Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in accordance with the rules" in R214. Is there anything wrong with D. Margaux's latest suggestion? I like the fact that it doesn't try to retroactively change the rule's history. (Though the retroactive rule change might be harmless, based on G's research and my hope that nothing requires the Rulekeepor to change the history or amendment number in the FLR.) Current draft, based on D. Margaux's latest + a note about convergence: The gamestate is changed to what it would have been if the text of the following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined whether Agora was Satisfied with any dependent action attempted after Proposal 7815, rather than the text of what Rule 2124 was at that time. To the extent allowed by the rules, this change is designated as a convergence. Rule 2124 is amended by replacing its text with the following: A Supporter of an intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for an announcement of that intent. An Objector to an intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of that intent. The entities eligible to support or object to an intent to perform an action are, by default, all players, subject to modification by the document authorizing the dependent action. However, the previous sentence notwithstanding, the initiator of the intent is not eligible to support it. Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action unless at least one of the following is true: 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and there are at least N Objectors to that intent. 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are fewer than than N Supporters of that intent. 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N times the number of Objectors to the intent. The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent. The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours. A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same type of response.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] vote for the best Ruleset find
I vote {Gaelan, Telnaior, twg, CuddleBeam}. (Following twg's logic,
except bumping twg's up since it would have been pretty grave had it
worked. All four are interesting finds.)
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 21:35, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> My vote is {Gaelan, Telnaior, CuddleBeam, twg} - ordered firstly by whether
> or not it actually works (ruleset glitches notwithstanding), and secondly by
> how serious the implications are.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > VOTE!
> > Who had the best loophole, bug, or scam during Read the Ruleset week?
> > VOTE!
> >
> > Here starts an UNOFFICIAL AGORAN DECISION with the following modifications:
> >
> > - Ranked choice: It's not bad form to vote for yourself, but please
> > consider 2nd, 3rd, etc.
> >
> > - Counting long term-watchers' votes too! If ais523, Ørjan, or other
> > watchers would like to opine.
> >
> > - Using the Auction method for ending the decision (4 days since last
> > vote, no more than 7 days total).
> >
> > - I'll give my own votes in 24-48 hours.
> >
> > OPTIONS (vote for the person)
> >
> > Telnaior illustrating that contracts can make infinitely-rewarding
> > reports:
> >
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039875.html
> >
> > (unjudged; arguments for it working stronger than arguments against IMO,
> > fix proposed).
> >
> > Gaelan's attempt to win by Apathy, by using two messages for the same
> > intent:
> >
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039934.html
> >
> > (Judged to have succeeded on reconsideration, though caught up in
> > broader
> > issues of Satisfaction, fix proposed).
> >
> > CuddleBeam arguing that Agora is a Contract, possibly a worldview shift:
> >
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039955.html
> > (Judged to be true, may be more of a curiosity than a practical matter,
> > but
> > it's a curiosity very much in the Agoran spirit).
> >
> > twg attempt to use contracts to induct the unwilling:
> >
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039950.html
> > (Judged to have failed, but pointed out the need for clearer wording or
> > stronger protections in the Rules).
> >
> > Honorable Mentions:
> >
> > D. Margaux working the Contract Bug:
> >
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039896.html
> > (and when twg scooped em, followed up with a different approach):
> >
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039953.html
> >
> > CuddleBeam pointing out that space wins are infinite:
> >
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039895.html
> >
> > Falsifian, for pointing out that Satisfaction has been borked for over 2
> > years (unfortunately late for the contest! But the biggest bug
> > correction
> > for a while and Falsifian is working hard on a fix).
> >
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/040023.html
> >
> > twg's assertion that Rule 2571 is guilty of violating Rule 105. (also
> > too
> > late to enter):
> > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33517.html
> >
>
>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 23:15, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:05 PM, James Cook > wrote: > > Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in > > accordance with the rules" in R214. > > I think this part of R106 accounts for that: > > Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal that > takes effect CAN and does, as part of its effect, apply the > changes that it specifies. > > The same thing also happened in Proposal 8129, with nobody complaining, > though I guess that doesn't necessarily mean it worked. How exactly does that apply? Are you saying that because the proposal CAN apply the change it specified, and that it specified a change designated as a convergence, it did in fact apply a change designated as a convergence? I feel a bit uncertain; maybe the proposal fails to designate its own specified change as a convergence (because the rules don't explicitly allow a proposal to do that), but does apply the change. Anyway, is the text "To the extent allowed by the rules" harmless at least? James
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> Thank you for all this work you've put in to fixing this! I would give you > some karma, but I've already used my Notice of Honour for the week, and it's > only Monday so I want to save Corona's in case something truly astonishing > happens later on. It's my pleasure. I'm certainly getting what I signed up for! I'm grateful for all the help.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction
Did you mean to send that to BUS? On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 20:42, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > I bid a coin. > > Gaelan > > > On Mar 1, 2019, at 12:06 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > I initiate a zombie auction, with the following lots (each zombie a > > separate lot) ordered as follows (highest-bid first): > > > > 1. Tarhalindur > > > > Agora is the Auctioneer, and the Registrar is the Announcer. The > > currency is Coins with a minimum bid of 1. >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset: Eighth Week of 2019
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 04:11, Reuben Staley wrote: > The logical rulesets are very long documents. Lots of times, the rulesets > slip through because of that. Check the archives on agoranomic.com. When I > get around to updating the ruleset site, it'll also be there. I'm sure you mean agoranomic.org. The owner of agoranomic.com must be profiting greatly from using this famous nomic's name. It looks like while the public archives linked from agoranomic.org (which I managed to link to twice, oops) are missing both, the actual mailman archives (requiring login) have them: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/ . I wonder if it's possible to remove the login requirement from those.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ruleset Ratification
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 05:23, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
wrote:
> That said, there is a possible failure state: if every player has at
> least 13 Blots, and nobody has any Ribbons, the adoption of a proposal
> within four weeks would require someone with fewer Blots than that to
> register.
Wouldn't the gamestate part of Rule 1698 ("If any other single
change...") prevent that situation from arising? I agree it would be
nice to close it off, but I don't see how it affects the ruleset
ratification.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ruleset Ratification
> Indeed, but I thought I'd point it out so that people were aware. > > In general, rule 1698 triggers should be avoided as much as possible. > The problem is that it (intentionally) defeats Agora's existing > mechanisms for ensuring that we know what the gamestate is; it's better > to have an unknown but playable gamestate, than a known but ossified > gamestate. However, when it does trigger, it can take a lot of effort > to figure out what the resulting gamestate is. That makes sense! Glad my understanding of the rule is correct. The everyone-has-blots scenario is interesting. > On another note, whose idea was it to put rule 1698 as the second rule > in the Ruleset? That was really clever, as it manages to serve as a > fundamental "protection of Agora" rule, and an explanation to new > players as to what the game is all about, at the same time. It is nice!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> I'd prefer to just repeat the cleanings. Mass changes to the ruleset > are one of the riskiest things you can do in Agora (which is why there > are so many protections preventing them being done by accident). My proposal says "The gamestate is changed...". I assumed that includes the rules, making re-cleaning unnecessary. Is there precedent for what "gamestate" means?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [SPOOKY Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8164
It does say "Rule 2124 is amended...". Why wouldn't that happen? I don't think the first paragraph referring to it as "the following amendment" stops it from being an effective part of the proposal on its own.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Victory by Apathy
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2149 > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2150 > > These two judgements distinguish speech acts as being treated > differently than other types of terms-of-art. That landing-on-the-moon judgement was about landing on the moon using announcement as a method. If we say that Raising a Banner only causes a win if it's done by announcement (similar to Ørjan's claim that Declaring Apathy only works if it's done by the "without objection" method), then I guess that settles it. If the rule said "when a player Raises a Banner, they win the game", I suppose that would lean on your other point, that Agorans tend to say such things refer to regulated terms of art? That's a nice point that supporting and objection are not regulated actions.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Victory by Apathy
On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 03:50, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote:
>
> > 5. Rule 2465 says: "Upon doing so, the specified players win the game."
> > When we talk about "Doing X" for any X, we almost always take X to refer
> > to the Action ("Declaring apathy") and not the method (without
> > objection). R2125 supports this in that it separates Action from
> > Method. Therefore, "Upon doing so" refers to the action but not the
> > method.
>
> Although the CFJ seems to be judged false for other reasons, I'd like to
> mention that I don't agree with this point - "so" naturally refers to the
> entire scenario of the previous sentence, including the without objection
> part.
We were indeed worried about that aspect.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset: Eighth Week of 2019
I don't see this message in the public archive at https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/maillist.html or at https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/maillist.html . Same for Trigon's FLR publication around the same time. Does anyone know why?
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: let's proceed to the second line-item
> Enact a Rule, "Line-item Veto", with the following text: > >The Comptrollor is an imposed office. When the office is vacant, >the ADoP CAN, by announcement, set the Comptrollor to a player >chosen at random from the set of current Officers, excepting any >player who was most recently the Comptrollor. The ADoP SHALL do >so in a timely fashion after the office becomes vacant. > >When the Comptrollor office has been held for the same player for >30 days, it becomes vacant. > >A Notice of Veto is a body of text, published by the Comptrollor, >clearly, directly, and without obfuscation labelled within the >publishing message as being a Notice of Veto. > >When a Comptrollor publishes a Notice of Veto, the office of >Comptrollor becomes vacant. > >If the text of a Notice of Veto clearly indicates certain >provisions within specified Proposals as being vetoed, and the >voting period for a decision to adopt the proposal is ongoing >when the Notice is published, then the provisions are vetoed. >For the purposes of this Rule, each individual change specified >within a proposal's text is a "provision". > >Vetoed provisions in a proposal are prohibited from being applied >when the proposal takes effect (that is, that part of the >proposal's effect CANNOT be applied). One danger (especially if the Comptrollor is also the Assessor) is that the Comptroller could sneak in a veto right before the end of the voting period. Is that intentional? I'm not sure if this is meant to shake things up or to let us patch buggy proposals at the last minute.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [SPOOKY Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8164
I was thinking of the proposal as two changes: first, the gamestate changes, and then, the rule is amended. After the second change, the ruleset would contain the amended rule. But I'm not sure proposals are interpreted as a sequence of actions like that. If it's treated as a bunch of assertions with no particular order, I'll have to read it more carefully. On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 04:32, Reuben Staley wrote: > > It also says that the gamestate, excluding the ruleset, is modified to what > it would have been if the amendment took place. Does this override the > amendment itself? > > -- > Trigon > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 21:29 James Cook > > It does say "Rule 2124 is amended...". Why wouldn't that happen? I > > don't think the first paragraph referring to it as "the following > > amendment" stops it from being an effective part of the proposal on > > its own. > >
Re: DIS: AI learning to play "nomic" (with NEAT)
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 09:50, Cuddle Beam wrote: > For a good while now I've wanted to figure out a way to have little > machine-learning bots play nomic and learn and improve at the game to see > what kind of emergent strategies they develop. Problem is, real nomic is > real fucking complicated lmao. > > So, I figured I could try to simplify it somehow. Also, there's a lot of > premade neural network code out there which look real cool and it makes all > of this less tedious lol. I had in mind to use NEAT (NeuroEvolution of > Augmenting Topologies). > > Anyways, instead of trying to make the little robot players try to compete > at a game of nomic that resembles code or something like Nomyx was, I'd > simplify it to a sort of grid-based Pachinko (via Unity for its physics), > let's call it Pachinkonomic. Also, in order to get generations and such, > I'd make the Pachinkonomic "dynastic" and make the game end once a player > has "won". > > Balls would fall from the top (randomly maybe?) and the players would each > have a cup at the bottom. Once they have enough balls to win, the game > restarts, new population, yadda yadda (I'd probably need to have a lot of > "tables" of play too where the players can sit at for a game of > Pachinkonomic to have big enough populations... Although my computer is a > bit of a wuss and having so many physics going on at the same time might > give it a stroke so I might simply the Pachinko to something else lmao, > we'll see). > > Each turn, a player would propose a change to the pins in the grid, either > removing or adding any amount of pins, in pantomime of how we can change > pretty much anything in a nomic as well. The players "see" this proposal > (input neurons on each point of the grid) and vote if to pass it or not. > And right after, pachinko balls fall and all players get a payout. > > To avoid possible bias based on where on the bottom of the pachinko board > the player's cup is, the pachinko board would be cylindrical. Like that, > all players are in pretty much the same initial conditions, except for what > kind of player they got next to them, but they're blind to that anyways. > > The balls emulate the super common notion that there's "wealth" in a game > nomic, and with enough wealth, you win. > > So yeah. A bunch of robotic players trying to control a common Pachinko > board (that emulates a real fucking simple "nomic") to get the highest > payoff. Also, Pachinko is easily very visual which is real nice too. > > https://i.imgur.com/xvNVbS8.png > > What do you think? Sounds fun! It reminds me of a paper I saw a while ago about simulating a nomic. I think it might have been this one: http://digitalarchive.maastrichtuniversity.nl/fedora/get/guid:592508d3-40ef-4899-ac5b-f02fb975ec5d/ASSET1 I didn't read it very carefully. It looks like the simulation only allowed proposals about changing voting thresholds or stopping the game. So, much less fun than your idea.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Victory by Apathy
Hm, that's a good point about capitalization. I'm not really familiar enough with game custom to say. Your idea about raising a real-life banner has got me thinking... Raising a banner is a regulated action (R2125), so even if we assume capitalization doesn't matter, and that you did raise a banner in real life, Rule 2125 would say that you didn't raise a banner, because you didn't do it using "the methods explicitly specified in the Rules". I feel like my understanding is a bit lacking, though. R2125 + R2152 tell us that attempting to raise a banner by a method outside the rules is "unsuccessful". But it feels a bit similar to the rules claiming that I don't exist, or that faster-than-light travel is possible, or that ducks can't fly. When R2438 says "This causes that person to win the game.", what tells us us that "This" refers "Raising a Banner in a way the rules deem to be successful", rather than just "raising a banner" in a literal sense? Is it because Raising a Banner is capitalized and/or a term of art? Is it because it's game custom to interpret the rules this way? Or is there another reason? On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 07:32, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > On a side-note, if capitalization no longer denotes terms of art and should > be interpreted literally, I got to go look for a real-life banner to raise > some time in the future... > > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 08:20, Cuddle Beam wrote: ... > > I argue that Agora is written in an Agora-dialect English. And in that, > > capitalization does denote terms of art.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 08:56, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > Maybe you’re right. Either way, you could do any number of > not-quite-ossification things (for instance, proposals authored by anyone > other than you can only amend if the author published the full text of the > proposal 3.5+ weeks ago). The "and/or" in R1698 does seem kind of unclear. What the rule also included a definition: To make an "arbitrary rule change" is defined to mean earning 5 coins. That seems to change the meaning of R1698 so that it's no longer talking about actual changes to the rules. Is there any precedent about whether that kind of thing (a lower-power rule changing a higher-power rule by defining a term) works?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 02:47, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 02:40 +0000, James Cook wrote: > > That seems to change the meaning of R1698 so that it's no longer > > talking about actual changes to the rules. Is there any precedent > > about whether that kind of thing (a lower-power rule changing a > > higher-power rule by defining a term) works? > > Plenty, because it's pretty much core to escalator scams. In fact, they > were made explicit in the rules, to attempt to generally protect > against scams like that. > > The last paragraph of rule 2140 is the "generic" protection against > that sort of thing. The second paragraph of rule 217 directly prevents > definitions in lower-powered rules overruling common-sense meanings of > terms in higher-power rules (it allows them to clarify in cases of > inclarity, but that's about it). Ah, thanks, I think I read those but forgot about them.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
I'm not sure I'm completely following. Does CFJ 1104 support the conclusion that players must hop on one foot? Is the idea that Rule A fails to defer to Rule B because Rule 1030 overrules that attempt at deference? On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 18:32, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > This one's been in the FLR forever: > CFJ 1104 (called 20 Aug 1998): The presence in a Rule of deference >clause, claiming that the Rule defers to another Rule, does not >prevent a conflict with the other Rule arising, but shows only how >the Rule says that conflict is to be resolved when it does arise. > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1104 > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:16 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > It *is* super-interesting in a constitutional delegation-of-powers > > sense! I would say that R1030 does actually turn this into a > > conflict. But it's not a conflict between Rule A and Rule B. It's a > > conflict between Rule A and Rule 1030, which says that Power overrides > > the deference clause in Rule A (and R1030, at power 3,2, would win of > > course). But I'm far from certain of this interpretation. > > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:03 AM D. Margaux wrote: > > > > On Feb 21, 2019, at 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > Deference clauses only work between rules of the same power. Power is > > > > the first test applied (R1030). > > > > > > That is so interesting. It’s counterintuitive to me that it would work > > > that way. To take an example, here are two hypothetical rules: > > > > > > Rule A (power 2): “Except as provided by other rules, a player MUST hop > > > on one foot.” > > > > > > Rule B (power 1): “Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a player MAY > > > elect to skip or gallop instead of hopping on one foot.” > > > > > > Under your reading, Rule A overpowers Rule B, so that players must hop on > > > one foot; right? > > > > > > Rule 1030 governs precedence in case of “conflicts,” but there is no > > > conflict here. Rule A expressly allows itself to be overruled by other > > > rules, and Rule B is such a rule. So giving full effect to Rule A > > > requires that we also give effect to Rule A, because Rule A tells us to. > > > > > > That would not render the rule powers meaningless, because, e.g., a power > > > 1 non-rule instrument still could not overrule Rule A.
Re: DIS: Re: CFJ 3719
> Here are my initial proto-judgement, but I am definitely open to being > persuaded otherwise: > > * * * > > Caller's arguement depends on the idea that to "Declare Apathy" means > the same thing as to "announce" or "publish apathy." I don't > necessarily agree with that, and so I would judge FALSE. > > The word declaration has several meanings. In the context of Rule > 2465, I think "to Declare Apathy" is a kind of a speech-act: it is a > statement that causes a particular social fact to come into existence > (in this case, it creates a victory by Apathy). It has a similar form > as when a wedding officiant says "I declare you man and wife," or when > a monarch says "I declare war on [country]," or when the chair of a > legislative body says "I declare that the legislative session is > adjourned." > > In each of these examples, the declaration works only if certain > preconditions are met. The wedding officiant must be vested with some > legal, religious, or other kind of authority to perform the marriage, > and the bride and groom need to express consent and have a valid > marriage license--otherwise the declaration is void. The monarch must > be vested with the power to declare war, and may lack authority to do > so in a constitutional monarchy. The chair must actually be > recognized as legitimately presiding over the legislative body, and > certain rules typically must be followed before an adjournment can be > declared. > > If authority is lacking, the declaration is void. So if I were to say > (or announce or publish), "I declare Donald Trump and Hillary Rodham > Clinton to be married," or "I declare war on BlogNomic on behalf of > Agora," or "I declare the U.S. Congress to be adjourned," we would all > immediately understand why the declarations are void. > > So too here. Under certain circumstances, Rule 2465 vests a player > with authority to declare a particular social fact to come into > existence--a victory by Apathy. The key question is under what > circumstances does that Rule create authority to Declare Apathy? The > Rule says that "[a] player CAN Declare Apathy without objection, > specifying a set of players." In my view, "without objection" must be > read as a precondition that must be satisfied before a player is > vested with authority to Declare Apathy. > > So what does "without objection" mean? Well, Rule 1728 says that "a > rule that purports to allow a person to perform an action [without > objection] thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement" > provided certain conditions are met. Here, those conditions are > plainly not met (and not merely because dependent intents are > currently temporarily broken). So, I think the declaration sadly must > fail (which is regrettable because a TRUE judgement would also give me > a win by Apathy from December 2018). That's great reasoning, thanks. Taking those examples into account, I agree that it's a stretch to say that I declared apathy (or "apathy") simply by announcing or publishing it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Does that mean I should update the proposal to say "The gamestate, except for the rules, is changed ..." to make sure the proposal can take effect? Or maybe, to be safe: The gamestate is changed to be as close as to the following updated gamestate as this proposal is able to make it. The updated gamestate is what the gamestate would have been if ...(existing text)... as a convergence. For example, if this proposal is able to change everything except the rules, than everything except the rules is changed as described. / Rule 2124 is amende ... (existing text) Or do the rules already imply that the proposal's change will take effect to the maximum extent within the proposal's ability? On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 08:22, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Yes, the "gamestate" includes the rules, and I initially assumed the same > thing as you. But ais523 pointed out a few days ago that rule 105/19 says > > A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its > full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear > specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at > least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise > take effect. > > which overrides the passage in rule 106/40 that says > > Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal that > takes effect CAN and does, as part of its effect, apply the > changes that it specifies. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Thursday, February 21, 2019 2:47 AM, James Cook > wrote: > > > > I'd prefer to just repeat the cleanings. Mass changes to the ruleset > > > > > are one of the riskiest things you can do in Agora (which is why there > > > are so many protections preventing them being done by accident). > > > > My proposal says "The gamestate is changed...". I assumed that > > includes the rules, making re-cleaning unnecessary. Is there precedent > > for what "gamestate" means? >
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725
twg's message says the H. Assessor publish the below tally, but I didn't receive any emails containing it, and I can't find it in the public archives. When was that email sent, and to which list? I don't think it has any bearing on the CFJs. I'm just trying to figure out if I'm missing emails. ++-+ |AI | 3.1 | |Quorum | 5 | ++-+ |Corona Z 7b.| F | |D. MargauxPM| | |G. | FFF | |Falsifian | FFF | |L. Z 1b.|+FFF | |twg 4b.| FF | ++-+ |FOR | 16 | |AGAINST | 0 | |Ballots | 6 | |Resolved|ADOP.| ++-+ Key: #b. Possesses # blots [-floor(#/3) voting strength] PM Prime Minister [+1 voting strength] Z Zombie + Extricated conditional On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 02:30, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Attached as individual text files. Please have a look and let me know what > you think... > > -twg
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725
On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 05:30, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > It was not published, twg is simply referring jokingly to emself, as e is > the Assessor. Oh, that makes sense. But I'm confused by D. Margaux's CFJ that 8164's outcome is ADOPTED, if there was no message attempting to resolve the decision. Is "outcome" a well-defined property of a decision before it's resolved? Rule 955 specifies some rules about computing the outcome, and we could try to apply those rules before it's resolved to compute a provisional "outcome" (even if the voting period hasn't ended, based on the ballots cast so far). But Rule 955 also says "The outcome of a decision is determined when it is resolved", which seems to imply that the outcome is not determined before it's resolved. If that's true, Proposal 8164's outcome could not have been ADOPTED, for the simple reason that nobody had attempted to resolve the decision and so the outcome must have been undetermined at that point.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 at 17:04, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Ok, hopefully last time! > > I withdraw the proposal Ritual Sacrifice from the pool. > > I submit the following proposal, Ritual Sacrifice, AI-1: > > > Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following > text: > > Any player CAN perform The Ritual by paying a fee of 7 Coins. > The Ritual MUST be performed at least once in every Agoran week. > If The Ritual was performed at least once in the previous Agoran > week, then the Ruleset is Appeased. > > If the Ruleset is appeased, then any player CAN banish this rule > (cause it to repeal itself) with N Agoran Consent, where N is the > maximum of 1.0 and 10/(B+1), rounded up to the nearest 0.1, and B > is the number of weeks that the Ruleset has been continuously > appeased at the moment of banishment. This sounds fun! On the one hand, I am inclined to vote against it --- will it encourage people to be selective about which rules they follow? I would certainly think twice about acting to make sure this rule is followed. (Agora is a game ... wherein Persons, acting in accordance with the Rules) On the other, I wouldn't be sad if it passed, and will reluctantly egg it on with this suggestion: "The Ritual MUST be performed by at least seven different players in every Agoran week." (and lower the fee).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
Would also add G as coauthor (thanks for help researching history of the rule) and use the proper handle for ais523 (will double-check with earlier email to make sure I have it right). On Mon., Feb. 18, 2019, 00:58 James Cook On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:08, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 2/17/2019 7:30 PM, James Cook wrote: > > > I'm not familiar with the History of R2124. Do you know which proposal > > > added #4, and whether there were any substantial changes to the rule > > > after that? > > > > This was the change that added it: > > > Amended(19) by P7815 'Agencies' (Alexis, aranea), 28 Oct 2016 > > > > the clause that added it was straightforward: > > > > > Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by adding: > > > (4) if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T > Notice. > > > after bullet (3). > > > > The changes since then are unrelated. > > Thanks for looking into it! > > Also, I just noticed that Rule 1551 (Ratification) talks about "the > gamestate", so now happy with D. Margaux's original approach. > > What would the AI of the proposal have to be? 3.05? > > Latest draft: > > Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 2 > Co-authors: ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk, D. Margaux > Adoption Index: 3.05 > Text: > The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken effect > immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had been > made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of Rule 2124 is now > as described in the amendment, since the Rules are changed by this > proposal as part of the gamestate.) > > The amendment is to replace the text of Rule 2124 with: > > A Supporter of an intent to perform an action is an eligible > entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. > "consent") for an announcement of that intent. An Objector to an > intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly > posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of > that intent. > > The entities eligible to support or object to an intent to perform > an action are, by default, all players, subject to modification by > the document authorizing the dependent action. However, the > previous sentence notwithstanding, the initiator of the intent is > not eligible to support it. > > Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action > unless at least one of the following is true: > > 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and there > are at least N Objectors to that intent. > > 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are > fewer than than N Supporters of that intent. > > 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the > number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N > times the number of Objectors to the intent. > > The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and > an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within > the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent. > > The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent > if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours. > > A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent > before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same > type of response. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 14:08, D. Margaux wrote: > Also... if intents are truly broken, that could lead to a lot of havoc in the > gamestate. It would be potentially impossible to sort out. > > Maybe the fix legislation could say something like, “upon enactment of this > proposal, the gamestate is changed to be what it would have been if the list > had always been written the correct way.” Not sure how to make that language > work, but that would be the general idea. > > If it worked right, that would eliminate the below scam and also make sure > nothing else is broken because of this intent issue. Is it easy to make that a separate proposal from my amendment proposal? Or is that complicated to do? Also, isn't most of the game state periodically ratified by official reports? I don't have a firm grasp of what exactly this messes up, and I haven't looked at the public messages much further back than than the date I registered*. *Okay, I'll let it be known that my message with the birthday attempt was in fact the first time I registered. It seems so long ago already...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More Politicking
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 03:40, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 03:31 +0000, James Cook wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 00:31, D. Margaux > > wrote: > > > I submit and pend this proposal: > > > > What does "pend" mean? > > Agora often has a mechanism via which proposals mustn't be distributed > unless they're pending. Typically pending them, when a pending > mechanism exists, requires a payment or is limited in how often you can > do it. The idea is either to keep proposal distributions smaller, or > encourage players to think before proposing. (The "pend" and "submit" > actions are separate for safety reasons, in order to prevent Agora > dying as a result of nobody being able to submit proposals; generally > speaking, proposals that have been submitted but aren't pending CAN > still be distributed, but the Promotor isn't supposed to do so.) > > All pending mechanisms seem to have been repealed as of October last > year, though, so right now it's just a meaningless word. Thanks!
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:08, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 2/17/2019 7:30 PM, James Cook wrote: > > I'm not familiar with the History of R2124. Do you know which proposal > > added #4, and whether there were any substantial changes to the rule > > after that? > > This was the change that added it: > > Amended(19) by P7815 'Agencies' (Alexis, aranea), 28 Oct 2016 > > the clause that added it was straightforward: > > > Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by adding: > > (4) if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. > > after bullet (3). > > The changes since then are unrelated. Thanks for looking into it! Also, I just noticed that Rule 1551 (Ratification) talks about "the gamestate", so now happy with D. Margaux's original approach. What would the AI of the proposal have to be? 3.05? Latest draft: Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 2 Co-authors: ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk, D. Margaux Adoption Index: 3.05 Text: The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken effect immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had been made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of Rule 2124 is now as described in the amendment, since the Rules are changed by this proposal as part of the gamestate.) The amendment is to replace the text of Rule 2124 with: A Supporter of an intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for an announcement of that intent. An Objector to an intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of that intent. The entities eligible to support or object to an intent to perform an action are, by default, all players, subject to modification by the document authorizing the dependent action. However, the previous sentence notwithstanding, the initiator of the intent is not eligible to support it. Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action unless at least one of the following is true: 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and there are at least N Objectors to that intent. 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are fewer than than N Supporters of that intent. 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N times the number of Objectors to the intent. The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent. The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours. A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same type of response.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:52, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Here are the others since then: > > > Amended(20) by R2430, 24 May 2017 > I don't know what this is - lots of rules have this comment but I can't find > the event. It's for cleaning rules. By design, I doubt the change could matter. E.g. this SLR has a version of it: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08000.html
Re: DIS: proto: communications redux
> Enact the following clause (possibly in R859, but there might be
> a better place if we don't want to mess with R859):
Did you mean 478? I don't see a rule 859.
> Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing:
>by stating how many assets e earns as a result of this action.
> with:
>by announcement.
This could be interpreted as each time e {fulfills it by
announcement}, i.e. only pertaining to reward conditions fulfulled by
announcement. Maybe stick the "by announcement" before "exactly once"?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 01:00, D Margaux wrote: > > On Feb 17, 2019, at 5:11 PM, James Cook wrote: > > Is it easy to make that a separate proposal from my amendment > > proposal? Or is that complicated to do? > > I think it would make the most sense to do it in one proposal if we could, > right? I just thought it would be nice to keep the amendment proposal simple. But now that you mention it, if the retroactive part got delayed for some reason, it could be tricky to reason about the intervening time, which trumps my aesthetic concern. > I’m not sure what the right language would be. Maybe: “The gamestate is > changed as if the Rule amendments in this proposal had taken effect > immediately after the addition of the first paragraph in that Rule that has > the number 4, and as if no further changes had been made to that Rule since.” Thanks for drafting it. I have a few questions: I'm not familiar with the History of R2124. Do you know which proposal added #4, and whether there were any substantial changes to the rule after that? If there were later changes, I think we have to be more careful. If we know the proposal, it would be good to name it specifically. (I'm not sure what the best way to research these is --- e.g. http://www.fysh.org/~zefram/agora/rules_text.txt doesn't seem up to date.) Is there precedent for doing this? Is it clear what "gamestate" is? The Rules refer to some physical entities that a proposal can't control (persons (Rule 869), Fora (Rule 478)) so I worry there's potential for ambiguity about what got changed and what didn't by the proposal. Here's another possible approach. It assuages my own concerns about "gamestate" being vague, but "are considered to have been" might be worse... Any dependent actions that were attempted after Proposal P took effect and before now, and that would have been effective if the amendment in this proposal had been applied immediately after Proposal P, are considered to have been effective for the purposes of the game, to the extent possible: for example, the value of switches, the existence of patent titles, etc, are now what they would have been in the amendment had been applied immediately after Proposal P. > Could we add that to the fix proposal? Happy to add something like that, but would like your thoughts and/or feedback from others. > Not sure if that could break something else though...? Alternative (not serious) proto-proposal: Title: Saving the Game Enact a new power-3 rule with the text: Any player CAN Save a Game Backup by announcement, specifying a set of facts. Any player CAN Load a Game Backup without objection, uniquely specifying a previous backup. Upon doing so, all the facts specified with the backup become true, to the extent possible.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More Politicking
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 00:31, D. Margaux wrote: > I submit and pend this proposal: What does "pend" mean?
DIS: Trouble subscribing
I was unable to subscribe jc...@cs.berkeley.edu to the Agora lists (except tue), but was able to subscribe falsifi...@gmail.com. Is this a common problem? It's not a problem for me (assuming you received this message) but thought I'd mention it in case others are having trouble.
DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Birthday
Thanks, D. Margaux. The only thing I can think of is that "declaring" might not be an action (and hence not covered by Rule 1728), or that it might be synonymous with "announcing" or "publishing", which Rule 478 allows me to do. I'm guessing that Rule 217 and game custom defeat those arguments, but I thought I'd give it a try, since I don't have much experience with game custom. On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 01:17, D. Margaux wrote: > > Welcome! > > I assign that CFJ to myself > > Under the rule, I believe that a player CAN declare a date to be eir birthday > only “with Agoran Consent,” which is a particular method of taking actions > described in Rule 1728 that requires that you first announce your intent to > perform the action, and give players an opportunity to support or object to > it, and the action is permitted only if more people support than oppose. So > based on that, I think the CFJ is FALSE, and I judge it that way unless there > is something I am missing. > > > On Feb 12, 2019, at 7:52 PM, James Cook wrote: > > > > I register. I go by "Falsifian" in online settings, or just my real name > > "James" if you prefer. > > > > My Agoran Birthday is the day beginning at midnight UTC on February 13, > > 2018. > > > > I initiate a CFJ for the statement "It is Falsifian's Agoran Birthday today > > (the day beginning at midnight UTC on February 13, 2019).". > > > > Here is my argument: > > > > 1. I declared earlier in this message that is my Agoran Birthday was one > > year ago. This is a simple matter of fact that anyone reading this can > > verify. The rules cannot change this fact. > > > > 2. The day I first registered is unknown, because I haven't told anyone. > > For example, as far as anyone else knows, I might have first registered a > > very long time ago under a different name. > > > > 3. Rule 2585 says: "As long as the day a player first registered remains > > unknown, it is considered to be eir Agoran Birthday on the anniversary of > > the day e most recently declared as eir Agoran Birthday.". Based on my two > > earlier points, then, today is the anniversary of my Agoran Birthday.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Birthday
Thanks, G. When I was initially planning this, I thought I remembered Rule 478 being power=4 and having some strong wording to the effect that players can participate in the fora, and thought I could make a case that a lower-powered rule like 2125 can't limit a player's ability to do anything synonymous with sending messages (such as making a public declaration) .But thinking about it more, even if my false memory were true, the text "declared as eir Agoran Birthday" in Rule 2585 should not be interpreted as referring to the ordinary English verb "declare", because anyone with common sense would understand that it's intending to refer to the regulated action defined in the previous sentence, and Rule 217 says we should augment the rule with common sense if it's ambiguous. Does that all make sense? Or is this a wrong or misleading way to look at the situation? Falsifian On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 13:28, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Welcome, Falsifian! Good test of new rule - nice beginning! > > In general, when a rule says "a Player CAN [verb] with Agoran Consent", it > means that e does whatever [verb] is using the Agoran Consent method; that > is, the "actual" actions the player takes are following the R1728 procedure. > Similarly, if it was "can declare by announcement" then e would do it by > announcement. > > This is what is meant by "only using the methods explicitly specified in the > Rules" in Rule 2125. > > Interestingly, if the rule said "declare" and didn't have one of the Rules > methods in addition, then it's not clear how you would do it. To interpret > it, a judge would probably use the common (dictionary) definition of > "declare" (as per R217), and it's not clear whether, as a result, > "declare" on it own would mean to publish it, or just say it out loud (i.e. > literally declare it to yourself), or what. So you'd be spot-on with your > arguments in that case. > > -G. > > On 2/12/2019 5:58 PM, James Cook wrote: > > Thanks, D. Margaux. The only thing I can think of is that "declaring" > > might not be an action (and hence not covered by Rule 1728), or that > > it might be synonymous with "announcing" or "publishing", which Rule > > 478 allows me to do. I'm guessing that Rule 217 and game custom > > defeat those arguments, but I thought I'd give it a try, since I don't > > have much experience with game custom. > > > > > > On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 01:17, D. Margaux wrote: > >> > >> Welcome! > >> > >> I assign that CFJ to myself > >> > >> Under the rule, I believe that a player CAN declare a date to be eir > >> birthday only “with Agoran Consent,” which is a particular method of > >> taking actions described in Rule 1728 that requires that you first > >> announce your intent to perform the action, and give players an > >> opportunity to support or object to it, and the action is permitted only > >> if more people support than oppose. So based on that, I think the CFJ is > >> FALSE, and I judge it that way unless there is something I am missing. > >> > >>> On Feb 12, 2019, at 7:52 PM, James Cook wrote: > >>> > >>> I register. I go by "Falsifian" in online settings, or just my real name > >>> "James" if you prefer. > >>> > >>> My Agoran Birthday is the day beginning at midnight UTC on February 13, > >>> 2018. > >>> > >>> I initiate a CFJ for the statement "It is Falsifian's Agoran Birthday > >>> today > >>> (the day beginning at midnight UTC on February 13, 2019).". > >>> > >>> Here is my argument: > >>> > >>> 1. I declared earlier in this message that is my Agoran Birthday was one > >>> year ago. This is a simple matter of fact that anyone reading this can > >>> verify. The rules cannot change this fact. > >>> > >>> 2. The day I first registered is unknown, because I haven't told anyone. > >>> For example, as far as anyone else knows, I might have first registered a > >>> very long time ago under a different name. > >>> > >>> 3. Rule 2585 says: "As long as the day a player first registered remains > >>> unknown, it is considered to be eir Agoran Birthday on the anniversary of > >>> the day e most recently declared as eir Agoran Birthday.". Based on my two > >>> earlier points, then, today is the anniversary of my Agoran Birthday.
DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
If my CFJ is judged true, I welcome any proposal that would avoid messing up all those past dependent actions. I feel bad depriving anyone of a well-earned victory. Is there a clean way to do that? I suppose I could draft a proposal that some specific effects happen, e.g. "I propose that Gaelan wins the game by Apathy", but that seems a bit silly. On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 13:32, James Cook wrote: > > I submit a CFJ, specifying: > > "Agora is not Satisfied with an intent to perform an action unless it > is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. In particular, > Gaelan's recent attempt to Declare Apathy on February 7, 2019 was > ineffective, and D. Margaux's dependent actions in their recent > message that starts 'I thought for sure people would object...' were > ineffective." > > See below for my evidence, argument, and a proposal to fix it. If it's > judged true, I encourage others to consider that other recent > dependent actions may not have been effective. > > As evidence, I quote Rule 2124: > > # Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if > # and only if: > # > # 1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it > #has fewer than N objectors; > # > # 2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has > #N or more supporters; and > # > # 3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then > #the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the > #action has at least one supporter and no objectors. > # > # 4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. > > Here is my argument: Number 4 in that list doesn't have any word to > link it to other items in the list (like the "and" between 2 and 3), > but the only reasonable interpretation is that it's an additional > condition that needs to be satisfied. > > I submit a proposal as follows. > Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction > Adoption Index: 2 > Text: > Amend Rule 2124 by deleting the text "4. if the action is to be > performed With Notice or With T Notice.".
DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
(Also, how did #4 end up in that rule?) On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 13:38, James Cook wrote: > > If my CFJ is judged true, I welcome any proposal that would avoid > messing up all those past dependent actions. I feel bad depriving > anyone of a well-earned victory. Is there a clean way to do that? > > I suppose I could draft a proposal that some specific effects happen, > e.g. "I propose that Gaelan wins the game by Apathy", but that seems a > bit silly. > > On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 13:32, James Cook wrote: > > > > I submit a CFJ, specifying: > > > > "Agora is not Satisfied with an intent to perform an action unless it > > is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. In particular, > > Gaelan's recent attempt to Declare Apathy on February 7, 2019 was > > ineffective, and D. Margaux's dependent actions in their recent > > message that starts 'I thought for sure people would object...' were > > ineffective." > > > > See below for my evidence, argument, and a proposal to fix it. If it's > > judged true, I encourage others to consider that other recent > > dependent actions may not have been effective. > > > > As evidence, I quote Rule 2124: > > > > # Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if > > # and only if: > > # > > # 1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it > > #has fewer than N objectors; > > # > > # 2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has > > #N or more supporters; and > > # > > # 3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then > > #the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the > > #action has at least one supporter and no objectors. > > # > > # 4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. > > > > Here is my argument: Number 4 in that list doesn't have any word to > > link it to other items in the list (like the "and" between 2 and 3), > > but the only reasonable interpretation is that it's an additional > > condition that needs to be satisfied. > > > > I submit a proposal as follows. > > Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction > > Adoption Index: 2 > > Text: > > Amend Rule 2124 by deleting the text "4. if the action is to be > > performed With Notice or With T Notice.".
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> The way it should work is for Agora to be satisfied if any of (1) through (4) > are satisfied. That is, Agora is “satisfied” if there were fewer than N > objections and the action was without N objections; OR if there are more than > N supporters and the action was with N support; OR the ratio of supporters to > objectors is greater than or equal to N and the action is to be taken with N > Agoran Consent; etc. Hang on. I thought that the intention is (1) and (2) and (3). More pedantically: (objection isn't a condition OR there were no objections) AND (support isn't a condition OR there was support) AND (Agoran Consent isn't a condition OR ...). That would work, because Rule 1728 already covers notice: "3. If the action is to be performed With T Notice, if the intent was announced at least T earlier.". Is there anything wrong with leaving it that way (which would be accomplished by my proposal)? When I stumbled across this, my guess was that at some point, the rules were re-arranged so that Rule 1728 is responsible everything about Notice, where Rule 2124 was previously, and in the process, (4) was supposed to be removed from 2124. But that's only a guess; I haven't seen the history.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
What if we change the Agoran Satisfaction rule to be a bit closer to my pedantic elabouration, by saying "if and only if all of the following are true", and making each individual condition automatically true of the condition it refers to isn't part of the dependent action's requirements? Then Agora would be trivially satisfied with things to be performed With Notice. This was how I thought it was meant to work. But I also thought, because of that, that we were supposed to be able to say things like "with support and no objection". If that doesn't get used anywhere, maybe we should clarify that Agoran Satisfaction is an or, and include #4 as "the action is to be performed With Notice". Is that what you're suggesting? On Thu., Feb. 14, 2019, 09:30 D. Margaux > > > On Feb 14, 2019, at 9:27 AM, James Cook wrote: > > > > That would work, because Rule 1728 already covers notice: "3. If the > > action is to be performed With T Notice, if the intent was announced > > at least T earlier.". Is there anything wrong with leaving it that way > > (which would be accomplished by my proposal)? > > I think the problem would be that 1728 also requires that “Agora is > Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by other rules.” So there > needs to be a way for Ag to be satisfied with a with Notice intent.
DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
To re-iterate a note I made at the start of all that noise: I recognize we might not be in agreement about how Rule 2124 is supposed to work, but I at least want the current version of my proposal to reflect my own thinking clearly. On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 18:36, James Cook wrote: > > Sorry for all the versions. > > I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, > Version 1.1.2) and submit a proposal as follows, and comment that I > removed the word "and" between #2 and #3 and turned the items into > sentences. > > Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.3 > Adoption Index: 2 > Text: > Replace the following part of of Rule 2124: > > Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if > and only if: > > 1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it > has fewer than N objectors; > > 2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has > N or more supporters; and > > 3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then > the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the > action has at least one supporter and no objectors. > > 4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. > > with this: > > Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action > unless at least one of the following is true: > > 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has > at least N objectors. > > 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has fewer > than N supporters. > > 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and > the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the > action has no supporters or at least one objector.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
I added the negation because I was worried about interpretations of whether "if X then Y" is true. With classical logic, we may interpret that as "not X or Y", which would work great, but it could also be interpreted as the list entry only being present if X is there, so we'd end up with "if all of the following are true: ", and I'm not sure everyone would interpret that as true. Just seemed easier to phrase in the negative way. Will think more about it later, but suggestions welcome. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 00:39, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > I don't like the essential double negation in this - if people were > confused about what the previous version means, then that's just going to > make it worse. And I'm not convinced #3 means what you want if there are > supporters and no objectors - undefined values mess up logic. > > Instead I'd suggest staying with forward reasoning by keeping the current > items, except for #4 and the "; and", and adding "if all of the following > are true" that you suggested in an earlier message. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > > On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote: > > > Sorry for all the versions. > > > > I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, > > Version 1.1.2) and submit a proposal as follows, and comment that I > > removed the word "and" between #2 and #3 and turned the items into > > sentences. > > > > Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.3 > > Adoption Index: 2 > > Text: > > Replace the following part of of Rule 2124: > > > > Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if > > and only if: > > > > 1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it > > has fewer than N objectors; > > > > 2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has > > N or more supporters; and > > > > 3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then > > the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the > > action has at least one supporter and no objectors. > > > > 4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. > > > > with this: > > > > Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action > > unless at least one of the following is true: > > > > 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has > > at least N objectors. > > > > 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has fewer > > than N supporters. > > > > 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and > > the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the > > action has no supporters or at least one objector. > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
> I also like this version. > > However, there's another problem: a dangling "it". (This is also in the > present version of the rules, which I noticed during RTRW.) You should > make it clear whether the objectors and supports are to the /intent/, > or to the /action/. (Based on the way the other rules are worded, it > should be the intent; you wouldn't want, e.g., objections to wins by > apathy to be forever. I have some sympathy for allowing a blanket > objection to all currently existing intents to perform a particular > type of action, but we normally allow that as valid shorthand anyway.) Right now, the rule says "A Supporter of a dependent action is...", which seems to define what the supporter of an action is, not the supporter of an intent, unless I'm misreading. Do you think we should change that part too? E.g. First paragraph: A Supporter of an *intent to perform an action* is An Objector to *an intent to perform an action* is... Second paragraph: ...to support or object to *an intent to perform an action* and then (incorporating D. Margaux's change in #3 as well) Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action unless at least one of the following is true: 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, there are at least N Objectors to that intent. 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are fewer than than N Supporters for of that intent. 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N times the number of Objectors to the intent.
DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Thanks to the listed co-authors. (AIS523, I didn't see you in the directory; let me know if you're a player and I can polish your name in the co-author list). I edited several parts of the text to make in clear that any reference to supporters or objectors is in terms of a particular intent. Note that this change means Rule 2124 no longer defines the notions of Supporter or Objector to an action, only an intent to perform an action. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 17:57, James Cook wrote: > > I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, > Version 1.1.3) and submit a proposal as follows: > > Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.2 > Co-authors: ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk, D. Margaux > Adoption Index: 2 > Text: > Replace the text of Rule 2124 with: > > A Supporter of an intent to perform an action is an eligible > entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. > "consent") for an announcement of that intent. An Objector to an > intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly > posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of > that intent. > > The entities eligible to support or object to an intent to perform > an action are, by default, all players, subject to modification by > the document authorizing the dependent action. However, the > previous sentence notwithstanding, the initiator of the intent is > not eligible to support it. > > Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action > unless at least one of the following is true: > > 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and there > are at least N Objectors to that intent. > > 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are > fewer than than N Supporters of that intent. > > 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the > number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N > times the number of Objectors to the intent. > > The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and > an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within > the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent. > > The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent > if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours. > > A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent > before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same > type of response.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
Here's a draft implementing Ørjan's suggestion:
Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if
and only if all of the following are true:
1. If the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it
has fewer than N objectors.
2. If the action is to be performed With N support, then it has
N or more supporters.
3. If the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then
the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the
action has at least one supporter and no objectors.
Alternatively, I think I could fix the bug in my version, like this:
Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
unless at least one of the following is true:
1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has
at least N objectors.
2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has fewer
than N supporters.
3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and
the number of supporters is at most N times the number of objectors.
After the bug fix, does anyone besides me find the second ("unless")
version more clear? If people generally prefer the first version, I'll
go with that. I do believe it has the benefit of being a smaller, more
conservative change to the wording.
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 00:39, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>
> I don't like the essential double negation in this - if people were
> confused about what the previous version means, then that's just going to
> make it worse. And I'm not convinced #3 means what you want if there are
> supporters and no objectors - undefined values mess up logic.
>
> Instead I'd suggest staying with forward reasoning by keeping the current
> items, except for #4 and the "; and", and adding "if all of the following
> are true" that you suggested in an earlier message.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote:
>
> > Sorry for all the versions.
> >
> > I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction,
> > Version 1.1.2) and submit a proposal as follows, and comment that I
> > removed the word "and" between #2 and #3 and turned the items into
> > sentences.
> >
> > Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.3
> > Adoption Index: 2
> > Text:
> > Replace the following part of of Rule 2124:
> >
> > Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if
> > and only if:
> >
> > 1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it
> > has fewer than N objectors;
> >
> > 2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has
> > N or more supporters; and
> >
> > 3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then
> > the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the
> > action has at least one supporter and no objectors.
> >
> > 4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice.
> >
> > with this:
> >
> > Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
> > unless at least one of the following is true:
> >
> > 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has
> > at least N objectors.
> >
> > 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has fewer
> > than N supporters.
> >
> > 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and
> > the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the
> > action has no supporters or at least one objector.
> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 14:48, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 2/14/2019 6:27 AM, James Cook wrote: > > When I stumbled across this, my guess was that at some point, the > > rules were re-arranged so that Rule 1728 is responsible everything > > about Notice, where Rule 2124 was previously, and in the process, (4) > > was supposed to be removed from 2124. But that's only a guess; I > > haven't seen the history. > > Those rules have a long and messy history. Notice was a relative latecomer > so the splicing in with methods that counted support and objections was - > well, messy (I think at one time when Notice didn't exist, people were using > things like "without 1,000 objections" as a kludge). IIRC, Notice was first > invented for Deputisation (R2160), which is why the R2160(4) clause still > has a completely independent and more straightforward implementation. Thanks, that's an interesting piece of history.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
I agree with Ørjan's opinion here, that a dependent action specifying multiple conditions is supposed to require all of those conditions. For example, the "and" between 2 and 3 is evidence of this intent. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 01:06, Madeline wrote: > > Suggested wording: > > Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if > one or more of the following are true: > > 1. the action is to be performed Without N Objections and it > has fewer than N objectors; > > 2. the action is to be performed With N support and it has > N or more supporters > > 3. the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent and either > the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the > action has at least one supporter and no objectors. > > 4. the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. > > > On 2019-02-15 11:54, James Cook wrote: > > I added the negation because I was worried about interpretations of > > whether "if X then Y" is true. With classical logic, we may interpret > > that as "not X or Y", which would work great, but it could also be > > interpreted as the list entry only being present if X is there, so > > we'd end up with "if all of the following are true: ", and > > I'm not sure everyone would interpret that as true. Just seemed easier > > to phrase in the negative way. > > > > Will think more about it later, but suggestions welcome. > > > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 00:39, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > >> I don't like the essential double negation in this - if people were > >> confused about what the previous version means, then that's just going to > >> make it worse. And I'm not convinced #3 means what you want if there are > >> supporters and no objectors - undefined values mess up logic. > >> > >> Instead I'd suggest staying with forward reasoning by keeping the current > >> items, except for #4 and the "; and", and adding "if all of the following > >> are true" that you suggested in an earlier message. > >> > >> Greetings, > >> Ørjan. > >> > >> On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote: > >> > >>> Sorry for all the versions. > >>> > >>> I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, > >>> Version 1.1.2) and submit a proposal as follows, and comment that I > >>> removed the word "and" between #2 and #3 and turned the items into > >>> sentences. > >>> > >>> Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.3 > >>> Adoption Index: 2 > >>> Text: > >>> Replace the following part of of Rule 2124: > >>> > >>> Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if > >>> and only if: > >>> > >>> 1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it > >>> has fewer than N objectors; > >>> > >>> 2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has > >>> N or more supporters; and > >>> > >>> 3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then > >>> the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the > >>> action has at least one supporter and no objectors. > >>> > >>> 4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. > >>> > >>> with this: > >>> > >>> Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action > >>> unless at least one of the following is true: > >>> > >>> 1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has > >>> at least N objectors. > >>> > >>> 2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has fewer > >>> than N supporters. > >>> > >>> 3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and > >>> the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the > >>> action has no supporters or at least one objector. > >>> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 19:05, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the > > action has no supporters or at least one objector. > > Dumb basic formal logic question that I should really know the answer to: > > If O=0, the ratio S/O is undefined. > > Does (S/O = undefined) => (S/O > N) = FALSE? Or does (S/O = > undefined) => (S/O > N) = undefined? I'm not sure. The issue did not occur to me when I was drafting the proposal. Hopefully the latest version I posted on the discussion list avoids the issue entirely.
DIS: Re: BUS: Victory by Apathy
On Tue., Feb. 19, 2019, 23:12 ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 03:56 +, James Cook wrote: > > Apathy. I specify Falsifian and G. > > > > I initiate a Call for Judgement, specifying the statement: "Falsifian > > and G won the game." > > > > Here are our arguments: > > > > 1. I "published", or "announced", the following: "Apathy", in this > >message. (I also sent a separate message that just says "Apathy", > >in case anyone insists it has to be by itself in a message for > >me to "publish" it.) > > Arguments: Declaring Apathy is not the same thing linguistically as > declaring "Apathy", much the same way as sending a message with text > "the Herald's Report" is not the same thing as publishing the Herald's > Report. There's a use/mention distinction issue here. > > If a scam along these lines worked, the required declaration would have > to express apathy the concept, not "apathy" the word. Something like "I > am apathetic." might potentially work, but it's a bit of a stretch. > > -- > ais523 > That's a good point. Though if I want to say I'm feeling apathetic, "Apathy." seems like one way to say it. "Why didn't you go into work today?" "Apathy." You might even day I was too apathetic to bother to find some other way to express apathy. I do agree that it feels like a stretch, but I think the arguments mostly make sense. I'm not really sure. James >
Re: DIS: doing stuff?
I've just been busy, personally. When I have time I've been meaning to figure out what the rules say about the zombie auction I bid in that never was announced completed, so technically I'm not lacking for something to do. On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 at 19:00, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > ok, are we on pause because: > > (a) the person with every single gameplay office (twg) has gotten busy or > whatever, no updates = no play; or > > (b) we're all bored of the current gameplay options and should think of new > ones; or > > (c) more general Agora fatigue; or > > (d) with Notice. >
Re: DIS: doing stuff?
> In a timely fashion from what? Probably from when the auction ends > (automatically), not from the announcement. So this means you should > have paid, and broke the SHALL by not paying, and the announcement doesn't > affect that at all. But maybe that's wrong. > > And if you pay now, do you get the zombie? Dunno. In the last paragraph, > in "When e does so", is the "does so" referring to (SHALL pay) or (SHALL pay > [...] in a timely fashion)? I think the latter which means you wouldn't > be able to pay now? > > That's not really ideal... The last event described in that rule before the sentence with "in a timely fashion" is the announcer announcing the end of the Auction. So I could argue "in a timely fashion" is after that happened. I did conditionally pay for Tarhalindur on March 16 (14:31 UTC). Is it in a timely fashion if I do it before the event? If the event never happens?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election
> As I understand it, you can have an election for > imposed offices, it just can't be imposed on someone who didn't consent. I think you at least need to use the method in R2154(a) which requires 2 support to initiate the election. 2154(b) requires the office to be interim, and the definition of interim in R1006 only includes elected offices. Also, R2154(a) would require the most recent election to have been resolved more than 90 days prior. I'm not sure having never had an election counts. (Or has there been an office of Comptrollor in the past?)
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
A reminder that my CFJ "the Lost and Found department owns no more than 87 Coins." is still unassigned [0] [0] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-May/040375.html
DIS: Weekend court
> It's not related to time of week, it's related to case load. Day court > judges get most of the cases, weekend court judges get occasional cases > now and then. (This is all Arbitor's discretion, thus isn't precisely > defined, and is a system set up by the Arbitor rather than an inherent > part of the rules.) In that case maybe I'd better start with the weekend court and see how it goes. H. Arbitor, please add me to the list.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
> Hmm. I admit that I am not sure I follow this. But I think we are in > agreement about the ultimate outcome? Yes, I agree that you own no blots. I'm curious to see how H. Judge G. rules on your original CFJ reintroduced by Aris.
Re: DIS: Score Voting
On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 22:20, Bernie Brackett wrote: > it feels like there's a discussion going on involving what exactly single > transferable vote means, so I feel like I should bring up that Score Voting > has mathematically been proven to be better. Is there any reason not to > switch to it? I like the simplicity. I think would support the switch.
Re: DIS: [Draft] Refactoring IRV
> I intend to propose the following change to rule 955, in place of the current > definition of IRV: > > > The outcome of an Instant Runoff decision is: > > > > a. If a single option has the absolute majority of valid ballots specifying > > it as the first entry on the list, then the outcome is that option; > > otherwise > > > > b. The option with the fewest valid ballots specifying it as the first > > entry on the list is identified, and the outcome is the outcome of an > > Instant Runoff decision as if that option had been removed from each valid > > ballot that contained it. > > > >If there are multiple such options, the vote collector for the decision > > can, and must, select one to remove, specifying that they did so in the > > message resolving the decision. > > Does this contain any obvious scams? Does this accurately capture IRV as > performed by Agorans? Some bugs: * R955 specifies invalid options are eliminated before the process starts; it's probably good to keep that. * The voting strength of each ballot should matter. * When determining whether an option has a majority, votes for PRESENT or listing only options that have been eliminated shouldn't count. I couldn't resist making my own attempt. It's a lot wordier than yours, unfortunately, but it addresses these points and omd's first point. Maybe there's some middle ground that's less wordy. 2. For an instant runoff decision, the vote collector determines the outcome by the following process. During the process, an option's first-place voting strength is defined to be the sum of the voting strengths of the ballots that list that option before all other options that have not been eliminated, and the remaining voting strength is defined to be the sum of voting strengths of valid ballots in this decision that list at least one option that has not been eliminated. a) First, all entities that are part of a valid vote, but were not a valid option at the end of the voting period, or are disqualified by the rule providing for the decision, are eliminated. b) If no ballot lists an option that hasn't been eliminated, the outcome is null. c) Otherwise, the vote collector successively eliminates options until some option's first-place voting strength is more than half the remaining voting strength, and that remaining option is the outcome of the decision. For an option to be eliminated, its first place voting strength must be less than or equal to the first place voting strengths of all other options, and if it is equal to another's, the vote collector must specify which option was eliminated in the announcement of the decision's resolution.
Re: DIS: Score Voting
On Sun, 26 May 2019 at 01:20, James Cook wrote: > On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 22:20, Bernie Brackett wrote: > > it feels like there's a discussion going on involving what exactly single > > transferable vote means, so I feel like I should bring up that Score Voting > > has mathematically been proven to be better. Is there any reason not to > > switch to it? > > I like the simplicity. I think would support the switch. Draft proposal: Rule 2528 is amended as follows: * In the first paragraph, "instant runoff," is replaced by "score voting,". * Item 3 is replaced by: "For a score voting decision, any list of score assignments that does not repeat an option; for this purpose, a "score assignment" is a valid option and a score for that option, which must be an integer in the range 0 through 10 inclusive." Rule 955 is amended as follows: * Item 2 is replaced by: "For a score voting decision, the outcome is whichever option has the highest score, where the score of an option is the sum of the scores assigned to that option by valid ballots. In case of a tie, the vote collector CAN and must, in the announcement of the decision's resolution, select one of the leaders as the outcome." Rule 2127 is amended by deleting the paragraph that begins "For an instant runoff decision,". Rule 2154 is amended by replacing "instant runoff" with "score voting".
Re: DIS: [Draft] Refactoring IRV
On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 21:33, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > On Sat, 2019-05-25 at 21:24 +0000, James Cook wrote: > > I couldn't resist making my own attempt. It's a lot wordier than > > yours, unfortunately, but it addresses these points and omd's first > > point. Maybe there's some middle ground that's less wordy. > > > > 2. For an instant runoff decision, the vote collector determines the > >outcome by the following process. During the process, an option's > >first-place voting strength is defined to be the sum of the voting > >strengths of the ballots that list that option before all other > >options that have not been eliminated, and the remaining voting > >strength is defined to be the sum of voting strengths of valid > >ballots in this decision that list at least one option that has not > >been eliminated. > > > >a) First, all entities that are part of a valid vote, but were not a > > valid option at the end of the voting period, or are disqualified > > by the rule providing for the decision, are eliminated. > > > >b) If no ballot lists an option that hasn't been eliminated, the > > outcome is null. > > > >c) Otherwise, the vote collector successively eliminates options > > until some option's first-place voting strength is more than half > > the remaining voting strength, and that remaining option is the > > outcome of the decision. For an option to be eliminated, its first > > place voting strength must be less than or equal to the first > > place voting strengths of all other options, and if it is equal to > > another's, the vote collector must specify which option was > > eliminated in the announcement of the decision's resolution. > > There are two potential bugs in part c). One is that the vote collector > hasn't been given a mechanism to eliminate candidates (they just have > to do it, and then say what they did, but they don't have any way /to/ > do it); the other is that "For an option to be eliminated," can be > interpreted as applying to the whole process, in which case it ends up > overruling part a) due to Cretans. Thanks. I'm now favouring Bernie's idea to use score voting, partly because it seems simpler to describe, but if others want to stick with IRV I might try addressing these bugs.
DIS: Re: BUS: Ceci n'est pas un zombi
It's good to have you back, twg! Any time you want to be Treasuror again, I'm happy to give that back.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
> When a CFJ about past effectiveness is called, in reality, the player > who's being the judge presumably sits down and tries to work out: > R(now, [at the time the CFJ was called, action A was EFFECTIVE]). We > have to wrap that in R(...) because "EFFECTIVE" doesn't really mean > anything outside the Rules. > > But, "at the time..." does mean something outside the Rules, so I > think it's reasonable for the judge's first step to be to unwrap that > as the equivalent statement: R(time CFJ was called*, [action A was > EFFECTIVE]). If the Rules say that's wrong, then of course it's wrong, > but if the Rules are silent on the matter it seems reasonable. I think I messed up my example. I shouldn't have focused on the time the CFJ was called; that's not relevant to my exposition. Add one more step: the judge expands R(time CFJ was called, [action A was EFFECTIVE]) as R(time CFJ was called, [at the time action A was attempted, the attempt was successful]) which becomes, unless the Rules say otherwise, R(the time action A was attempted, [the attempt was successful]) that's what's relevant here, I think. Again, the point is just to say that there is a consistent world-view where the gamestate doesn't include whether past actions were effective, but intents are still fixed and everything works pretty much as we expect. And this is the way I was assuming the game works.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
On Sun, 26 May 2019 at 22:26, D. Margaux wrote: > > On May 26, 2019, at 5:37 PM, omd wrote: > > > > Ratification changes the gamestate to what it would be if the report > > had been accurate... but it doesn't *literally* make it retroactively > > accurate, so it doesn't change whether there was a rule violation. > > Why not? > > Part of the gamestate is the fact that a violation was (or wasn’t) committed > by publishing the report. After ratification, the gamestate is changed to > what it would have been if the report were as true and accurate as possible. > That means that the gamestate also changes whether a violation was > committed—because that’s part of the gamestate itself. > > To put it another way, blot holdings are part of the gamestate too. It would > be INEFFECTIVE to punish me with any blots if the reports were true and > accurate at the time they were published. Upon ratification the gamestate is > changed to what it would be if the reports were as true and accurate as > possible (which is 100% true and accurate). That means that the game state is > changed to make any blot levying INEFFECTIVE. Unsolicited thoughts: I think you've convinced me that your ratification changed the gamestate so that you own zero blots, but I think your CFJ should be judged TRUE, i.e. Aris's attempt was EFFECTIVE. Before you ratified the statement, I think it's clear Aris's attempt was EFFECTIVE according to the Rules. I think there are then two questions: (a) did your ratification create some legal fiction that the attempt was INEFFECTIVE, in contradiction to reality; and (b) if so, should the CFJ's judge respect that legal fiction? For (a): I think it depends what "gamestate" means. It's never really defined. But personally I was assuming the gamestate covers all the facts invented by the rules, and not realities, e.g. what happened in the past. But I'm not sure about this. Anyway, my assumption would imply (a) is false. For (b), R591 says: "TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true" (and similarly for FALSE). If other Rules say something that contradicts reality, should "factually ..." refer to this legal fiction or to reality? I don't see any reason the rules should override reality in this case.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
> I think G.’s judgement in that CFJ is correct (if I understand it right). > > G.’s decision says that when a report self-ratifies, it does not change > anything about the gamestate immediately prior to the publication of the > report. That makes sense to me. However, self-ratification CAN retroactively > change the EFFECTIVENESS of actions taken during the time between the > report’s publication and its later self-ratification—I think that is > consistent with G.’s decision. > > It is also demonstrated by the failure of my recent attempted PARADOX scam. > > I had a PARADOX scam that hinged on an ambiguity about who the Prime Minister > was—me or ATMunn. If intents remained broken then it was one of us; if > intents were retroactively fixed then it was the other one of us. I tried to > create a PARADOX by using the Manifesto power to distribute a proposal that > would fix intents retroactively. Trying to resolve that Agoran decision would > create an infinite loop where the identity of the PM would cycle around and > the EFFECTIVENESS of the distribution-by-Manifesto cycled too. > > It was foiled by the retroactive effect of a self-ratified ADoP report. > > At the time I issued the attempted Manifesto, the ADoP report had been > published but had NOT self-ratified. If I had CoE’d it before ratification, > then the identity of the PM would be ambiguous and so the Manifesto attempt > would have had ambiguous EFFECTIVENESS. But I missed the ADoP report and it > later self ratified—causing the Manifesto attempt to be unambiguously > INEFFECTIVE. Which was very, very frustrating. > > The facts are recounted in detail in CFJs 3722, 3723, 3724, and 3725. > > I think that conclusively shows that the attempted blot levy was INEFFECTIVE. My complaint with this argument is the following. When R1551 says: "...to what [the gamestate] would be if, at the time the ratified document was published, the gamestate had been minimally modified..." this is talking about a hypothetical sequence of events, and yes, during that hypothetical sequence of events, certain actions that we previously considered to be EFFECTIVE are hypothetically considered to be INEFFECTIVE, and vice versa. But that does not imply that the hypothetical past is itself part of the gamestate. If the history of EFFECTIVE and INEFFECTIVE actions is part of the gamestate, then I agree that the effect of R1551 is also to change that history. But it does not need to be part of the gamestate in order for R1551 to have the effects we generally rely on it for. When we fixed intents, this was my interpretation of what happened: * Proposal 8164 refers to "what [the gamestate] would have beeen..." in a similar manner to R1551. * In that hypothetical alternate history, the EFFECTIVENESS of actions is different from reality, and therefore the gamestate (switches, ownership of entities, probably other things...) ends up different. * Proposal 8164 changes the gamestate --- all those switches, ownerships, etc --- to how it ended up in that hypothetical alternate history. I don't think CFJs 3722, 3723, 3724 or 3725 directly address whether or not the EFFECTIVENESS (or POSSIBILITY) of past actions is changed after ratification: * I think 3722 was resolved without reference to ratification. * 3723 is present-tense; it's about whether the current (at time of CFJ) gamestate allows an action. It does discuss a hypothetical game history, but does not assert that that hypothetical history actually happened. * 3724 did not involve ratification. * 3722 was about the EFFECTIVENESS of an action being affected by ratification. However, I think in that case the document ratified before the action was even attempted, so there's no question of changing the past. So, it's still unclear to me whether the past is part of the gamestate. I see no reason why it should be. Here's a pitch explaining that, at least, this viewpoint is self-consistent: Let's define R(T, X) to mean: at time T, the Rules said that X was true. In this definition, I intend R(T, X) to be fundamentally a statement about reality, not directly governed by the Rules; it means that a diligent player familiar with the rules of Agora, sitting down at time T and carefully studying the situation, would conclude that X is true at that time. When a CFJ about past effectiveness is called, in reality, the player who's being the judge presumably sits down and tries to work out: R(now, [at the time the CFJ was called, action A was EFFECTIVE]). We have to wrap that in R(...) because "EFFECTIVE" doesn't really mean anything outside the Rules. But, "at the time..." does mean something outside the Rules, so I think it's reasonable for the judge's first step to be to unwrap that as the equivalent statement: R(time CFJ was called*, [action A was EFFECTIVE]). If the Rules say that's wrong, then of course it's wrong, but if the Rules are silent on the matter it seems reasonable. *More pedantically: the judge
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 00:38, Aris Merchant wrote: > Falsifian, would you by any chance be interested in joining a court and/or > judging this case? It’s one of the Arbitor’s unofficial responsibilities to > make sure newer players have an opportunity to judge cases, since it’s a > good way to get more involved in gameplay. I would be honoured, but would it be more appropriate to assign this case to someone who hasn't already shown a preference for one outcome? I invite whoever judges the case to refer to my arguments if they seem helpful. I'm happy to try being on a court. How does weekend vs. day court work? I have the most time on weekends, but if a case comes in on the weekend I might end up dealing with it during the week depending on circumstances. So really I don't mind getting a CFJ assigned at any time during the week, if others don't mind me taking advantage of the 7 days available.
DIS: Re: BUS: Take 6
Oops, I guess that was cc-ed to BUS the first time anyway. On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 02:21, James Cook wrote: > > This Time To The Public Forum: > > Welcome! I've added you as "Walker" to the directory; let me know if > you prefer to be referred to some other way. > > I grant a welcome package to Walker. > > > On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 20:26, Charles Walker > > wrote: > > > > > > I register. > > > > > > -- > > > Walker
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727
> R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending > the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have > tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly > compelling in the face of your arguments in (7): I'm guessing R1551's complex language about "what it would be if, at the time..." is more about making sure it's clear how the consequences play out. If *only* the record-of-the-past part of the gamestate were changed, maybe the consequences would not be changed, e.g. D. Margaux would still have blots, even though now e was never fined. > - Pragmatism. It is impossible to amend the past, so why pretend > otherwise via legal fiction? > - It is simpler and cleaner to amend the gamestate at a single point > in time (the present) than amend all times t, P<=t<=T, where P is the > publication of the ratified document and T is the time of > ratification. I think these are strong reasons. The past-not-included interpretation feels nicer and more obvious to me, and I tried to capture some of that feeling in Section 6. But I currently feel that the other arguments outweigh this, no matter how indignant I feel about my prior intuition being wrong.
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 23:24, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 00:11 +0100, Charles Walker wrote: > > R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending > > the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have > > tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly > > compelling in the face of your arguments in (7): > > IMO the biggest reason is that it makes it clear what situations cause > the rule to be outpowered (i.e. if it tries to change something in the > present that can't be changed, even if it could have been legally > changed under thhe past ruleset at the time). Ah, that's another good reason. (I didn't get to your message before answering Walker's message.)
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 06:15, Aris Merchant wrote: > I’ve just skimmed this, but it seems to accord very well with my own > understanding of the relevant principles. Your opinion is clear, logical, > well-organized, and generally quite spiffy. From anyone I would consider > this a well-written opinion; under the circumstances, it’s honestly > amazing. I’m very happy I assigned you to judge this case. Thanks! That was a nice message to wake up to.
DIS: Re: BUS: Take 6
Welcome! I've added you as "Walker" to the directory; let me know if you prefer to be referred to some other way. I grant a welcome package to Walker. On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 20:26, Charles Walker wrote: > > I register. > > -- > Walker
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727
Thanks. What if I replace the first paragraph of 7A with this:
> To understand the meaning of the term "gamestate", the first place to
> look is the Rules. The term is never directly defined, so we must
> satisfy ourselves by inferring meaning from context.
>
> Rule 217 forbids us from applying definitions or prescriptions using
> anything other than direct, forward reasoning, but it also allows us
> augment the text of the rules with common sense. It is not unusual to
> infer meanings of terms in this way. For example, the rules never
> directly define what a CFJ is; e.g. you won't find text like "A Call for
> Judgement is a ...", but nonetheless we are able to infer that they are
> associated with statements, can be judged, etc.
>
> In two places, the text of the Rules implies that the concept of
> gamestate includes the past, by talking about the closely-related
> concept of ratification:
I was worried about the forward reasoning clause, and intended 7A to
be about definitions. I certainly think it would be a stronger
argument if R217 allowed us to turn 7A into a direct argument about
properties of the gamestate, rather than a way to clarify the
definition.
On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 03:11, Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> The criticism appears valid, but I’m sure there’s another way of showing
> this, even if it’s just an appeal to common sense.
>
> -Aris
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:48 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> > [Repeating from accidental response to sub-thread]
> >
> > I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt.
> >
> > You write in 7A:
> > "In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information about the
> > past, or the Rules did not refer to that information when referring to
> > the past, then these parts of the Rules wouldn't make sense."
> >
> > This seems to run afoul of Rule 217:
> > "Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied using
> > direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that can be
> > concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined
> > concepts is false does not constitute proof that it is true."
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> > On 6/1/19 11:59 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> > > 3726 a couple of times.
> > >
> > > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
> > > the next couple of days.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> > >
> > > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> > > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
> > >
> > > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
> > > more than 0 blots."
> > >
> > > 1. Arguments
> > >
> > >
> > > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
> > > when D. Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
> > > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> > > everything here.
> > >
> > > 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> > > =
> > >
> > > 2019-05-20 01:25
> > >
> > >The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
> > >blots.
> > >
> > > 2019-05-20 20:32
> > >
> > >D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to ratify
> > >it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
> > >
> > >{ For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
> > >have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
> > >
> > >Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
> > >Spaaace Rules has its default value.
> > >
> > >There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
> > >Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
> > >the Spaaace Rules. }
> > >
> > > 2019-05-21 10:20
> > >
> > >D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
> > >weekly reports:
> > >
> > >{there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
> > >recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
> > >switches for whi
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727
After further thought, I think it might be a problem that the replacement text I sent in my previous message is still applying prescriptions in the rules using reasoning that is not direct and forward. Hopefully the following new text for 7A avoids the problem entirely: > To understand the meaning of the term "gamestate", the first place to > look is the Rules. The term is never directly defined, so we must > satisfy ourselves by inferring meaning from context. > > It is not unusual to infer meanings of terms in this way. For example, the > rules never directly define what a CFJ is; e.g. you won't find text like "A > Call for Judgement is a ...", but nonetheless we are able to infer that they > are associated with statements, can be judged, etc. I believe this is > supported by Rule 217's instruction to use common sense. > > In two places, the text of the Rules implies that the concept of > gamestate includes the past, by talking about the closely-related > concept of ratification: > > Rule 1551 says: > > > Text purportedly about previous instances of ratification (e.g. a > > report's date of last ratification) is excluded from ratification. > > Rule 2034 says that certain messages constitute self-ratifying claims of > several facts about the past: "such a decision existed", "it had the > number of voters indicated", etc. > > In both cases, the rules talk about ratifying facts about the past. > Ratification involves a hypothetical gamestate minimally modified to > make these facts about the past true, which clarifies for us that the > definition of gamestate includes facts about the past. It also seems > likely that the new gamestate after the ratification is intended to > include these facts about the past, which is another way to arrive at > the same clarification. On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 03:24, James Cook wrote: > > Thanks. What if I replace the first paragraph of 7A with this: > > > To understand the meaning of the term "gamestate", the first place to > > look is the Rules. The term is never directly defined, so we must > > satisfy ourselves by inferring meaning from context. > > > > Rule 217 forbids us from applying definitions or prescriptions using > > anything other than direct, forward reasoning, but it also allows us > > augment the text of the rules with common sense. It is not unusual to > > infer meanings of terms in this way. For example, the rules never > > directly define what a CFJ is; e.g. you won't find text like "A Call for > > Judgement is a ...", but nonetheless we are able to infer that they are > > associated with statements, can be judged, etc. > > > > In two places, the text of the Rules implies that the concept of > > gamestate includes the past, by talking about the closely-related > > concept of ratification: > > I was worried about the forward reasoning clause, and intended 7A to > be about definitions. I certainly think it would be a stronger > argument if R217 allowed us to turn 7A into a direct argument about > properties of the gamestate, rather than a way to clarify the > definition. > > On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 03:11, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > > > The criticism appears valid, but I’m sure there’s another way of showing > > this, even if it’s just an appeal to common sense. > > > > -Aris > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:48 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > > > > [Repeating from accidental response to sub-thread] > > > > > > I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt. > > > > > > You write in 7A: > > > "In both cases, if the gamestate did not include information about the > > > past, or the Rules did not refer to that information when referring to > > > the past, then these parts of the Rules wouldn't make sense." > > > > > > This seems to run afoul of Rule 217: > > > "Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied using > > > direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that can be > > > concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined > > > concepts is false does not constitute proof that it is true." > > > > > > Jason Cobb > > > On 6/1/19 11:59 PM, James Cook wrote: > > > > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on > > > > 3726 a couple of times. > > > > > > > > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out > > > > the next couple of days. > > > > > > > > &g
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Temporary Deputy-ADoP] Initiation of Election for Prime Minister
I don't feel strongly either way. I think both you and G. are good choices as PM, having a strong understanding of the game and willingness to step up and help keep things moving. I think you've done more recently, but I'm not sure how much recency should count, if G.'s still fairly active. For this election attempt in particular, I'm just repeating what I did on the last attempt to try to be consistent and not have the result change just because of the confusion. I hope I didn't confuse people by voting to "endorse G." on the last election attempt. I did it because I wasn't sure if G. still wanted it, but it might have been interpreted as "I don't know what's going on; to be safe I'll let G. figure it out". On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 02:35, Aris Merchant wrote: > > I vote [Aris, G.]. > > Why is no one voting for me? As far as I can tell, I have a stronger > platform (well, at least I had a platform) and am currently more active. > I’m really confused, TBH. > > -Aris > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:30 PM James Cook wrote: > > > In the ongoing election for Prime Minister, I vote [G., Aris]. > > > > On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 12:29, D Margaux wrote: > > > > > > I temporarily deputise for ADoP to initiate an election for Prime > > Minister (for reals this time). > > > > > > The valid options are G., Corona, and Aris. > > > > > > The vote collector is the ADoP and the voting method is instant runoff. > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 2019, at 4:56 AM, Reuben Staley > > wrote: > > > > > > > > JUDGEMENT OF A CFJ WITH NO ID > > > > === > > > > > > > > Whereas there is not much I feel I can add to the Caller's Arguments, > > I accept them and judge this CFJ TRUE. > > > > > > > >> On 5/30/19 12:57 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > >> I assign this CFJ to Trigon (the only judge who is both eligible and > > not an interested party). > > > >> Begin forwarded message: > > > >>> From: D Margaux > > > >>> Date: May 28, 2019 at 9:49:13 AM EDT > > > >>> To: Agora Business > > > >>> Subject: CFJ re Prime Minister Election > > > >>> > > > >>> I call for judgement, and submit to the Referee (because the Arbitor > > is an interested party), the following statement: “The ADoP did not > > EFFECTIVELY commence any election for the office of Prime Minister on 19 > > May 2019.” > > > >>> > > > >>> Caller’s Arguments: > > > >>> > > > >>> Under Rule 104, a notice initiating an Agoran decision is “invalid” > > unless it contains “[a] clear description of the valid options.” On 19 May > > 2019, the ADoP sent two messages purporting to initiate an election for > > Prime Minister, but neither of those messages clearly described the valid > > options as required by rule. Therefore no PM election was commenced. > > > >>> > > > >>> In the first attempt,[1] Murphy stated that “the valid options are > > the candidates (G. and Corona).” That did not clearly state the valid > > options because Aris was also a candidate. > > > >>> > > > >>> In the second attempt,[2] Murphy stated that “Aris may also be a > > candidate” and that, “[i]f voting for Prime Minister is not yet open, then > > I open it (details as below except Aris is also a candidate).” That > > message did not clearly identify the valid options, because it stated only > > that Aris *may* be a candidate, not that e *was* a candidate. Additionally, > > that message initiated an election *conditioned* on the old election being > > invalid; as a result, a reasonable Agoran reading that message in isolation > > would be unable to determine whether the PM election was initiated by > > message [1] or [2], and therefore could not know what the “valid options” > > were. In my view, that means that message [2] did not contain “[a] clear > > description of the valid options.” > > > >>> > > > >>> Because neither message clearly described the valid options, both > > messages failed to initiate an election under Rule 104. > > > >>> > > > >>> —— > > > >>> [1] > > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33821.html > > > >>> > > > >>> [2] > > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33823.html > > > >>> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Trigon > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 20:48, Rance Bedwell wrote: > If you want me to, I will attempt to withdraw the COE. That might make things more interesting, since I don't see a way for you to do it. I might still be able to deny it under Rule 2201; I'm not sure. I don't think it's causing much harm. I'm wondering if I should withdraw my CFJ if we're all in agreement about it. On the one hand, it would save the work of a judge; on the other, if it's really so trivial, it shouldn't take much work to judge. I'll leave it out there unless people think I should withdraw.
DIS: (Attn omd) mailman.agoranomic.org HTTPS certificate error
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 06:06, omd wrote: > Sorry about this! Despite the "Attn omd" in the subject, my eyes saw > the "DIS:" and jumped over the rest; I was putting off reading Agora > list messages so I didn't see it until now. (Even though you also > added me directly as a recipient, Gmail only shows a single message, > and it includes the DIS: prefix even though I imagine the copy you > sent directly didn't have it.) I've been manually adding prefixes like "DIS:" since ais523 pointed out this fixes trouble with DMARC. (I removed it from this email though.) I'm not sure if it's an issue for my email provider, but I figure I might as well. [0] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-May/053863.html
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 05:49, Rebecca wrote: > I suspect that the text is > not clear and therefore the four-part test must be applied. What's the four-part test?
Re: DIS: DMARC bounces (attn Murphy)
On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 20:22, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > Translated to English, this states that the email should not be > considered valid if the Subject fail was modified in transit. Of > course, the Subject of the email actually was modified (by the list > software, inserting the BAK:), so the message fails to verify. The > cryptography behind DKIM can't detect that a message is "almost right", > it's just a simple pass/fail (in particular, the recipients can't > distinguish an entirely forged email from an email that's correct apart > from the subject line). I think I've seen some mailing lists rewrite every message as being "from" some email address under the list's control, which I'm guessing would fix the DMARC issue. Are there significant disadvantages to that? I guess it makes it tricky to figure out how to reply in private; is there some way to work around that via a reply-to address that wouldn't also make it tricky to reply to the list?
DIS: (Attn omd) mailman.agoranomic.org HTTPS certificate error
When I try to load https://mailman.agoranomic.org/, I see a certificate error: "Firefox detected an issue and did not continue to mailman.agoranomic.org. The website is either misconfigured or your computer clock is set to the wrong time." Firefox won't even let me override the warning: "mailman.agoranomic.org has a security policy called HTTP Strict Transport Security (HSTS), which means that Firefox can only connect to it securely. You can’t add an exception to visit this site." though Chrome is more flexible. If it's not easy to update the certificate, perhaps HSTS should be disabled since https technically isn't working (and Firefox is taking that seriously)?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy-Clorkstronomor] Weekly Report
I was about to ask what causes that to be a relative duration, but I
see a Ruleset annotation saying this was already covered by CFJ 3624.
I'm curious what the reasoning was, but I think I'll move on to other
questions.
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 01:24, Aris Merchant
wrote:
>
> Agora weeks are explicitly not the default for relative durations, so it’s
> self-ratified at this point.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 6:08 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 10:20, D. Margaux wrote:
> > > The below reports are false. The reason for ratifying them is because
> > the games are defunct and because it’s too hard to figure out what the
> > gamestate of either of them is.
> > >
> > > I deputise for Astronomor to publish this report: {there are no entities
> > in existence for which the Astronomor is the recordkeepor other than those
> > created directly by the Rules. All switches for which the Astronomor is
> > recordkeepor have their default value.}
> > >
> > > I deputise for Clork to publish this report: {there are no entities in
> > existence for which the Clork is the recordkeepor other than those directly
> > created by the Rules. All switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have
> > their default value.}
> > >
> > > I resign Clork and I resign Astronomor.
> >
> > Claim of Error for the above Astronomor report: several Sectors and
> > Spaceships existed when the report was published.
> >
> > Claim of Error for the above Clork report: several Politicians existed
> > when the report was published.
> >
> > I think these only affect self-ratification if we interpret "one week"
> > to mean "one Agoran week" in "continuously undoubted for one week"; if
> > it means 7 days, then I think the report already self-ratified. It
> > probably means 7 days due to precedent and convention, e.g. Aris's
> > judgment of CFJ 3723 (twg's proto-judgement) says "...the incorrect
> > report self-ratified 7 days after its publication...".
> >
DIS: What authorizes the Referee to impose the Cold Hand of Justice?
In preparing judgements for CFJs 3726 and 3727, I realized I don't know why the Referee CAN impose the Cold Hand of Justice. R2478 says the investigator SHALL, but not that e CAN. R2557 says that e CAN do so if the rules "authorize" em to, but I don't see any rules authorizing anyone to do so. Am I missing something?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: third church of the reformed ritual - post schism
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 14:50, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > > On Fri, 2019-06-07 at 14:44 +, James Cook wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 13:48, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I light a candle. > > > > Does this actually work? > > > > As far as I can tell, you agree that you perform those actions, but > > what power does a contract have beyond saying that you agreed that > > that's true? What makes it so, e.g, the Treasuror should think you > > did those actions? > > It's a contract-defined abbreviation. There's been some controversy > about those in the past, and I can't remember how it was resolved. > > However, G. quoted the definition of the abbreviation in the email > itself, which is sufficient to make it work (as, e.g., the Treasuror > need look only at the email to determine which action G. is taking). > It's like saying "for the purpose of this email, to 'nkep' someone > means to transfer 5 coins to them", followed by nkeppig a bunch of > people (which also works). Thanks, that makes sense. I guess G.'s attempt works whether or not the contract exists, based on the quoting. While I'm on the topic, I'm confused about switches in contracts. D. Margaux's Church contract attempts to define switches (intended to work like offices) and the proto contract in Trigon's Arcadia tournament contract attempts to define a switch called Iteration Date. But R2162 says "A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a switch", and I don't see any rule saying that switches defined in contracts are switches. Is the idea that the parties to the contract should interpret the contract as if the switches exist, because they agreed to the contract?
DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: third church of the reformed ritual - post schism
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 13:48, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I light a candle. > > [ > 2. Any player CAN "light a candle" by announcement. Lighting a > candle has the effect of the player announcing the following in order: > - "I consent to join the Reformed Church of the Ritual if I haven't > already." > - "I transfer 3 coins to the Reformed Church" > - "If the ritual has not been performed this week, I transfer 7 > coins from the Reformed Church to myself. If the ritual has not been > performed this week, I pay a fee of 7 coins to perform the Ritual." Does this actually work? As far as I can tell, you agree that you perform those actions, but what power does a contract have beyond saying that you agreed that that's true? What makes it so, e.g, the Treasuror should think you did those actions? James
Re: DIS: DMARC bounces (attn Murphy)
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 at 02:08, omd wrote: > ...Okay, I've gone ahead and set dmarc_moderation_action to "Munge > From" on all three lists. Changing the From address is annoying > (sorry Murphy), but it only applies to messages from domains with > p=reject DMARC entries, and the alternative is for those messages to > not be deliverable properly. Thanks! Let's hope it works well. > Incidentally, Gmail seems to accept such messages but send them to > Spam. I set my Agora filter to never send to Spam, so I get a banner > saying "This message was not sent to Spam because of a filter you > created." I get some with that banner now, but I'm fairly sure some of Murphy's emails never even made it to spam.
DIS: Re: BUS: Helping out
On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 03:39, Rance Bedwell wrote: > I transfer 7 coins to Falsifian in recognition of eir commitment and devotion > to performing the Ritual. > -Rance Thanks! Notice of Honour: +1 Rance, for contributing to our collective duty. -1 D. Margaux, founder of the Church of the Ritual, for ignoring the Church's obligations even after Murphy agreed to the contract.
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727
Wasn't omd's finger-pointing about publishing inaccurate information in the
reports?
On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:18 Aris Merchant, <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why would the legality of publishing the report matter?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:16 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> > In R1551's hypothetical timeline the gamete was minimally modified when
> the
> > report was published... it seems tricky to determine whether it was false
> > at that exact time.
> >
> > Even if we assume the self-ratification made it retroactively legal to
> > publish, I'm not sure CFJ 3726 is about the revised timeline. I think it
> > was called before the report self-ratified, and CFJs are to be judged
> > according to the legal situation at the time. I'm not completely sure,
> but
> > I lean toward saying it's TRUE.
> >
> > I'd be interested to hear about precedent or arguments about
> > self-ratification of reports making them retroactively legal to publish,
> or
> > whether CFJs judgements should change after ratification events.
> >
> > On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:04 D. Margaux, wrote:
> >
> > > Hmm. If the intent didn’t work, the report self-ratification did. So I
> > > think we are in the same place anyway.
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM James Cook
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D.
> > > > Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir
> document.
> > > > E said:
> > > >
> > > > > I intend without objection to ratify the following document as true
> > at
> > > > the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
> > > >
> > > > But there is no mechanism for em to do that. Ratifying D. Margaux's
> > > > document according to 1551 would make it true at the time it was
> > > > published, not at "00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019". (R1551 has a provision
> > > > for when "the document explicitly specifies a different past time as
> > > > being the time the document was true" but the document itself,
> clearly
> > > > delineated with {...}, does not contain that past date.
> > > >
> > > > So, I'm currently of the opinion that the ratification didn't work
> > > > after all, and so the fine was EFFECTIVE and D. Margaux still has
> > > > blots. Or is there some reason to think the intent worked?
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 03:59, James Cook
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> > > > > 3726 a couple of times.
> > > > >
> > > > > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
> > > > > the next couple of days.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> > > > >
> > > > > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> > > > > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was
> > > effective."
> > > > >
> > > > > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux
> > has
> > > > > more than 0 blots."
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Arguments
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting
> around
> > > > > when D. Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread
> > > "[Referee]
> > > > > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> > > > > everything here.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> > > > > =
> > > > >
> > > > > 2019-05-20 01:25
> > > > >
> > > > > The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux
> > has
> > > 0
> > > > > blots.
> > > > >
> > > > > 2019-05-20 20:32
> > > > >
> > > > > D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to
> > > ratify
> > > > > it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
> > > > >
> > > > > { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spa
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727
In the new timeline, it was accurate from the time it was published, but
inaccurate until the time it was published. R2143 says you shall not
publish inaccurate information in an official report, but doesn't comment
on exactly when it should not be inaccurate. If it means at the exact
instant if publication, that's exactly when the change happened, so I'm not
sure what to make of it.
Also there's still the issue of the CFJ being called before it
self-ratified. I believe when rules refer to the past that's affected by
ratification, but I'm not sure about CFJs, which are explicitly said to be
about the legal situation at the time.
On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:23 D. Margaux, wrote:
> I think the self ratification makes it retroactively accurate though...
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:22 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> > Wasn't omd's finger-pointing about publishing inaccurate information in
> the
> > reports?
> >
> > On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:18 Aris Merchant, <
> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Why would the legality of publishing the report matter?
> > >
> > > -Aris
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:16 PM James Cook
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In R1551's hypothetical timeline the gamete was minimally modified
> when
> > > the
> > > > report was published... it seems tricky to determine whether it was
> > false
> > > > at that exact time.
> > > >
> > > > Even if we assume the self-ratification made it retroactively legal
> to
> > > > publish, I'm not sure CFJ 3726 is about the revised timeline. I think
> > it
> > > > was called before the report self-ratified, and CFJs are to be judged
> > > > according to the legal situation at the time. I'm not completely
> sure,
> > > but
> > > > I lean toward saying it's TRUE.
> > > >
> > > > I'd be interested to hear about precedent or arguments about
> > > > self-ratification of reports making them retroactively legal to
> > publish,
> > > or
> > > > whether CFJs judgements should change after ratification events.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:04 D. Margaux,
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hmm. If the intent didn’t work, the report self-ratification did.
> So
> > I
> > > > > think we are in the same place anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM James Cook
> > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D.
> > > > > > Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir
> > > document.
> > > > > > E said:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I intend without objection to ratify the following document as
> > true
> > > > at
> > > > > > the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But there is no mechanism for em to do that. Ratifying D.
> Margaux's
> > > > > > document according to 1551 would make it true at the time it was
> > > > > > published, not at "00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019". (R1551 has a
> > provision
> > > > > > for when "the document explicitly specifies a different past time
> > as
> > > > > > being the time the document was true" but the document itself,
> > > clearly
> > > > > > delineated with {...}, does not contain that past date.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, I'm currently of the opinion that the ratification didn't
> work
> > > > > > after all, and so the fine was EFFECTIVE and D. Margaux still has
> > > > > > blots. Or is there some reason to think the intent worked?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 03:59, James Cook
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and
> forth
> > on
> > > > > > > 3726 a couple of times.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it
> > out
> > > > > > > the next couple of days.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> > > > > >
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727
I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D.
Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir document.
E said:
> I intend without objection to ratify the following document as true at the
> time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
But there is no mechanism for em to do that. Ratifying D. Margaux's
document according to 1551 would make it true at the time it was
published, not at "00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019". (R1551 has a provision
for when "the document explicitly specifies a different past time as
being the time the document was true" but the document itself, clearly
delineated with {...}, does not contain that past date.
So, I'm currently of the opinion that the ratification didn't work
after all, and so the fine was EFFECTIVE and D. Margaux still has
blots. Or is there some reason to think the intent worked?
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 03:59, James Cook wrote:
>
> Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> 3726 a couple of times.
>
> I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
> the next couple of days.
>
>
>
> This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
>
> CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
>
> CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
> more than 0 blots."
>
> 1. Arguments
>
>
> There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
> when D. Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
> Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> everything here.
>
> 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> =
>
> 2019-05-20 01:25
>
> The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
> blots.
>
> 2019-05-20 20:32
>
> D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to ratify
> it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
>
> { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
> have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
>
> Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
> Spaaace Rules has its default value.
>
> There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
> Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
> the Spaaace Rules. }
>
> 2019-05-21 10:20
>
> D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
> weekly reports:
>
> {there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
> recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
> switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
> value.}
>
> {there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
> recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
> switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default value.}
>
> 2019-05-25 22:02
>
> omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
> information in the above reports.
>
> 2019-05-25 22:54
>
> D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
> behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
> pointed".
>
> 2019-05-26 22:43
>
> Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand of
> Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following message:
>
> > Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information in the
> > report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the good
> of
> > the game, but there were also other options available (proposal, or
> > ratification without objection, which would have been unlikely to cause
> any
> > problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for the good of the
> > game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the circumstances though,
> > some additional penalty is warranted for failing to adequately consider
> and
> > discuss options that would have avoided violating the rules.
> >
> > I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of Justice on D.
> > Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. The required
> > words are {optimize, preferentially, consider, supersubtilize,
> > adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}.
>
> 2019-05-26 22:50
>
> D. Margaux ratifies the document they earlier announced intent to
> ratify.
>
> 2019-05-27 14:11
>
> D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727.
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727
In R1551's hypothetical timeline the gamete was minimally modified when the
report was published... it seems tricky to determine whether it was false
at that exact time.
Even if we assume the self-ratification made it retroactively legal to
publish, I'm not sure CFJ 3726 is about the revised timeline. I think it
was called before the report self-ratified, and CFJs are to be judged
according to the legal situation at the time. I'm not completely sure, but
I lean toward saying it's TRUE.
I'd be interested to hear about precedent or arguments about
self-ratification of reports making them retroactively legal to publish, or
whether CFJs judgements should change after ratification events.
On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:04 D. Margaux, wrote:
> Hmm. If the intent didn’t work, the report self-ratification did. So I
> think we are in the same place anyway.
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> > I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D.
> > Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir document.
> > E said:
> >
> > > I intend without objection to ratify the following document as true at
> > the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
> >
> > But there is no mechanism for em to do that. Ratifying D. Margaux's
> > document according to 1551 would make it true at the time it was
> > published, not at "00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019". (R1551 has a provision
> > for when "the document explicitly specifies a different past time as
> > being the time the document was true" but the document itself, clearly
> > delineated with {...}, does not contain that past date.
> >
> > So, I'm currently of the opinion that the ratification didn't work
> > after all, and so the fine was EFFECTIVE and D. Margaux still has
> > blots. Or is there some reason to think the intent worked?
> >
> > On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 03:59, James Cook wrote:
> > >
> > > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> > > 3726 a couple of times.
> > >
> > > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
> > > the next couple of days.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> > >
> > > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> > > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was
> effective."
> > >
> > > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
> > > more than 0 blots."
> > >
> > > 1. Arguments
> > >
> > >
> > > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
> > > when D. Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread
> "[Referee]
> > > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> > > everything here.
> > >
> > > 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> > > =
> > >
> > > 2019-05-20 01:25
> > >
> > > The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has
> 0
> > > blots.
> > >
> > > 2019-05-20 20:32
> > >
> > > D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to
> ratify
> > > it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
> > >
> > > { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
> > > have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
> > >
> > > Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
> > > Spaaace Rules has its default value.
> > >
> > > There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
> > > Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
> > > the Spaaace Rules. }
> > >
> > > 2019-05-21 10:20
> > >
> > > D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
> > > weekly reports:
> > >
> > > {there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
> > > recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
> > > switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
> > > value.}
> > >
> > > {there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
> > > recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
> > > switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default
> value.}
> > &g
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727
Hm, maybe in the hypothetical timeline the act of publishing can be thought
of as performative, so it's by definition correct. At least, that's how I
think of messages that successfully cause actions to be performed.
Still thinking about CFJ retroactivity though.
On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:36 James Cook, wrote:
> In the new timeline, it was accurate from the time it was published, but
> inaccurate until the time it was published. R2143 says you shall not
> publish inaccurate information in an official report, but doesn't comment
> on exactly when it should not be inaccurate. If it means at the exact
> instant if publication, that's exactly when the change happened, so I'm not
> sure what to make of it.
>
> Also there's still the issue of the CFJ being called before it
> self-ratified. I believe when rules refer to the past that's affected by
> ratification, but I'm not sure about CFJs, which are explicitly said to be
> about the legal situation at the time.
>
> On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:23 D. Margaux, wrote:
>
>> I think the self ratification makes it retroactively accurate though...
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:22 PM James Cook wrote:
>>
>> > Wasn't omd's finger-pointing about publishing inaccurate information in
>> the
>> > reports?
>> >
>> > On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:18 Aris Merchant, <
>> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Why would the legality of publishing the report matter?
>> > >
>> > > -Aris
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:16 PM James Cook
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > In R1551's hypothetical timeline the gamete was minimally modified
>> when
>> > > the
>> > > > report was published... it seems tricky to determine whether it was
>> > false
>> > > > at that exact time.
>> > > >
>> > > > Even if we assume the self-ratification made it retroactively legal
>> to
>> > > > publish, I'm not sure CFJ 3726 is about the revised timeline. I
>> think
>> > it
>> > > > was called before the report self-ratified, and CFJs are to be
>> judged
>> > > > according to the legal situation at the time. I'm not completely
>> sure,
>> > > but
>> > > > I lean toward saying it's TRUE.
>> > > >
>> > > > I'd be interested to hear about precedent or arguments about
>> > > > self-ratification of reports making them retroactively legal to
>> > publish,
>> > > or
>> > > > whether CFJs judgements should change after ratification events.
>> > > >
>> > > > On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:04 D. Margaux,
>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hmm. If the intent didn’t work, the report self-ratification did.
>> So
>> > I
>> > > > > think we are in the same place anyway.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM James Cook
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements:
>> D.
>> > > > > > Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir
>> > > document.
>> > > > > > E said:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I intend without objection to ratify the following document as
>> > true
>> > > > at
>> > > > > > the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > But there is no mechanism for em to do that. Ratifying D.
>> Margaux's
>> > > > > > document according to 1551 would make it true at the time it was
>> > > > > > published, not at "00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019". (R1551 has a
>> > provision
>> > > > > > for when "the document explicitly specifies a different past
>> time
>> > as
>> > > > > > being the time the document was true" but the document itself,
>> > > clearly
>> > > > > > delineated with {...}, does not contain that past date.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > So, I'm currently of the opinion that the ratification didn't
>> work
>> > > > > > after all, and so the fine was EFFECTIVE and D. Margaux still
>> has
>> > > > > > blots. Or is there some reason to think the intent worked?
>> > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal 8177
> Here are the hypotheticals and my answers: These all make sense to me, though I haven't dug too deeply. I noticed a few things while researching whether ratification can in some sense "change the past". I'll post separately about that, although it looks like the CFJ won't depend on it. > (Incidentally, are the rules clear about when voting strength is determined? > At the time of end of voting period or time of assessment?) I was thinking about this the other day. I think it's time of assessment, based on my interpretation below, though my interpretation could be wrong. * A player's voting strength is a legal fiction that varies over time, much like ownership or switch values. * Rule 955 describes how to calculate the outcome of a decision. The calculation depends on voting strength, so the result of the calculation depends on when you do it. * Rule 955 says "The outcome of a decision is determined when it is resolved". I think that means we should do the calculation at that time. I don't see anything to say the voting strength at the time the vote was cast plays. any role.
DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727
Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
3726 a couple of times.
I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
the next couple of days.
This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
more than 0 blots."
1. Arguments
There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
when D. Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
everything here.
2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
=
2019-05-20 01:25
The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
blots.
2019-05-20 20:32
D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to ratify
it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
{ For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
Spaaace Rules has its default value.
There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
the Spaaace Rules. }
2019-05-21 10:20
D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
weekly reports:
{there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
value.}
{there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default value.}
2019-05-25 22:02
omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
information in the above reports.
2019-05-25 22:54
D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
pointed".
2019-05-26 22:43
Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand of
Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following message:
> Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information in the
> report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the good of
> the game, but there were also other options available (proposal, or
> ratification without objection, which would have been unlikely to cause any
> problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for the good of the
> game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the circumstances though,
> some additional penalty is warranted for failing to adequately consider and
> discuss options that would have avoided violating the rules.
>
> I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of Justice on D.
> Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. The required
> words are {optimize, preferentially, consider, supersubtilize,
> adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}.
2019-05-26 22:50
D. Margaux ratifies the document they earlier announced intent to
ratify.
2019-05-27 14:11
D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727.
2019-05-27 19:58
Aris calls what is later named CFJ 3726.
3. Effectiveness of the fine ignoring ratification
==
It is helpful to first consider whether the attempt to levy a fine would
have been effective if no ratifications had taken place.
I believe that Aris's attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice
by levying a fine (2019-05-26 22:43 message) met the requirements of
Rule 2557, so it remains only to check that it does not run afoul of any
of the conditions in Rule 2531 ("Any attempt to levy a fine is
INEFFECTIVE if...").
Condition 1 of Rule 2531:
The attempt in Aris's message included the value the fine (2 blots) and
the name of the person being fined (D. Margaux). The sentence performing
the action did not specify the specific reason for the fine (message is
copied earlier: "I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose..."). However,
Aris states the message earlier in the same message "...the information
in the report was inaccurate" which is part of eir attempt, so Condition
1 does not trigger.
Conditions 2 and 3 of Rule 2531:
The officer reports were false at the time they were published. For
example, The Astronomor's 2019-03-05 weekly report states that many
players own Spaceships, and that part of the report has long since
self-ratified (under Rule 2166), but D. Margaux's report claims no
Spaceships exist.
Therefore, ignoring the ratification of the more recent reports,
D. Margaux did commit a rule-breaking
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)
> The self-ratifying statements were about the current state at the time > they were published, Looking at judge G.'s "BREAKING NEW EVIDENCE" at the bottom of the judgement, it looks like there actually was a ratification of a document explicitly talking about the past, not just about the current state.
Re: DIS: What authorizes the Referee to impose the Cold Hand of Justice?
Thanks. I think that makes sense, and it certainly makes CFJ 3726 more interesting. I'll assume you're right unless I hear more about it. On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 01:13, Aris Merchant wrote: > Y’all, I think you’re overthinking this. “authorize” isn’t necessarily a > synonym for “enable”. According to Google, the definition is “give official > permission for or approval to”. I think telling someone they’re required to > do something as part of their job counts as “authorization” to do it > according to the common language meaning of the word authorize. > > -Aris > > On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 8:05 AM D. Margaux wrote: > > > Interesting catch! Is there any argument that, in this circumstance, MUST > > implies CAN? I think probably that argument doesn’t work, but here’s what > > it might say: > > > > There is no method for the Referee to discharge eir mandatory duties > > except by imposing the Cold Hand of Justice when warranted. If e CANNOT > > impose the Cold Hand of Justice when e MUST do so, then there is no LEGAL > > way for the Referee to perform eir duties. > > > > A *player*, of course, has in eir control a method to satisfy eir > > mandatory obligations—e can resign the office of Referee. But that result > > runs contrary to the implicit presuppositions that underlie the very > > creation of the Office of Referee—i.e., that a player could in theory > > assume that office and discharge its responsibilities. Unless the Referee > > CAN impose the Cold Hand when warranted, then there is no way for a player > > to assume the office of Referee and discharge its duties as required by > > rule. > > > > MUST would not imply CAN in all circumstances. For example, a player could > > pledge to deregister every other player; based on that pledge, e MUST do > > that but e probably CANNOT. What e *could* have done, however, is to not > > make the pledge in the first place. As a result, e had in eir control a > > method to satisfy eir mandatory obligations (not make the pledge in the > > first place). And that wouldn’t contradict any implicit presuppositions > > underlying the Rules, since the Rules presuppose that players may make > > pledges they can’t satisfy. > > > > The obvious problem with this whole interpretation is that imposing the > > Cold Hand is a regulated action under Rule 2125; regulated actions CAN be > > performed only by methods explicitly provided by rule; and there is no > > *explicit* mechanism for imposing the Cold Hand, only the implicit one > > described above. So I think, Kant notwithstanding, in this case MUST > > probably does not imply CAN... > > > > > On May 31, 2019, at 9:46 PM, James Cook wrote: > > > > > > In preparing judgements for CFJs 3726 and 3727, I realized I don't > > > know why the Referee CAN impose the Cold Hand of Justice. > > > > > > R2478 says the investigator SHALL, but not that e CAN. > > > > > > R2557 says that e CAN do so if the rules "authorize" em to, but I > > > don't see any rules authorizing anyone to do so. > > > > > > Am I missing something? > >
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727
Thanks, noted.
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:08, Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> I will make no claims as to the accuracy of the drafts, but you did forget
> a "what" in the wording "D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727." :)
>
> Jason Cobb
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 11:59 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> > 3726 a couple of times.
> >
> > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
> > the next couple of days.
> >
> >
> >
> > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> >
> > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
> >
> > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
> > more than 0 blots."
> >
> > 1. Arguments
> >
> >
> > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
> > when D. Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
> > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> > everything here.
> >
> > 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> > =
> >
> > 2019-05-20 01:25
> >
> > The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
> > blots.
> >
> > 2019-05-20 20:32
> >
> > D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to ratify
> > it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
> >
> > { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
> > have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
> >
> > Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
> > Spaaace Rules has its default value.
> >
> > There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
> > Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
> > the Spaaace Rules. }
> >
> > 2019-05-21 10:20
> >
> > D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
> > weekly reports:
> >
> > {there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
> > recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
> > switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
> > value.}
> >
> > {there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
> > recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
> > switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default value.}
> >
> > 2019-05-25 22:02
> >
> > omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
> > information in the above reports.
> >
> > 2019-05-25 22:54
> >
> > D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
> > behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
> > pointed".
> >
> > 2019-05-26 22:43
> >
> > Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand of
> > Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following message:
> >
> > > Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information in
> > the
> > > report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the
> > good of
> > > the game, but there were also other options available (proposal, or
> > > ratification without objection, which would have been unlikely to
> > cause any
> > > problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for the good of
> > the
> > > game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the circumstances
> > though,
> > > some additional penalty is warranted for failing to adequately
> > consider and
> > > discuss options that would have avoided violating the rules.
> > >
> > > I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of Justice on D.
> > > Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. The required
> > > words are {optimize, preferentially, consider, supersubtilize,
> > > adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}.
> >
> > 2019-05-26 22:50
> >
> > D. Margaux ratifies the document they earlier announced intent to
> > ratify.
> >
> > 2019-05-27 14:11
> >
> > D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727.
> >
> > 2019-05-27 19:58
> >
>
Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727
Oops, thanks, updated. On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:45, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > On Sun, 2 Jun 2019, James Cook wrote: > > > I believe the answers are yes, and so at the end of this message I will > > judge CFJ 3726 TRUE. Before I say why, I'd like explain why there could > > be doubt about this. > > > 6. An interpretation causing CFJ 3726 to be FALSE > > = > > Assuming I've not got things backwards somewhere else, I think you swapped > FALSE and TRUE at these points. > > Greetings, > Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Plot twist: new proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727
Also, I wrote some text arguing that D. Margaux is correct about the
document self-ratifying itself into being legal. It didn't end up
being relevant to my judgement, but I've already written it, so I
might as well publish it. (It's similar to the first draft of this
section, but I added two paragraphs about interpreting Rule 2143.)
5. The timeline hypothesized by rule 1551
=
When D. Margaux's reports self-ratified, according to Rule 1551, the
gamestate was "modified to what it would be if, at the time the ratified
document was published, the gamestate had been minimally modified to
make the ratified document as true and accurate as possible".
To understand how Rule 1551 modified the gamestate, the first step is to
understand the minimal modification that is hypothetically applied at
the time the document was published. This minimal modification is clear:
all switches created directly by the Politics and Spaaace Rules are
modified to be at their default values, and all entities and switches
created by the Clork or Astronomor according to those respective Rules
are removed so that they do not exist in the minimally modified
gamestate.
Having understood the hypothetical minimal modification, the next step
is to understand what would have happened had that minimal modification
been made when the reports were published.
Rule 2143 says "A person SHALL NOT publish information that is
inaccurate or misleading ... within a document purporting to be part of
any person or office's weekly or monthly report". In this hypothetical
timeline, the information in the document was false up until it was
published, and true from the time it was published onward. This leaves
it somewhat hard to determine whether D. Margaux published false
information, since the act of publication presumably refers to the time
the document was published.
With nothing more concrete to guide us, I think it's sensible to think
of D. Margaux's act of publishing the documents in this hypothetical
timeline as being performative: the act of publishing caused the
gamestate to be modified to make the documents true from that moment
onward. This is similar to the way many actions are performed in Agora:
for example, a player sends a mesage saying e expunges one blot, and it
is thereby true. It is not exactly the same thing, since in the case of
actions, one typically expresses them using a verb ("I expunge"),
whereas the documents assert that facts are true ("There are no
currently existing entities..."). But in the absense of any other way to
augment our understanding of the rules, Rule 217 tells us to augment the
rules by following this game custom.
Having established that, here is the hypothetical timeline:
* D. Margaux publishes correct Astronomor and Clork reports.
* omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
information in those reports.
* D. Margaux authorizes Aris to act on eir behalf for the investigation.
* Aris attempts to impose the Cold Hand of Justice, but the attempt is
INEFFECTIVE because D. Margaux did not violate the rules.
In this hypothetical timeline, the appropriate judgement of CFJ 3726
would be FALSE, since Aris's attempted imposition was INEFFECTIVE, and
the appropriate judgement of CFJ 3727 would be FALSE as well, since D.
Margaux did not gain any blots after the 2019-05-20 referee report,
which self-ratified before CFJ 3727 was called.
DIS: Plot twist: new proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727
Based on the recent discussion, here are my revised judgements. This
are due fairly soon; I'll probably publish it tomorrow morning in the
UTC-4 time zone (so, maybe around 13:00-ish) even though that feels a
bit rushed.
In case it's not clear, I'm pretty sure D. Margaux has 0 blots now,
and (based on my reasoning in the earlier draft) the gamestate now
contains a revised history in which the imposition was ineffective and
that D. Margaux never gained any blots, but Section 4 explains why my
new draft judgement doesn't take that into account.
This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
more than 0 blots."
1. Arguments
There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
when D. Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019, and continuing on the thread
"Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727" in June 2019. I will not try to
repeat everything here.
2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
=
2019-05-20 01:25
The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
blots.
2019-05-20 20:32
In the following message, D. Margaux publishes a document and declares intent
to ratify it at a particular time. (I have reformatted it and removed the
quotations of messages it is in reply to.)
> I intend without objection to ratify the following document as true at the
> time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
>
> { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules” have
> the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
>
> Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the Spaaace
> Rules has its default value.
>
> There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the Clork
> pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to the Spaaace
> Rules. }
>
> The document is false; the reason for ratifying it is that the subgames are
> defunct.
2019-05-21 10:20
D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
weekly reports:
{there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
value.}
{there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default value.}
2019-05-25 22:02
omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
information in the above reports.
2019-05-25 22:54
D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
pointed".
2019-05-26 22:43
Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand of
Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following message:
> Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information in the
> report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the good of
> the game, but there were also other options available (proposal, or
> ratification without objection, which would have been unlikely to cause any
> problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for the good of the
> game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the circumstances though,
> some additional penalty is warranted for failing to adequately consider and
> discuss options that would have avoided violating the rules.
>
> I act on behalf of D. Margaux to impose the Cold Hand of Justice on D.
> Margaux, penalizing em with a forgiveable fine of 2 blots. The required
> words are {optimize, preferentially, consider, supersubtilize,
> adjudication, law, good, bad, future, duty}.
2019-05-26 22:50
D. Margaux attempts to ratify without objection the document e earlier
announced intent to ratify.
2019-05-27 14:11
D. Margaux calls what is later named CFJ 3727.
2019-05-27 19:58
Aris calls what is later named CFJ 3726.
2019-05-27 20:32
The reports D. Margaux published 7 days earlier self-ratify.
3. D. Margaux's attempt to ratify without objection failed.
===
D. Margaux attempted to ratify a document by ratification without
objection (Rule 2202). Performing actions "without objection" is
described by Rules 1728 and 2595, and requires that "A person (the
initiator) published an announcement of intent that ... specified the
action intended to be taken and the method(s) to be used".
D. Margaux's announcement stated that they intended to ratify the
document "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019", but
Re: DIS: DMARC bounces (attn Murphy)
> Sure, it would fix the DMARC issue, but it would also make it very hard to > tell at a glance who sent which message. Modern mailers have a lot of > features for that, but they’re all based around the from line. I just checked the way Discourse does it (or did it in October 2018). I see for example an email from "Marcos Benevides ", where the nix...@discoursemail.com is the same for all senders. With that method you could see the name at a glance, but it might be tricky to tell exactly which email address it was sent from, which is probably bad. But maybe it could be configured to say "Jon Doe (john...@webmail.com) ".
Re: DIS: DMARC bounces (attn Murphy)
On Wed., Jun. 5, 2019, 21:03 James Cook, wrote: > > Sure, it would fix the DMARC issue, but it would also make it very hard > to > > tell at a glance who sent which message. Modern mailers have a lot of > > features for that, but they’re all based around the from line. > > I just checked the way Discourse does it (or did it in October 2018). > I see for example an email from "Marcos Benevides > ", where the nix...@discoursemail.com is the > same for all senders. > > With that method you could see the name at a glance, but it might be > tricky to tell exactly which email address it was sent from, which is > probably bad. But maybe it could be configured to say "Jon Doe > (john...@webmail.com) ". > (I'm not suggesting we use Discourse, just that maybe similar options are available with the current software.) >
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3735 assigned to Falsifian
Proto-judgement:
This message contains my judgement of CFJ 3735, called by Baron von
Vaderham, with the stament: "There was only one valid bid, namely for 1
coin by CuddleBeam."
Caller's arguments
==
> Trigon bid 2 Mexican pesos.
> Mexican pesos are coins.
> Valid currency for this auctions is coins
>
> Since Trigon bid two coins, and nowhere was it stated that the only
> legal tender was an AGORAN coin, I argue that there were TWO valid bids.
Caller's evidence
=
omd wrote:
> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 10:49:21 PM
> To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org
> Subject: BUS: Re: OFF: Dollar Auction
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 12:29 AM omd wrote:
> > I hereby initiate an Auction. I am the Auctioneer and the Announcer;
> > the currency is coins, and the minimum bid is one coin.
> >
> > This Auction contains a single lot, and that lot contains a single\
> > item, namely,
> >
> > ONE UNITED STATES DOLLAR.
>
> As the Announcer, I announce the end of this Auction. There was only
> one valid bid, namely for 1 coin by CuddleBeam. E is the winner of
> the only lot, and is now required to transfer payment.
Gratuitous arguments from V.J. Rada
===
> Words take their ordinary meaning when not defined by the rules. Coins are
> defined by the rules as "the official currency of Agora tracked by the
> Treasuror" under rule 2483 "Coins". A currency is "a class of asset defined
> as such by its backing document". A backing document is a rule or Contract.
> Therefore pesos, which are defined by the laws of Mexico, are not coins.
Timeline
All times are UTC.
2019-06-05 07:29
omd initiates an auction, specifying "the currency is coins".
2019-06-05 12:57
Cuddle Beam announces: "I bid 1 coin."
2019-06-06 21:24
Trigon announces: "I bid TWO UNITED STATES DOLLARS."
2019-06-07 01:59
Trigon announces: "I bid TWO MEXICAN PESOS."
Judgement
=
The below is essentially V.J. Rada's argument, plus a bit more about
what "UNITED STATES DOLLARS" and "MEXICAN PESOS" are.
Rule 2550 regulates bidding in auctions:
> A person authorized to bid on an Auction CAN do so by
> announcement, specifying the amount of the Auction's currency to
> bid.
The Rules define a currency as "a class of asset defined as such by its
backing document". Rule 2166 ("Assets") defines assets to be entities
"defined as such by a document that has been granted Mint Authority by
the Rules", and defines the only kinds of document that have Mint
Authority: rules and contracts.
The question is: did either of Trigon's bids specify an amount of the
auction's currency?
The auction's currency is "coins". The rules only define one currency
called "coins". I don't know whether any contracts exist that also
define currencies called "coins", but if there are any they haven't been
seen in a while. So it's clear that omd was referring to the currency
"Coins" defined by Rule 2483.
In the ordinary language sense, "UNITED STATES DOLLARS" and "MEXICAN
PESOS" are units of currency. They could conceivably refer to coins, but
they only way the could refer to Agoran Coins is if Trigon was using
Agoran jargon I'm not aware of, and that doesn't seem likely. (Slightly
relevant: G. recently posted on the discussion list about CFJ 3663,
which has some observations about jargon.)
I judge CFJ 3735 TRUE.
DIS: Re: OFF: End of June Zombie Auction
Warning: I don't think paying Agora for one's prize will cause that zombie's Master switch to be flipped to the payer, and I plan to call a CFJ about it once someone tries to claim their zombie (easier to phrase the CFJ after that's happened). (I think the winners are still obligated to pay for their prizes.) My argument: R2551 says: > The winner of a lot SHALL pay the Auctioneer the number of the > Auction's currency equal to eir bid, in a single payment, in a > timely fashion. When e does so, if the auctioneer CAN transfer the > items in that lot to that winner at will, e immediately does so; > otherwise, e SHALL do so in a timely fashion. I don't think Agora CAN "transfer" a zombie to the winner. In a zombie auction, transferring means flipping the zombie's Master switch. That's a regulated action, and no rule says Agora can do it.
