DIS: Agoran Dashboard
I wanted to share a project I'm working on for feedback: The Agoran Dashboard. Here's the link: https://nixnull.github.io/DashboardNomic/index.html The ideal would be to include a shortened form of every report, as well as information on the current agora website. This would form one user-friendly way to see the current Agora gamestate. This has a few advantages: 1. Immediately see what's going on in Agora, for both new and returning players 2. Instead of maintaining several minisites, officers could just host a fresh version that gets pulled for this site - all of the report content on it is pulled via embeds, and therefore updates whenever the officer updates. 3. Put certain relevant bits of information side-by-side, such as the SLR and Notary or latest Distributions and Assessments. Also, if you're an officer and you're interested in contributing to this, consider hosting a version of your report that's just the data in a static spot so I can pull it.
DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Problems
On 8/10/19 2:46 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: This is entire message is OOC. I'm not doing very well. I've been having both physical health problems and fairly serious mental health problems, in addition to a bunch of real life responsibilities (TBH, I'm not sure I can even get to all of those at the moment). I'd like to remain judge, and am planning to try to fulfill my responsibilities. If I can't though, I don't want the contest to die just because I'm no longer able to judge it. This amendment to the regulations would give me a way to stop that from happening if the need arises. I'm sorry to everyone for letting you down. Take care of yourself first and worry about us later. -- Nich Evans
DIS: Re: BUS: Crime CFJ
On 8/10/19 2:47 PM, Nich Evans wrote:
On 8/9/19 9:58 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
[Please don't kill me for this one. I think this is a valid question.]
I CFJ: "The base value of the Crime of Endorsing Forgery is 2."
Evidence:
{
Excerpt from Rule 2202:
Such ratification or announcement of intent to ratify is the Class-8
Crime of Endorsing Forgery.
Excerpt from Rule 2557:
- If the violation is described by the rules as a Class N crime,
then N is the base value; otherwise the base value is 2.
}
Arguments:
{
Although Rule 2202 clearly intends to make the Crime of Endorsing
Forgery have a base value of 8, I don't believe its language actually
does so. The Rules do not describe the Crime of Endorsing Forgery as
a "Class N crime" (where N is some number), they instead describe it
as a "Class-8 Crime" (with the hyphen). I argue that this does not
fit the pattern specified by Rule 2557, so the base value takes on
its default of 2.
}
I don't think there's a lot of basis for this one. Punctuation marks
are generally considered not important in the rules when they
contradict common sense readings.
I'd also suggest not getting over-reliant on CFJs. They should be for
*disagreements* about meaning, not clarity. Ask what people think first,
and CFJ if people interpret it differently than you.
--
Nich Evans
DIS: Re: BUS: Crime CFJ
On 8/9/19 9:58 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
[Please don't kill me for this one. I think this is a valid question.]
I CFJ: "The base value of the Crime of Endorsing Forgery is 2."
Evidence:
{
Excerpt from Rule 2202:
Such ratification or announcement of intent to ratify is the Class-8
Crime of Endorsing Forgery.
Excerpt from Rule 2557:
- If the violation is described by the rules as a Class N crime,
then N is the base value; otherwise the base value is 2.
}
Arguments:
{
Although Rule 2202 clearly intends to make the Crime of Endorsing
Forgery have a base value of 8, I don't believe its language actually
does so. The Rules do not describe the Crime of Endorsing Forgery as a
"Class N crime" (where N is some number), they instead describe it as
a "Class-8 Crime" (with the hyphen). I argue that this does not fit
the pattern specified by Rule 2557, so the base value takes on its
default of 2.
}
I don't think there's a lot of basis for this one. Punctuation marks are
generally considered not important in the rules when they contradict
common sense readings.
--
Nich Evans
DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Pantheonics
Bah, sent this without the sacrifice. Will have to correct tomorrow.
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 8:37 PM Nich Evans wrote:
> I submit myself to the Agoran Gods!
>
> I submit the following rule to the contest:
>
> {
>
> I dedicate this rule to the LORD. As all gods are jealous, new rules
> cannot be created that would be dedicated to the god that is Patron to
> the most rules. If there is a tie, this does not apply.
>
> May elJefe live in interesting times.
>
> Praise to the LORD. May we forever congregate around ARCAS. I honor THE
> AGORAN SPIRIT OF THE GAME. I crawl before the HONOURLESS WORM. INTERCAL,
> lend me your sparked insanity. My keyboard click-clacks for ASCIIUS. I
> argue on behalf of CANTUS. Hail ERIS!
>
> }
>
> --
> Nich Evans
>
>
DIS: Re: BUS: More space shenanigans
On 8/4/19 11:47 PM, James Cook wrote:
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 04:46, Jason Cobb wrote:
On 8/5/19 12:45 AM, James Cook wrote:
I will spend 1 Energy in this Space Battle.
-- - Falsifian
I cause G. to resolve the Space Battle between Jason Cobb and Falsifian
as follows:
{
Falsfian wins this Space Battle.
Falsfian spent 1 energy in this Space Battle. Jason Cobb spent 0 energy
in this Space Battle.
Falsfian's Spaceship spent 1 energy and now has 19 energy. Jason Cobb's
Spaceship spent 0 energy and now has 19 energy.
Falsfian's Spaceship's Armour decreased by 0, and is now 10. Jason
Cobb's Spaceship's Armour decreased by 1 and is now 9.
Falsfian's Fame increased by 1 to 10. Jason Cobb's Fame remains
unchanged and is -10.
}
We did it!
--
Jason Cobb
Hooray! I intend, with 2 days notice, to win the game.
Well done shenanigans. Semi-related thought: when space battles get
fixed should we make losing a battle increment/decrement you towards 0?
--
Nich Evans
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux
On 8/3/19 2:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote: On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 8:14 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: The below CFJ is 3764. I assign it to D. Margaux. === CFJ 3764 === If a proposal purporting to register nch was adopted now, then one second later, e would be bound by the rules. == Caller:Murphy Judge: D. Margaux == History: Called by Murphy: 28 Jul 2019 19:03:42 Assigned to D. Margaux: [now] == Judged FALSE. NCH voluntarily deregistered less than 30 days ago. Under Rule 849, if a player does that, then "e CANNOT register or be registered for 30 days." In my opinion, a proposal "purporting to register nch" would constitute an attempt to have nch "be registered" less than 30 days after his voluntary deregistration. That attempt necessarily fails under Rule 849. If it's False, it's False because of an interaction with the Power system, or because I had not consented (which was the original question's intent I think). Even if this is the right judgment it should be reconsidered to include those lines of inquiry. -- Nich Evans
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux
On 8/3/19 2:36 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 8/3/2019 12:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > Judged FALSE. NCH voluntarily deregistered less than 30 days ago. Under > Rule 849, if a player does that, then "e CANNOT register or be registered > for 30 days." In my opinion, a proposal "purporting to register nch" would > constitute an attempt to have nch "be registered" less than 30 days after > his voluntary deregistration. That attempt necessarily fails under Rule > 849. Oh, duh. Of course Proposal 8227 won't work to register nch despite being power-3.1, regardless of nch's consent. R106: 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. R849 clearly prohibits the registration. The "Comptrollor" ban we added in R2140 recently to prevent lower-powered rules from prohibiting proposal clauses in higher-powered proposals doesn't apply, because R2140 includes the "below the power of this rule" qualifier and R849 is power 3. -G. Not sure I follow? R2140 is P3. R106 "Adopting Proposals" and R2350 "Proposals" are both also P3, so not less. They should be able to set something to P>3, right? Am I missing something? -- Nich Evans
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux
On 8/3/19 2:16 PM, D. Margaux wrote: In my opinion, a proposal "purporting to register nch" would constitute an attempt to have nch "be registered" less than 30 days after his voluntary deregistration. That attempt necessarily fails under Rule 849. Please use spivak or gender neutral 'they' in the future. -- Nich Evans
Re: DIS: Draft Judgement in CFJ 3765
On 8/3/19 10:39 AM, Nich Evans wrote: On 8/3/19 10:12 AM, D. Margaux wrote: On Aug 2, 2019, at 11:27 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: The caller also provides this as an example: "Repeal Rule 1698 (Ossification). Enact a power 100 rule that procides, 'It is IMPOSSIBLE to change the Rules, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.'" Again, this is not a rule change. This time it consists of two rule changes, and it is possible to cause each one of them in a four week period, as described above. A couple responses to the proto judgement: 1. The Ossification rule says "arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted"--that's plural changeS/proposalS. Based on the text of the rule, Agora is Ossified if there is a combination of rule changes and/or proposals that are IMPOSSIBLE to adopt in a four week period. And I think it's undisputed that there are combinations of rule changes that are IMPOSSIBLE. For example, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to enact the following pairs of "rule changes": The rule says "changes", not "sequence of changes". Any number of proposals could be inserted before or between your examples to make them work; the rule does not check for specific sets. Or to put it more prosaically, the rule is checking for changes as endpoints. It doesn't care how you get to any given change, as long as a possible route exists. When it says "changes" it's just talking about multiple separate endpoints, not a route. -- Nich Evans
Re: DIS: Draft Judgement in CFJ 3765
On 8/3/19 10:12 AM, D. Margaux wrote: On Aug 2, 2019, at 11:27 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: The caller also provides this as an example: "Repeal Rule 1698 (Ossification). Enact a power 100 rule that procides, 'It is IMPOSSIBLE to change the Rules, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.'" Again, this is not a rule change. This time it consists of two rule changes, and it is possible to cause each one of them in a four week period, as described above. A couple responses to the proto judgement: 1. The Ossification rule says "arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted"--that's plural changeS/proposalS. Based on the text of the rule, Agora is Ossified if there is a combination of rule changes and/or proposals that are IMPOSSIBLE to adopt in a four week period. And I think it's undisputed that there are combinations of rule changes that are IMPOSSIBLE. For example, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to enact the following pairs of "rule changes": The rule says "changes", not "sequence of changes". Any number of proposals could be inserted before or between your examples to make them work; the rule does not check for specific sets. -- Nich Evans
DIS: Email change
In a decluttering effort, I'm going to start using this address. -- Nich Evans
