated, e need not specify the order of elimination. If an
> entity that is part of a valid vote is not a valid option at
> the end of the voting period, or disqualified by the rule
> providing for the decision, then that entity is eliminated