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 > >
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
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
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.
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: 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
> >
>
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: (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)?
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: 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.
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.
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
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.
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)
> 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 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.
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: 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.
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.
DIS: Re: BUS: return None
On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 02:16, Owen Jacobson wrote: > I register myself. > > -o Welcome, o! I cause you to receive a Welcome Package.
Re: DIS: the end never games
Sloth Stone (monthly, 70%): Wielding the stone fulfills all of the wielder's monthly duties, except any duty to publish a Collection Notice. Stone of Obligation (weekly, 25%): Specify a player. That player MUST perform The Ritual in the following Agoran week. (I'm not sure if this works, since the stone's power reverts to 0 after wielding.)
Re: DIS: the end never games
Duplicity Stone (monthly, 50%): Specify a player and a contract they are party to. The player ceases to be a party to the contract.
Re: DIS: the end never games
>- Reality Stone (monthly, 40%): Specify a valid value for an > instance of any unsecured switch; that switch is flipped to that > value. We probably want to secure Ribbon Ownership first, so you can't win the game just by winning the Reality Stone in the auction. Maybe Festivity too, since that seems important? Basic question about switches: if it weren't for R2125 (regulated actions), would I just be able to flip by announcement any switch that isn't secured or otherwise explicitly protected by the rules? I'm guessing no, since there's no reason to expect that just saying something makes it true, but I'm not confident I understand this properly. I like your proposed rule. It sounds fun.
Re: DIS: the end never games
It seems unclear how long the change lasts. Does the change to voting strength persist if the stone's power drops back to 0? On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 05:32, Aris Merchant wrote: > > 3 is currently the default, so it's only an increase of 2 actually. > > -Aris > > On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 8:45 AM ATMunn wrote: > > > I really like this idea, actually. My only initial concern is that the > > Power Stone may be too powerful.
DIS: Re: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8177
On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 12:08, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I vote AGAINST 8177. > I act on behalf of Telnaior to vote AGAINST 8177. > > As commented earlier, I was knocked out of space early on, as have > others. Willing to sit out of a subgame this long, but not through > a whole revival. Separate question: why does this make 8177 bad? The proposal allows the game to be continued fairly easily (I feel like the main obstacle remains finding an Astronomor). If the state is reset, that's better for players who didn't get to play the first time around. I feel like I'm missing something.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8177
> R217 covers this via the precedent initially set in CFJ 1500, asserts > that words go back to having their common language meaning when not > defined by the rules. Amusingly, CFJ 1500 covered the exact word > "politician" (and if we had to respect that ancient and entirely > different meaning, then the game would be really confused). Thanks, I think I agree now that while the rules are suspended, sectors and politicians don't exist in the sense defined by the Spaaace and Politics rules. I'm still a bit uncertain about what happens when the rules are revived. We seem to believe that immediately after R2588 was first enacted, no sectors existed. I can think of a few reasons for that: * it's the only straightforward assumption, * the text about creating or destroying sectors can be taken to imply that a sector can only exist after it's created * R217 defers to the game custom that at the moment when a type of entity is first defined, none of those entities exist Are there others? If D. Margaux's new rule said "To give the officers a break, the Spaaace and Politics rules are temporarily suspended during the first Eastman week of every month," then I think a competing interpretation would appear: that every time the Spaaace rules come back into force, all the facts about sectors existing and not existing that were true immediately before the suspension become true again, just like the facts directly asserted by those rules would (e.g. "The Astronomor is an office"). I'm not sure it's a better interpretation, but it's enough to make me uncertain. I imagine there must be precedent where old rules defining entities have been re-enacted, and the players assumed no such entities existed immediately after the re-enactment. Maybe that's enough to favour the interpretation that no sectors exist when the games are revived. But I'd be happier if it were more clear. Are there other reasons to favour that interpretation? > Ask yourself: if, while these rules were "deactivated", another rule > came along and defined one of those terms differently, what would > happen? If we respected the old definition as per R1586, then those rules > wouldn't be "without effect". If we respected a new definition, then what > happens when the rules are re-activated? I agree that would interact badly with my "start from where we left off" interpretation. But, assuming that doesn't happen, does it matter that it could have? There are probably lots of other strange things that could have happened in the meantime that would cause the rules to behave strangely upon being reinstated, like defining "office" to mean "integer". (Though I wish I could come up with an example more similar to this situation.)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8177
> [* the rules must define a switch for it to exist, and a rule with no > force or effect includes no force or effect for its definitions - note > R1586 is only power-2 so this "no force or effect" clause would overrule > R1586. So if the switch doesn't exist while the rule is suspended, it is > recreated when the suspension ends, which means in its default state]. What about sectors, politicians, and other entities that aren't switches or assets? I can't see anything other than the third paragraph of R1586 implying that a generic entity is destroyed when its defining rule goes away, and I don't think it applies in this case since this isn't an amendment.
DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie Auction
> I apologize if this message comes through as a duplicate. I sent it earlier > then received a message that my mailing list membership had been disabled. I received the message the first time. If you're ever unsure, you can check the mailing list archives, linked to from https://agoranomic.org/.
Re: DIS: What to do to start?
On Sun, 19 May 2019 at 17:28, Bernie Brackett wrote: > I joined Agora a month ago or so, but I got overwhelmed by not having any > idea what was going on despite reading the ruleset. I also didn't have very > much time to see what was going on, but now I do. What's something I could > do to start with Agora? A few ideas: * Side games. Unfortunately Spaaace and Politics are effectively frozen right now, maybe because the officer's duties are not being performed. But it looks like Trigon has done some work planning the "Arcadia tournament". For now you could take a look at that message and comment about the proposed rules. * Join D. Margaux's Church of the Ritual. As players, we are required by The Rules to perform the ritual every week, and you could help elevate that to a sacred duty. So far nobody's joined; I explained my own reasons in an earlier message but they may not apply to you. * If you're feeling adventurous, you could try deputising as Astronomor or Clork to get Spaaace or Politics going again (publishing a weekly report might be enough to start). That's probably more effective if you're planning to make it an ongoing commitment. * You mention you have no idea what's going on. If you could write a bit more about that, maybe it could start a conversation we could all learn something from, and maybe you could publish a Thesis about it (R1367), e.g. a tutorial for new players or a critique of how the current setup makes things difficult. * Propose a silly new rule?
DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: May 2019
The history for R2138 is missing Proposal 8176. That probably means the version number is wrong too. On Fri., May 17, 2019, 20:54 Reuben Staley, wrote: > THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET > > These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/ > > Date of last official ruleset of this type: 17 Apr 2019 > Date of this ruleset: 17 May 2019 > > Number of rules currently enacted: 142 > > Most recent change to this ruleset: Rule 2139 'The Registrar' amended by > Proposal 8176 'Zombies take care of this now', 13 May 2019 > > Highest ID'd rule in this ruleset: 2597 > Highest ID'd Proposal Passed: 8176 > Highest ID'd Rule Enacted: 2597 > > > > Table of Contents: > > The Game of Agora > * Rule 101: The Game of Agora > * Rule 1698: Agora Is A Nomic > * Rule 2596: The Ritual > Players > * Rule 869: How to Join and Leave Agora > * Rule 478: Fora > * Rule 2139: The Registrar > * Rule 1789: Cantus Cygneus > General Definitions > * Rule 2152: Mother, May I? > * Rule 2509: Agoran Numbers > * Rule 2125: Regulated Actions > * Rule 1023: Agoran Time > * Rule 1728: Dependent Action Methods > * Rule 2595: Performing a Dependent Action > * Rule 2124: Agoran Satisfaction > * Rule 2518: Determinacy > * Rule 2505: Random Choices > * Rule 2517: Conditionals and Extricability > Entities > * Rule 1586: Definition and Continuity of Entities > * Rule 2162: Switches > * Rule 1688: Power > * Rule 2140: Power Controls Mutability > Proposals > * Rule 2350: Proposals > * Rule 1607: Distribution > * Rule 2137: The Assessor > * Rule 106: Adopting Proposals > * Rule 2597: Line-item Veto > Rules & Regulations > * Rule 2141: Role and Attributes of Rules > * Rule 217: Interpreting the Rules > * Rule 1030: Precedence between Rules > * Rule 2240: No Cretans Need Apply > * Rule 105: Rule Changes > * Rule 2493: Regulations > * Rule 2486: The Royal Parade > * Rule 1051: The Rulekeepor > * Rule 1681: The Logical Rulesets > * Rule 2221: Cleanliness > * Rule 2429: Bleach > Voting > * Rule 693: Agoran Decisions > * Rule 107: Initiating Agoran Decisions > * Rule 2528: Voting Methods > * Rule 683: Voting on Agoran Decisions > * Rule 208: Resolving Agoran Decisions > * Rule 955: Determining the Will of Agora > * Rule 879: Quorum > * Rule 2422: Voting Strength > * Rule 2127: Conditional Votes > * Rule 2168: Extending the voting period > * Rule 1950: Decisions with Adoption Indices > * Rule 2034: Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges > Offices & Reporting > * Rule 1006: Offices > * Rule 2154: Election Procedure > * Rule 2573: Impeachment > * Rule 2160: Deputisation > * Rule 2138: The Associate Director of Personnel > * Rule 2472: Office Incompatibilities > * Rule 2143: Official Reports and Duties > * Rule 2379: No News Is Some News > Documents > * Rule 1551: Ratification > * Rule 2202: Ratification Without Objection > * Rule 2201: Self-Ratification > Justice > * Rule 2556: Penalties > * Rule 2555: Blots > * Rule 2478: Vigilante Justice > * Rule 2479: Official Justice > * Rule 2557: Removing Blots > * Rule 2531: Referee Accountability > Calls for Judgement > * Rule 991: Calls for Judgement > * Rule 591: Delivering Judgements > * Rule 911: Motions and Moots > * Rule 2175: Judicial Retraction and Excess > * Rule 2492: Recusal > * Rule 2246: Submitting a CFJ to the Referee > Obligations & Contracts > * Rule 2471: No Faking > * Rule 2450: Pledges > * Rule 2466: Acting on Behalf > * Rule 2519: Consent > * Rule 1742: Contracts > Assets > * Rule 2166: Assets > * Rule 2576: Ownership > * Rule 2577: Asset Actions > * Rule 2578: Currencies > * Rule 2579: Fee-based Actions > Economics > * Rule 2456: The Treasuror > * Rule 2483: Economics > * Rule 2496: Rewards > * Rule 2559: Paydays > * Rule 2499: Welcome Packages > * Rule 2585: Birthday Gifts > Auctions > * Rule 2545: Auctions > * Rule 2549: Auction Initiation > * Rule 2550: Bidding > * Rule 2551: Auction End > * Rule 2552: Auction Termination > * Rule 2584: Free Auctions > The Undead > * Rule 2532: Zombies > * Rule 2574: Zombie Life Cycle > * Rule 1885: Zombie Auctions > Spaaace! > * Rule 2588: Sectors > * Rule 2589: Galaxy Maintenance > * Rule 2590: The Astronomor > * Rule 2591: Spaceships > * Rule 2592: Spaceship Energy > * Rule 2593: Space Battles > * Rule 2594: Fame > Politics > * Rule 2533: Political Parties > * Rule 2534: Clork > * Rule 2535: Echelon Forms > * Rule 2536: Taken Under Advisement > * Rule 2537: Balloons > * Rule 2538: Party Favours > * Rule 2539: Retirement > *
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: Proto-contract: The People's Ritual Committee
Following up on the reply I just sent, here's a contract that's more
in line with my own goals right now. Suggestions very welcome: it's
probably buggy; I wonder if it could be simplified; and the flavour
could probably be improved.
I think it would be funny if both this contract and the Church of the
Ritual contract end up being taken up by different players, though
this contract ends up looking kind of silly if that happens.
{
This contract is called the People's Ritual Committee
MANIFESTO
The responsibility of The Ritual must be shared. This committee exists to
ensure that players cannot benefit unjustly from the labours of others who
perform The Ritual, by shunning Selfish Capitalists who hoard their Coins and
do not perform The Ritual.
MEMBERSHIP
Any player CAN become a party to this contract, or cease to be a party to this
contract, by announcement.
OBLIGATIONS
Parties to this contract SHALL NOT support a Selfish Capitalist in any of the
following ways:
* Transferring any asset to em.
* Voting for em in an election.
* Casting any vote other than AGAINST in a proposal for which the Selfish
Capitalist is the author.
DEFINITIONS
People's Credits are a fixed currency (currency that cannot be transferred).
The Standard of Citizenship, abbreviated SoC, is defined to be ((S - C) / N)
rounded down to the nearest integer, where
* S is the sum of People's Credit balances of parties to this contract;
* C is the number of Coins owned by this contract; and
* N is the number of parties to this contract.
A Selfish Capitalist is any player whose People's Credit balance is less than
SoC - 14.
FROM EACH ACORDING TO EIR ABILITY
Whenever a player performs The Ritual, e is granted 7 People's Credits.
Whenever a player transfers Coins to this contract, e is granted 1 People's
Credit per Coin.
TO EACH ACCORDING TO EIR NEED
Whenever this contract owns at least 7 Coins and a player:
* has a People's Credit balance of at least 7 and also at least SoC - 4, and
* has been a party to this contract continuously for the past 7 days,
that player CAN take 7 Coins from this contract. When e does so, 7 of eir
People's Credits are destroyed.
RECORDKEEPING
The recordkeepor for People's Credit is the most recent person who announced
eir desire to be recordkeepor, unless e has since ceased to be a party to this
contract or ceased to be a player, in which case there is no recordkeepor.
}
DIS: Re: BUS: Church of Ritual
> I propose the following as a contract and agree to be bound by it if it is > accepted before next Saturday. I modified it to eliminate some of the > potentially dangerous stuff. This is not a scam. This is a cool contract, so I feel I should say why I haven't joined: * I like Coins (more Coins = more fun, clearly), so I'd prefer a contract that makes me less likely to have to spend Coins on The Ritual, not more. * I'm trying to follow the rules (within reason), and this contract would put whether or not I'm following the rules outside my control (...MUST prevent all other players from becoming the faithful). I think these reasons are fairly specific to my own attitude to the game right now, so I think it could make sense for others to join, and I really hope people do. Counter-contract coming up in a separate message.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Side-Game Suspension Act
> I think all the R105 requirements are satisfied by publishing the rule that > contains the change, i.e. it's if there was an SLR published in the 4-60 day > time window beforehand. Oh, that's interesting. Let me check my understanding... R105 says the full text of the rule change, and the method for changing it, must be published in the 4-60 day window. Interpretation A: If an SLR were published in that period containing the Side Game Suspension Act, it would contain the text "If this Rule is triggered ... this Rule is automatically repealed". So I guess "this rule is automatically repealed" is the full text of the change, and "If this Rule is triggered" is the method? Interpretation B: When I first read that part of R105, I thought it meant the specific change to be made had to be published ahead of time (e.g. by distributing a proposal explicitly saying what changes, or by writing "I intend ... to banish The Ritual"), and the "method to be used for changing the rule" requirement meant that you had to justify in that same message which provision in the rules you're invoking to make the change (e.g. the proposal mechanism, or the mechanism of banishing The Ritual) as a way to prove to the other players that the change really will happen . I'm not sure how well I've explained myself. But if people have been using Interpretation A, I guess Rule 217 would favour that one, which is a good thing.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election
Thanks, I'll try that. Though in this case I didn't even find it in spam. On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 16:36, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I also received the original message (via an enterprise gmail if it > matters). > > Note a couple months ago when I migrated to gmail I had to explicitly > whitelist everything with to:agoranomic.org because some people kept ending > up in spam (can't remember if Murphy was one of them). > > On 5/10/2019 11:10 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > As on the previous occasion, I got the original message. > > > > Greetings, > > Ørjan. > > > > On Sat, 11 May 2019, D. Margaux wrote: > > > >> Below is Murphy’s message from the website, which somehow hasn’t come > >> through. > >> > >> I declare candidacy for Assessor. > >> > >> Can you have an election for imposed offices? I thought Comptrollor was > >> imposed, but not 100% sure. > >> > >> > >>> BUS: Elections > >>> Edward Murphy Wed, 08 May 2019 19:44:51 -0700 > >>> > >>> For each of these interim offices, as ADoP, I initiate an election for > >>> that office (current holder if any in parentheses): > >>> Arbitor (Aris) > >>> Assessor (D. Margaux) > >>> Astronomor (twg) > >>> Clork (twg) > >>> Comptroller > >>> Herald > >>> Prime Minister > >>> Referee > >>> Registrar (Falsifian) > >>> Treasuror (Falsifian) > >>
DIS: Re: BUS: Election
> Can you have an election for imposed offices? I thought Comptrollor was > imposed, but not 100% sure. Yes, Comptrollor is imposed. I sent a message about it at 04:24 UTC.
Re: DIS: Missing messages from Murphy
On Sat, 11 May 2019 at 03:49, James Cook wrote: > These messages appear in the archive but I never received them. > Pointing this out in case others haven't either: > > 2019-04-28 > * Transferred karma to Falsifian.* Awarded efficiency favours. > * Published ADoP's weekly r.port. > > 2019-05-09: > * Initiated a bunch of elections. > * Voted FOR Proposal 8176. > * Published the ADoP's weekly report. Aris mentioned a similar problem in [1]. Murphy, as an experiment, I wonder if it would be worth trying the backup list, in case this is some incompatibility between your email provider (zoho.com?), the agoranomic.org mailing list, and our email providers (GMail in my case). I don't know a lot about email and am mostly guessing here. [1] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-April/040247.html
DIS: Missing messages from Murphy
These messages appear in the archive but I never received them. Pointing this out in case others haven't either: 2019-04-28 * Transferred karma to Falsifian.* Awarded efficiency favours. * Published ADoP's weekly r.port. 2019-05-09: * Initiated a bunch of elections. * Voted FOR Proposal 8176. * Published the ADoP's weekly report.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Side-Game Suspension Act
> - "Automatic rules repeals" are a little dangerous because > if there's uncertainty as to the conditions the ruleset may change > automagically without visible trace. It's generally better to tie ruleset > changes to a required statement of change that can be hunted up in > the lists, and even better practice if there's a bit of a warning in > case someone wants to point out an error in the permitting conditions, > e.g.: > > "[When both systems have been revived], any player can cause this rule > to repeal itself with Notice". I think the second-last paragraph of Rule 105 requires the warning period. It also says the "full text" of any rule change must be published. I guess for a repeal of a rule that means some text explicitly saying the rule is repealed must be published.
DIS: Re: BUS: Side-Game Suspension Act
For what it's worth, I'm interested in Spaaace!, but not enough to put
time yet into assembling a new Astronomor's report when more basic
officers' duties are unfilled.
Is there much harm in just leaving the Astronomor office (effectively)
vacant until someone finds the time? Not that I feel strongly, since I
haven't got any Fame yet anyway. (I'm less familiar with the Politics
subgame.) And I do agree it would be fun to try out this mechanism.
Nit: Spaaace has three As.
On Wed, 8 May 2019 at 16:03, D Margaux wrote:
>
> We should probably do something about Spaace and Politics, since there’s
> little interest in them, but the rules have lots of obligations that are
> going unfulfilled. We could repeal those rules, but I thought this could be
> a nice solution in case there is interest in reviving the games when people
> come back.
>
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> Title: Side-Game Suspension Act
> AI: 3
> Text:
>
> The offices of Astronomor and Clork are made vacant.
>
> All switches defined by or created by the Politics Rules or the Spaace Rules
> are flipped to their default values. All entities created by the Politics
> Rules or the Spaace Rules are destroyed.
>
> Enact a rule (power=3) entitled “Space & Politics Suspension” with the
> following text:
>
> {
>
> 1. The Spaace Rules are defined to be Rules 2588, 2589, 2590, 2591, 2592,
> and 259.
>
> 2. The Politics Rules are defined to be Rules 2533, 2534, 2535, 2536, 2537,
> 2538, 2539, 2540, 2586, 2542, and 2543.
>
> 3. Unless Spaace has been Revived, the Spaace Rules are suspended and have
> no force or effect.
>
> 4. Unless Politics has been Revived, the Politics Rules are suspended and
> have no force or effect.
>
> 5. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Spaace (unless Spaace has already been
> Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office of Astronomor.
>
> 6. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Politics (unless Politics has already
> been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office of Clork.
>
> 7. This Rule automatically repeals itself when Politics and Spaace have both
> been Revived.
>
> 8. Any player CAN with Agoran Consent trigger this Rule. If this Rule is
> triggered, the following events happen in order: (a) the Politics Rules are
> automatically repealed (unless Politics has been Revived), (b) the Spaace
> Rules are automatically repealed (unless Spaace has been Revived), and (c)
> this Rule is automatically repealed.
>
> }
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie Auction Status (unofficial report)
Oops, you're right that the first auction is over. And I'd hoped that was a new loophole I'd discovered. On Fri, 10 May 2019 at 01:31, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > The first one's over now right? > (fwiw, I plan to bid again to keep the 2nd auction going so you > can't claim two :) ) > > > On 5/9/2019 4:53 PM, James Cook wrote: > > Two zombie auctions are ongoing. > > > > > > First auction. Initiated 2019-05-04. > > > > Lots: > > 1. Tarhalindur > > > > Bids: > > 2019-05-04 15:44 UTC. Falsifian. 1 Coin > > > > > > Second auction. Initiated 2019-05-09. > > > > Lots: > > 1. V.J. Rada > > 2. Telnaior > > 3. L > > 4. Baron von Vaderham > > > > Bids: > > 2019-05-09 13:56 UTC. Falsifian. 1 Coin > > 2019-05-09 14:35 UTC. Gaelan. 1 Coin. > > 2019-05-09 15:00 UTC. G.. 5 Coins. > > 2019-05-09 15:07 UTC. D. Margaux. 2 Coins. > >
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8176
> IDAuthor(s) AITitle > --- > 8176 G. 2.0 Zombies take care of this now On Proposal 8176 I vote AGAINST if a Notice of Veto has been published specifying Proposal 8176, otherwise FOR.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8174A and 8175
Reminder: I believe the voting period ends in 29 hours. Any thoughts on SLR ratification? On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 21:19, Aris Merchant wrote: > > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the > quorum is 3, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are > conditional votes). > > ID Author(s) AITitle > --- > 8174A G. 1.0 Understated > 8175 Aris3.0 SLR Ratification > > The proposal pool is currently empty. > > Legend: A : Distribution identifier for a second distribution. > > The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. > > // > ID: 8174 > Title: Understated > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: G. > Co-authors: > > > Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing: >A player CAN earn the set of assets associated with a reward >condition exactly once in a timely fashion each time e fulfills it >by stating how many assets e earns as a result of this action. > with: >A player CAN, by announcement, earn the set of assets associated >with a reward condition exactly once in a timely fashion each time >e fulfills it, provided the announcement specifies the action that >e performed and the amount of assets e earns as a result. > > [in addition to putting in the 'by announcement', use of the term > 'specify' invokes the same standard as in R478 that (by precedent) > allows for shorthand, references, quanging, etc.] > > // > ID: 8175 > Title: SLR Ratification > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: > > > Ratify the Short Logical Ruleset published on the 24th of February, 2019, > available here [1]. > > [1] > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2019-February/012797.html > > //
Re: DIS: Office Apportionment
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 03:58, James Cook wrote: > > On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 02:39, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > We need to decide who will take which offices. Currently we need a new > > ADoP, Arbitor, Assessor, Astronomor, Clork, Herald, Referee, Registrar, > > Tailor, and Treasuror. That's 10 vacant or essentially vacant offices. Of > > those, I would consider Arbitor and Assessor to be most urgent, as they are > > needed to maintain essential functions. I would consider Referee, > > Treasuror, and ADoP to be important, as they are needed to maintain > > non-essential functions that are nevertheless necessary for the game to > > remain healthy. I would consider Herald and Tailor to be relatively > > unimportant, given the current state of crisis. Finally, I would consider > > Astronomor and Clork to be candidates for deletion; in other words, I will > > propose to remove their respective systems if they go unfilled for much > > longer. There's no point in keeping a mini-game no one is playing, and an > > unmaintained mini-game is a dead mini-game. > > > > I'll take Arbitor, although I'm unsure if I'll want to hold on to it in the > > long run. I cannot take Assessor, since I already hold the incompatible > > office of Promotor, and anyway I'm not sure I'd want it. I'd take Referee, > > but it and Arbitor are incompatible. I want to run the next birthday > > tournament, so I was going to ask whoever the Herald turned out to be to > > appoint me as eir delegate. If there are no interested takers, I can hold > > down Herald temporarily too, although if I do I may propose the repeal of > > Karma to cut down on the workload. Normally, I wouldn't consider taking an > > office if I thought I might not have time for all of its present > > responsibilities, but as I said, I consider this a crisis. Who else is > > interested in holding an office, either permanently or temporarily (please > > state which like I did)? > > > > -Aris > > I'm happy to try out one office --- I'll hold it for a month, and then > resign if I decide I can't reliably fulfill the duty. I don't have a > strong preference among the urgent and important offices you listed. > > I also might fill in other offices on a more temporary basis, probably > by deputising and later resigning. I like the Karma mechanic, so if > nobody wants to be Herald I might deputise just to keep that going. I'm currently studying the Registrar's duties.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: ADoP's weekly report (temporary deputisation)
I wasn't sure if the date of last change or of last election are still required (R2138) if they're "never". On Wed., May 1, 2019, 09:12 Kerim Aydin, wrote: > > On 4/30/2019 9:26 PM, James Cook wrote: > > CoE: If G.'s attempt to resolve Proposal 8170 was successful, I should > > have listed the office of Comptroller. > > The Report would be correct anyway. Comptroller would have been at its > default value (vacant), and switch reports are only required to contain > switch instances that aren't at their default value (Rule 2162): >That officer's (weekly, if not specified > otherwise) report includes the value of each instance of that > switch whose value is not its default value; a public document > purporting to be this portion of that officer's report is > self-ratifying, and implies that other instances are at their > default value. > >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Email Weirdness Etc
Besides the original never appearing in my inbox, all the replies, like this one, seem to end up in my Gmail spam folder. On Mon, 29 Apr 2019 at 18:45, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > I received it as well (Fastmail here). > > > On Apr 28, 2019, at 1:53 PM, Aris Merchant > > wrote: > > > > I haven't gotten this email yet [1]. It shows up in the archive, but > > not in my inbox. Is anyone else having this problem? > > > > Also, I don't believe the decision on who should be Prime Minister was > > ever opened, and I CoE the finding of no quorum on that basis. > > > > [1] > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-April/040244.html > > > > -Aris >
Re: DIS: Has someone already started a Git repo for reports?
> If you tell us your GitHub username, > one of us will add you to the organization. Thanks, my GitHub username is falsifian.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Email Weirdness Etc
I never received it. On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 21:41, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > I received it, so it at least got out of the server. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > > On Sun, 28 Apr 2019, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > I haven't gotten this email yet [1]. It shows up in the archive, but > > not in my inbox. Is anyone else having this problem? > > > > Also, I don't believe the decision on who should be Prime Minister was > > ever opened, and I CoE the finding of no quorum on that basis. > > > > [1] > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-April/040244.html > > > > -Aris > >
DIS: Has someone already started a Git repo for reports?
I'm thinking of starting a git* repository to hold officer reports for myself and anyone else interested, both as a way to host a copy of the report on the web and because I like the ability to track history. Does such a thing already exist? *It doesn't have to be git specifically.
DIS: How often do lulls like this happen?
Starting a new thread so as not to derail the business of figuring out who will do what. First of all, thanks Aris for assessing our situation, and thanks again G. for working to get things moving. Does anyone know how often it happens that most of the important offices are vacant or essentially so for an extended period of time? I wasn't thinking of this as a crisis until Aris described it as such, but maybe that's because I was assuming this must be nothing new.
Re: DIS: Office Apportionment
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 02:39, Aris Merchant wrote: > We need to decide who will take which offices. Currently we need a new > ADoP, Arbitor, Assessor, Astronomor, Clork, Herald, Referee, Registrar, > Tailor, and Treasuror. That's 10 vacant or essentially vacant offices. Of > those, I would consider Arbitor and Assessor to be most urgent, as they are > needed to maintain essential functions. I would consider Referee, > Treasuror, and ADoP to be important, as they are needed to maintain > non-essential functions that are nevertheless necessary for the game to > remain healthy. I would consider Herald and Tailor to be relatively > unimportant, given the current state of crisis. Finally, I would consider > Astronomor and Clork to be candidates for deletion; in other words, I will > propose to remove their respective systems if they go unfilled for much > longer. There's no point in keeping a mini-game no one is playing, and an > unmaintained mini-game is a dead mini-game. > > I'll take Arbitor, although I'm unsure if I'll want to hold on to it in the > long run. I cannot take Assessor, since I already hold the incompatible > office of Promotor, and anyway I'm not sure I'd want it. I'd take Referee, > but it and Arbitor are incompatible. I want to run the next birthday > tournament, so I was going to ask whoever the Herald turned out to be to > appoint me as eir delegate. If there are no interested takers, I can hold > down Herald temporarily too, although if I do I may propose the repeal of > Karma to cut down on the workload. Normally, I wouldn't consider taking an > office if I thought I might not have time for all of its present > responsibilities, but as I said, I consider this a crisis. Who else is > interested in holding an office, either permanently or temporarily (please > state which like I did)? > > -Aris I'm happy to try out one office --- I'll hold it for a month, and then resign if I decide I can't reliably fulfill the duty. I don't have a strong preference among the urgent and important offices you listed. I also might fill in other offices on a more temporary basis, probably by deputising and later resigning. I like the Karma mechanic, so if nobody wants to be Herald I might deputise just to keep that going.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Prime Minister Transition
Thank you for being pro-active, but aren't nominations closed already? I'm looking at this text in R2154: When an election is initiated, it enters the nomination period, which lasts for 4 days. After an election is initiated and until nominations close, any player CAN become a candidate by announcement. Under normal election procedures, it seems impossible for anyone other than Corona or G. to become the next Prime Minister. And, not to imply any comparison, but G. is a good candidate, if e is still willing. On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 02:29, Aris Merchant wrote: > > I think this claim is correct; I furthermore stand for PM. Campaign > statement: I'm an active player who is taking steps to coordinate a > response to the current inactivity crisis, as will be seen shortly. > > -Aris > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:30 PM James Cook wrote: > > > > Claim of error: Corona is a candidate, so the election is not > > uncontested. (I mentioned this earlier, but didn't make it an explicit > > claim of error.) > > > > On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 17:08, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > > I declare G. the winner of the Prime Minister election. > > > > > > (G. was the only nominee and therefore the election was uncontested). > > > > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8165-8174
Good point. I was doing it temporarily for two reasons, but now that I
think about it they aren't great reasons.
* I wanted to be polite by not booting the existing officeholders, but
I guess it's easy enough for the officeholders to reclaim them if they
wan.
* I'm avoiding responsibilities. But as you say, I can do that by resigning.
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 02:09, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> You probably shouldn’t be temporarily deputizing (as in, you should be
> doing it normally). The point of that was to stop people from uncessarily
> evicting current office holders, but these offices are vacant or
> essentially so anyway. If you can’t keep up with the office, you can always
> drop it when you want to.
>
> -Aris
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 7:05 PM James Cook wrote:
>
> > I temporarily deputise for Assessor to resolve, as described below,
> > whichever
> > of the Agoran decisions to adopt Proposals 8165-8174 are still unresolved.
> >
> > For the following tallies, all voters below have a voting strength of 3,
> > except that:
> > * Corona has voting strength 1 (8 blots).
> > * twg has voting strength 0 (9 blots)
> >
> >
> > > 8165 D Margaux, Gaelan 3.0 Dependent Action Cleanup Act
> > FOR: Gaelan, D. Margaux, L, G., Halian, twg, Corona, Falsifian, Trigon
> > AGAINST:
> > Number of ballots F/A: 9/0
> > Voting strength F/A: 22/0
> > RESULT: ADOPTED
> >
> >
> > > 8166 D Margaux, twg 2.0 Politics Election Bug Fix
> > FOR: Gaelan, D. Margaux, L, G., Halian
> > AGAINST: twg, Corona, Falsifian
> > PRESENT: Trigon
> > Number of ballots F/A: 5/3
> > Voting strength F/A: 15/4
> > RESULT: ADOPTED
> >
> >
> > > 8167 G. 1.0 Ritual Sacrifice
> > FOR: Gaelan, D. Margaux, L, G., Halian, twg, Corona
> > AGAINST: Falsifian
> > PRESENT: Trigon
> > Number of ballots F/A: 7/1
> > Voting strength F/A: 16/3
> > RESULT: ADOPTED
> >
> >
> > > 8168 G. 1.0 No more meh
> > FOR:
> > AGAINST:
> > PRESENT: Gaelan, D. Margaux, L, G., Halian, twg, Corona, Falsifian, Trigon
> > Number of ballots F/A: 0/0
> > Voting strength F/A:0/0
> > RESULT: WHO CARES (REJECTED)
> >
> >
> > > 8169 twg, [1]1.0 Spaceship Armour Defaults
> > FOR: Trigon
> > AGAINST: Gaelan, D. Margaux, L, G., Halian, twg, Corona, Falsifian
> > Number of ballots F/A: 1/8
> > Voting strength F/A:3/19
> > RESULT: REJECTED
> >
> >
> > > 8170 G. 1.0 line-item veto 2.02
> > FOR: Gaelan (conditional), D. Margaux, L, G., Halian
> > AGAINST: twg, Corona, Falsifian, Trigon
> > Number of ballots F/A: 5/4
> > Voting strength F/A: 15/7
> > RESULT: ADOPTED
> >
> >
> > > 8171 G. 1.0 The Tiger Team
> > FOR: Gaelan, D. Margaux, L, G., Halian, twg, Corona, Trigon
> > AGAINST:
> > PRESENT: Falsifian
> > Number of ballots F/A: 8/0
> > Voting strength F/A: 19/0
> > RESULT: ADOPTED
> >
> >
> > > 8172 Aris3.0 SLR Ratification
> > FOR:
> > AGAINST:
> > PRESENT: Gaelan, D. Margaux, L, G., Halian, twg, Corona, Falsifian, Trigon
> > Number of ballots F/A: 0/0
> > Voting strength F/A:0/0
> > RESULT: NOBODY CARED (REJECTED)
> >
> >
> > > 8173 Murphy, Ørjan 3.2 Effective deference
> > FOR:
> > AGAINST: Gaelan, D. Margaux, L, G., Halian, twg, Corona, Falsifian,
> > PRESENT: Trigon
> > Number of ballots F/A: 0/8
> > Voting strength F/A:0/19
> > RESULT: REJECTED
> >
> >
> > > 8174 G. 1.0 Understated
> > FOR: Falsifian
> > AGAINST:
> > PRESENT: Trigon
> > Number of ballots F/A: 1/0
> > Voting strength F/A:3/0
> > RESULT: FAILED QUORUM
> >
> >
> > TEXT OF ADOPTED PROPOSALS
> > //
> > ID: 8165
> > Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act
> > Adoption index: 3.0
> > Author: D Margaux
> > Co-authors: Gaelan
> >
> >
> > Retitle Rule 1728 to “Dependent Action Methods.”
> >
> > Amend Rule 1728 to replace its entire text with the following:
> >
> > {
> >
> > The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent actions":
> >
> > 1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater than 8
> > ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with N
DIS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8165-8174
For those who aren't following closely: that report is mostly G.'s
work, so credit mostly to G. I just fiddled with the numbers.
On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 02:05, James Cook wrote:
>
> I temporarily deputise for Assessor to resolve, as described below, whichever
> of the Agoran decisions to adopt Proposals 8165-8174 are still unresolved.
>
> For the following tallies, all voters below have a voting strength of 3,
> except that:
> * Corona has voting strength 1 (8 blots).
> * twg has voting strength 0 (9 blots)
>
>
> > 8165 D Margaux, Gaelan 3.0 Dependent Action Cleanup Act
> FOR: Gaelan, D. Margaux, L, G., Halian, twg, Corona, Falsifian, Trigon
> AGAINST:
> Number of ballots F/A: 9/0
> Voting strength F/A: 22/0
> RESULT: ADOPTED
>
>
> > 8166 D Margaux, twg 2.0 Politics Election Bug Fix
> FOR: Gaelan, D. Margaux, L, G., Halian
> AGAINST: twg, Corona, Falsifian
> PRESENT: Trigon
> Number of ballots F/A: 5/3
> Voting strength F/A: 15/4
> RESULT: ADOPTED
>
>
> > 8167 G. 1.0 Ritual Sacrifice
> FOR: Gaelan, D. Margaux, L, G., Halian, twg, Corona
> AGAINST: Falsifian
> PRESENT: Trigon
> Number of ballots F/A: 7/1
> Voting strength F/A: 16/3
> RESULT: ADOPTED
>
>
> > 8168 G. 1.0 No more meh
> FOR:
> AGAINST:
> PRESENT: Gaelan, D. Margaux, L, G., Halian, twg, Corona, Falsifian, Trigon
> Number of ballots F/A: 0/0
> Voting strength F/A:0/0
> RESULT: WHO CARES (REJECTED)
>
>
> > 8169 twg, [1]1.0 Spaceship Armour Defaults
> FOR: Trigon
> AGAINST: Gaelan, D. Margaux, L, G., Halian, twg, Corona, Falsifian
> Number of ballots F/A: 1/8
> Voting strength F/A:3/19
> RESULT: REJECTED
>
>
> > 8170 G. 1.0 line-item veto 2.02
> FOR: Gaelan (conditional), D. Margaux, L, G., Halian
> AGAINST: twg, Corona, Falsifian, Trigon
> Number of ballots F/A: 5/4
> Voting strength F/A: 15/7
> RESULT: ADOPTED
>
>
> > 8171 G. 1.0 The Tiger Team
> FOR: Gaelan, D. Margaux, L, G., Halian, twg, Corona, Trigon
> AGAINST:
> PRESENT: Falsifian
> Number of ballots F/A: 8/0
> Voting strength F/A: 19/0
> RESULT: ADOPTED
>
>
> > 8172 Aris3.0 SLR Ratification
> FOR:
> AGAINST:
> PRESENT: Gaelan, D. Margaux, L, G., Halian, twg, Corona, Falsifian, Trigon
> Number of ballots F/A: 0/0
> Voting strength F/A:0/0
> RESULT: NOBODY CARED (REJECTED)
>
>
> > 8173 Murphy, Ørjan 3.2 Effective deference
> FOR:
> AGAINST: Gaelan, D. Margaux, L, G., Halian, twg, Corona, Falsifian,
> PRESENT: Trigon
> Number of ballots F/A: 0/8
> Voting strength F/A:0/19
> RESULT: REJECTED
>
>
> > 8174 G. 1.0 Understated
> FOR: Falsifian
> AGAINST:
> PRESENT: Trigon
> Number of ballots F/A: 1/0
> Voting strength F/A:3/0
> RESULT: FAILED QUORUM
>
>
> TEXT OF ADOPTED PROPOSALS
> //
> ID: 8165
> Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: D Margaux
> Co-authors: Gaelan
>
>
> Retitle Rule 1728 to “Dependent Action Methods.”
>
> Amend Rule 1728 to replace its entire text with the following:
>
> {
>
> The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent actions":
>
> 1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater than 8
> ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with N = 1);
>
> 2. With N Support, where N is a positive integer ("With Support" is shorthand
> for this method with N = 1);
>
> 3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 with a minimum
> of 1 ("With Agoran Consent" is shorthand for this method with N = 1);
>
> 4. With Notice; or
>
> 5. With T Notice, where T is a time period.
>
> N is 1 unless otherwise specified.
>
> }
>
> Enact a new rule (power=3) entitled “Performing a Dependent Action” with this
> text:
>
> {
>
> A rule that purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform an action by
> a set of one or more dependent actions identified in Rule 1728 thereby
> allows em
> to perform the action by announcement if all of the following are true:
>
> 1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent that
> unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without obfuscation specified
> the action intended to be taken and the method(s) to be used;
>
> 2. The announcement referenced in paragraph (1) of this Rule
> unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without obfuscation states:
>
> * the value
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8165-8174
Thanks for your hard work. I'm optimistic that things will gradually get back on track if the ratio of (reports published and other actions that clarify the state of the game) to (actions that raise questions) stays reasonably high for a while. And sorry, in hindsight it probably would have been more productive for me to just let your resolution of the proposals self-ratify. On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 at 15:51, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I resign the office of Assessor. It's possible that I never managed > to claim assessor since I had to deputize to actually resolve the > issue and I may have failed. > > I think the fact that this stems from yet another office's lateness > (the ADoP) crosses my personal line of "I'm not carrying this whole goddam > thing myself". > > Someone else can resolve this. Sorry. > > On 4/26/2019 7:51 PM, James Cook wrote: > > On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 at 01:41, James Cook wrote: > >>> For the following tallies, all voters below have a voting strength of 3, > >>> except for G. who has 4 (Prime Minister) and twg with 0 (9 blots). > >> > >> Unofficial claims of error about voting strength, sent to the > >> discussion list since I don't think they affect anything but it's good > >> to keep track: > >> > >> * Corona has 8 blots, so eir voting strength is 2. > >> > >> * If my CoE about the Prime Minister election is correct, then G's > >> voting strength is 3, not 4. > > > > Actually, sorry, I'll make it official, since I think the error means > > the resolutions haven't been adopted yet, if I'm reading Rule 208 > > correctly. (I'm looking at this part: "It ... provides a tally of the > > voter's valid ballots.") > > > > Claim of error: the for/against tallies in the Deputy Assessor's > > resolution of Proposals 8165-8174 were incorrect, for the reason > > specified in my above-quoted message. > > > > (It's not clear to me what is required in a "tally" of the ballots. If > > we're uncertain about the voting strengths, would just listing the > > number of ballots count as a tally for the purposes of satisfying that > > part of Rule 208?) > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: ADoP's weekly report (temporary deputisation)
I don't think my revision can be ratified by Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification), since it's not a "public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying", since I didn't publish it as ADoP. (Sorry, maybe I should have deputised non-temporarily.) Do others agree with that assessment? Should I try to use Ratification Without Objection to ratify it? On Sun, 28 Apr 2019 at 01:45, James Cook wrote: > > CoE: I forgot to include G's deputisation as Referee. > > Here's a revised version of the report I published: > > > > This is a somewhat minimal report that excludes things that are normally > included but not actually required by the rules. > > This is partly copied from the version maintained at > http://zenith.homelinux.net/adop/report.php but I have added more recent > events. > > Date of last report: > * It published 2019-03-17, but > * The date listed in the report is 2019-03-16 > > Date of this report: 2019-04-27 > > > OFFICES > > Office Holder[1] Since Last Election Complexity > > ADoP Murphy 2018-01-182018-01-18 2 > Arbitor *(vacant) 2019-04-262018-11-25 2 > Assessor twg2018-07-192019-01-20 3 > Astronomor*twg2019-01-15(never) 2 > Clork *twg2019-01-152017-12-07 2 > Distributoromd2018-06-15(never)[3] 0 > Herald*(vacant) 2019-04-272018-09-21 2 > Prime Minister*(vacant) 2019-03-07[2] (ongoing) 1 > Promotor Aris 2016-10-212017-09-21 2 > Referee *(vacant) 2019-04-272018-11-25 2 > Registrar *(vacant) 2019-04-262019-01-13 2 > Rulekeepor Trigon 2018-10-142018-11-25 3 > SpeakerD. Margaux 2019-03-072014-04-21 [3] 1 > Tailor twg2018-08-022018-09-14 1 > Treasuror twg2018-06-242018-06-24 3 > > [1] * = Interim office (vacant or holder not elected) > [2] Vacant since this date > [3] Currently imposed > > > > ELECTIONS > > Office Initiated Phase Candidates > > Prime Minister 2019-03-03 Post-nominating Corona, G. > > > > ABBREVIATIONS > - > ADoP Associate Director of Personnel > > > RECENT EVENTS (all times UTC) > (Compared to normal ADoP reports, I'm tracking fewer events here. In > particular, I'm not tracking published reports except ADoP.) > (I've marked events before the date of the previous report that were not > included in the previous report as "ADDED".) > > Sun, Mar 03 2019 (18:29) - G. initiated an election for Prime Minister > Sun, Mar 03 2019 (18:29) - G. became a candidate for the Prime Minister > election > Tue, Mar 05 2019 (10:46) - Corona became a candidate for the Prime > Minister election > Thu, Mar 07 2019 (14:33) - D. Margaux resigned from Prime Minister > ADDED: Thu, Mar 07 2019 (14:33) - D. Margaux possibly becomes Speaker > ADDED: Thu, Mar 07 2019 (14:37) - D. Margaux becomes Speaker if they > weren't already > Sun, Mar 17 2019 (20:34) - Murphy published the ADoP's weekly report > Tue, Mar 19 2019 (12:46) - D. Margaux CoEs ADoP report, claiming to be > Speaker. > Mon, Apr 22 2019 (16:28) - G. deputises as Referee > Mon, Apr 22 2019 (17:08) - G. attempts to declare emself winner of the > Prime Minister election. > Mon, Apr 22 2019 (17:29) - G. attempts to deputise as Assessor. > Mon, Apr 22 2019 (17:44) - G. CoE's own attempt to deputise as Assessor. > Mon, Apr 22 2019 (17:44) - G. attempts to deputise as Assessor. > Fri, Apr 26 2019 (19:24) - D. Margaux resigns from Arbitor and Registrar. > Sat, Apr 27 2019 (01:29) - Falsifian CoEs G's attempt to declare > emself winner of Prime Minister election. > Sat, Apr 27 2019 (02:51) - Falsifian CoEs G's attempt to deputise as Assessor. > Sat, Apr 27 2019 (15:51) - G. resigns from Assessor. > Sat, Apr 27 2019 (16:03) - G. resigns from all offices.
DIS: Re: BUS: Resignations
On Fri, 26 Apr 2019 at 19:24, D. Margaux wrote: > With regret I resign the offices of Arbitor and Registrar. Very sorry all, > but life has gotten quite busy recently. Hopefully I can engage more with > Agora again soon. Thanks for your service, and for helping to keep the game interesting.
DIS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8165-8174
> For the following tallies, all voters below have a voting strength of 3, > except for G. who has 4 (Prime Minister) and twg with 0 (9 blots). Unofficial claims of error about voting strength, sent to the discussion list since I don't think they affect anything but it's good to keep track: * Corona has 8 blots, so eir voting strength is 2. * If my CoE about the Prime Minister election is correct, then G's voting strength is 3, not 4.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Prime Minister Transition
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 14:47, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 4/23/2019 7:22 PM, James Cook wrote: > > Isn't Corona also a candidate? twg acted on eir behalf in a 2019-03-05 > > message, "Election speech: I'm not the other guy.". > > Erm, missed that. > > We might have a court case here due to this in R1006: > > A person CANNOT be made the > > holder of an elected office without eir explicit or reasonably > > implied consent. > > The exact standard of "Reasonably implied consent" isn't a term that's > been tested in court as to whether a zombie's consent is "reasonably > implied". > > My arguments: > > In R2532's list of zombie prohibitions is this: > - enter a contract, pledge, or other type of agreement; > > And giving consent for something new (including implied consent) > is an "other" type of agreement. Does that imply Corona is not a candidate? I don't see how. My theory, after a not-very-careful reading of R2154 and R1006: Corona is a candidate, but if e wins the election, then we have to sort out an apparent conflict between R2154 and R1006, since R2154 says they then become Prime Minister, and R1006 says they don't (due to lack of consent).
DIS: Re: OFF: Prime Minister Transition
Isn't Corona also a candidate? twg acted on eir behalf in a 2019-03-05 message, "Election speech: I'm not the other guy.". On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 17:08, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I declare G. the winner of the Prime Minister election. > > (G. was the only nominee and therefore the election was uncontested). > > >
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: 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: 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.
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: 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!
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: 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.
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: [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: 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.
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.
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?
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.
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: 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: 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: 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!
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: 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: 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: 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: 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?
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: 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: [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!
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: 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 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: 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: 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: More Politicking
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 00:31, D. Margaux wrote: > I submit and pend this proposal: What does "pend" mean?
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.
