Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Testo Testerino
I also got it from OFF although I haven't been getting other messages from it. This shit gnarly man. We can officially designate anything as a public forum. Maybe we should start exploring options. On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Sun, 24 Jun 2018, Corona wrote: > >> This was delivered to me from all three lists. Does Official work again? > > > I didn't get the OFF one. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 3646
We evaluate votes at the time they are cast (iirc, unless we added future conditionals back in). This vote, under the circumstances, was a conditional with sufficient context within the game state. If somebody made a vote like this without any previous context, it may be ambiguous. Under these circumstances, the vote is trivially evaluable. And when the vote, as soon as it is cast, evaluates as FOR, a future user or any number of them could make similar conditionals counting on this vote as a FOR. Ambiguity is situational and a vote with this vote's text could be ambiguous at time (say, if one of the previous five voters voted AGAINST) but it's clear in this case that any reasonable reader of text would evaluate this as FOR when cast. On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 09:22 +1000, Rebecca wrote: >> Corona voted in this way >> "> I vote on these proposals in such a manner that, in a hypothetical >> > alternate gamestate identical to the current one except for me never >> > sending the message immediately before this one, and this message not >> > containing the withdrawal of my earlier vote, in case that in the next >> > instant, before any other process regulated by the ruleset of Agora takes >> > place, a player would respond to this thread with the message "I do the >> > same as the last six people in this thread", their vote on all of these >> > proposals would evaluate to FOR all of the aforementioned proposals." >> >> The question presented is whether this conditional vote evaluates FOR >> each proposal, where the previous five votes were FOR each proposal. I >> hold that it does. The intent of the conditional is clear. It wants to >> vote in such a way that if someone else voted the same as the previous >> voters including this one, they would vote FOR. That's basically the >> same thing as saying that Corona voted in the same way as five >> previous voters on the proposals, which is FOR. This text is not >> ambiguous, in that its aim is clear and no reasonable Agoran reading >> carefully over it would believe it to be anything but a vote FOR each >> proposal. The conditional is not inextricable, as the condition >> depends on one clearly defined occurrence with no intervening rules >> processes. >> >> This CFJ is TRUE > > I'm disappointed that you didn't at least address my arguments. A > direct vote clearly isn't equivalent to the conditional, because if > every eligible voter made the conditional, it would break down at some > point. Thus, if a future eligible voter tries to do the same as the > previous users, their action will fail due to ambiguity as it's trying > to do the same thing as each of two non-equivalent actions. > > -- > ais523 -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 3646
wasn't this overhauled? in a cfj by alexis banning future conditionals in votes? i don't know where I am anymore. Situationally, though, it evaluates as FOR. ais's hypothetical situation in which infinite people vote that way means only that if infinite people voted with this conditional, the votes would evaluate as ambiguous. Ambiguity can still be resolved contextually on its own merits here. On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:58 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > Nope, votes are the exception to that. Votes are evaluated at the time > of resolution. > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 7:40 PM, Rebecca wrote: >> We evaluate votes at the time they are cast (iirc, unless we added >> future conditionals back in). This vote, under the circumstances, was >> a conditional with sufficient context within the game state. If >> somebody made a vote like this without any previous context, it may be >> ambiguous. Under these circumstances, the vote is trivially evaluable. >> And when the vote, as soon as it is cast, evaluates as FOR, a future >> user or any number of them could make similar conditionals counting on >> this vote as a FOR. Ambiguity is situational and a vote with this >> vote's text could be ambiguous at time (say, if one of the previous >> five voters voted AGAINST) but it's clear in this case that any >> reasonable reader of text would evaluate this as FOR when cast. >> >> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Alex Smith wrote: >>> On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 09:22 +1000, Rebecca wrote: >>>> Corona voted in this way >>>> "> I vote on these proposals in such a manner that, in a hypothetical >>>> > alternate gamestate identical to the current one except for me never >>>> > sending the message immediately before this one, and this message not >>>> > containing the withdrawal of my earlier vote, in case that in the next >>>> > instant, before any other process regulated by the ruleset of Agora takes >>>> > place, a player would respond to this thread with the message "I do the >>>> > same as the last six people in this thread", their vote on all of these >>>> > proposals would evaluate to FOR all of the aforementioned proposals." >>>> >>>> The question presented is whether this conditional vote evaluates FOR >>>> each proposal, where the previous five votes were FOR each proposal. I >>>> hold that it does. The intent of the conditional is clear. It wants to >>>> vote in such a way that if someone else voted the same as the previous >>>> voters including this one, they would vote FOR. That's basically the >>>> same thing as saying that Corona voted in the same way as five >>>> previous voters on the proposals, which is FOR. This text is not >>>> ambiguous, in that its aim is clear and no reasonable Agoran reading >>>> carefully over it would believe it to be anything but a vote FOR each >>>> proposal. The conditional is not inextricable, as the condition >>>> depends on one clearly defined occurrence with no intervening rules >>>> processes. >>>> >>>> This CFJ is TRUE >>> >>> I'm disappointed that you didn't at least address my arguments. A >>> direct vote clearly isn't equivalent to the conditional, because if >>> every eligible voter made the conditional, it would break down at some >>> point. Thus, if a future eligible voter tries to do the same as the >>> previous users, their action will fail due to ambiguity as it's trying >>> to do the same thing as each of two non-equivalent actions. >>> >>> -- >>> ais523 >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: July job listings
Yeah, the referee CoE really needs to get resolved because Murphy must break the tie. The funny thing is, if Murphy doesn't resolve that election properly and respond to the CoE, nobody can punish em because there is no...Referee. On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 11:43 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > If I am referee, I resign referee (Murphy, note my CoE last week > on the referee election results). > > I resign Registrar. > > I resign rulekeepor. > > If no one takes up the rulekeepor job, I'll continue to update the > site's FLR and SLR copies without deputization/publishing, when > I can but not likely weekly. > > > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: July job listings
You could have initiated elections for these immediately btw while you still held the offices, then resigned them. On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:19 PM, Rebecca wrote: > Yeah, the referee CoE really needs to get resolved because Murphy must > break the tie. > > The funny thing is, if Murphy doesn't resolve that election properly > and respond to the CoE, nobody can punish em because there is > no...Referee. > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 11:43 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> If I am referee, I resign referee (Murphy, note my CoE last week >> on the referee election results). >> >> I resign Registrar. >> >> I resign rulekeepor. >> >> If no one takes up the rulekeepor job, I'll continue to update the >> site's FLR and SLR copies without deputization/publishing, when >> I can but not likely weekly. >> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: [Registrar] Zombie auction resolution
The current land system is fun for some, but broken. I am able to fully participate in Agoran polity with no engagement in its economic systems, taking advantage of high apathy to make coins without being bothered to grind out ways to make coins from land. Compare to "boom/bust" system, which, while far less fun in theory, forced all to engage with its systems and had real consequences: weeks with one proposal alternating with weeks with 30, say. Now, proposals are artificially scarce and CFJs are infinite: removing incentives to engage with either. On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:14 PM, Rebecca wrote: > The bids on zombie auctions are freakin' silly: I just bid 2 coins to > get 22 coins for free. Meanwhile people are bidding tens of coins on > land units with far less worth. > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:11 PM, Rebecca wrote: >> I pay Agora 2 coins for the purpose of flipping Ouri's master switch >> to myself and transfer each of Ouri's assets to me. >> >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 3:25 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> >>> >>> The zombie auction has ended. >>> >>> PSS has won Kenyon for 16 Coins. >>> V.J. Rada has won Ouri for 2 Coins. >>> twg has won o for 1 Coin. >>> Trigon has won Quazie for 1 Coin. >>> >>> Winners, please pay Agora your winning bid to flip the zombie's >>> master switch to you. >>> >>> Bids (earliest first) >>> V.J. Rada9x >>> twg 14x >>> V.J. Rada 15x >>> twg 1 >>> Trigon 1 >>> V.J. Rada2 >>> PSS 16 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Registrar] Zombie auction resolution
That's nearly always objectively correct. Note also that because bids can be retracted, PSS could have and should have retracted his bid here and bid 3, giving em (even more) free money. Zombie auctions cannot be sustained like this, although zombies themselves are interesting. On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Corona wrote: > That is a logical consequence of barring the players who are invested in > the auctions enough to already have purchased a zombie in past auctions. > > You know, I think next time I will just get rid of my zombie before the > auction just so that I can purchase a new one and acquire its riches. > > ~Corona > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Rebecca wrote: > >> The bids on zombie auctions are freakin' silly: I just bid 2 coins to >> get 22 coins for free. Meanwhile people are bidding tens of coins on >> land units with far less worth. >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:11 PM, Rebecca wrote: >> > I pay Agora 2 coins for the purpose of flipping Ouri's master switch >> > to myself and transfer each of Ouri's assets to me. >> > >> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 3:25 AM, Kerim Aydin >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> The zombie auction has ended. >> >> >> >> PSS has won Kenyon for 16 Coins. >> >> V.J. Rada has won Ouri for 2 Coins. >> >> twg has won o for 1 Coin. >> >> Trigon has won Quazie for 1 Coin. >> >> >> >> Winners, please pay Agora your winning bid to flip the zombie's >> >> master switch to you. >> >> >> >> Bids (earliest first) >> >> V.J. Rada9x >> >> twg 14x >> >> V.J. Rada 15x >> >> twg 1 >> >> Trigon 1 >> >> V.J. Rada2 >> >> PSS 16 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > From V.J. Rada >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada >> -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Registrar] Zombie auction resolution
(sorry for the spamming but) I think the old zombie system was (as Cuddlebeam would have it) gerontocratic, But ultimately, all Agoran systems are meant to be temporary and award non-scam-based victories based on economic or systems manipulation over a reasonably short period of time. In a period in which not all are playing optimally, but some are (such as G., who was the only person bothered to win auctions), we must not equalize the playing field by removing unfair game systems, but instead create doable victory conditions and allow players to reach them based on their not-inequitably-created advantage. An advantage of blognomic's systems (channeling CB a lot here) is that a new player can rarely win while joining mid-dynasty but is totally level in the next dynasty, usually weeks off. By seeking to remove older players' advantage, we disadvantage new players more permanently. On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Rebecca wrote: > That's nearly always objectively correct. > > Note also that because bids can be retracted, PSS could have and > should have retracted his bid here and bid 3, giving em (even more) > free money. Zombie auctions cannot be sustained like this, although > zombies themselves are interesting. > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Corona wrote: >> That is a logical consequence of barring the players who are invested in >> the auctions enough to already have purchased a zombie in past auctions. >> >> You know, I think next time I will just get rid of my zombie before the >> auction just so that I can purchase a new one and acquire its riches. >> >> ~Corona >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Rebecca wrote: >> >>> The bids on zombie auctions are freakin' silly: I just bid 2 coins to >>> get 22 coins for free. Meanwhile people are bidding tens of coins on >>> land units with far less worth. >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:11 PM, Rebecca wrote: >>> > I pay Agora 2 coins for the purpose of flipping Ouri's master switch >>> > to myself and transfer each of Ouri's assets to me. >>> > >>> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 3:25 AM, Kerim Aydin >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> The zombie auction has ended. >>> >> >>> >> PSS has won Kenyon for 16 Coins. >>> >> V.J. Rada has won Ouri for 2 Coins. >>> >> twg has won o for 1 Coin. >>> >> Trigon has won Quazie for 1 Coin. >>> >> >>> >> Winners, please pay Agora your winning bid to flip the zombie's >>> >> master switch to you. >>> >> >>> >> Bids (earliest first) >>> >> V.J. Rada9x >>> >> twg 14x >>> >> V.J. Rada 15x >>> >> twg 1 >>> >> Trigon 1 >>> >> V.J. Rada2 >>> >> PSS 16 >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > From V.J. Rada >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> From V.J. Rada >>> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Registrar] Zombie auction resolution
Not that I think blognomic is the best way of doing things. Unlike blognomic, this game's main attraction is slow development, proposals and legal interpretation: all of which are entirely equitable from the outset. On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:49 PM, Rebecca wrote: > (sorry for the spamming but) > > I think the old zombie system was (as Cuddlebeam would have it) > gerontocratic, But ultimately, all Agoran systems are meant to be > temporary and award non-scam-based victories based on economic or > systems manipulation over a reasonably short period of time. In a > period in which not all are playing optimally, but some are (such as > G., who was the only person bothered to win auctions), we must not > equalize the playing field by removing unfair game systems, but > instead create doable victory conditions and allow players to reach > them based on their not-inequitably-created advantage. > > An advantage of blognomic's systems (channeling CB a lot here) is that > a new player can rarely win while joining mid-dynasty but is totally > level in the next dynasty, usually weeks off. By seeking to remove > older players' advantage, we disadvantage new players more > permanently. > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Rebecca wrote: >> That's nearly always objectively correct. >> >> Note also that because bids can be retracted, PSS could have and >> should have retracted his bid here and bid 3, giving em (even more) >> free money. Zombie auctions cannot be sustained like this, although >> zombies themselves are interesting. >> >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Corona wrote: >>> That is a logical consequence of barring the players who are invested in >>> the auctions enough to already have purchased a zombie in past auctions. >>> >>> You know, I think next time I will just get rid of my zombie before the >>> auction just so that I can purchase a new one and acquire its riches. >>> >>> ~Corona >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Rebecca wrote: >>> >>>> The bids on zombie auctions are freakin' silly: I just bid 2 coins to >>>> get 22 coins for free. Meanwhile people are bidding tens of coins on >>>> land units with far less worth. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:11 PM, Rebecca wrote: >>>> > I pay Agora 2 coins for the purpose of flipping Ouri's master switch >>>> > to myself and transfer each of Ouri's assets to me. >>>> > >>>> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 3:25 AM, Kerim Aydin >>>> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> The zombie auction has ended. >>>> >> >>>> >> PSS has won Kenyon for 16 Coins. >>>> >> V.J. Rada has won Ouri for 2 Coins. >>>> >> twg has won o for 1 Coin. >>>> >> Trigon has won Quazie for 1 Coin. >>>> >> >>>> >> Winners, please pay Agora your winning bid to flip the zombie's >>>> >> master switch to you. >>>> >> >>>> >> Bids (earliest first) >>>> >> V.J. Rada9x >>>> >> twg 14x >>>> >> V.J. Rada 15x >>>> >> twg 1 >>>> >> Trigon 1 >>>> >> V.J. Rada2 >>>> >> PSS 16 >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > From V.J. Rada >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> From V.J. Rada >>>> >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Registrar] Zombie auction resolution
The reason is probably that, because there are four lots and bids are retractable, it would take a ton of bids to get to the optimal point. I maintain that we should have everyone submit ONE secret bid to the auctioneer which is revealed publicly at week's end. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 2:39 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > All that said, I have no damn clue why the minimum winning bid on > a zombie with 40 coins isn't 39 coins. It's a no-brainer, and if we were > sitting around a board game table I don't doubt the bidding action > would push that high out of straight rational board game play. That > really defies my expectations. > > On Sun, 1 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> We purposefully set out a year ago to have a sustainable long-term >> economy - from experience with our past "long-term" economies >> we let then run for 2-3 years before getting bored enough to scrap. >> >> The thing is, even real world economies tend towards concentrations >> of wealth - the principle of investment/encouragement to participate >> is the positive feedback loop (investments pay off), which make growth >> exponential, which means a leader will multiply eir advantage. >> >> I think the best quick fix here is limiting land auctions in some way >> that land ownership remains balanced by making it exponentially >> harder for the rich to buy basic land (though this concept is basic >> the technical implementation is tricky though). >> >> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: >> > Not that I think blognomic is the best way of doing things. Unlike >> > blognomic, this game's main attraction is slow development, proposals >> > and legal interpretation: all of which are entirely equitable from the >> > outset. >> > >> > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:49 PM, Rebecca wrote: >> > > (sorry for the spamming but) >> > > >> > > I think the old zombie system was (as Cuddlebeam would have it) >> > > gerontocratic, But ultimately, all Agoran systems are meant to be >> > > temporary and award non-scam-based victories based on economic or >> > > systems manipulation over a reasonably short period of time. In a >> > > period in which not all are playing optimally, but some are (such as >> > > G., who was the only person bothered to win auctions), we must not >> > > equalize the playing field by removing unfair game systems, but >> > > instead create doable victory conditions and allow players to reach >> > > them based on their not-inequitably-created advantage. >> > > >> > > An advantage of blognomic's systems (channeling CB a lot here) is that >> > > a new player can rarely win while joining mid-dynasty but is totally >> > > level in the next dynasty, usually weeks off. By seeking to remove >> > > older players' advantage, we disadvantage new players more >> > > permanently. >> > > >> > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Rebecca wrote: >> > >> That's nearly always objectively correct. >> > >> >> > >> Note also that because bids can be retracted, PSS could have and >> > >> should have retracted his bid here and bid 3, giving em (even more) >> > >> free money. Zombie auctions cannot be sustained like this, although >> > >> zombies themselves are interesting. >> > >> >> > >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Corona >> > >> wrote: >> > >>> That is a logical consequence of barring the players who are invested >> > >>> in >> > >>> the auctions enough to already have purchased a zombie in past >> > >>> auctions. >> > >>> >> > >>> You know, I think next time I will just get rid of my zombie before the >> > >>> auction just so that I can purchase a new one and acquire its riches. >> > >>> >> > >>> ~Corona >> > >>> >> > >>> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Rebecca >> > >>> wrote: >> > >>> >> > >>>> The bids on zombie auctions are freakin' silly: I just bid 2 coins to >> > >>>> get 22 coins for free. Meanwhile people are bidding tens of coins on >> > >>>> land units with far less worth. >> > >>>> >> > >>>> On Sun, Ju
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Registrar] Zombie auction resolution
To more fully explain, say there are two players who want the top 2 zombies, one of which contains 40 coins and the other 20. There are also 2 players who want the other 2 zombies, which have 0. They each bid 1 coin. One of the first two players bids 2. The next person bids 3. And so on, and so forth, until the amount of 22 coins is reached. Bidding 23 would actually give _less_ profit in coins than just going back down to 2 coins. So they retract and go to 2. Then the other person tries to snipe them and goes to 3. Equilibrium is reached only when one bids 2 and the other bids 22, but it's never in the interest of the 22-bidder not to go down. So if both play optimally, the only thing that determines the auction is time. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 2:44 AM, Rebecca wrote: > The reason is probably that, because there are four lots and bids are > retractable, it would take a ton of bids to get to the optimal point. > I maintain that we should have everyone submit ONE secret bid to the > auctioneer which is revealed publicly at week's end. > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 2:39 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> All that said, I have no damn clue why the minimum winning bid on >> a zombie with 40 coins isn't 39 coins. It's a no-brainer, and if we were >> sitting around a board game table I don't doubt the bidding action >> would push that high out of straight rational board game play. That >> really defies my expectations. >> >> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> We purposefully set out a year ago to have a sustainable long-term >>> economy - from experience with our past "long-term" economies >>> we let then run for 2-3 years before getting bored enough to scrap. >>> >>> The thing is, even real world economies tend towards concentrations >>> of wealth - the principle of investment/encouragement to participate >>> is the positive feedback loop (investments pay off), which make growth >>> exponential, which means a leader will multiply eir advantage. >>> >>> I think the best quick fix here is limiting land auctions in some way >>> that land ownership remains balanced by making it exponentially >>> harder for the rich to buy basic land (though this concept is basic >>> the technical implementation is tricky though). >>> >>> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: >>> > Not that I think blognomic is the best way of doing things. Unlike >>> > blognomic, this game's main attraction is slow development, proposals >>> > and legal interpretation: all of which are entirely equitable from the >>> > outset. >>> > >>> > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:49 PM, Rebecca wrote: >>> > > (sorry for the spamming but) >>> > > >>> > > I think the old zombie system was (as Cuddlebeam would have it) >>> > > gerontocratic, But ultimately, all Agoran systems are meant to be >>> > > temporary and award non-scam-based victories based on economic or >>> > > systems manipulation over a reasonably short period of time. In a >>> > > period in which not all are playing optimally, but some are (such as >>> > > G., who was the only person bothered to win auctions), we must not >>> > > equalize the playing field by removing unfair game systems, but >>> > > instead create doable victory conditions and allow players to reach >>> > > them based on their not-inequitably-created advantage. >>> > > >>> > > An advantage of blognomic's systems (channeling CB a lot here) is that >>> > > a new player can rarely win while joining mid-dynasty but is totally >>> > > level in the next dynasty, usually weeks off. By seeking to remove >>> > > older players' advantage, we disadvantage new players more >>> > > permanently. >>> > > >>> > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Rebecca >>> > > wrote: >>> > >> That's nearly always objectively correct. >>> > >> >>> > >> Note also that because bids can be retracted, PSS could have and >>> > >> should have retracted his bid here and bid 3, giving em (even more) >>> > >> free money. Zombie auctions cannot be sustained like this, although >>> > >> zombies themselves are interesting. >>> > >> >>> > >> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Corona >>> > >> wrote: >>> > >>> That is a logical consequence of barring the players who are inves
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
yes because it's the one case where lying is perfectly doable and intentional lying could almost never be distinguished by anyone. class 9 isn't even huge. it's one above intending to ratify without objection incorrect information. fair point on the first one. I would have simplicity reign and say they MUST privately email the speaker, or prime minister, or someone else, who can verify if the person has lied after they report. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: >> Also >> add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no >> Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". > > This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to > completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose > offices based on subgames they're interested in. > > My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting > announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir > bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the > auction results. > >> Failing to correctly and fully relate the results of an Auction as an >> Auction announcer is the Class-9 Crime of Auction Obfuscation, and >> Auction announcers SHALL NOT so fail". > > So, um... any honest mistake and it's a class-9 crime? > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
very good call. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Oh, and on the flip side, better make it a crime for the announcer to > reveal bids to anyone before the auction is over! > > On Sun, 1 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: >> > Also >> > add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no >> > Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". >> >> This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to >> completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose >> offices based on subgames they're interested in. >> >> My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting >> announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir >> bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the >> auction results. >> >> > Failing to correctly and fully relate the results of an Auction as an >> > Auction announcer is the Class-9 Crime of Auction Obfuscation, and >> > Auction announcers SHALL NOT so fail". >> >> So, um... any honest mistake and it's a class-9 crime? >> >> > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
I guess the announcer can't privately email anyone before the auction because they could clearly use such information. I would prefer a non SHA system though for reasons of agoran technical agnosticism/i don't know how to use technlogy. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Rebecca wrote: > very good call. > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:11 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> Oh, and on the flip side, better make it a crime for the announcer to >> reveal bids to anyone before the auction is over! >> >> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: >>> > Also >>> > add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no >>> > Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". >>> >>> This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to >>> completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose >>> offices based on subgames they're interested in. >>> >>> My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting >>> announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir >>> bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the >>> auction results. >>> >>> > Failing to correctly and fully relate the results of an Auction as an >>> > Auction announcer is the Class-9 Crime of Auction Obfuscation, and >>> > Auction announcers SHALL NOT so fail". >>> >>> So, um... any honest mistake and it's a class-9 crime? >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
Burden of proof is with the bidder to prove it is wrong but criminal penalty is higher: class 9 crime v general "no faking". On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Hmm, it's a problem. If you're worried that emails can't be proven, > you have to be equally worried that a bidder may lie versus the > announcer lying. If we get to the point that a bidder says "I sent > you a bid" and the announcer says "no you didn't", where should the > burden of proof be? (As an aside, we had Secret Voting before and > and over many votes I don't remember anything that wasn't resolved > right away as an honest mistake). > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: >> yes because it's the one case where lying is perfectly doable and >> intentional lying could almost never be distinguished by anyone. class >> 9 isn't even huge. it's one above intending to ratify without >> objection incorrect information. >> >> fair point on the first one. I would have simplicity reign and say >> they MUST privately email the speaker, or prime minister, or someone >> else, who can verify if the person has lied after they report. >> >> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: >> >> Also >> >> add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no >> >> Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". >> > >> > This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to >> > completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose >> > offices based on subgames they're interested in. >> > >> > My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting >> > announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir >> > bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the >> > auction results. >> > >> >> Failing to correctly and fully relate the results of an Auction as an >> >> Auction announcer is the Class-9 Crime of Auction Obfuscation, and >> >> Auction announcers SHALL NOT so fail". >> > >> > So, um... any honest mistake and it's a class-9 crime? >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada >> > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions
I guess instead of SHA hash we could make it "reasonably verifiable method" which could include that or eg, posting a private youtube video of yourself bidding etc. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:20 AM, Rebecca wrote: > Burden of proof is with the bidder to prove it is wrong but criminal > penalty is higher: class 9 crime v general "no faking". > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:15 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> Hmm, it's a problem. If you're worried that emails can't be proven, >> you have to be equally worried that a bidder may lie versus the >> announcer lying. If we get to the point that a bidder says "I sent >> you a bid" and the announcer says "no you didn't", where should the >> burden of proof be? (As an aside, we had Secret Voting before and >> and over many votes I don't remember anything that wasn't resolved >> right away as an honest mistake). >> >> On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: >>> yes because it's the one case where lying is perfectly doable and >>> intentional lying could almost never be distinguished by anyone. class >>> 9 isn't even huge. it's one above intending to ratify without >>> objection incorrect information. >>> >>> fair point on the first one. I would have simplicity reign and say >>> they MUST privately email the speaker, or prime minister, or someone >>> else, who can verify if the person has lied after they report. >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: >>> >> Also >>> >> add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no >>> >> Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". >>> > >>> > This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to >>> > completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose >>> > offices based on subgames they're interested in. >>> > >>> > My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting >>> > announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir >>> > bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the >>> > auction results. >>> > >>> >> Failing to correctly and fully relate the results of an Auction as an >>> >> Auction announcer is the Class-9 Crime of Auction Obfuscation, and >>> >> Auction announcers SHALL NOT so fail". >>> > >>> > So, um... any honest mistake and it's a class-9 crime? >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> From V.J. Rada >>> >> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Weekly Report: The Re-Sinecuring
Clarification: that is not, of course, a self-ratifying list of assets. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Rebecca wrote: > This is a Notary weekly report. The following pledges exist within the > time window > > PLEDGES (self-ratifying list of assets) > > == Trigon - Created 01 Jun 2018 07:35:31 > I pledge to use as much integrity as is possible whenever I generate > random numbers. > > > == Corona - Created 27 May 2018 17:29:28 > I pledge to do all of the following in Blognomic's current dynasty: > > -always ahoy > Gams > > -call hunts most of the time > -not change derrick’s or Cuddlebeam’s position if they perform their duties > adequately (scrubbing, joining hunts if healthy…) > -scrub the decks whenever I > am online and can do so > > -generally work toward the preservation of the ship and the lives of > sailors, and maximizing profits > > > == G. - Created 10 May 2018 15:39:57 > I pledge that I will not make any bids on behalf of zombies in the May > 2018 zombie auction. > -- > > Contracts are no longer a thing that I track. > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Resolving Referee election
I intend not to recreate the finger pointing contract, which is a
workaround of the Rules. Summary Judgment exists for a reason.
However, I will propose (as, in fact, I did last time) reasonable
reform of the position, and I do intend not to be overly harsh with
the imposition of Blots.
On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 2:38 PM, Aris Merchant
wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 9:17 PM Edward Murphy wrote:
>
>> G. wrote:
>>
>> > Claim of Error: As Prime Minister my voting strength is 2 (R2423),
>> > which makes a difference in this case.
>>
>> Accepted. Corrected results of the Referee election:
>>
>> > On Sun, 24 Jun 2018, Edward Murphy wrote:
>> >> Voting for Referee ended a few hours ago. Quorum was met (unless I was
>> >> badly mistaken about it).
>> >>
>> >> Aris withdrew as a candidate. Rule 2154 regulates ceasing to be a
>> >> candidate and does not include "by announcement" as a mechanism, so
>> >> votes including em are still valid. However, it may be interpreted as
>> >> withdrawing consent, which would cause Rule 1006 (which takes precedence
>> >> over 2154) to prevent em from being installed.
>> >>
>> >> Votes:
>> >>Corona and 天火狐 voted {Corona, V.J. Rada, Aris}
>> >>Aris voted {Corona, Aris, V.J. Rada}
>> >>V.J. Rada voted {V.J. Rada, Aris, Corona}
>> >>ATMunn voted {Aris, Corona, V.J. Rada}
>> >>G., o, and Telnaior voted {V.J. Rada} (G. changed eir initial vote)
>> >>twg voted PRESENT
>> >>PSS voted {Aris, Corona, V.J. Rada}
>> >>Murphy votes PRESENT
>> >>
>> >> First pass:
>> >>Corona got 3 votes (Corona, 天火狐, Aris)
>> >>V.J. Rada got 4 votes (V.J. Rada, G., o, Telnaior)
>> >>Aris got 2 votes (ATMunn, PSS)
>> >>No majority
>> >>Candidate with least votes (Aris) eliminated
>>
>> V.J. Rada actually got 5 votes, still no majority, Aris still
>> eliminated.
>>
>> >> Second pass:
>> >>Corona got 5 votes (Corona, 天火狐, Aris, ATMunn, PSS)
>> >>V.J. Rada got 4 votes (V.J. Rada, G., o, Telnaior)
>> >>Corona is selected
>>
>> V.J. Rada still got 5 votes, still no majority, Rule 955 requires the
>> vote collector to pick exactly one candidate to eliminate. In the spirit
>> of IRV, I do so as follows:
>>
>> * Among those voting for Corona, two originally had V.J. Rada as their
>>second choice (Corona, 天火狐) and three had em as their third (Aris,
>>ATMunn, PSS).
>>
>> * Among those voting for V.J. Rada, one originally had Corona as their
>>third choice (V.J. Rada) and three didn't have em at all (G., o.,
>>Telnaior).
>>
>> Accordingly, I choose Corona to eliminate. V.J. Rada is selected.
>
>
> V.J., congrats on your election! I hope you will consider taking a more
> cooperative stance than you did during your previous time in the office.
> G.'s policies have been both just and fair, and I hope you will consider
> continuing them.
>
> Corona, commiserations on the narrow loss.
>
> -Aris
>
>>
>>
--
>From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] Weekly Report: The Re-Sinecuring
Should be untracked as they used to be, with the onus on players. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:06 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 10:03 PM Edward Murphy wrote: > >> V.J. Rada wrote: >> >> > This is a Notary weekly report. >> >> Notary was repealed by Proposal 8054. >> >> And pledges still reference it, don't they? We need to patch that. There > are three options: 1. Make pledges into a kind of contract; 2. Make them > untracked; and 3. Give the tracking responsibility for pledges back to the > Referee. I'd tend to lean towards the first one, but what do others think? > > -Aris -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
FYI: this and any other message from the lists that includes links goes right to spam. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Edward Murphy wrote: > COURT GAZETTE (Arbitor's weekly report for TODO date) > > Disclaimer: Informational only. No actions are contained in this report. > Information in this report is not self-ratifying. > > > Open cases (CFJs) > - > 3643 called by ais523 18 June 2018, assigned to Gaelan 24 June 2018: "In > the above-quoted message, Corona published a self-ratifying report." > > 3645 called by Aris 20 June 2018, assigned to PSS 24 June 2018: "G. has > satisfied eir weekly obligation with regard to the FLR and SLR." > > 3648 called by G. 24 June 2018, assigned to ATMunn 24 June 2018: "The > fine levied on Corona for late Herald Tournament Regulations is > unforgivable for the purposes of R2559." > > 3649 called by Kenyon 29 June 2018, assigned to V.J. Rada 1 July 2018: > "At the time this CFJ was initiated, Kenyon qualified for a Magenta > Ribbon." > > Highest numbered case: 3649 > > Context/arguments/evidence are included at the bottom of this report. > > > Recently-delivered verdicts and implications > > 3642 called by Aris 15 June 2018, judged FALSE by PSS 25 June 2018: > "Proposal 8050 has been resolved." Attempted resolution was sent to > agora-official, but was ineffective because most players didn't receive > it (their subscriptions were lost due to mail server errors). > > 3644 called by PSS 18 June 2018, judged TRUE by G. 1 July 2018: "Corona > issued a humiliating public reminder in the below quoted text." Players > can't guarantee actual humiliation, thus clear indication that > humiliation might be a thing is sufficient. > > 3646 called by Corona 23 June 2018, judged TRUE by V.J. Rada 24 June > 2018, corrected to FALSE 26 June 2018: "My conditional vote in the > appended message evaluates to FOR each proposal." Ineffective due to > the ambiguity from CFJ 3647 (see below). > > 3647 called by ATMunn 24 June 2018, judged FALSE by PSS 26 June 2018: > "Before the sending of this message, ATMunn voted FOR proposal 8053." > Ineffective due to ambiguity. > > > Day Court Judge Recent > -- > Corona 3627, 3628, 3641 >[02/14 02/14 06/17] > Murphy 3626, 3627, 3628 >[03/01 03/01 03/01] > G. 3631, 3637, 3636, 3644 >[04/20 04/30 05/04 06/24] > Gaelan 3638, 3643 >[06/04 06/24] > V.J. Rada 3640, 3646, 3649 >[06/17 06/24 07/01] > PSS 3645, 3647 >[06/24 06/24] > > Weekend Court Judge Recent (generally gets half as many cases) > -- > ATMunn 3633, 3648 >[04/29 06/24] > > (These are informal designations. Requests to join/leave a given court > will be noted. Individual requests to be assigned a specific case will > generally be honored, even for non-court judges.) > > > Context/arguments/evidence > -- > > *** 3642 caller Aris's arguments: > > Per CFJ 1905, non-receipt of a message by those who have arraigned to > receive messages via the forum is grounds to regard actions taken > therein as invalid. My spam filter didn't eat it (I've checked, and it's > also set never to eat Agora stuff) so it probably never entered my > technical domain of control. > > *** 3642 G.'s gratuitous evidence: > > The email in question was delivered to my own inbox via the list > reasonably quickly after I sent it. I'm including the full headers below in > case it helps interpret anything: > > Return-Path: > Received: via tmail-2007f.22 (invoked by user kerim) for kerim+mail/agora; > Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:17 -0700 (PDT) > Received: from mxe29.s.uw.edu (mxe29.s.uw.edu [173.250.227.18]) > by cg04.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id > w5EImGAx024904 > for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:16 > -0700 > Received: from vps.qoid.us ([71.19.146.223]) > by mxe29.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with SMTP id > w5EIm5nl013556 > for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:05 -0700 > Received: (qmail 25986 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04 - > Received: from vps.qoid.us (127.0.0.1) >by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:04 - > Delivered-To: agn-agora-offic...@agoranomic.org > Received: (qmail 25977 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02 - > Received: from mxout21.s.uw.edu (140.142.32.139) > by vps.qoid.us with SMTP; 14 Jun 2018 18:48:02 - > Received: from smtp.washington.edu (smtp.washington.edu [140.142.234.163]) > by mxout21.s.uw.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id > w5EIlNUY013073 > (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK) > for ; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 1
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
Also, please take Gaelan off the list On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Rebecca wrote: > FYI: this and any other message from the lists that includes links > goes right to spam. > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 3:03 PM, Edward Murphy wrote: >> COURT GAZETTE (Arbitor's weekly report for TODO date) >> >> Disclaimer: Informational only. No actions are contained in this report. >> Information in this report is not self-ratifying. >> >> >> Open cases (CFJs) >> - >> 3643 called by ais523 18 June 2018, assigned to Gaelan 24 June 2018: "In >> the above-quoted message, Corona published a self-ratifying report." >> >> 3645 called by Aris 20 June 2018, assigned to PSS 24 June 2018: "G. has >> satisfied eir weekly obligation with regard to the FLR and SLR." >> >> 3648 called by G. 24 June 2018, assigned to ATMunn 24 June 2018: "The >> fine levied on Corona for late Herald Tournament Regulations is >> unforgivable for the purposes of R2559." >> >> 3649 called by Kenyon 29 June 2018, assigned to V.J. Rada 1 July 2018: >> "At the time this CFJ was initiated, Kenyon qualified for a Magenta >> Ribbon." >> >> Highest numbered case: 3649 >> >> Context/arguments/evidence are included at the bottom of this report. >> >> >> Recently-delivered verdicts and implications >> >> 3642 called by Aris 15 June 2018, judged FALSE by PSS 25 June 2018: >> "Proposal 8050 has been resolved." Attempted resolution was sent to >> agora-official, but was ineffective because most players didn't receive >> it (their subscriptions were lost due to mail server errors). >> >> 3644 called by PSS 18 June 2018, judged TRUE by G. 1 July 2018: "Corona >> issued a humiliating public reminder in the below quoted text." Players >> can't guarantee actual humiliation, thus clear indication that >> humiliation might be a thing is sufficient. >> >> 3646 called by Corona 23 June 2018, judged TRUE by V.J. Rada 24 June >> 2018, corrected to FALSE 26 June 2018: "My conditional vote in the >> appended message evaluates to FOR each proposal." Ineffective due to >> the ambiguity from CFJ 3647 (see below). >> >> 3647 called by ATMunn 24 June 2018, judged FALSE by PSS 26 June 2018: >> "Before the sending of this message, ATMunn voted FOR proposal 8053." >> Ineffective due to ambiguity. >> >> >> Day Court Judge Recent >> -- >> Corona 3627, 3628, 3641 >>[02/14 02/14 06/17] >> Murphy 3626, 3627, 3628 >>[03/01 03/01 03/01] >> G. 3631, 3637, 3636, 3644 >>[04/20 04/30 05/04 06/24] >> Gaelan 3638, 3643 >>[06/04 06/24] >> V.J. Rada 3640, 3646, 3649 >>[06/17 06/24 07/01] >> PSS 3645, 3647 >>[06/24 06/24] >> >> Weekend Court Judge Recent (generally gets half as many cases) >> -- >> ATMunn 3633, 3648 >>[04/29 06/24] >> >> (These are informal designations. Requests to join/leave a given court >> will be noted. Individual requests to be assigned a specific case will >> generally be honored, even for non-court judges.) >> >> >> Context/arguments/evidence >> -- >> >> *** 3642 caller Aris's arguments: >> >> Per CFJ 1905, non-receipt of a message by those who have arraigned to >> receive messages via the forum is grounds to regard actions taken >> therein as invalid. My spam filter didn't eat it (I've checked, and it's >> also set never to eat Agora stuff) so it probably never entered my >> technical domain of control. >> >> *** 3642 G.'s gratuitous evidence: >> >> The email in question was delivered to my own inbox via the list >> reasonably quickly after I sent it. I'm including the full headers below in >> case it helps interpret anything: >> >> Return-Path: >> Received: via tmail-2007f.22 (invoked by user kerim) for kerim+mail/agora; >> Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:48:17 -0700 (PDT) >> Received: from mxe29.s.uw.edu (mxe29.s.uw.edu [173.250.227.18]) >> by cg04.u.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id >>
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Free Proposals
No, the economy shouldn't be optional. The only way to encourage engagement with it is to make it unoptional in some way, which it really isn't now. CFJs should always be free. Proposals can and should be interacted with. Paper is a super feels-bad unfun way to do it. Better, though, than nothing. On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 4:59 PM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Unless a consensus forms one way or the other, I'll implement your > paper removal suggestion in a separate proposal contingent on this one > passing. > > As for the economic argument, I disagree, for reasons I really should > have spelled out when submitting the proposal. The problem isn't that > people don't have enough paper. The problem is that people have to use > paper in the first place. When an action has a cost, someone is much > less likely to take it, even if the cost is actually relatively minor. > [1] [2] Every time I write a proposal, I think "Is this really worth > one of my two monthly papers?" I would write many more proposals if > that thought didn't enter my head. IIRC V.J. Rada has also mentioned > this problem. Look at CFJ calling rates before and after they became > free. I'll bet that they skyrocketed; I certainly know I've called > many more CFJs recently. A player shouldn't even have to think about a > cost when they pend a proposal. The limit of five isn't much of an > inconvenience, because a) it's huge; b) it resets every week; c) the > Promotor or another player can always pend a proposal for you, and has > every incentive to do so (right now it's pretty much charity if > someone does that); and d) it's not phrased as an economic cost. The > combination of those factors means that it feels less like a price, > and more like a tacked on limitation, which I for one would not > regularly worry about. > > I hope that my explanation and two proposal solution might be enough > to convince you to at least vote PRESENT? > > -Aris > > [1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Bestiary_of_Behavioral_ > Economics/Zero_Price > [2] https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/mini- > encyclopedia-of-be/zero-price-effect/ > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 11:21 PM Reuben Staley > wrote: > > > > This would be fine but it completely nullifies paper. A better way to do > > this while preserving the economy would be to get rid of paper and looms > > then add lumber to the list of unrefinable resources. Also, everyone gets > > paper once a month so participation in the economy is completely optional > > still. And if anyone somehow uses up all their paper, I can just give you > > some. Though that's not going to happen anytime soon because paper is > being > > consumed slower than it's being produced. All in all, there are quite a > few > > things wrong with this proposal that would prevent me from voting for it. > > > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2018, 23:58 Aris Merchant gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I've gotten sick and tired of restrictions being placed on gameplay to > > > force people into economies. I have no objection to the economy > > > affecting ordinary play, but it should be truly optional. I love how > > > these days people CFJ whenever they have a concern, without worrying > > > about it cutting into their reserves. Proposals are a contribution to > > > the game. Most of them try to make gameplay better for everyone. We > > > should not discourage people from contributing; if anything, we should > > > reward them. > > > > > > This is deliberately minimal. I'm leaving paper in place to allow it > > > to be repurposed for something else. People should not spam proposals, > > > so my proposals allows five pends per week. The Promotor gets another > > > five for other people's proposals, on the assumption that e will use > > > them to pend proposals that players have forgotten to pend, or if > > > another player legitimately bumps into eir cap. > > > > > > I submit the following proposal. I'm going to pend it unless someone > > > finds a technical problem, or we decide on a better solution to the > > > paper situation. > > > > > > -Aris > > > --- > > > Title: Free Proposals > > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > > Author: Aris > > > Co-authors: > > > > > > Change Rule 2445, "How to Pend a Proposal", to read in full: > > > > > > Imminence is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by > > > proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either "pending" or > > > "not pending" (default). > > > > > > Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending" > > > by announcement, but cannot use this method more than five times > > > each week. The first five proposals pended by the Promotor of which e > > > is not the author do not count against eir weekly limit. > > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8058-8065
I vote as follows 8058* V.J. Rada 1.0 Medal of Honour Auctions V.J. Rada FOR 8059* G. 1.0 honour is its own reward G. AGAINST 8060* V.J. Rada 1.8 Notary-B-Gone V.J. Rada FOR 8061+ Aris 1.0 Free ProposalsAris FOR 8062* Trigon 3.0 The End of the World, Again Trigon AGAINST (zombies are not broken and very fun, as are auctions. this is too sweeping. land repeal is fine). 8063* V.J. Rada 2.0 IAR Writs Repeal V.J. Rada FOR 8064* G. 1.0 Land Grants G. Most catchup mechanisms are inherently dumb as I have said before, AGAINST. 8065* twg2.0 No undead courts twg I don't care, PRESENT I also act on behalf of my zombie, Ouri, to vote the same as I do On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 7:45 AM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> 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 5.0 [1], the voting method is AI-majority and the valid > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are > conditional votes). > > [1] Quorum is provisional, and could actually be anywhere between > 5.0 and 7.0. > > ID Author(s) AI Title Pender > > --- > 8058* V.J. Rada 1.0 Medal of Honour Auctions V.J. Rada > 8059* G. 1.0 honour is its own reward G. > 8060* V.J. Rada 1.8 Notary-B-Gone V.J. Rada > 8061+ Aris 1.0 Free ProposalsAris > 8062* Trigon 3.0 The End of the World, Again Trigon > 8063* V.J. Rada 2.0 IAR Writs Repeal V.J. Rada > 8064* G. 1.0 Land Grants G. > 8065* twg2.0 No undead courts twg > > The proposal pool currently contains the following proposals: > > ID Author(s) AI Title > > --- > pp1V.J. Rada 1.0Secret Auctions > > > Legend: * : Proposal is pending. > + : By publishing this report, and before any other > action taken by sending this message, I pay a > paper to pend the marked proposal. > > > The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below. > > // > ID: 8058 > Title: Medal of Honour Auctions > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: V.J. Rada > Co-authors: > > > Amend rule 2529 "Medals of Honour" by replacing the second paragraph with > > "Beginning in the second Eastman Week of an Agoran Month and ending > at the end of that Month, the Herald CAN initiate an auction for a Medal > of Honour as the only lot. E SHALL do so in the second Eastman Week of > that Month. For this auction, the announcer is the Herald, the minimum > bid is 60 coins, and Agora is the auctioneer. Only eligible players > are allowed to bid in such an Auction. > > // > ID: 8059 > Title: honour is its own reward > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: G. > Co-authors: > > > Repeal Rule 2529 (Medals of Honour). > > [We've given it a good go, with both this and previously with > Victory Elections. Straight-up vote-for-a-winner mechanisms just > don't attract enough interest]. > > // > ID: 8060 > Title: Notary-B-Gone > Adoption index: 1.8 > Author: V.J. Rada > Co-authors: > > > Delete the last paragraph of rule 2450, "Pledges" > > // > ID: 8061 > Title: Free Proposals > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: > > > Change Rule 2445, "How to Pend a Proposal", to read in full: > > Imminence is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by > proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either "pending" or > "not pending" (default). > > Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending" > by announcement, but cannot use this method more than five times > each week. The first five proposals pended by the Promotor of which e > is not the author do not count against eir weekly limit. > > // > ID: 8062 > Title: The End of the World, Again > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Trigon > Co-authors: > > > Repeal Rule 1993 "The Land of Arcadia" > Repeal Rule 1994 "Ownership of Land" > Repeal Rule 1995 "Land Types" > Repeal Rule 1996 "The Cartographor" > Repeal Rule 1998 "Land Topology" > Repeal Rule 1999 "Entity Location" > Repeal Rule 2003 "Actions in Arca
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8058-8065
We fundamentally should not entirely repeal our current official currency until there is a new one. The vestiges of land should go. But coins and paydays should stay as a stopgap, at least. On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 9:17 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: > On 07/05/2018 05:10 PM, Rebecca wrote: > >> 8062* Trigon 3.0 The End of the World, Again Trigon >> AGAINST (zombies are not broken and very fun, as are auctions. this is too >> sweeping. land repeal is fine). >> > And how do you propose we do auctions if repealing land gets rid of all > our currency? If you want to add back these mechanics, go ahead and do so > in another proposal once we have a new offical Agoran currency. > > -- > Trigon > -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8058-8065
Those last two votes still aren't valid On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 12:43 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > I vote as follows: > > 8058: AGAINST > 8059: FOR > 8060: FOR > 8061: FOR > 8062: FOR > 8063: FOR > 8064: AGAINST, unless 8062 was REJECTED, in which case, FOR > 8065: AGAINST, unless 8062 was REJECTED, in which case, FOR > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 5:46 PM Aris Merchant > wrote: > > > > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran > > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal > > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the > > quorum is 5.0 [1], the voting method is AI-majority and the valid > > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are > > conditional votes). > > > > [1] Quorum is provisional, and could actually be anywhere between > > 5.0 and 7.0. > > > > ID Author(s) AI Title Pender > > > --- > > 8058* V.J. Rada 1.0 Medal of Honour Auctions V.J. Rada > > 8059* G. 1.0 honour is its own reward G. > > 8060* V.J. Rada 1.8 Notary-B-Gone V.J. Rada > > 8061+ Aris 1.0 Free ProposalsAris > > 8062* Trigon 3.0 The End of the World, Again Trigon > > 8063* V.J. Rada 2.0 IAR Writs Repeal V.J. Rada > > 8064* G. 1.0 Land Grants G. > > 8065* twg2.0 No undead courts twg > > > > The proposal pool currently contains the following proposals: > > > > ID Author(s) AI Title > > > --- > > pp1V.J. Rada 1.0Secret Auctions > > > > > > Legend: * : Proposal is pending. > > + : By publishing this report, and before any other > > action taken by sending this message, I pay a > > paper to pend the marked proposal. > > > > > > The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below. > > > > // > > ID: 8058 > > Title: Medal of Honour Auctions > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > Author: V.J. Rada > > Co-authors: > > > > > > Amend rule 2529 "Medals of Honour" by replacing the second paragraph with > > > > "Beginning in the second Eastman Week of an Agoran Month and ending > > at the end of that Month, the Herald CAN initiate an auction for a > Medal > > of Honour as the only lot. E SHALL do so in the second Eastman Week of > > that Month. For this auction, the announcer is the Herald, the minimum > > bid is 60 coins, and Agora is the auctioneer. Only eligible players > > are allowed to bid in such an Auction. > > > > // > > ID: 8059 > > Title: honour is its own reward > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > Author: G. > > Co-authors: > > > > > > Repeal Rule 2529 (Medals of Honour). > > > > [We've given it a good go, with both this and previously with > > Victory Elections. Straight-up vote-for-a-winner mechanisms just > > don't attract enough interest]. > > > > // > > ID: 8060 > > Title: Notary-B-Gone > > Adoption index: 1.8 > > Author: V.J. Rada > > Co-authors: > > > > > > Delete the last paragraph of rule 2450, "Pledges" > > > > // > > ID: 8061 > > Title: Free Proposals > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > Author: Aris > > Co-authors: > > > > > > Change Rule 2445, "How to Pend a Proposal", to read in full: > > > > Imminence is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by > > proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either "pending" or > > "not pending" (default). > > > > Any player CAN flip a specified proposal's imminence to "pending" > > by announcement, but cannot use this method more than five times > > each week. The first five proposals pended by the Promotor of which e > > is not the author do not count against eir weekly limit. > > > > // > > ID: 8062 > > Title: The End of the World, Again > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > Author: Trigon > > Co-authors: > > > > > > Repeal Rule 1993 "The Land of Arcadia" > > Repeal Rule 1994 "Ownership of Land" > > Repeal Rule 1995 "Land Types" > > Repeal Rule 1996 "The Cartographor" > > Repeal Rule 1998 "Land Topology" > > Repeal Rule 1999 "Entity Location" > > Repeal Rule 2003 "Actions in Arcadia" > > Repeal Rule 2004 "Land Auctions" > > Repeal Rule 2022 "Land Transfiguration" > > Repeal Rule 2565 "Preserved Land" > > Repeal Rule 2560 "Facilities" > > Repeal Rule 2561 "Asset Generation with Facilities" > > Repeal Rule 2562 "Facility Ranks" > > Repeal Rule 2563 "Production Fa
Re: DIS: Poll: Agoran MU*
as you can guess, no no and no On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 7:52 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > 1) Slightly interested. > 2) Probably not. > 3) No. > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 4:21 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > 1) Yes, it sounds interesting in principle. Then again, I said that > about the birthday tournament as well, and didn't feel like playing in the > event. > > 2) Yes, but I can't promise to devote a great deal of time to it. Also, > I don't have much experience with Python. > > 3) Yes. > > > > -twg > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > On July 10, 2018 4:42 AM, Aris Merchant gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I'm in the very early stages of looking into creating a new MU* for > > > > > > Agora. The codebase would be hosted on the Agora GitHub org, and any > > > > > > player would be free to contribute code. My skills in this area are... > > > > > > well, not particularly astonishing, so I'd certainly appreciate help > > > > > > with code. The MU* would be written in Python, since that is one of > > > > > > the most common languages and especially easy to learn. I am also not > > > > > > in a great position to host the MU*, if this gets that far, so any > > > > > > volunteers for that would also be much appreciated. > > > > > > I would like comments on what level of participation players would be > > > > > > interested in giving. Please give a list of these options: > > > > > > 1 - interested in playing > > > > > > 2 - interested in coding and/or building > > > > > > 3 - interested in hosting the server (note that this might involve > > > > > > giving shell access to at least some other players, depending on how > > > > > > we set it up) > > > > > > I'd also like to hear people's level of interest, brainstorming of > > > > > > features, or any other remarks. > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] An Argument
The above rule is invalid: no quirky spelling On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:06 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > I present the following argument on the first docket to the court: > > Your Honor, My Fellow Counselor V.J. Rada seems to have made a fatal > error in the presentation of eir reasons for Agora's eksallance. In > eir argument, e stated that e would present six reasons. However, he > proceeded to present five reasons. Your Honor, I do not believe that > making such false statements before the court should be tolerated. > > Your Honor, while I concur with My Fellow Counselor Aris's objections > to many of My Fellow Counselor V.J. Rada's reasons, I intend to argue > that the arguments before the court are needless division. I believe > that My Fellow Counselors V.J. Rada and Aris are engaging in a petty > battle to divide the Great and Ancient Nomics when it would be most > beneficial to all, if the Great and Ancient Nomics were to come > together in cooperation to attempt to develop a better understanding > of the theory and practice of Nomic and develop a larger following to > address the problems that My Fellow Counselor Aris noted, regarding > the lack of dedication within the playerbase of the Great and Ancient > Nomic of Agora. To this end, I propose that a Joint Commissions on the > Shared Interests be formed to address those issues that affect the > Great and Ancient Nomics, with representatives from all interested > nomics. > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] An Argument
sorry On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:15 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > "eksallance" is not a quirky spelling? > On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 11:13 AM Rebecca wrote: > > > > The above rule is invalid: no quirky spelling > > > > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 1:06 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I present the following argument on the first docket to the court: > > > > > > Your Honor, My Fellow Counselor V.J. Rada seems to have made a fatal > > > error in the presentation of eir reasons for Agora's eksallance. In > > > eir argument, e stated that e would present six reasons. However, he > > > proceeded to present five reasons. Your Honor, I do not believe that > > > making such false statements before the court should be tolerated. > > > > > > Your Honor, while I concur with My Fellow Counselor Aris's objections > > > to many of My Fellow Counselor V.J. Rada's reasons, I intend to argue > > > that the arguments before the court are needless division. I believe > > > that My Fellow Counselors V.J. Rada and Aris are engaging in a petty > > > battle to divide the Great and Ancient Nomics when it would be most > > > beneficial to all, if the Great and Ancient Nomics were to come > > > together in cooperation to attempt to develop a better understanding > > > of the theory and practice of Nomic and develop a larger following to > > > address the problems that My Fellow Counselor Aris noted, regarding > > > the lack of dedication within the playerbase of the Great and Ancient > > > Nomic of Agora. To this end, I propose that a Joint Commissions on the > > > Shared Interests be formed to address those issues that affect the > > > Great and Ancient Nomics, with representatives from all interested > > > nomics. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > From V.J. Rada > -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Docket 2
this is patently invalid. forgot everything had to include evidence. On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Rebecca wrote: > Your honour, I submit the following argument to d0ket two: > This court should rule that the purpose of a nomic is to develop into a > perfect game, and nomics therefore should ultimately "work themselves > pure", removing nomic elements over time for game elements. > -- > From V.J. Rada > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Summary Judgement
Oops. That's not a mandate and there's no retracting fines, but acknowledged, and I apologize. I thought it was only Christmas. There is a rule that says that fines are not effective if the punishment imposed is manifestly inappropriate but that's only for the value of the fine, so there's no challenging these fines in court, but to be equitable, I suppose some remedy could be found where I write your apologies for you or something. On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 8:18 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > Please note Rule 1769 and the fact that it applies to all of these violations. > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 4:09 AM Rebecca wrote: >> >> There is one person recently late on reports (myself) and three people >> very late on CFJs. One of them is Gaelan, a zombie, but the other two >> are PSS and ATMunn, who have no excuse. Those CFJs were assigned on 24 >> June, and therefore became late on the 2nd of July. As today is just >> within the 14-day deadline for that time, I impose Summary Judgement >> on them. (By the way, Murphy emself has a SHALL obligation that e has >> missed to reassign these but I regard that as less important. >> >> I impose summary judgement on >> -Myself for not lodging a Referee Weekly Report last week >> -PSS for failing to judge the CFJ numbered 3645 >> -ATMunn for failing to judge CFJ 3648 >> >> The penalties I levy are as follows >> -I levy a 1-blot fine on myself, varying down from the Class-2 default >> because the conduct was unintentional and there was no new information >> to report. I designate this fine as forgivable and I designate the >> apology word "is". >> -I levy a 1-blot fine on PSS. I find that failing to judge a CFJ, >> which does not have a Class attached, is generally deserving of the >> lowest possible fine. I designate this fine as forgivable with the >> apology word "I". >> -I levy a 1-blot forgivable fine with the word "did" on ATMunn for the >> same reasons as above. >> >> -- >> From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] An Ambassadorial Consideration
damn time limits!! this would have been more fun with higher participation/longer time but congrats aris. On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 11:05 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > Yes. That is my third strike. Now, Aris is the only remaining player, > assuming eir argument is ruled VALID and e thus wins. > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 8:59 AM Corona wrote: >> >> > [...] with which Agora would establish relations. >> >> You mean G.A.N. Agora? >> >> ~Corona >> >> On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < >> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > I submit the below argument on the third docket: >> > >> > Your Honor, >> > >> > I agree with My Fellow Counsellor, Aris, that the office of Ambassador >> > should be brought back. However, there remain many qvestion$ to >> > consider, even after making that determination. Initially, it must be >> > determined whether a separate Ambassador should be appointed for each >> > Nomic, with which Agora would establish relations. I believe that it >> > would be better to have a separate Ambassador for each Nomic, so that >> > each Ambassador would have a better knowledge of the foreign Nomic. >> > Additionally, I would propose that there be a Minister of Foreign >> > Affairs, who would determine general policy and serve as the >> > Ambassador to G.A.N. of F.R.C., in recognition of its special historic >> > status, discussed on the first docket. >> > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolutiion of Proposals 8058-8065, quorum-busting edition
got it On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 1:23 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: > twg wrote: > >> Well, if the resolution message actually is self-ratifying, I see no >> reason >> why the following shouldn't work, assuming this message actually is >> received >> by a "reasonable number" of people. (So please confirm receipt!) > > > Receipt confirmed > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: um
you have a CFJ to judge somewhere On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:02 AM, ATMunn wrote: > cool, thanks. > > > On 7/19/2018 11:30 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> >> You know that sort of paragraph written weekly or biweekly is the most >> useful form of newspaper. nothing fancy. >> >> I'd add that the current batch of proposals up for vote has major >> land changes - looks likely to pass unless a major bug is found that >> changes people's minds. When the last batch's assessment gets fixed, >> proposals will be free again (no pend cost) and you can claim some land >> if you didn't win an auction last month. >> >> On Thu, 19 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >>> >>> A good strategy is to ignore those labelled "[FRC]" because those were >>> for the Birthday Tournament. Quick recap: Passed some changes, G. is >>> going on break and has resigned, the Birthday Tournament happened, >>> Corona and I were elected Registrar and Herald, respectively. That's >>> all that I can think of. >>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 10:21 AM ATMunn wrote: Well, I'm back from vacation. Actually got back a couple days ago, but haven't wanted to check my email until today. Now there's 350 Agora emails. I don't think it's humanly possible to go through each one individually in a reasonable amount of time, so what's a general recap of what happened and are there any important threads to look at? In fact, in general, if there are a lot of emails to read, what's a good strategy to go through them? >>> >>> >> > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Humiliating Public Reminder
same, it's 5.
On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 8:39 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> I object. I'd be fine with the lower value though.
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I hereby intend to ratify the following document, without objection:
>> {
>> The quorum on each of the decisions to adopt Proposals 8066-8076 is 7.
>> }
>>
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 12:12 PM Kerim Aydin
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > I object. I would not object to the highest quorum value.
>> >
>> > On Mon, 23 Jul 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> >
>> > > You continuing out the quorum uncertainty is going to create decision
>> > > uncertainty because we will be unsure of whose votes counted. At some
>> > > point, we need to just ratify it and make up our minds.
>> > >
>> > > I hereby intend to ratify the following document, without objection:
>> > > {
>> > > The quorum on each of the decisions to adopt Proposals 8066-8076
>> is 5.
>> > > }
>> > >
>> > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> > > On Mon, Jul 23, 2018 at 11:11 AM Timon Walshe-Grey
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Well, the solution for that is for enough people to vote (in the
>> next decision with uncertain quorum) to beat the maximum possible value of
>> quorum.
>> > > >
>> > > > I think decision uncertainty is far more undesirable than quorum
>> uncertainty. We're just about coping with having two possible quora for
>> each decision, but things will get really confusing if the ruleset diverges
>> as well.
>> > > >
>> > > > -twg
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> > > >
>> > > > On July 23, 2018 3:03 PM, Kerim Aydin
>> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > You can fix decision uncertainty, but this unavoidably perpetuates
>> the quorum
>> > > > >
>> > > > > uncertainty. Any votes now are valid if and only if the voting
>> period has been
>> > > > >
>> > > > > extended, so their validity for determining quorum in the next
>> batch will be
>> > > > >
>> > > > > uncertain...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > (Personally I'm abstaining on purpose so I'm decidedly not
>> humiliated).
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, 23 Jul 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > Quorum on the Agoran Decisions on whether or not to adopt
>> Proposals 8066-8076
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > is either 5.0 or 7.0. There were 6 votes on each Decision.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > If quorum is 5.0, then I have a week in which to announce the
>> result. And if
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > it's 7.0, then the voting period is extended by a week. This
>> means that I can
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > still unambiguously resolve these Decisions, but only if one of
>> the following
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > slackers attempts to cast a vote soon - even PRESENT:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > ATMunn, Corona, CuddleBeam, G., omd, Trigon, V.J. Rada,
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Gaelan, nichdel, Ouri, pokes, Quazie, Telnaior and 天火狐.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > The aforementioned (active) slackers ought to be ashamed of
>> themselves for
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > bringing this confusion upon Agora. You people are why we can't
>> have nice
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > things. I expect better of you all in the future.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > If quorum on these Decisions is 5.0, then the above is a
>> humiliating public
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > reminder, courtesy of Rule 2168. (Otherwise, I suppose it is
>> merely a
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > humiliating public statement.)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > -twg
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>>
--
>From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: missing reports
I was sloppy in these messages: I didn't explicitly state that these were forgivable. But I think the imposition of an apology word automatically makes it so. On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:03 AM, Rebecca wrote: > I find both of these finger points valid. Because these are two > separate finger points, I will impose two separate penalties. > Therefore, twice over I > Impose the Cold Hand of Justice on Corona for missing Registrar weekly > reports for the previous two weeks. > Impose a fine of 1 blot with the apology word "Jeff" > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 7:13 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> >> [Affects at least 1 zombie auction] >> >> I point the finger at Corona for missing the Registrar's report for the week >> ending on July 15. >> >> I point the finger at Corona for missing the Registrar's report for the week >> ending on July 22. >> >> >> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Summary Judgement
I was sloppy with these, too. Summary Judgement fines are not forgivable by definition. Therefore I am not eligible for a Ref salary this month. On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Rebecca wrote: > There is one person recently late on reports (myself) and three people > very late on CFJs. One of them is Gaelan, a zombie, but the other two > are PSS and ATMunn, who have no excuse. Those CFJs were assigned on 24 > June, and therefore became late on the 2nd of July. As today is just > within the 14-day deadline for that time, I impose Summary Judgement > on them. (By the way, Murphy emself has a SHALL obligation that e has > missed to reassign these but I regard that as less important. > > I impose summary judgement on > -Myself for not lodging a Referee Weekly Report last week > -PSS for failing to judge the CFJ numbered 3645 > -ATMunn for failing to judge CFJ 3648 > > The penalties I levy are as follows > -I levy a 1-blot fine on myself, varying down from the Class-2 default > because the conduct was unintentional and there was no new information > to report. I designate this fine as forgivable and I designate the > apology word "is". > -I levy a 1-blot fine on PSS. I find that failing to judge a CFJ, > which does not have a Class attached, is generally deserving of the > lowest possible fine. I designate this fine as forgivable with the > apology word "I". > -I levy a 1-blot forgivable fine with the word "did" on ATMunn for the > same reasons as above. > > -- > From V.J. Rada -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Summary Judgement
the result never got judged (poke ATMunn). but to me the result is clear: the provision for making fines forgivable is _only_ contained within the Cold Hand of Justice Rule. On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I thought I remembered CFJing on this question in the last few months, but > don't remember seeing the result (and couldn't find it in a quick Gazette > search). Anyone remember? Boy I really really really need to get the CFJ > database up-to-date again. > > > On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: > > I was sloppy with these, too. Summary Judgement fines are not > > forgivable by definition. Therefore I am not eligible for a Ref salary > > this month. > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Rebecca > wrote: > > > There is one person recently late on reports (myself) and three people > > > very late on CFJs. One of them is Gaelan, a zombie, but the other two > > > are PSS and ATMunn, who have no excuse. Those CFJs were assigned on 24 > > > June, and therefore became late on the 2nd of July. As today is just > > > within the 14-day deadline for that time, I impose Summary Judgement > > > on them. (By the way, Murphy emself has a SHALL obligation that e has > > > missed to reassign these but I regard that as less important. > > > > > > I impose summary judgement on > > > -Myself for not lodging a Referee Weekly Report last week > > > -PSS for failing to judge the CFJ numbered 3645 > > > -ATMunn for failing to judge CFJ 3648 > > > > > > The penalties I levy are as follows > > > -I levy a 1-blot fine on myself, varying down from the Class-2 default > > > because the conduct was unintentional and there was no new information > > > to report. I designate this fine as forgivable and I designate the > > > apology word "is". > > > -I levy a 1-blot fine on PSS. I find that failing to judge a CFJ, > > > which does not have a Class attached, is generally deserving of the > > > lowest possible fine. I designate this fine as forgivable with the > > > apology word "I". > > > -I levy a 1-blot forgivable fine with the word "did" on ATMunn for the > > > same reasons as above. > > > > > > -- > > > From V.J. Rada > > > > > > > > -- > > From V.J. Rada > > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: (Attn: Murphy) in Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Summary Judgement
ATMunn's been sitting on it for a long time. On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I called the CFJ on June 24 and argued that summary judgement DIDN'T > prevent > a payday: > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/ > agora-business/2018-June/038657.html > > but I don't see it listed in the next Gazette so maybe it was missed? > (this > was also during the peak of the email troubles). > > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I thought I remembered CFJing on this question in the last few months, > but > > don't remember seeing the result (and couldn't find it in a quick Gazette > > search). Anyone remember? Boy I really really really need to get the > CFJ > > database up-to-date again. > > > > > > On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: > > > I was sloppy with these, too. Summary Judgement fines are not > > > forgivable by definition. Therefore I am not eligible for a Ref salary > > > this month. > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Rebecca > wrote: > > > > There is one person recently late on reports (myself) and three > people > > > > very late on CFJs. One of them is Gaelan, a zombie, but the other two > > > > are PSS and ATMunn, who have no excuse. Those CFJs were assigned on > 24 > > > > June, and therefore became late on the 2nd of July. As today is just > > > > within the 14-day deadline for that time, I impose Summary Judgement > > > > on them. (By the way, Murphy emself has a SHALL obligation that e has > > > > missed to reassign these but I regard that as less important. > > > > > > > > I impose summary judgement on > > > > -Myself for not lodging a Referee Weekly Report last week > > > > -PSS for failing to judge the CFJ numbered 3645 > > > > -ATMunn for failing to judge CFJ 3648 > > > > > > > > The penalties I levy are as follows > > > > -I levy a 1-blot fine on myself, varying down from the Class-2 > default > > > > because the conduct was unintentional and there was no new > information > > > > to report. I designate this fine as forgivable and I designate the > > > > apology word "is". > > > > -I levy a 1-blot fine on PSS. I find that failing to judge a CFJ, > > > > which does not have a Class attached, is generally deserving of the > > > > lowest possible fine. I designate this fine as forgivable with the > > > > apology word "I". > > > > -I levy a 1-blot forgivable fine with the word "did" on ATMunn for > the > > > > same reasons as above. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > From V.J. Rada > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > From V.J. Rada > > > > > > > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: (Attn: Murphy) in Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Summary Judgement
My preferred reading is that unforgivable = not forgivable and because there's only one way of making a fine forgivable, unforgivable fines are all other fines. I appreciate the other reading but I don't think it makes textual sense. I would prefer the option of making SJ fines forgivable, and will propose as such. On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Rebecca wrote: > ATMunn's been sitting on it for a long time. > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:56 AM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > >> >> >> I called the CFJ on June 24 and argued that summary judgement DIDN'T >> prevent >> a payday: >> >> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora >> -business/2018-June/038657.html >> >> but I don't see it listed in the next Gazette so maybe it was missed? >> (this >> was also during the peak of the email troubles). >> >> >> On Thu, 26 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > I thought I remembered CFJing on this question in the last few months, >> but >> > don't remember seeing the result (and couldn't find it in a quick >> Gazette >> > search). Anyone remember? Boy I really really really need to get the >> CFJ >> > database up-to-date again. >> > >> > >> > On Fri, 27 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: >> > > I was sloppy with these, too. Summary Judgement fines are not >> > > forgivable by definition. Therefore I am not eligible for a Ref salary >> > > this month. >> > > >> > > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Rebecca >> wrote: >> > > > There is one person recently late on reports (myself) and three >> people >> > > > very late on CFJs. One of them is Gaelan, a zombie, but the other >> two >> > > > are PSS and ATMunn, who have no excuse. Those CFJs were assigned on >> 24 >> > > > June, and therefore became late on the 2nd of July. As today is just >> > > > within the 14-day deadline for that time, I impose Summary Judgement >> > > > on them. (By the way, Murphy emself has a SHALL obligation that e >> has >> > > > missed to reassign these but I regard that as less important. >> > > > >> > > > I impose summary judgement on >> > > > -Myself for not lodging a Referee Weekly Report last week >> > > > -PSS for failing to judge the CFJ numbered 3645 >> > > > -ATMunn for failing to judge CFJ 3648 >> > > > >> > > > The penalties I levy are as follows >> > > > -I levy a 1-blot fine on myself, varying down from the Class-2 >> default >> > > > because the conduct was unintentional and there was no new >> information >> > > > to report. I designate this fine as forgivable and I designate the >> > > > apology word "is". >> > > > -I levy a 1-blot fine on PSS. I find that failing to judge a CFJ, >> > > > which does not have a Class attached, is generally deserving of the >> > > > lowest possible fine. I designate this fine as forgivable with the >> > > > apology word "I". >> > > > -I levy a 1-blot forgivable fine with the word "did" on ATMunn for >> the >> > > > same reasons as above. >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > From V.J. Rada >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > From V.J. Rada >> > > >> > >> > >> >> > > > -- > From V.J. Rada > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: None of my votes have counted since July 15
Yes. People not votes for quorum On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 3:10 PM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > After reading Rules 2422 and 683, I think your vote still counts toward > quorum, which is good. > > -Aris > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 4:11 PM Rebecca wrote: > > > I imposed summary judgement on myself on Jul 15, bringing me to 3 blots, > > moving my voting strength to 0. This is a CoE on the resolution of all > > Agoran Decisions which had a voting period ending after that date: change > > them accordingly (as far as I know, my zombie's votes count) > > > > -- > > From V.J. Rada > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] The Map of Arcadia -- July week 4
Cartographer's note section doesn't work to mark something disputed unless there's some indication of disputation like a ! mark in the report's list itself. Otherwise the report is internally inconsistent and doesn't self-ratify. (note I haven't actually checked whether this is the case here) On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 10:28 AM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 29, 2018 at 5:26 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > > On Sun, 29 Jul 2018, Corona wrote: > > > > > Sorry! I withdraw my CoE. > > > > Is that actually possible? I don't see anything in my copy of the Ruleset > > allowing it, but that's from June 6... > > > > Greetings, > > Ørjan. > > > Not legally, but by custom. Usually, a withdrawn CoE is summarily rejected > by the officer unless someone else indicates that they agree with the > point, which doesn't happen often. > > -Aris > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Proto-judgement of CFJ 3654
Given the 2 uncontested cfjs ruling the votes at issue invalid, the answer is 4 clearly On Wed., 1 Aug. 2018, 1:55 pm Aris Merchant, < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 8:50 PM Edward Murphy wrote: > > > (I may be overlooking any number of things here; if I am, please > > let me know.) > > > > Per Rule 879, quorum on these decisions was N-2, where N was the > > number of players who voted on the last proposal decision before > > they were initiated (not resolved). > > > > * They were initiated on July 15 > > * Last proposal decision resolved before that was 8057 on July 1 > > * Players voting on that decision were Murphy, Aris, V.J. Rada, > > twg, PSS, ATMunn, and possibly Trigon and Corona (either both > > effective or both ineffective) > > * V.J. Rada's loss of voting power didn't start till July 15 > > > > Thus, I believe the statement is FALSE; N was either 6 or 8, so > > quorum on 8066 et al was either 4 or 6. > > > > That doesn't resolve the question of whether it was 4 or 6, and it would > be helpful to find out. It's not with in the explicit mandate, but it is > within the scope of controversy. I haven't checked the details, but your > logic sounds valid. > > -Aris >
Re: DIS: Proto-judgement of CFJ 3654
Actually, I just noticed and (if we accept those CFJs) there should be three invalid votes as opposed to four. One of those CFJs invalidated "I do the same as the last four people in this thread" but someone else voted identically but replacing four with three. On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 1:58 PM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > G. contested those, with supporting logic affixed, which is why this case > exists. It wasn't an attempt to get around an appeal, either, if you look > at the justification. > > -Aris > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 8:57 PM Rebecca wrote: > > > Given the 2 uncontested cfjs ruling the votes at issue invalid, the > answer > > is 4 clearly > > > > On Wed., 1 Aug. 2018, 1:55 pm Aris Merchant, < > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 8:50 PM Edward Murphy > > wrote: > > > > > > > (I may be overlooking any number of things here; if I am, please > > > > let me know.) > > > > > > > > Per Rule 879, quorum on these decisions was N-2, where N was the > > > > number of players who voted on the last proposal decision before > > > > they were initiated (not resolved). > > > > > > > > * They were initiated on July 15 > > > > * Last proposal decision resolved before that was 8057 on July 1 > > > > * Players voting on that decision were Murphy, Aris, V.J. Rada, > > > > twg, PSS, ATMunn, and possibly Trigon and Corona (either both > > > > effective or both ineffective) > > > > * V.J. Rada's loss of voting power didn't start till July 15 > > > > > > > > Thus, I believe the statement is FALSE; N was either 6 or 8, so > > > > quorum on 8066 et al was either 4 or 6. > > > > > > > > That doesn't resolve the question of whether it was 4 or 6, and it > > would > > > be helpful to find out. It's not with in the explicit mandate, but it > is > > > within the scope of controversy. I haven't checked the details, but > your > > > logic sounds valid. > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Proto-judgement of CFJ 3654
However, PSS did say this: " it also invalidates Trigon's vote. When I was writing the CFJ, I read the vote as being ambiguous about how changes to the other people's votes would affect the caster's vote, but now reading it, I am finding it unambiguous, so I would be happy to motion to reconsider, if others are also confused." On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:08 PM, Rebecca wrote: > Actually, I just noticed and (if we accept those CFJs) there should be > three invalid votes as opposed to four. One of those CFJs invalidated "I do > the same as the last four people in this thread" but someone else voted > identically but replacing four with three. > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 1:58 PM, Aris Merchant gmail.com> wrote: > >> G. contested those, with supporting logic affixed, which is why this case >> exists. It wasn't an attempt to get around an appeal, either, if you look >> at the justification. >> >> -Aris >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 8:57 PM Rebecca wrote: >> >> > Given the 2 uncontested cfjs ruling the votes at issue invalid, the >> answer >> > is 4 clearly >> > >> > On Wed., 1 Aug. 2018, 1:55 pm Aris Merchant, < >> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 8:50 PM Edward Murphy >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > > (I may be overlooking any number of things here; if I am, please >> > > > let me know.) >> > > > >> > > > Per Rule 879, quorum on these decisions was N-2, where N was the >> > > > number of players who voted on the last proposal decision before >> > > > they were initiated (not resolved). >> > > > >> > > > * They were initiated on July 15 >> > > > * Last proposal decision resolved before that was 8057 on July 1 >> > > > * Players voting on that decision were Murphy, Aris, V.J. Rada, >> > > > twg, PSS, ATMunn, and possibly Trigon and Corona (either both >> > > > effective or both ineffective) >> > > > * V.J. Rada's loss of voting power didn't start till July 15 >> > > > >> > > > Thus, I believe the statement is FALSE; N was either 6 or 8, so >> > > > quorum on 8066 et al was either 4 or 6. >> > > > >> > > > That doesn't resolve the question of whether it was 4 or 6, and it >> > would >> > > be helpful to find out. It's not with in the explicit mandate, but it >> is >> > > within the scope of controversy. I haven't checked the details, but >> your >> > > logic sounds valid. >> > > >> > > -Aris >> > > >> > >> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada > -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: 3638 Rejudgement
you can move to reconsider your own judgements once automatically now. On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 5:52 PM, Corona wrote: > I support the move for reconsideration. > > On Thursday, August 2, 2018, Rebecca wrote: > > > I move for reconsideration of my judgement in CFJ 3638 and deliver the > > following (annoying) judgement. > > > > Rule 2150 states that "A player CAN publish a Notice of Honour" and then > > specifies that four conditions must be satisfied for a Notice to be > > _valid_. Valid can be defined as " > > legally binding due to having been executed in compliance with the law.". > > Therefore, the rule contemplates the existence of invalid notices of > honour > > with no legally binding effect and valid ones (this is supported by the > > fact that the rule attaches consequences only to "a valid Notice of > Honour" > > being "published". The statement of this case is "the above is a notice > of > > honour". "[T]he above" is text purporting to be a Notice of Honour > raising > > and lowering Agora's Karma by 1. Whether that Notice is valid is > > irrelevant to the statement of this case. The four conditions do not need > > to be satisfied. It is, valid or invalid, a Notice of Honour. > > > > This is in accordance with how we otherwise use English. An invalid > license > > is still a license, an expired passport is still a passport, and an > invalid > > contract is still legally a contract if formed, just unenforced. > > > > CFJ 3638 is TRUE. > > > > > > > > -- > > From V.J. Rada > > > > > -- > ~Corona > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: 3638 Rejudgement
No, it doesn't matter. Moving agora further from zero is a validity condition for a Notice not a defining one, just like reasoning On Thu., 2 Aug. 2018, 10:52 pm Cuddle Beam, wrote: > I move to reconsider. Now that it's not void because of the 4th argument, > it can still become void become of the 1st argument, yet the 1st argument > hasn't been touched in either judgement. > > - It's not a notice of honor because it causes Agora's Honor to go further > away from 0 and only an individual action happens per instant as per CFJ > 2086, so the -1 would need to happen first, but since it would make Agora's > Honor go further than 0, it doesn't happen. > - It's a notice of honor because the notice of honor as a single unit is > the action, not the individual movements it's composed of. > - It's a notice of honor because the above doesn't matter and the player > requirement implicitly only applies when a player is targeted. > - It's not a notice of honor because it doesn't "provide a reason for > specifying that Player" (and I never can, because Agora isn't a player). > And > the implicit rule mentioned above doesn't exist. > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Rebecca wrote: > > > you can move to reconsider your own judgements once automatically now. > > > > On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 5:52 PM, Corona > > wrote: > > > > > I support the move for reconsideration. > > > > > > On Thursday, August 2, 2018, Rebecca wrote: > > > > > > > I move for reconsideration of my judgement in CFJ 3638 and deliver > the > > > > following (annoying) judgement. > > > > > > > > Rule 2150 states that "A player CAN publish a Notice of Honour" and > > then > > > > specifies that four conditions must be satisfied for a Notice to be > > > > _valid_. Valid can be defined as " > > > > legally binding due to having been executed in compliance with the > > law.". > > > > Therefore, the rule contemplates the existence of invalid notices of > > > honour > > > > with no legally binding effect and valid ones (this is supported by > the > > > > fact that the rule attaches consequences only to "a valid Notice of > > > Honour" > > > > being "published". The statement of this case is "the above is a > notice > > > of > > > > honour". "[T]he above" is text purporting to be a Notice of Honour > > > raising > > > > and lowering Agora's Karma by 1. Whether that Notice is valid is > > > > irrelevant to the statement of this case. The four conditions do not > > need > > > > to be satisfied. It is, valid or invalid, a Notice of Honour. > > > > > > > > This is in accordance with how we otherwise use English. An invalid > > > license > > > > is still a license, an expired passport is still a passport, and an > > > invalid > > > > contract is still legally a contract if formed, just unenforced. > > > > > > > > CFJ 3638 is TRUE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > From V.J. Rada > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > ~Corona > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > From V.J. Rada > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] [RWO] Routine Worst-Case Cleanup
I can't resolve this Finger without knowing whether or not the document was
incorrect (or indeterminate, which it clearly isn't). Unless anyone can
point to a proposal that clearly existed that your ratification claimed did
not, and within a timely fashion from the Finger, I will likely acquit.
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 3:56 PM, Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 10:40 PM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I intend to ratify the following document without objection:
> >
> > {Any entity that has existed before the beginning of the month of
> > July, 2018, and has not yet been assessed, is not a proposal.}
> >
> > The above document would cleanup any proposals that the Assessor
> > somehow missed, so that they don't reek havoc on the current game.
> > This message is not part of a scam.
> >
> Without objection, I do so.
>
> I have information that suggests proposals that meet the above description
> might in fact have existed. Past precedent appears to suggest that
> incorrect distributions actually create proposals, which is not in line
> with present practice. I intend to create a proposal to legislatively
> clarify the matter when I get a chance.
>
> I point my finger at myself for the Class-8 Crime of Endorsing Forgery. I
> plead guilty to this offense. I opine that the sentence otherwise due
> should be reduced because a) I acted only to do what I perceived as in the
> game's best interests; and b) I'd honestly forgotten that this was a crime.
> In light of these facts, I recommend a sentence of no less than one and no
> more than three blots, forgivable if possible. I
>
> I'm also sorry about being late on the Promotor's report. I expect to
> publish it in the next few days. I decline to point a finger at myself for
> this offense, as the report is less that a week overdue, but someone else
> can if they want to.
>
> -Aris
>
--
>From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Notice of Honour
yea i intentionally used both names all the time to confuse people On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 2:25 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Next time, just try to communicate a bit more clearly. :) > > Notice of Honor: > -1 G. (unclear communication) > +1 omd (serving as our Distributor) > > Now we're both at 0, which seems equitable somehow. > > -Aris > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 9:14 PM Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > > > I think we're just interpreting things differently: when a proposal is > > "added back" to the proposal pool, you give it the priority of its > original > > number, while I was assuming that if other proposals were added to the > > pool in the mean time, those should have priority. > > > > In this case, it turned out that your ordering happened to favor > proposals > > you were keen on, that I didn't want to pass. > > > > Where this matters: I thought about resubmitting a "Coins->Points" > > name change proposal that could take effect before the "coin reduction" > > proposals, thus rendering them ineffective. But if those quorum-failing > > proposals always jump the queue, that removes this strategy. > > > > Anyway: I almost added that we haven't had a good "karma storm" (lots > > of people sniping each others' karma) in a long time. It's a good way > > to blow off steam (and smooth things over :) ) without really damaging > > anyone - though the zombies doing karma really amplifies it I guess! > > I'm cool (even if you do another round of karma on me :P ). > > > > > > On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > To the public forum: > > > > > > I haven’t reordered proposals to favor one over another any time I can > > > remember. If I have done so recently (in the last few months), please > point > > > it out, and I pledge that I will state, publicly, whether or not the > > > reordering was an attempt at deliberate manipulation. I make every > effort > > > to be scrupulously fair with my actions in the office of the Promotor. > I’ve > > > done a few pranks (that thing with Cuddlebeam last year comes to > mind), but > > > nothing I didn’t consider ethical. On every occasion upon which I have > been > > > offered a bribe to distribute proposals in a certain way, I have > refused > > > it. I’m trying very hard not to take personal offense at that > allegation, > > > given that this is a game and we appear to only be having a > > > misunderstanding. > > > > > > I believe that if a proposal fails quorum, it should be voted upon > again, > > > so that the people of Agora can state their views on it. I have > attempted > > > to make that possible. If you disagree, that’s your right, but I’m only > > > trying to be helpful. If you believe that the attempts at lowering > quorum > > > are inadvisable, that is a disagreement best worked out through the > > > proposal process. > > > > > > With hope that we can smooth this over, > > > Aris > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 8:40 PM Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > > > -1 G. (complaining about proposals being readded while resisting > any > > > > > attempt to lower quorum or otherwise resolve the problem of them > failing > > > > > quorum) > > > > > > > > Quorum is working as intended. The only "problem" is that some > people > > > > don't accept a result as a result, to the point that they are using > their > > > > Office in self-interest by distributing proposals out of the order > that > > > > they were placed in the pool, to favor proposals that they like. > > > > > > > > Might as well jump in though. > > > > > > > > Notice of Honour: > > > > -1 Aris (because really, I feel like it). > > > > +1 CuddleBeam (because I'm tired of seeing that name at the bottom). > > > > > > > > > > > > On behalf of Gaelan, I publish this following Notice of Honour: > > > > > > > > Notice of Honour > > > > -1 Aris (because Gaelan may or may not feel like it). > > > > +1 V.J. (or VJ) Rada, because eir name is confusing enough to be > > > > listed in two different ways within the Registrar's Report, and > > > > I like that. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: Blotting Proposal
The eighth point should be eir behalf, zombies are still people. On Wed., 24 Oct. 2018, 11:22 am D. Margaux, wrote: > I submit and pend the following proposal: > > > Title: Criminal Justice Adjustments Act > AI: 2 > Author: D Margaux > > [Purpose is to streamline and clarify the conditions under > which fines can be imposed; make it possible to impose > fines after 14 days when a finger is pointed within 14 days; > and to clarify the time period for imposing fines when it is > based on the failure to meet a deadline] > > Amend Rule 2531 (Referee Accountability) to replace this text: > > "Any attempt to levy a fine is INEFFECTIVE if it does not include > (1) value of the fine in blots, (2) the name of the person being > fined (the perp), and (3) the specific reason for the fine, or if > it attempts to levy a fine on a person for an action or inaction > which e (more likely than not) did not commit, or if it attempts > to levy a fine for an action or inaction which is not prohibited > by law, or if it attempts to levy a fine with a value which is > blatantly and obviously unsuited to the conduct which constitutes > the reason for its levy or to the person to which it is being > levied, or if it is made more than 14 days after the conduct > constituting the reason for the fine, or if it attempts to levy a > fine to a player who has already been levied a fine for the > conduct constituting the reason for the levy, or if it attempts to > levy a fine on a zombie for an action that its master performed on > its behalf." > > with this text: > > "Any attempt to levy a fine is INEFFECTIVE if: > > (1) it does not include value of the fine in blots, the name > of the person being fined (the perp), and the specific > reason for the fine; > > (2) it attempts to levy a fine on a person for an action or > inaction which e (more likely than not) did not commit; > > (3) it attempts to levy a fine for an action or inaction > which is not prohibited by law; > > (4) it attempts to levy a fine with a value that is blatantly > and obviously unsuited to the conduct which constitutes > the reason for its levy or to the person on whom it is > being levied; > > (5) it attempts to levy a fine (i) by summary judgement more > than 14 days after the action constituting the reason > for the fine or (ii) based upon the investigation of > of a Finger that had been Pointed more than 14 days > after the action constituting the reason for the fine; > > (6) it attempts to levy a fine on a player for failing to > take an action within the time period set by the Rules > and that time period had expired (i) more than 14 days > prior to the attempted fine, if the attempted fine is > imposed by summary judgement or (ii) more than 14 days > prior to the Pointed Finger, if the fine is imposed > based on an investigation of such Finger; > > (7) it attempts to levy a fine on a player who has already > been fined for the conduct constituting the reason for > the levy; or > > (8) it attempts to levy a fine on a zombie for an action > that its master performed on its behalf." > > -- > D. Margaux >
Re: DIS: [Proto] Criminal Justice Reform Act
please remove UNAWARE from this, that basically removes interpretation of criminal rules entirely. On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:23 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Okay, here's a proto of my criminal justice reform. Again, D Margaux, > sorry for the duplication of effort. I borrowed one of your ideas (the > one about the time when tardiness happens needing to be defined), so > I've added you as a coauthor. > > -Aris > > --- > Title: Criminal Justice Reform Act > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Aris > Co-authors: D Margaux > > > [Our criminal justice system has problems. In short, it isn't designed > to be extensible. Not only are the criteria under which a person is guilty > a bit of a mess, but it is also difficult to add additional sentences, > other than the assignment of blots, to the current rules. There is > also no uniform process for the Referee to report why the accused isn't > guilty. Finally, our judicial system maintains a pre-zombie split between > a sentence imposed by the referee and one imposed pursuant to > finger-pointing, > a distinction that is no longer meaningful. > > In short, I rewrote our judicial system almost from scratch. It operates > in much > the same way as before, but I've cleaned up the implementation to be much > more > streamlined. This also should open the way for criminal CFJs, if we ever > want to > bring them back, but on its own I think it represents a significant > improvement.] > > Repeal Rules 2478, 2479, 2557, and 2531. > > Amend Rule 2152, "Mother, May I?", by appending at the end of the first > paragraph the text > "Every action or inaction that is not explicitly declared by the rules > to be impermissible is implicitly permissible, but not necessarily > possible." > > Create a new Power 1.7 Rule entitled "Criminal Cases", with the following > text: > > A player CAN by announcement, accuse (syn. indict) a specified player > (the Defendant), naming an alleged violation of the rules by that person > (the Act), and thereby initiating a criminal case against them. However, > a > player SHALL NOT make a accusation of which e believes the Defendant > not to be guilty without explaining emself in the same message; to do so > is the Class-5 Crime of Witch-Hunting. For the purposes of these > definitions, > failure to take a required action before the appropriate deadline > constitutes > a violation occurring at the deadline to complete the action. > > The Referee is by default the Adjudicator for all criminal cases. > When a player, other than the Arbitor, accuses a player of > abuse of the criminal justice system, explicitly citing this > provision, the Arbitor is the Adjudicator of the resulting criminal > case. > > After the initiation of a criminal case, the Adjudicator CAN once > determine the verdict from among the possible verdicts specified by the > rules. E SHALL investigate the allegation and, in a timely fashion, > conclude > the investigation by delivering what e believes the correct verdict > in the case. If the verdict is manifestly incorrect, the attempt > to award the verdict fails. > > If the Referee issues three or more manifestly incorrect > verdicts in a given week, any player CAN, with two support, issue a > writ of Impartial Arbitration Restoration, immediately making the > position > of Referee vacant. When a writ of Impartial Arbitration Restoration is > issued, the ADoP SHALL initiate an election for the Referee within a > timely > fashion. > > > Create a new Power 1.7 Rule entitled "Guilt", with the following text: > > The correct verdict is the first appropriate listed verdict. A > verdict is appropriate if and only if the conditions specified for > it are met. The Adjudicator is ENCOURAGED to list any verdicts, > other than the correct one, which e believes to be appropriate. > The possible verdicts are as follows: > > - DISCHARGE, appropriate if the Defendant has already been found guilty > and sentenced for the the same Act. > > - PERMISSIBLE, appropriate if the purported Act is LEGAL. > > - INNOCENT, appropriate if the Defendant more likely than not did not > commit the Act. > > - JUSTIFIED, if the Defendant was, through no fault of eir own, required > to commit the Act by a rule of power greater than or equal to that > of the rule declaring the act ILLEGAL. > > - INCULPABLE, appropriate if the the Defendant could not reasonably have > been expected to avoid committing the Act (for instance, because the > Act > was made on the Defendant's behalf without eir consent). > > - UNAWARE, appropriate if the Defendant could reasonably have believed > that the Act was LEGAL at the time e committed it. > > - UNTIMELY, appropriate if more than 14 days had passed since the Act was > committed at the time the criminal case was initiated. > > - GUILTY/S, where S is a valid sentence, appropriate in all other case
Re: DIS: [Proto] Criminal Justice Reform Act
Yeah, it's the rule of lenity from criminal law. I'm fine with you having it in if you want (I'm barely even a player of this game at this point) but given that this system is so discretionary anyway I don't see that we need it. I instituted appeals by CFJ because they're worth having but a plethora of CFJs ruling that while the referee was right on the law, their interpretation was ambiguous so the punishment is overturned would be a bad thing. On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:29 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I can split it off into a separate proposal. It’s something we’ve used > successfully before, however. It basically says that if the rule is > ambiguous, the ambiguity is resolved in the favor of the defendant unless > there’s already a CFJ somewhere clearing it up. Still want it separated? > > -Aris > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 8:27 PM Rebecca wrote: > > > please remove UNAWARE from this, that basically removes interpretation of > > criminal rules entirely. > > > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 2:23 PM Aris Merchant < > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Okay, here's a proto of my criminal justice reform. Again, D Margaux, > > > sorry for the duplication of effort. I borrowed one of your ideas (the > > > one about the time when tardiness happens needing to be defined), so > > > I've added you as a coauthor. > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > --- > > > Title: Criminal Justice Reform Act > > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > > Author: Aris > > > Co-authors: D Margaux > > > > > > > > > [Our criminal justice system has problems. In short, it isn't designed > > > to be extensible. Not only are the criteria under which a person is > > guilty > > > a bit of a mess, but it is also difficult to add additional sentences, > > > other than the assignment of blots, to the current rules. There is > > > also no uniform process for the Referee to report why the accused isn't > > > guilty. Finally, our judicial system maintains a pre-zombie split > between > > > a sentence imposed by the referee and one imposed pursuant to > > > finger-pointing, > > > a distinction that is no longer meaningful. > > > > > > In short, I rewrote our judicial system almost from scratch. It > operates > > > in much > > > the same way as before, but I've cleaned up the implementation to be > much > > > more > > > streamlined. This also should open the way for criminal CFJs, if we > ever > > > want to > > > bring them back, but on its own I think it represents a significant > > > improvement.] > > > > > > Repeal Rules 2478, 2479, 2557, and 2531. > > > > > > Amend Rule 2152, "Mother, May I?", by appending at the end of the first > > > paragraph the text > > > "Every action or inaction that is not explicitly declared by the > rules > > > to be impermissible is implicitly permissible, but not necessarily > > > possible." > > > > > > Create a new Power 1.7 Rule entitled "Criminal Cases", with the > following > > > text: > > > > > > A player CAN by announcement, accuse (syn. indict) a specified player > > > (the Defendant), naming an alleged violation of the rules by that > > person > > > (the Act), and thereby initiating a criminal case against them. > > However, > > > a > > > player SHALL NOT make a accusation of which e believes the Defendant > > > not to be guilty without explaining emself in the same message; to do > > so > > > is the Class-5 Crime of Witch-Hunting. For the purposes of these > > > definitions, > > > failure to take a required action before the appropriate deadline > > > constitutes > > > a violation occurring at the deadline to complete the action. > > > > > > The Referee is by default the Adjudicator for all criminal cases. > > > When a player, other than the Arbitor, accuses a player of > > > abuse of the criminal justice system, explicitly citing this > > > provision, the Arbitor is the Adjudicator of the resulting criminal > > > case. > > > > > > After the initiation of a criminal case, the Adjudicator CAN once > > > determine the verdict from among the possible verdicts specified by > the > > > rules. E SHALL investigate the allegation and, in a timely fashion, >
Re: DIS: [Proto] Criminal Justice Reform Act
I would be fine deferring to legal terms of art again (tolling, say) but I'm not so sure about mathematical. This is probably because I love legal interpretation and couldn't add two numbers up if I tried haha. On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 9:00 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Perfect! Thanks for the vocabulary lesson. I think if it has a clear > legal > usage citation we should use it - if you know the definition it's a concise > way to say it. > > Fun fact: we used to explicitly defer to legal/mathematical definitions > over > common language. From R754/7: >(2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that >meaning, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly >defined by the rules. > >(3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts, >and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by >default has the meaning it has in those contexts. > >(4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule >by default has its ordinary-language meaning. > > I think we got rid of after too many arguments about whether terms were > "primarily" mathematical/legal versus "primarily" ordinary-language. > > > On Thu, 25 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote: > > Here’s an example from a US Supreme Court case, Northern Pipeline > Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982). > > > > Final sentence of this paragraph: > > > > > Having concluded that the broad grant of jurisdiction to the > bankruptcy courts contained in 28 U. S. C. § 1471 (1976 ed., Supp. IV) is > unconstitutional, we must now determine whether our holding should be > applied retroactively to the effective date of the Act.[40]Our decision in > Chevron *88 Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S. 97 (1971), sets forth the three > considerations recognized by our precedents as properly bearing upon the > issue of retroactivity. They are, first, whether the holding in question > "decid[ed] an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly > foreshadowed" by earlier cases, id., at 106; second, "whether retrospective > operation will further or retard [the] operation" of the holding in > question, id., at 107; and third, whether retroactive application "could > produce substantial inequitable results" in individual cases, ibid. In the > present cases, all of these considerations militate against the retroactive > application of our holding today. It is plain! > that Congress' broad grant of judicial power to non-Art. III bankruptcy > judges presents an unprecedented question of interpretation of Art. III. It > is equally plain that retroactive application would not further the > operation of our holding, and would surely visit substantial injustice and > hardship upon those litigants who relied upon the Act's vesting of > jurisdiction in the bankruptcy courts. We hold, therefore, that our > decision today shall apply only prospectively. > > > > > > > https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17768408304219861886&q=apply+prospectively&hl=en&as_sdt=6,33 > > > > > On Oct 25, 2018, at 5:37 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you point me to a legal usage online somewhere? All the examples > I found > > > used it as meaning "sometime unspecified in the future" rather than > "from this > > > point onward".(of course not important if you change the word!) > > > > > >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > >> Prospectively is the legal opposite of retroactively. I will try to > > >> come up with another way of explaining it for the rule text, but > > >> that's what it generally means. > > >> > > >> -Aris > > >>> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 2:10 PM Timon Walshe-Grey > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> The first time I read it I assumed the exact opposite, so it's > definitely ambiguous. > > >>> > > >>> -twg > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Thursday, October 25, 2018 7:31 PM, D. Margaux < > dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I would read it to mean that the change in verdict does not operate > retroactively to affect any game actions that have already taken place. So, > for example, if a player’s vote is worth 0 because e has 3 blots, and it is > later determined that the verdict imposing those 3 blots was inappropriate > and is changed to a new verdict by this mechanism, then that doesn’t > retroactively increase the player’s vote strength. It just removes the > blots going forward. > > > > > On Oct 25, 2018, at 3:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu > wrote: > > > Minor comment: I know the dictionary definition of the word, but I > don't know > > > what "prospectively" means in a practical sense in this rule (is > there a legal > > > term-of-art use of the word that I'm missing?) > > > On Thu, 25 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > > >>> The Adjudicator CAN assign any verdict, SHALL assign an > appropriate > > >>> verdict, and SHO
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I register.
holy shit dude it's taredas. i don't think you remember me but i was Burning_Earth on MTGS lol. On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 8:04 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Welcome, Tarhalindur! (you may want to sign your nickname in your messages > since it's not in your email address, until we get used to who you are). > > The current "status" of subject-line stuff is it can work IF something in > the > body of the message (like: "See the subject.") draws attention to it, so > we know > you mean to do what's in the subject line and you're not just replying to > something with that subject line. > > -G. > > > On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote: > > There have been some recent-ish debates on whether or not subject line > actions > > actually work - I don't remember the exact state of that. So there's a > chance > > this was ineffective. > > > > Either way, welcome! > > > > On 10/31/2018 3:54 PM, Aharon Zingman wrote: > > > See the subject. > > > > > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I register.
also your messages are all getting marked as spam by me dude. On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 8:47 AM Rebecca wrote: > holy shit dude it's taredas. i don't think you remember me but i was > Burning_Earth on MTGS lol. > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 8:04 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> >> >> Welcome, Tarhalindur! (you may want to sign your nickname in your >> messages >> since it's not in your email address, until we get used to who you are). >> >> The current "status" of subject-line stuff is it can work IF something in >> the >> body of the message (like: "See the subject.") draws attention to it, so >> we know >> you mean to do what's in the subject line and you're not just replying to >> something with that subject line. >> >> -G. >> >> >> On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote: >> > There have been some recent-ish debates on whether or not subject line >> actions >> > actually work - I don't remember the exact state of that. So there's a >> chance >> > this was ineffective. >> > >> > Either way, welcome! >> > >> > On 10/31/2018 3:54 PM, Aharon Zingman wrote: >> > > See the subject. >> > > >> > >> >> > > -- > From V.J. Rada > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8112-8122
Damn well in three weeks I'll see you again with voting strength lol. On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 3:02 AM Reuben Staley wrote: > It's cool that you want to vote again, but you unfortunately have voting > strength 0 since you have 3 or more blots. > > On another note, you're a zombie so if you intend to seriously get back > into the game, you should probably flip your matter switch. > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 16:10 Rebecca wrote: > > > Votes inline > > IDAuthor(s) AITitle > > > --- > > 8112 G., ATMunn 1.0 The Middle Way > > FOR > > 8113 Trigon 1.0 Auction cleanup > > AGAINST > > 8114 Trigon, twg, G. 1.0 Free auctions 2 > > FOR > > 8115 Aris, Trigon1.5 Heraldic uncertainty > > FOR > > 8116 Trigon, D Margaux 1.5 Control-C, Control-V > > FOR lol > > 8117 D Margaux, twg 2.0 Fix for Uncertain Laurelings > > FOR > > 8118 G. 2.0 Laurels Last Longer > > AGAINST! Being guaranteed speaker when you win most recently is an > > important incentive to do scams after other people etc > > 8119 D Margaux 2.0 Criminal Justice Adjustments Act > > FOR lol. I wrote most of this rule, this is like that but if I could be > > bothered to format correctly. > > 8120 D Margaux 2.0 Blot Decay > > AGAINST > > 8121 G. 3.0 Retroactive Documents > > Ratification is a sham anyway FOR > > 8122 Murphy 3.0 Middle of the road > > AGAINST. I don't know the context for this but it's way simpler and > better > > for everyone to have one vote. > > > > On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 3:56 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > CoE: I believe Quorum is 5. The most recently resolved proposal was > > > Proposal 8110, which had 7 valid ballots. 7 * 2/3 = 4.67 which rounds > to > > 5. > > > > > > -twg > > > > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > On Monday, October 29, 2018 1:16 AM, Aris Merchant < > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> 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 6, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid > > > > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are > > > > conditional votes). > > > > > > > > ID Author(s) AI Title > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > 8112 G., ATMunn 1.0 The Middle Way > > > > 8113 Trigon 1.0 Auction cleanup > > > > 8114 Trigon, twg, G. 1.0 Free auctions 2 > > > > 8115 Aris, Trigon 1.5 Heraldic uncertainty > > > > 8116 Trigon, D Margaux 1.5 Control-C, Control-V > > > > 8117 D Margaux, twg 2.0 Fix for Uncertain Laurelings > > > > 8118 G. 2.0 Laurels Last Longer > > > > 8119 D Margaux 2.0 Criminal Justice Adjustments Act > > > > 8120 D Margaux 2.0 Blot Decay > > > > 8121 G. 3.0 Retroactive Documents > > > > 8122 Murphy 3.0 Middle of the road > > > > > > > > The proposal pool is currently empty. > > > > > > > > The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below. > > > > > > > > > // > > > > ID: 8112 > > > > Title: The Middle Way > > > > Adoption index: 1.0 > > > > Author: G. > > > > Co-authors: ATMunn > > > > > > > > Amend Rule 2510 (Such is Karma) by replacing the list in which the > list > > > > items are delimited with the - symbol with the following list: > > > > > > > > - Any player with a karma of 5 or greater is a Samurai. > > > > - Any player with a karma of -5 or less is an Gamma. > > > > - The Samurai with the highest karma (if any) is the Shog
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deputisation
yeah but this isn't a scam just a self-own lol. On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 9:22 AM Reuben Staley wrote: > You and Cuddles both have an unbelievable track record of ridiculous > CFJs called because of your actions. > > On 11/01/2018 03:37 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > I pledge that I am indeed a 26-year-old woman named Jenny Johnson. > > > > The pledge I made above is true. > > > > I point a finger at myself for oathbreaking and faking. > > > > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 8:34 AM ATMunn wrote: > > > >> I'm not going to do it, but now I kind of want to intentionally break a > >> minor rule just to see what apology words I have to use. > >> > >> On 11/1/2018 11:43 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > >>> Nobody else having expressed interest, I deputise for the Referee to > >> Impose the Cold Hand of Justice by levying a fine of 1 blot on > CuddleBeam > >> for violating Rule 2471/1, "No Faking". This has been reduced from the > base > >> value of 2 blots because eir action was utterly inconsequential. > >>> > >>> This violation is forgivable. CuddleBeam CAN, in a timely fashion, > >> expunge 1 blot from emself by publishing a formal apology of at least > 200 > >> words containing the words "appalling", "self-flagellation", "debased", > >> "transgression" and "aardvark", explaining eir error, shame, remorse, > and > >> ardent desire for self-improvement. > >>> > >>> -twg > >>> > >>> > >>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > >>> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:36 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey > > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Speaking of which, the Treasuror workload has got much smaller with > >> Delenda Est, so I'm happy to take on Referee if nobody else expresses > >> interest in the next day or two. > >>>> > >>>> -twg > >>>> > >>>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > >>>> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:23 PM, D. Margaux > dmargaux...@gmail.com > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> I point my finger at Cuddle Beam for violating No Faking by > attempting > >> an action e knew to be INEFFECTIVE in the message below. > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Oct 28, 2018, at 6:42 PM, Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com > wrote: > >>>>>> I award myself a Platinum ribbon. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 11:00 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red > >> wrote: > >>>>>>> I grant permission for any person except D. Margaux to act on my > >> behalf to > >>>>>>> Demand Resignation from D. Margaux within the next 7 days or until > I > >>>>>>> publicly revoke this permission, and provided that my so Demanding > is > >>>>>>> neither ILLEGAL nor INEFFECTIVE. > >>>>>>> -twg > >>>>>>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > >>>>>>> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 9:55 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I intend to Demand Resignation from D. Margaux. > >>>>>>>> -twg > >>>>>>>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > >>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 8:32 PM, D. Margaux > >> dmargaux...@gmail.com > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I was going to wait at least the full 48 hours before doing this, > >> but > >>>>>>>>> I think I’ve come up with a fun scam and I also think I am > >> laureled from > >>>>>>>>> the Round Robin win (we will see what Trigon says in the CFJ)... > >> so: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I deputise for Prime Minister to appoint myself Speaker. > >>>>>>>>> I award myself a Platinum ribbon. > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > -- > Trigon > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: BOOOO! (zombie auction - Halloween edition)
I can actually speak a little Japanese: enough to understand eir action there anyway. On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 8:12 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Thanks :) To be clear I didn't have a problem with this one in particular > - it seems direct and straightforward - just wanted to give warning if > people (not just you!) decide to get too clever on this sort of thing > again. > > On Mon, 5 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Fair enough. I pledge not to use Japanese in my messages to the public > > forum whenever doing so would significantly hinder understanding of > > those messages to most other players. > > > > -twg > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Monday, November 5, 2018 9:02 PM, Kerim Aydin > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Please don't. Really. It's cute once, but annoying, and we really > > > don't need a whole round of CFJs on whether each action in Japanese > > > works. The CFJs of when 天火狐 was playing pretty much ended up > > > requiring every single action to be CFJ'd and culminated in a > > > Cantus Cygneus. > > > > > > On Mon, 5 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > > > Thank you for reminding me. I pay Agora 13 coins to flip 天火狐の主人スイッチ > to myself. > > > > -twg > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > On Monday, November 5, 2018 3:12 PM, Kerim Aydin > ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: > > > > > > > > > I pay Agora 25 coins to flip pokes' master switch to G. > > > > > [I believe twg may do so for 天火狐 for 13 coins.] > > > > > On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I don't particularly want 天火狐 because I don't want to cut and > paste all the > > > > > > time, so I'll try to stay out of the way on the upper end of the > bidding. > > > > > > I bid 25 coins. > > > > > > On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I bid 13 coins. > > > > > > > -twg > > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > > > > On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 9:12 PM, ATMunn > iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I bid 2 coins, because why not. > > > > > > > > On 10/31/2018 5:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Marking the 1-year anniversary of zombies, that debuted > last Halloween!] > > > > > > > > > I initiate a zombie auction, with the following lots (each > zombie a > > > > > > > > > separate lot) ordered as follows (highest-bid first): > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. pokes > > > > > > > > > 2. 天火狐 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agora is the Auctioneer, and the Registrar is the > Announcer. The > > > > > > > > > currency is Coins with a minimum bid of 1. > > > > > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Memes
It's not really a meme it's just the sort of joke proposal that I like but I know won't get passed. On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 2:08 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Rebecca wrote: > > > I create the following proposal > > Title: I hate myself > > AI: 3 > > Text: Rules or Instruments to the contrary notwithstanding, this proposal > > shall act as though its text is the text submitted to a public forum and > > clearly marked "Memes submission" by the last person to vote FOR it. > > I don't think Proposals can take precedence over Rules, regardless of AI. > > However, I am not sure that this actually _does_ conflict with any Rules, > if the Memes submission is written clearly enough. (The second last > paragraph of Rule 105 seems relevant.) > > (Also I don't follow the memesphere so I might be being whooshed about > something.) > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: [Meta] Linguistic Experimentation
haha gotcha i don't know crap about anything except american law i guess and even that interest is very casual. i flaunt my own ignorance. On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 12:16 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Indeed. Or perhaps "All Agorans are snerds". > > -Aris > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 5:04 PM Reuben Staley > wrote: > > > > Instead, how about we adopt the following term: > > > > snerd > > > > * American English /snɚd/ > > * British English /snəd/ > > > > (noun) 1. short for "super nerd"; i.e. "People who know Lojban are > snerds" > > > > -- > > Trigon > > > > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018, 17:41 Aris Merchant < > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > I propose to conduct an experiment into the nature of the Agoran > > > dialect, and specifically how easy it is to change it. I'm planning to > > > start occasionally sprinkling some Lojban indicators [1] into my > > > emails. They represent expressions like "yay!", ";)", or "IMO", but > > > Lojban has many more of them than English. I will gloss most of them, > > > and guarantee that I will gloss anything that substantially changes > > > the meaning of a sentence. This isn't an attempt to do an experiment > > > from the perspective of rules or formal actions (I don't expect to do > > > anything that causes a CFJ). Instead, I'm just going to start using > > > some useful expressions and see if any of them become part of standard > > > Agoran. Of course, I would encourage other interested parties to try > > > doing the same thing. Does anyone have any objections to this > > > proposal? > > > > > > [1] > > > > https://lojban.org/publications/cll/cll_v1.1_xhtml-chapter-chunks/chapter-attitudinals.html > > > > > > -Aris > > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?
I wonder if imminence if not defined as a term of art just bears its ordinary meaning; i.e, nobody can change " the state or fact of being about to happen" of a proposal if a festival happens. Presumably that would prohibit non-festive players from removing proposals somehow? On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:52 AM Jason Cobb wrote: > That makes sense. Thank you. Sorry for all the questions, I obviously > haven't been interpreting these rules for as long as you :) > > Jason Cobb > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 12:49 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < > ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > > > On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 12:40 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote: > > > So I gather that if a Rule refers to an Entity that was previously > > > defined by the rules, but no longer is, that section of the Rule just > > > has no effect? Is that correct? > > > > Not necessarily, but you have to look at the wording of the rule. It > > says 'Non-Festive players cannot flip the Imminence of any proposal', > > which is a statement that's true anyway (because the Imminence doesn't > > exist), and thus it's redundant. The gamestate as envisaged by the > > other rules doesn't have any contradictions with that one. > > > > If it had said something like "Festive players CAN flip the Imminence > > of a proposal by announcement", that would have implied an Imminence > > switch into the gamestate (but it probably wouldn't do anything), as > > the rule wouldn't make sense in the absence of one. > > > > -- > > ais523 > > > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8178-8179
Intent needs to be voted against you fools! It has direct affect on the possibility of levying a CHoJ and is directly opposed to our history and traditions. The rules being absolute and punishing violations that are only ambiguously against them is important! Otherwise what fun would there be. On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 7:12 AM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > For each proposal below, if I haven’t yet, I vote AGAINST on it. > > -Aris > > On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:21 PM ATMunn wrote: > > > I vote FOR proposals 8178 and 8179. > > > > On 5/27/2019 4:43 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran > > > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal > > > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the > > > quorum is 6, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid > > > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are > > > conditional votes). > > > > > > IDAuthor(s) AITitle > > > > > > --- > > > 8178 Trigon 3.0 n't > > > 8179 D Margaux, Aris 2.0 Intent is Important (v1.1) > > > > > > The proposal pool is currently empty. > > > > > > The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. > > > > > > // > > > ID: 8178 > > > Title: n't > > > Adoption index: 3.0 > > > Author: Trigon > > > Co-authors: > > > > > > > > > In Rule 2125 'Mother, May I?': > > > > > >replace: "CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID" > > >with:"CANNOT, CAN'T, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID" > > > > > >replace: "MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED" > > >with:"MUST NOT, MUSTN'T, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, SHAN'T, ILLEGAL, > > >PROHIBITED" > > > > > >replace: "NEED NOT, OPTIONAL" > > >with:"NEED NOT, NEEDN'T, OPTIONAL" > > > > > >replace: "SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED" > > >with:"SHOULD NOT, SHOULDN'T, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED" > > > > > > // > > > ID: 8179 > > > Title: Intent is Important (v1.1) > > > Adoption index: 2.0 > > > Author: D Margaux > > > Co-authors: Aris > > > > > > > > > [Comment: I don’t think we should be fining people for actions unless > > they > > > knew or should know they are violating the rules (what the criminal law > > > calls a “guilty mind”).] > > > > > > In Rule 2531, in the list that follows this text: > > > > > > “Any attempt to levy a fine is INEFFECTIVE if:” > > > > > > Add the following text as paragraph 3: > > > > > > “(3) the perp likely did not know and reasonably should not be expected > > to > > > have known that e violated the rules as a result of the action or > > inaction > > > that is the reason for the levy;” > > > > > > And renumber the rest of the list accordingly. > > > > > > // > > > > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
I think that this decision is corrrect as a matter of text. The rules should be amended to give one player the responsibility, and each player the ability for the ritual. But as the rules stand, "failing to perform [the ritual] violates" the rules and "any player CAN perform the ritual". I think this decision provides the best reading of the text at issue. It also accords with Agoran practice in that abstract actions are usually not required to perform themselves. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 9:07 AM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > I object. The rule says that The Ritual SHALL be performed; it doesn't > specify who shall do the performing. In the absence of such a > specification, holding any individual player responsible is clearly > unreasonable, since their individual responsibility to perform The Ritual > was never explicitly stated. > > -Aris > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 12:59 PM D Margaux wrote: > > > Below is a proto-decision on the fingers pointed by Falsifian regarding > > the Ritual; comments welcome. > > > > * * * > > > > The key question seems to be whether a fine for failure to perform the > > Ritual CAN be imposed on players consistently with Rule 2531. Under Rule > > 2531, among other things, a fine is INEFFECTIVE if > > > > > (2) it attempts to levy a fine on a person for an action or inaction > > which e (more likely than not) did not commit; [or] > > > > > > (3) it attempts to levy a fine for an action or inaction which is not > > prohibited by the rules . . . . > > > > In this case, I think a fine MUST be imposed because those requirements > > (and the other requirements) are satisfied by the players’ failure to > > perform the Ritual. > > > > Under Rule 2596 (the Ritual), “[a]ny player CAN perform the Ritual by > > paying a fee of 7 coins,” and “[t]he Ritual MUST be performed at least > once > > in every Agoran week.” Under Rule 2152 (Mother, May I?), “MUST” means > that > > “[f]ailing to perform the described action violates the rule in > question.” > > > > Last week, the “described action” (the Ritual) was not “performed.” That > > violation came to pass because each player declined to perform the Ritual > > last week. In my view, because “failing to perform the [Ritual]” at > least > > once last week “violates the rule in question,” that means that any > player > > or entity capable of performing the Ritual violated the Rule through eir > > “inaction” when it turned out that the Ritual was not performed on time. > > Falsifian pointed eir finger at players each of whom could have performed > > the Ritual. As a result, each such player violated the Rule. > > > > Ais523 suggests that the Ritual itself may have violated the Rule. I > > think I disagree. In my view, the Ritual is the action required to be > > performed; it is not an entity that violates the Rule when it is not > > performed. Imagine the Rule instead said, “any player CAN hop on one > foot” > > and “a hopping upon one foot MUST be performed at least once in every > > Agoran week.” We wouldn’t say that the rule is violated by the “hopping > > upon one foot,” because that’s an action not an entity. Same with the > > Ritual. > > > > > > > > > > >> On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 02:38 +, James Cook wrote: > > >> I Point my Finger at every player, in the following order: > > >> > > >>omd, Aris, Gaelan, G., Cuddle Beam, Trigon, Murphy, ATMunn, twg, > > >> D. Margaux, Jacob Arduino, Falsifian, Bernie, Rance, o, Jason Cobb, > > >> Walker, PSS, Corona, V.J. Rada, L, Hālian, Tarhalindur, Telnaior, > > >> Baron von Vaderham > > >> > > >> for failing to perform The Ritual in the previous Agoran week. > > >> > > >> Explanation for how each player P violated the rules: > > >> * Rule 2596 required The Ritual to be performed. > > >> * P had a method available to perform The Ritual. Therefore P is > > >> responsible if The Ritual was not performed. > > >> > > >> (I had honestly intended to perform it at the last minute once again > > >> this week, but forgot. I intended to do this because I try to follow > > >> the rules. Though, honestly, I'm happy that we finally missed a week > > >> so that we get to see what happens.) > > > > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] there's no confidence in the economy, so...
twg is 100% correct on this, i have a very clear memory of this being the law based on a prime minister election i resolved as ADoP. HOWEVER, this CFJ regards the ability of Corona to be installed as Prime Minister, not to be a candidate in the election, by the plain text of the actual CFJ, and should be resolved accordingly. On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 1:08 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > I was under the impression that e can still be included in an election and > voted for without eir consent, just not installed into the office if e > wins. I thought that there was a recent CFJ about this but I can't find it. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Sunday, June 2, 2019 3:01 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > If e didn’t, then the election announcement did not have a clear list of > > the valid options and is therefore invalid per CFJ No Number! > > > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 10:59 AM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > > > I vote for Corona in the ongoing Prime Minister election. > > > CFJ: "In the message quoted below, Corona gave eir 'explicit or > reasonably > > > implied consent', as required by Rule 1006, to be made the holder of > Prime > > > Minister." > > > (Not that I actually expect enough votes for this to arise, but it > would > > > be hilarious if it did.) > > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > On Friday, July 6, 2018 10:58 AM, Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I become a candidate for Prime Minister. > > > > Platform: Not being the other guy, who currently supports unpopular > and > > > > somewhat misguided reforms. > > > > ~Corona > > > > -- > > D. Margaux > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
I think if there was a provision that said "the ADoP CAN publish an Officer report. An Officer report SHALL be published weekly", a robot may interpret such a provision as imposing criminal liability on the report itself, but any English-speaking person would realise that the ADoP is liable for such a breach. Just because any player can activate this provision, no difference applies. After all, it is still "exact", as non-player persons could not be held liable for breaching this rule as they can for some rules. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:03 PM D. Margaux wrote: > That may make some intuitive sense, but I’m not sure which provision(s) of > the rules you think I’ve either overlooked or misinterpreted, and what your > interpretation of those provisions is. I think if we ground the analysis in > the text of the Rules then there will be more clarity about why we may > disagree. > > > On Jun 3, 2019, at 9:57 PM, Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The fact that any player CAN perform The Ritual and the fact that someone > > SHALL do so do not logically or by common sense entail the fact that the > > responsibility to do so falls on any player. Until we know exactly who > > SHALL do so, punishing anyone is premature. Even assuming that the action > > isn’t required to perform itself, that still doesn’t tell us who exactly > > SHALL do it. > > > > -Aris > > > >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:45 PM Rebecca > wrote: > >> > >> I think that this decision is corrrect as a matter of text. The rules > >> should be amended to give one player the responsibility, and each player > >> the ability for the ritual. But as the rules stand, "failing to perform > >> [the ritual] violates" the rules and "any player CAN perform the > ritual". I > >> think this decision provides the best reading of the text at issue. It > also > >> accords with Agoran practice in that abstract actions are usually not > >> required to perform themselves. > >> > >> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 9:07 AM Aris Merchant < > >> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> I object. The rule says that The Ritual SHALL be performed; it doesn't > >>> specify who shall do the performing. In the absence of such a > >>> specification, holding any individual player responsible is clearly > >>> unreasonable, since their individual responsibility to perform The > Ritual > >>> was never explicitly stated. > >>> > >>> -Aris > >>> > >>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 12:59 PM D Margaux > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Below is a proto-decision on the fingers pointed by Falsifian > regarding > >>>> the Ritual; comments welcome. > >>>> > >>>> * * * > >>>> > >>>> The key question seems to be whether a fine for failure to perform the > >>>> Ritual CAN be imposed on players consistently with Rule 2531. Under > >> Rule > >>>> 2531, among other things, a fine is INEFFECTIVE if > >>>> > >>>>> (2) it attempts to levy a fine on a person for an action or inaction > >>>> which e (more likely than not) did not commit; [or] > >>>>> > >>>>> (3) it attempts to levy a fine for an action or inaction which is not > >>>> prohibited by the rules . . . . > >>>> > >>>> In this case, I think a fine MUST be imposed because those > requirements > >>>> (and the other requirements) are satisfied by the players’ failure to > >>>> perform the Ritual. > >>>> > >>>> Under Rule 2596 (the Ritual), “[a]ny player CAN perform the Ritual by > >>>> paying a fee of 7 coins,” and “[t]he Ritual MUST be performed at least > >>> once > >>>> in every Agoran week.” Under Rule 2152 (Mother, May I?), “MUST” means > >>> that > >>>> “[f]ailing to perform the described action violates the rule in > >>> question.” > >>>> > >>>> Last week, the “described action” (the Ritual) was not “performed.” > >> That > >>>> violation came to pass because each player declined to perform the > >> Ritual > >>>> last week. In my view, because “failing to perform the [Ritual]” at > >>> least > >>>> once last week “violates the rule in question,” that means that any > >>> player > >>>> or entity
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
The Ritual, however, isn't one! On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:36 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 12:16 +1000, Rebecca wrote: > > I think if there was a provision that said "the ADoP CAN publish an > Officer > > report. An Officer report SHALL be published weekly", a robot may > interpret > > such a provision as imposing criminal liability on the report itself, but > > any English-speaking person would realise that the ADoP is liable for > such > > a breach. Just because any player can activate this provision, no > > difference applies. After all, it is still "exact", as non-player persons > > could not be held liable for breaching this rule as they can for some > rules. > > I think the report would clearly be at fault if it happened to be a > person. (We've had previous rulesets in which agreements could be > persons; it doesn't take much of a stretch from there to imagine a > ruleset in which a document could be a person.) > > -- > ais523 > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
We do interestingly have a clause that says "The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions.". I suppose under my interpretation, anyone who so interprets the rules in any circumstance will be criminally liable, whereas under the contrasting interpretation, only the Rules themselves are liable. This clause, I suspect, should be changed in some way. SHALL NOT seems like the wrong term. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:12 PM Rebecca wrote: > The Ritual, however, isn't one! > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 12:36 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < > ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > >> On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 12:16 +1000, Rebecca wrote: >> > I think if there was a provision that said "the ADoP CAN publish an >> Officer >> > report. An Officer report SHALL be published weekly", a robot may >> interpret >> > such a provision as imposing criminal liability on the report itself, >> but >> > any English-speaking person would realise that the ADoP is liable for >> such >> > a breach. Just because any player can activate this provision, no >> > difference applies. After all, it is still "exact", as non-player >> persons >> > could not be held liable for breaching this rule as they can for some >> rules. >> >> I think the report would clearly be at fault if it happened to be a >> person. (We've had previous rulesets in which agreements could be >> persons; it doesn't take much of a stretch from there to imagine a >> ruleset in which a document could be a person.) >> >> -- >> ais523 >> >> > > -- > From V.J. Rada > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
This is an interesting case. Although I believe that the best reading of
the rule holds all players liable, I call for judgement on the following
question, barring Aris
{If no player activates Rule 2596 'The Ritual' in a certain week, all
players playing the game that week have violated the rule, which provides
that (1) "Any player CAN perform The Ritual" and (2) "The Ritual MUST be
performed at least once in every Agoran week."} I suspect that the text is
not clear and therefore the four-part test must be applied. I believe it is
in the best interest of the game to impose criminal liability for the
violation of the Rules as much as possible. I also believe that it is
perfectly reasonable as a matter of text to impose criminal liability on
"any player" who by failing to act in "performing the ritual" (despite
being able to do so) leads to a violation of the command that "the ritual
must be performed".
I note that we don't apply American law here, just like we don't apply
Klingon law, unless it is specifically stated in the rules. Although
American law principles may be applied as a part of the four part test,
American law is of course occasionally atextual common law (or atextual
statutory interpretation). Agora specifically provides that the text
controls, precluding a test of "wrongness" in deciding whether something is
a criminal violation in the first place, appearing nowhere in the text..
I call this CFJ because whatever the final decision of the Referee, it will
be contested.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 2:34 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This would be true if failing to perform The Ritual was itself harmful
> (malum in se). However, it is wrong only because the rules say so (malum
> prohibitum), and I see no reason why we should extent their prohibition
> farther than they explicitly do so. It is also a principle of American
> criminal law that if the statue is ambiguous it may be void for vagueness,
> so this law, which doesn’t make it clear who is responsible, should be too
> vague to impose a criminal penalty.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:20 PM D. Margaux wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 3, 2019, at 11:47 PM, Aris Merchant <
> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Under the present conditions,
> > > however, each player can quite reasonably claim that someone else
> should
> > > have performed The Ritual, and that it wasn’t *their* fault that it
> > wasn’t
> > > performed. Unless the rule explicitly states that the responsibility
> > falls
> > > on each player jointly and severally (i.e. it’s each player’s
> > > responsibility to see that The Ritual is performed), there is no way to
> > > prove from the text of the rules involved that this should be the case.
> >
> > I am delighted that you raised the idea of joint and several liability!
> > That analogy occurred to me too; I didn’t mention it in my proto because
> > it’s not a rules based concept. But it did perhaps influence my thinking
> > somewhat.
> >
> > This Ritual stuff seems interestingly analogous to a specific situation
> in
> > which American law generally *does* recognize joint and several
> liability:
> > it is the situation where multiple careless or bad actors, each acting
> > independently of one another, are each an independent legal cause of the
> > entire harm that is suffered by the wronged party. For example, imagine
> > that an elderly person walking on a sidewalk is carelessly bumped into
> the
> > road by a distracted pedestrian, and that the elderly person is then
> struck
> > by a speeding and reckless drunk driver, and e suffers very serious
> > injuries. The distracted pedestrian and the drunk driver each were legal
> > causes the entire harm—if either of them had been acting with due care,
> > then the elderly person would not have been struck by the car. And the
> > harm to the elderly person cannot be apportioned in any principled way as
> > between the two wrongful actors. So American tort law holds them both
> > jointly and severally liable, even though each of them individually would
> > have caused NO harm if the other had not ALSO independently been acting
> > wrongfully! See Restatement (2d) of Torts § 879 (“If the tortious
> conduct
> > of each of two or more persons is a legal cause of harm that cannot be
> > apportioned, each is subject to liability for the entire harm,
> irrespective
> > of whether their conduct is concurring or consecutive.”).
> >
> > The Ritual strikes me as an analogous situation. Each player’s inaction
> is
> > a cause of the harm, and the harm that was caused cannot be apportioned
> > among the players in a principled way. As a result, it is not unjust that
> > each player is considered liable for the entire harm (jointly and
> severally
> > as it were), even though (as you said) “each player can quite reasonably
> > claim that someone else should have performed The Ritual, and that it
> > wasn’t *their* fault that it wasn’
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
The difference though is that only a Herald CAN publish a Herald's report and SHALL do so. When "vacant" is the Herald (and I admit that "vacant" is the Herald and is liable, but this is because the Officeholder switch specifically allows vacant as an officeholder), no provision of the rules states something like "any player CAN deputise for the Herald, and the Herald SHALL be deputised for". In that case, no text even arguably provides that the failure to deputise imposes criminal liability. Only the Herald, vacant, is responsible. Unlike that two-step procedure, this is a one-step procedure in which "any player" CAN perform the ritual. Only the Herald, vacant, CAN and SHALL publish that report. So a clear and principled distinction exists. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:31 PM Rance Bedwell wrote: > > The officeholder switch for the office of Herald has been set to vacant > for approximately 5 weeks. By rule 2143 (Official Reports and Duties) and > 2510 (Such is Karma), vacant SHALL publish the Herald's weekly report each > week. This has not happened for the past 5 weeks. At the same time there > have been several players who were able to publish the report during those > weeks under rule 2160 (Deputization). But they have all collectively > failed to do so. No one has suggested that any or all players who were > able to deputize to perform the action should be fined or otherwise > penalized for failing to do so. > The text is silent on what should happen if The Ritual is not performed. > I think that the above paragraph describes a substantially similar > situation in which game custom has been to not fine players so per rule 217 > I think that imposing a fine in this situation would be incorrect. > On Monday, June 3, 2019, 9:36:19 PM CDT, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < > ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 12:16 +1000, Rebecca wrote: > > I think if there was a provision that said "the ADoP CAN publish an > Officer > > report. An Officer report SHALL be published weekly", a robot may > interpret > > such a provision as imposing criminal liability on the report itself, but > > any English-speaking person would realise that the ADoP is liable for > such > > a breach. Just because any player can activate this provision, no > > difference applies. After all, it is still "exact", as non-player persons > > could not be held liable for breaching this rule as they can for some > rules. > > I think the report would clearly be at fault if it happened to be a > person. (We've had previous rulesets in which agreements could be > persons; it doesn't take much of a stretch from there to imagine a > ruleset in which a document could be a person.) > > -- > ais523 > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3644 judged TRUE
Okay, there are two CFJ 3644s. This one and the one regarding Humiliating Public Reminders (which appears as an Annotation in the FLR). Was this resolved? On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 9:24 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > == CFJ 3644 == > > Corona and D. Margaux made a Contract in the last 24 hours. > > > > Caller: G. > Barred: D. Margaux > > Judge: twg > Judgement: TRUE > > > > History: > > Called by G.: 29 Sep 2018 02:19 UTC > Assigned to twg:01 Oct 2018 03:01 UTC > Judged TRUE by twg: 18 Oct 2018 11:24 UTC > > > > Caller's Arguments: > > 1. Can we infer natural exchanges like this are Agoran contracts? > It would be cool if we could - that would make flexible "handshake > deals" be backed up by Agoran courts. > > 2. I think a contract is the only means of act-on-behalf that works - > by R2466 (Acting on Behalf), allowing it must be Rules-allowed and > is secured-2, and Rule 1742 (Contracts) is the only thing that allows > it. So it would be doubly-cool if things like this weren't blocked. > > > > Judge twg's Arguments: > > The caller refers to the following thread of messages: > > On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote: > > I act on Coronas behalf to transfer all of Coronas liquid assets to me > > > > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 5:52 PM Corona > wrote: > > > > > As I think I don't have the steel or whatever to pay upkeep for my > > > refinery, and am too busy/bored with Agora to micromanage my other > > > properties, I give permission to any player to act on my behalf to > transfer > > > all of my liquid assets to emself, until the end of this September. > > > > > > I know, I could just let myself get zombified, but the buildings > wouldn't > > > survive and that would be a shame. > > > > > > This is not binding, but if I were to return in the future, and the > economy > > > didn't go through some sort of reset, I would like the player who > claimed > > > the assets offered in this message to give me at least a part of them > back > > > so I don't have to start from scratch. > > > > > > ~Corona > > > > > -- > > D. Margaux > > > > This case presents a question of law: did Corona's and D. Margaux's > messages meet the requirements outlined by Rule 1742/19, "Contracts", > for this exchange to be considered a contract? If not, then the > caller's second argument is sound: D. Margaux's action would have been > INEFFECTIVE, as the only mechanisms provided by the rules for acting on > behalf are contracts and zombiehood. > > Rule 1742/19 states, in part: > > Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may > make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be > binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement > is known as a contract. A contract may be modified, including > by changing the set of parties, by agreement between all existing > parties. A contract may also terminate by agreement between all > parties. A contract automatically terminates if the number of > parties to it falls below two. For the purposes of this rule, > agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by > contract. > > We can summarise the definition of "contract" to produce a list of > requirements that must be satisfied for this exchange to be considered a > contract: > > 1) Is it an "agreement"? > 2) Did Corona and D. Margaux consent to it? > 3) Did Corona and D. Margaux have the intention that it would be >binding upon them and governed by the rules? > > I will investigate each of these requirements in turn. > > First, do these message constitute an "agreement" between Corona and > D. Margaux? Rule 1742 says that "agreement includes both consent and > agreement specified by contract". However, to apply this as a definition > of a countable noun would suggest that "an agreement" can mean either > "a consent" or "an agreement specified by contract" - the first being > nonsensical and the second a circular definition. This court therefore > believes that the intent of this sentence is to define the _action_ of > agreement, viz. the method by which a contract may be modified or > terminated, and recommends that Rule 1742 be amended to reduce the > confusion caused by this terminology. > > Lacking a rule-bast definition for an "agreement", we thus turn to past > judicial precedent. In CFJ 3315, faced also with the problem of the lack > of definition for this word, the Honourable Judge scshun
DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3644 judged TRUE
Never mind, this was really 36_6_4. On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:22 PM Rebecca wrote: > Okay, there are two CFJ 3644s. This one and the one regarding Humiliating > Public Reminders (which appears as an Annotation in the FLR). Was this > resolved? > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 9:24 PM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > >> == CFJ 3644 == >> >> Corona and D. Margaux made a Contract in the last 24 hours. >> >> >> >> Caller: G. >> Barred: D. Margaux >> >> Judge: twg >> Judgement: TRUE >> >> >> >> History: >> >> Called by G.: 29 Sep 2018 02:19 UTC >> Assigned to twg:01 Oct 2018 03:01 UTC >> Judged TRUE by twg: 18 Oct 2018 11:24 UTC >> >> >> >> Caller's Arguments: >> >> 1. Can we infer natural exchanges like this are Agoran contracts? >> It would be cool if we could - that would make flexible "handshake >> deals" be backed up by Agoran courts. >> >> 2. I think a contract is the only means of act-on-behalf that works - >> by R2466 (Acting on Behalf), allowing it must be Rules-allowed and >> is secured-2, and Rule 1742 (Contracts) is the only thing that allows >> it. So it would be doubly-cool if things like this weren't blocked. >> >> >> >> Judge twg's Arguments: >> >> The caller refers to the following thread of messages: >> >> On Fri, 28 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote: >> > I act on Coronas behalf to transfer all of Coronas liquid assets to me >> > >> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 5:52 PM Corona >> wrote: >> > >> > > As I think I don't have the steel or whatever to pay upkeep for my >> > > refinery, and am too busy/bored with Agora to micromanage my other >> > > properties, I give permission to any player to act on my behalf to >> transfer >> > > all of my liquid assets to emself, until the end of this September. >> > > >> > > I know, I could just let myself get zombified, but the buildings >> wouldn't >> > > survive and that would be a shame. >> > > >> > > This is not binding, but if I were to return in the future, and the >> economy >> > > didn't go through some sort of reset, I would like the player who >> claimed >> > > the assets offered in this message to give me at least a part of them >> back >> > > so I don't have to start from scratch. >> > > >> > > ~Corona >> > > >> > -- >> > D. Margaux >> > >> >> This case presents a question of law: did Corona's and D. Margaux's >> messages meet the requirements outlined by Rule 1742/19, "Contracts", >> for this exchange to be considered a contract? If not, then the >> caller's second argument is sound: D. Margaux's action would have been >> INEFFECTIVE, as the only mechanisms provided by the rules for acting on >> behalf are contracts and zombiehood. >> >> Rule 1742/19 states, in part: >> >> Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may >> make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be >> binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement >> is known as a contract. A contract may be modified, including >> by changing the set of parties, by agreement between all existing >> parties. A contract may also terminate by agreement between all >> parties. A contract automatically terminates if the number of >> parties to it falls below two. For the purposes of this rule, >> agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by >> contract. >> >> We can summarise the definition of "contract" to produce a list of >> requirements that must be satisfied for this exchange to be considered a >> contract: >> >> 1) Is it an "agreement"? >> 2) Did Corona and D. Margaux consent to it? >> 3) Did Corona and D. Margaux have the intention that it would be >>
Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision
it's to be found in rule 217. On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:25 PM James Cook wrote: > On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 05:49, Rebecca wrote: > > I suspect that the text is > > not clear and therefore the four-part test must be applied. > > What's the four-part test? > -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: Income
This exact thing was tried in about June of 2017 or 18, soon after the new
"boom and bust" money system came into effect (written by nichdel). I think
it was agreed by all that a duty was a duty imposed by the rules or
something of that nature.
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:20 PM omd wrote:
> I pledge to publish a report, at least once in the current week, about
> whether or not I am wearing a hat.
>
> I publish the following report:
> {
> I am not wearing a hat, although my bicycle helmet is on the desk in
> front of me.
> }
>
> I earn 5 Coins for publishing a duty-fulfilling report.
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 4:42 PM James Cook wrote:
> >
> > I earn 5 Coins for publishing the most recent Registrar monthly report.
> > I earn 5 Coins for judging CFJ 3726.
> > I earn 5 Coins for judging CFJ 3727.
> > I earn 5 Coins for publishing the most recent Registrar weekly report.
> > I earn 5 Coins for publishing the most recent Treasuror weekly report.
>
--
>From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Income
sounds hard so no On Sat, Jun 8, 2019 at 10:55 AM omd wrote: > On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:59 AM Rebecca wrote: > > > > This exact thing was tried in about June of 2017 or 18, soon after the > new > > "boom and bust" money system came into effect (written by nichdel). I > think > > it was agreed by all that a duty was a duty imposed by the rules or > > something of that nature. > > Hmm... I've just spent a few minutes searching the archives. I see > CFJ 3551, which is somewhat relevant, but nothing specifically on > point here. Do you have a link? > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots
i favor this one
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:28 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On general principle - yep! The Rules can delegate to other documents like
> that. A good example is Tournaments (R2464) where winning is delegated -
> at times we've allowed tournaments to hold/award Coins and change other
> game quantities other than winning.
>
> For Proposals specifically I think that would be a court case - by R106, a
> proposal "takes effect" and applies all its provisions instantaneously,
> then
> is done. I'm not sure a continuous effect like that in a proposal would
> "continue having effect" once its done.
>
> On 6/10/2019 4:46 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > I might be missing some precedent here, but if the wording was "except
> as
> > described by a proposal or rule", then couldn't I submit a proposal that
> > says something to the effect of "Any player CAN, by announcement,
> expunge
> > any number of Blots from emself." and then have that wording captured by
> the
> > Rule?
> >
> > The authorizing Instrument would be the Rule, giving it power to do
> secured
> > changes. The Rule explicitly delegates to the proposal, thus effectively
> > giving it the entire power of the Rule to destroy assets.
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> > On 6/10/19 3:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >> Interesting catch.
> >>
> >> It's the difference between "except by a proposal or rule" versus
> >> "except as described by a proposal or rule" which is the usual phrasing
> >> that would work fine - so the question is can we infer the "as
> described"
> >> part - which might be a hard sell given how picky we usually are on
> >> attributing causality. No this hasn't been adjudicated before to my
> >> knowledge.
> >>
> >> On 6/10/2019 12:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >>> CFJ: "A Player with Blots CAN destroy a Blot in eir possession if e
> has
> >>> neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from emself in the current
> >>> Agoran week."
> >>>
> >>> Caller's Evidence = Excerpt from Rule 2555/2 ("Blots")
> >>> [Power=2]
> >>>
> >>>Blots are an indestructible fixed currency with ownership
> >>>restricted to persons.
> >>>
> >>>[...]
> >>>
> >>>To expunge a blot is to destroy it.
> >>>[...]
> >>>If a player has neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from
> >>>emself in the current Agoran week, e CAN expunge 1 blot from
> >>>emself by announcement.
> >>>
> >>> Excerpt from Rule 2577/1 ("Asset Actions") [Power=3]
> >>>
> >>>An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by
> announcement,
> >>>subject to modification by its backing document. An
> indestructible
> >>>asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and CANNOT
> be
> >>>destroyed except by a proposal or rule, other than this one,
> >>>specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible assets
> >>>or that asset in particular; any other asset is destructible.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Caller's Arguments
> >>> ==
> >>> I argue that when a player announces that e expunges a Blot from
> emself,
> >>> then e is the one destroying the Blot. Thus, under Rule 2577, the Blot
> >>> CANNOT be destroyed, as it was not destroyed "by a proposal or rule,
> >>> other than [Rule 2577], specifically addressing the destruction of
> >>> indestructible assets or that asset in particular", but rather by the
> >>> Player.
> >>>
> >>> I argue that Rule 2240 ("No Cretans Need Apply") does not apply, as
> the
> >>> definition of an asset being "indestructible" does not occur in Rule
> >>> 2555, but Rule 2555 rather defers to Rule 2577 for the definition, and
> >>> then later attempts to override the definition in Rule 2577. Thus the
> >>> conflict is between two Rules, rather than within the text of a
> certain
> >>> rule.
> >>>
> >>> If the above two arguments are found valid, then Rule 1030
> ("Precedence
> >>> between Rules") states that the Rule with the higher Power takes
> >>> precedence. In this case that is Rule 2577. This would mean that Blots
> >>> CANNOT be destroyed.
> >>>
> >>> I thus argue that the ruling on this CFJ should be FALSE.
> >>>
> >>> [NB: if there is precedent that I am missing, please tell me and I
> will
> >>> withdraw this. I didn't see any historical rulings on "indestructible"
> >>> assets, and the ones that I found on Blots seemed not to be relevant.
> I
> >>> was unable to find precedent on conflicts with definitions solely by
> >>> searching the statements of CFJs.]
> >>>
>
--
>From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots
yes! it is an informal request rather than anything defined by the rules, i
dont know why we say it that way.
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:55 AM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I'm sorry, but I keep hearing this and I don't know what it means. Does
> it mean that you wish to be the Judge?
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/10/19 8:53 PM, Rebecca wrote:
> > i favor this one
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:28 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> >> On general principle - yep! The Rules can delegate to other documents
> like
> >> that. A good example is Tournaments (R2464) where winning is delegated
> -
> >> at times we've allowed tournaments to hold/award Coins and change other
> >> game quantities other than winning.
> >>
> >> For Proposals specifically I think that would be a court case - by
> R106, a
> >> proposal "takes effect" and applies all its provisions instantaneously,
> >> then
> >> is done. I'm not sure a continuous effect like that in a proposal would
> >> "continue having effect" once its done.
> >>
> >> On 6/10/2019 4:46 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >>> I might be missing some precedent here, but if the wording was "except
> >> as
> >>> described by a proposal or rule", then couldn't I submit a proposal
> that
> >>> says something to the effect of "Any player CAN, by announcement,
> >> expunge
> >>> any number of Blots from emself." and then have that wording captured
> by
> >> the
> >>> Rule?
> >>>
> >>> The authorizing Instrument would be the Rule, giving it power to do
> >> secured
> >>> changes. The Rule explicitly delegates to the proposal, thus
> effectively
> >>> giving it the entire power of the Rule to destroy assets.
> >>>
> >>> Jason Cobb
> >>>
> >>> On 6/10/19 3:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>>> Interesting catch.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's the difference between "except by a proposal or rule" versus
> >>>> "except as described by a proposal or rule" which is the usual
> phrasing
> >>>> that would work fine - so the question is can we infer the "as
> >> described"
> >>>> part - which might be a hard sell given how picky we usually are on
> >>>> attributing causality. No this hasn't been adjudicated before to my
> >>>> knowledge.
> >>>>
> >>>> On 6/10/2019 12:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >>>>> CFJ: "A Player with Blots CAN destroy a Blot in eir possession if e
> >> has
> >>>>> neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from emself in the
> current
> >>>>> Agoran week."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Caller's Evidence = Excerpt from Rule 2555/2
> ("Blots")
> >>>>> [Power=2]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Blots are an indestructible fixed currency with ownership
> >>>>> restricted to persons.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To expunge a blot is to destroy it.
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>> If a player has neither gained blots nor expunged any blots
> from
> >>>>> emself in the current Agoran week, e CAN expunge 1 blot from
> >>>>> emself by announcement.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Excerpt from Rule 2577/1 ("Asset Actions") [Power=3]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by
> >> announcement,
> >>>>> subject to modification by its backing document. An
> >> indestructible
> >>>>> asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and
> CANNOT
> >> be
> >>>>> destroyed except by a proposal or rule, other than this one,
> >>>>> specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible
> assets
> >>>>> or that asset in particular; any other asset is destructible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Caller's Arguments
> >>>>> ==
> >>>>> I argue that when a player announces that e expunges a Blot from
> >> emself,
> >>>>> then e is th
DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 (revised)
isn't it 1000 bucks to win the game? why has marg...not done that. On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 11:48 AM James Cook wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 08:39, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > CoE: Balloons, Favours, Spaceships and Energy are not currently defined > by the Rules. > > > > (Also, I think D. Margaux is the Referee, although that's not a CoE > because the report isn't actually obliged to contain the identity of each > public asset class's recordkeepor.) > > > > -twg > > Thanks. I publish the following revision. > > > > Forbes 500 > > > > This is a revision of the 2019-06-06 Treasuror weekly report. It > describes the > state of the game at the time the original report was published, which is > 2019-06-06 at 23:31 UTC. > > Date of this weekly report: 2019-06-06 > Date of last weekly report: 2019-05-30 > > Archive of reports on the web: > https://agoranomic.org/Treasuror/reports/weekly/ > > > ASSET INDEX > > This section does not self-ratify. > >Asset classRecordkeeporOwnership >---- >Coins Treasuror Agora, players, contracts >Blots Referee Persons > > > COIN BALANCES > > This section self-ratifies. > Entities not listed have a Coin balance of 0. > >CoinsActive player >-- > 146ATMunn > 156Aris > 30Bernie > 74CuddleBeam > 1011D. Margaux > 242Falsifian > 723G. > 90Gaelan > 118Jacob Arduino >3Jason Cobb > 192Murphy > 20o > 121omd > 61Rance > 440Trigon > 822twg > 10V.J. Rada > 10Walker > >CoinsZombie >--- > 40Corona > 10Hālian > 10L > 40Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > 10Tarhalindur > 10Telnaior > >CoinsNon-player entity >-- > 1207Agora > 87Lost and Found Department > > > PERFORMANCES OF THE RITUAL > > Unofficial section. Does not self-ratify. > > Week Performer(s) Notes > - -- > 2019-04-22..28 D. MargauxAris transferred 4 Coins to D. Margaux. > 2019-04-29..05-05 Falsifian > 2019-05-06..12 Falsifian > 2019-05-13..19 Falsifian > 2019-05-20..26 Falsifian Rance transferred 7 Coins to Falsifian. > 2019-05-27..06-02 (none) > 2019-06-03..09 Jason Cobb > > > RECENT HISTORY > > This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify. > > Entity Change Date (UTC)Reason > > Trigon + 5c. 2019-06-06 21:35 Reward (Rulekeepor weekly) > Jason Cobb - 7c. 2019-06-05 17:50 Fee to perform The Ritual > V.J. Rada + 10c. 2019-06-04 20:43 Welcome Package > Walker + 10c. 2019-06-03 02:20 Welcome Package > Trigon + 5c. 2019-06-02 08:58 Reward (judging unnumbered > CFJ) > Trigon + 5c. 2019-06-02 08:58 Reward (judging CFJ 3728) > Jason Cobb + 10c. 2019-06-02 02:21 Welcome Package > Falsifian + 10c. 2019-06-01 14:11 Transfer from V.J. Rada > V.J. Rada - 10c. 2019-06-01 14:11 Transfer to Falsifian > ATMunn + 10c. 2019-06-01 00:00 Payday > Aris + 20c. 2019-06-01 00:00 Payday (Arbitor, Promotor) > Baron von Vaderham + 10c. 2019-06-01 00:00 Payday > Bernie + 10c. 2019-06-01 00:00 Payday > Corona + 10c. 2019-06-01 00:00 Payday > CuddleBeam + 10c. 2019-06-01 00:00 Payday > D. Margaux + 25c. 2019-06-01 00:00 Payday (Assessor, Referee, > Speaker) > Falsifian + 20c. 2019-06-01 00:00 Payday (Registrar, Treasuror) > G. + 15c. 2019-06-01 00:00 Payday (Tailor) > Gaelan + 10c. 2019-06-01 00:00 Payday > Hālian + 10c. 2019-06-01 00:00 Payday > Jacob Arduino + 10c. 2019-06-01 00:00 Payday > L + 10c. 2019-06-01 00:00 Payday > Murphy + 10c. 2019-06-01 00:00 Payday > PSS+ 10c. 2019-06-01 00:00 Payday > Rance + 10c. 2019-06-01 00:00 Payday > Tarhalindur+ 10c. 2019-06-01 00:00 Payday > Telnaior + 10c. 2019-06-01 00:00 Payday > Trigon + 15c. 2019-06-01 00:00 Payday (Rule
DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction status (unofficial report)
i bid 8 coins On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:06 PM James Cook wrote: > There is one ongoing zombie auction. > > Lots: > 1. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > 2. Corona > 3. Hālian > 4. Tarhalindur > > Bids: > 2019-06-07T17:01Z. Rance. 7 Coins. > 2019-06-08T00:59Z. omd. 10 Coins. > 2019-06-10T08:17Z. twg. 1 Coin. > > The auction was initiated on 2019-06-06 at 23:39 UTC and will end on > 2019-06-13 at 23:39 UTC. > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pending judicial actions
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:16 AM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:53 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Please review if you have an interest in a pending case - did I miss > anything? > > > > Cases listed open in the Court Gazette May 27 > > - CFJ 3726, later judged by Falsifian, no action needed > > - CFJ 3727, later judged by Falsifian, no action needed > > - CFJ 3728, later judged by Trigon, no action needed > > > > Subsequent Events (Grouped by case, cases sorted by date of Call) > > > > May 23, 7:10 PM > > - Falsifian CFJs on "the Lost and Found department owns..." > > - Arbitor assigns it to D. Margaux as 3729 > > - D. Margaux judges it (no further action needed) > > > > May 28, 2019 at 9:49:13 AM EDT > > - D. Margaux files a CFJ "The ADoP did not..." with the Referee. > > - Referee assigns this CFJ to Trigon as an "unnumbered" CFJ. > > - Trigon judges this CFJ. > > - ACTION NEEDED: ID NUMBER ASSIGNMENT > > > > Note that (probably) only the Referee can assign an ID number to this > case. Under Rule 2246, "Submitting a CFJ to the Referee", "the Referee > receives all obligations and powers for the specific case that the > Arbitor would otherwise receive due to being Arbitor." I see no reason > why that wouldn't include ID number assignment. I'd suggest that the > best course of action is probably for the Arbitor to reserve a number > and for the Referee to assign it. I believe the Referee is probably > also required to write a mini-court gazette for the case, although > that's arguable. In any case, I consider this a bug and a fix proposal > is incoming. > > > -Aris > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pending judicial actions
ID numbers are entirely informal so anyone can assign them if they like. On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:31 AM Rebecca wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:16 AM Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 12:53 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > >> > Please review if you have an interest in a pending case - did I miss >> anything? >> > >> > Cases listed open in the Court Gazette May 27 >> > - CFJ 3726, later judged by Falsifian, no action needed >> > - CFJ 3727, later judged by Falsifian, no action needed >> > - CFJ 3728, later judged by Trigon, no action needed >> > >> > Subsequent Events (Grouped by case, cases sorted by date of Call) >> > >> > May 23, 7:10 PM >> > - Falsifian CFJs on "the Lost and Found department owns..." >> > - Arbitor assigns it to D. Margaux as 3729 >> > - D. Margaux judges it (no further action needed) >> > >> > May 28, 2019 at 9:49:13 AM EDT >> > - D. Margaux files a CFJ "The ADoP did not..." with the Referee. >> > - Referee assigns this CFJ to Trigon as an "unnumbered" CFJ. >> > - Trigon judges this CFJ. >> > - ACTION NEEDED: ID NUMBER ASSIGNMENT >> > >> >> Note that (probably) only the Referee can assign an ID number to this >> case. Under Rule 2246, "Submitting a CFJ to the Referee", "the Referee >> receives all obligations and powers for the specific case that the >> Arbitor would otherwise receive due to being Arbitor." I see no reason >> why that wouldn't include ID number assignment. I'd suggest that the >> best course of action is probably for the Arbitor to reserve a number >> and for the Referee to assign it. I believe the Referee is probably >> also required to write a mini-court gazette for the case, although >> that's arguable. In any case, I consider this a bug and a fix proposal >> is incoming. >> >> >> -Aris >> > > > -- > From V.J. Rada > -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
It wouldn't gut contracts because anything specified by a Contract _is_
regulated under the rules. It's just designed to prohibit _criminal_
liability for "interpret[ing]" the rules.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 1:56 PM James Cook wrote:
> On Proposals 8180 through 8187 I vote as follows, where "AGAINST IF
> VETO ELSE" means "conditional vote: AGAINST if a Notice of Veto has
> been published specifying this proposal, otherwise"
>
> > IDAuthor(s) AITitle
> >
> ---
> > 8180 Trigon, D Margaux 1.0 Paying our Assessor
> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> > 8181 D Margaux, [1]1.7 Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1)
> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> > 8182 Jason Cobb3.0 Add value to zombies
> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> > 8183 V.J. Rada, Tiger 3.0 Regulated Actions Reform
> AGAINST (per o, and also, I would like to see the context behind the
> decision to use the current bizarre wording before changing it)
> > 8184 G.3.0 power-limit precedence
> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> > 8185 Trigon3.0 OUGHT we?
> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE PRESENT ("ought" seems nicer than contractions,
> but still seems unnecessary)
> > 8186 Jason Cobb3.0 Minor currency fixes
> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> > 8187 Jason Cobb3.0 Not so indestructible now, eh?
> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
>
--
>From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187
that's dumb. the rules can't say that 'interpreting' something is
IMPOSSIBLE (well they can, but it utterly defies reality). instead they
have to just positively say what is true under them; to wit, they do not
proscribe unregulated actions.
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 7:38 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> What if we kept the existing language but changed SHALL NOT to
> CANNOT--"the rules CANNOT be interpreted..."?
>
> > On Jun 13, 2019, at 1:50 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> >
> > It wouldn't gut contracts because anything specified by a Contract _is_
> > regulated under the rules. It's just designed to prohibit _criminal_
> > liability for "interpret[ing]" the rules.
> >
> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 1:56 PM James Cook
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Proposals 8180 through 8187 I vote as follows, where "AGAINST IF
> >> VETO ELSE" means "conditional vote: AGAINST if a Notice of Veto has
> >> been published specifying this proposal, otherwise"
> >>
> >>> IDAuthor(s) AITitle
> >>>
> >>
> ---
> >>> 8180 Trigon, D Margaux 1.0 Paying our Assessor
> >> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> >>> 8181 D Margaux, [1]1.7 Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1)
> >> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> >>> 8182 Jason Cobb3.0 Add value to zombies
> >> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> >>> 8183 V.J. Rada, Tiger 3.0 Regulated Actions Reform
> >> AGAINST (per o, and also, I would like to see the context behind the
> >> decision to use the current bizarre wording before changing it)
> >>> 8184 G.3.0 power-limit precedence
> >> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> >>> 8185 Trigon3.0 OUGHT we?
> >> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE PRESENT ("ought" seems nicer than contractions,
> >> but still seems unnecessary)
> >>> 8186 Jason Cobb3.0 Minor currency fixes
> >> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> >>> 8187 Jason Cobb3.0 Not so indestructible now, eh?
> >> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
>
--
>From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Dollar Auction
Words take their ordinary meaning when not defined by the rules. Coins are
defined by the rules as "the official currency of Agora tracked by the
Treasuror" under rule 2483 "Coins". A currency is "a class of asset defined
as such by its backing document". A backing document is a rule or Contract.
Therefore pesos, which are defined by the laws of Mexico, are not coins.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 4:46 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It isn’t conditioned on anything, so it should be fine.
>
> BTW, you’re sending email to two lists. You should probably try to send it
> to the one list that’s most appropriate for the contents of the email.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:44 PM David Seeber
> wrote:
>
> > Ah, I see, my mistake.
> >
> > Well I guess I'll just wait then :) I assume the first CFJ was still
> valid?
> >
> > From: agora-business on behalf
> of
> > Aris Merchant
> > Sent: Friday, June 14, 2019 7:32:43 AM
> > To: Agora Business
> > Subject: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Dollar Auction
> >
> > You can’t condition game actions on the outcome of a CFJ. Future
> > conditionals are not currently permitted outside of voting.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 11:29 PM David Seeber
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I cfj the following :
> > >
> > > "There was only
> > > one valid bid, namely for 1 coin by CuddleBeam."
> > >
> > > Argument against :
> > >
> > > Trigon bid 2 Mexican pesos.
> > > Mexican pesos are coins.
> > > Valid currency for this auctions is coins
> > >
> > > Since Trigon bid two coins, and nowhere was it stated that the only
> legal
> > > tender was an AGORAN coin, I argue that there were TWO valid bids.
> > >
> > > If this is accepted, {
> > >
> > > { I cfj the following:
> > >
> > > "Trigon is the winner of the auction"
> > >
> > > Argument in favour :
> > >
> > > Trigon bid two coins, which is more than CuddleBeam bid.
> > > The highest bidder wins the auction.
> > > Therefore Trigon wins the auction.
> > > }
> > >
> > > AND
> > >
> > > { I point my finger at the Auctioneer for failing in eir duty, which
> was
> > > evidently to either dismiss or acknowledge the bid of two coins by
> > Trigon,
> > > instead of ignoring it.}
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: agora-business on behalf
> > of
> > > omd
> > > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 10:49:21 PM
> > > To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org
> > > Subject: BUS: Re: OFF: Dollar Auction
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 12:29 AM omd wrote:
> > > > I hereby initiate an Auction. I am the Auctioneer and the Announcer;
> > > > the currency is coins, and the minimum bid is one coin.
> > > >
> > > > This Auction contains a single lot, and that lot contains a single
> > item,
> > > namely,
> > > >
> > > > ONE UNITED STATES DOLLAR.
> > >
> > > As the Announcer, I announce the end of this Auction. There was only
> > > one valid bid, namely for 1 coin by CuddleBeam. E is the winner of
> > > the only lot, and is now required to transfer payment.
> > >
> >
>
--
>From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: OFF: End of June Zombie Auction
Coe I bid eight coins so I should win the third zombie On Sat, 15 Jun 2019, 12:09 PM James Cook wrote: > The zombie auction I initiated 2019-06-06 has ended. > > Lots: > 1. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > 2. Corona > 3. Hālian > 4. Tarhalindur > > Bids (all times UTC): > 2019-06-07 17:01: Rance, 7 Coins > 2019-06-08 00:59: omd, 10 Coins > 2019-06-10 08:17: twg, 1 Coin > 2019-06-11 13:43: V.J. Rada, 7 Coins > 2019-06-11 13:44: Baron von Vaderham, 11 Coins > > Winners: > Baron von Vaderham wins Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. > omd wins Corona. > Rance wins Hālian. > V.J. Rada wins Tarhalindur. >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: End of June Zombie Auction
Unlike the argument about blogs, this argument stretches annoying textual ism beyond its breaking point. To transfer in this context means to change from the ownership of one entity to anothwr. So the auctioneer CAN transfer the switch: from agora to the auction winners. On Sat, 15 Jun 2019, 12:09 PM James Cook wrote: > Warning: I don't think paying Agora for one's prize will cause that > zombie's Master switch to be flipped to the payer, and I plan to call a > CFJ about it once someone tries to claim their zombie (easier to phrase > the CFJ after that's happened). > > (I think the winners are still obligated to pay for their prizes.) > > My argument: > > R2551 says: > > > The winner of a lot SHALL pay the Auctioneer the number of the > > Auction's currency equal to eir bid, in a single payment, in a > > timely fashion. When e does so, if the auctioneer CAN transfer the > > items in that lot to that winner at will, e immediately does so; > > otherwise, e SHALL do so in a timely fashion. > > I don't think Agora CAN "transfer" a zombie to the winner. In a zombie > auction, transferring means flipping the zombie's Master switch. That's > a regulated action, and no rule says Agora can do it. >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: End of June Zombie Auction
Oh sorry, I missed the key "if" in there On Sat, 15 Jun 2019, 12:44 PM James Cook wrote: > Could you elabourate? Even if we should pretend zombies are assets, it's > not always true that an asset's owner CAN transfer it. E.g. if I had blots > and auctioned them off, I don't think anything would allow me to transfer > them to the winner of the auction. > > On Fri., Jun. 14, 2019, 22:17 Rebecca, wrote: > > > Unlike the argument about blogs, this argument stretches annoying textual > > ism beyond its breaking point. To transfer in this context means to > change > > from the ownership of one entity to anothwr. So the auctioneer CAN > transfer > > the switch: from agora to the auction winners. > > > > On Sat, 15 Jun 2019, 12:09 PM James Cook wrote: > > > > > Warning: I don't think paying Agora for one's prize will cause that > > > zombie's Master switch to be flipped to the payer, and I plan to call a > > > CFJ about it once someone tries to claim their zombie (easier to phrase > > > the CFJ after that's happened). > > > > > > (I think the winners are still obligated to pay for their prizes.) > > > > > > My argument: > > > > > > R2551 says: > > > > > > > The winner of a lot SHALL pay the Auctioneer the number of the > > > > Auction's currency equal to eir bid, in a single payment, in a > > > > timely fashion. When e does so, if the auctioneer CAN transfer the > > > > items in that lot to that winner at will, e immediately does so; > > > > otherwise, e SHALL do so in a timely fashion. > > > > > > I don't think Agora CAN "transfer" a zombie to the winner. In a zombie > > > auction, transferring means flipping the zombie's Master switch. That's > > > a regulated action, and no rule says Agora can do it. > > > > > >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: End of June Zombie Auction
Yes, I am convinced that you are absolutely right. I guess nobody has any zombies then. On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 12:51 PM Rebecca wrote: > Oh sorry, I missed the key "if" in there > > On Sat, 15 Jun 2019, 12:44 PM James Cook wrote: > >> Could you elabourate? Even if we should pretend zombies are assets, it's >> not always true that an asset's owner CAN transfer it. E.g. if I had blots >> and auctioned them off, I don't think anything would allow me to transfer >> them to the winner of the auction. >> >> On Fri., Jun. 14, 2019, 22:17 Rebecca, wrote: >> >> > Unlike the argument about blogs, this argument stretches annoying >> textual >> > ism beyond its breaking point. To transfer in this context means to >> change >> > from the ownership of one entity to anothwr. So the auctioneer CAN >> transfer >> > the switch: from agora to the auction winners. >> > >> > On Sat, 15 Jun 2019, 12:09 PM James Cook wrote: >> > >> > > Warning: I don't think paying Agora for one's prize will cause that >> > > zombie's Master switch to be flipped to the payer, and I plan to call >> a >> > > CFJ about it once someone tries to claim their zombie (easier to >> phrase >> > > the CFJ after that's happened). >> > > >> > > (I think the winners are still obligated to pay for their prizes.) >> > > >> > > My argument: >> > > >> > > R2551 says: >> > > >> > > > The winner of a lot SHALL pay the Auctioneer the number of the >> > > > Auction's currency equal to eir bid, in a single payment, in a >> > > > timely fashion. When e does so, if the auctioneer CAN transfer the >> > > > items in that lot to that winner at will, e immediately does so; >> > > > otherwise, e SHALL do so in a timely fashion. >> > > >> > > I don't think Agora CAN "transfer" a zombie to the winner. In a zombie >> > > auction, transferring means flipping the zombie's Master switch. >> That's >> > > a regulated action, and no rule says Agora can do it. >> > > >> > >> > -- >From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: BUS: Breaking an Oath
Gratuitous Argument The Pledge rule states that "N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states otherwise". But it doesn't say what N is when the pledge _does_ explicitly state otherwise. Therefore, N is indeterminate and there is no explicit Class for this crime, so it defaults to a base value of 2. On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 3:48 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 2019-06-16 at 01:25 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote: > > I initiate a Call for Judgment on the following statement: "The > > investigator of the Finger-pointing done in this message CAN impose a > > fine on Jason Cobb for the Crime of Oathbreaking." > > Gratuitous arguments: the rule in question says "CAN do so by…", i.e. > it's specifying a mechanism via which the action can be taken. Using > the mechanism, therefore, would allow the fine to be levied. In this > situation, the mechanism is mathematically impossible to use, and thus > the action can't actually be taken, but if the mechanism were somehow > used the action would succeed. > > This is a similar situation to "CAN by announcement" in cases where the > entity who CAN perform the action can't actually send messages to a > mailing list (e.g. in the past, we've had players who were legal > fictions and thus unable to use email). > > Whether the CFJ should be judged as TRUE or FALSE is an interesting > matter of semantics. I think I would argue that the action CAN be > performed, i.e. attempts to perform it are successful; however, the > action cannot (lowercase) be performed, because an attempt to perform > it cannot be made. Thus, the CFJ is TRUE. > > -- > ais523 > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: unregulation
Anyone dumb enough to consent to a contract forbidding breathing deserves any blots that may be imposed, in my view. No such protections are needed, and if somehow somebody scams someone into such a contract, the referee can use eir discretion to not punish. I stand by my original stance/ On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 10:50 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 6/16/2019 5:43 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > On 6/16/19 8:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >> V.J. Rada > >> > Text: Repeal rule 2125 "Regulated Actions" > >> > >> Jason Cobb wrote: > >> > Simply striking the last sentence of the Rule would suffice... > >> > >> I think we'd always like to have some sort of protection against > >> regulating breathing and the like. Grabbed some old language from the > >> Rights era, > >> maybe we should go more along these lines...? > >> No interpretation of Agoran law or > >> binding agreement may substantially limit or remove a person's > >> rights as defined by this Rule, except through the explicit and > >> legal amendment of this Rule. > >> [...] > >> Every person has the right, though not necessarily the > >> ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or > >> regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of > >> changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules > >> explicitly or implicitly permit it. > > > > I think that might fall victim to the same thing I tried with CFJ 3737. > When > > we have contracts, any player can get the Rules to prohibit anything (at > > least for certain players), thus removing the protections. So, when I > create > > a contract that prohibits breathing, breathing would be indirectly > > "prohibited or regulated by the Rules" through the requirement for some > > people to follow the contract, thus taking away everyone's right to > breathe > > in the Rules. > > Oh, you're right, I think we'd have to make a specific exception somewhere > that a contract doesn't make something "regulated" even if breach of > contract is punishable in the rules. > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
But it's a truism that the rules only regulate what they regulate, we don't need a special rule to say what is already implicit. On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 9:49 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 6/16/2019 4:28 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > G., I strongly suspect, very strongly, that there is a body of precedent > > on regulated actions. Do you know anything about that before we get too > hasty? > > > > I create and pend the below proposal > > > > First, why the heck would you repeal that as a solution? It applies pretty > heavily to various CANs and CANNOTs even if SHALLs are broken - v. bad idea > I think. > > I think there are precedents that this applies to SHALL, but I figured > rather than digging I'd do a proto-CFJ that showed a logical consequence of > the judgement, in case we wanted to wholly re-evaluate, or to see if that > logical consequence was a reason to file for reconsideration. > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: unregulation
The regulated action would be breaching a contract you consented to, which is unlawful under the rules. It wouldn't matter what was in the contract. I think any reasonable human judge would rule as such. On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:40 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 6/16/2019 6:10 PM, Rebecca wrote: > > Anyone dumb enough to consent to a contract forbidding breathing deserves > > any blots that may be imposed, in my view. No such protections are > needed, > > and if somehow somebody scams someone into such a contract, the referee > can > > use eir discretion to not punish. I stand by my original stance/ > > Oh I agree on that score. I mean protecting against the following > inference > chain (1) one person signs something about breathing; (2) therefore > something about breathing is punishable in the Rules due to punishments for > violating contracts (3) therefore breathing is regulated by the rules (4) > therefore breathing (by anybody now) can only be done as the rules permit. > The original one person who signed the thing can take what e gets. > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737
We just discussed this last week! Yes, the rules CAN proscribe unregulated
actions and do in fact. it's just illegal to formally interpret them that
way, whether or not that interpretation is legally correct.
On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 2:27 PM omd wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 5:47 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> >
> > This judgment is contradictory. By Rule 2125 [0], the Rules cannot be
> > interpreted to proscribe (prohibit) unregulated actions. Since you judge
> > that breathing would NOT be regulated, then the rules do not prohibit
> > breathing, yet you state otherwise in your judgment:
> >
> > > Any parties to this theoretical contract would still be able to
> > breate but to do so would violate the rule.
> [..]
> > {
> >
> >A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the
> >Rules,and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules
> >for performing the given action. The Rules SHALL NOT be
> >interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions.
> > }
>
> It doesn't say cannot, but SHALL NOT. [Yes, this is very silly.]
>
> I point my finger at Trigon for interpreting the Rules so as to
> proscribe unregulated actions.
>
> See CFJ 3403:
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg26252.html
>
--
>From V.J. Rada
DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
CoE: there is no astronomor or clork post te sidegame suspension act On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 7:18 PM Edward Murphy wrote: > =Metareport= > You can find an up-to-date version of this report at > http://zenith.homelinux.net/adop/report.php > > Date of last report: 2019-05-19 > Date of this report: 2019-06-17 > > > MISCELLANEOUS INFO > > > Filled offices: 12/16 (75.00%) > Total officers: 7 > Consolidation[1]: 1.71 > Late reports: 4/11 (36.36%) > > [1] This is the number of filled offices divided by the number of > officers. At 1, this means that all offices are filled by different > players; if it reached the number of filled offices, that would mean > that all offices are filled by one player. > > > OFFICES > > Office Holder[1] Since Last Election Complexity > > ADoP Murphy 2018-01-182018-01-18 2 > Arbitor *G. 2019-06-112019-05-14 2 > Assessor D. Margaux 2019-05-082019-05-14 3 > Astronomor*(vacant) 2019-05-21[2] 2019-05-19 2 > Clork *(vacant) 2019-05-21[2] 2019-05-19 2 > ComptrollorMurphy 2019-05-252019-05-19 [3] 1 > Distributoromd2018-06-15(never)[3] 0 > Herald*(vacant) 2019-04-27[2] 2019-05-19 2 > Prime Minister*(vacant) 2019-03-07[2] (ongoing) 1 > Promotor Aris 2016-10-212017-09-21 2 > RefereeD. Margaux 2019-05-132019-05-14 2 > Registrar Falsifian 2019-05-042019-05-14 2 > Rulekeepor Trigon 2018-10-142018-11-25 3 > SpeakerD. Margaux 2019-03-072014-04-21 [3] 1 > Tailor*G. 2019-05-152018-09-14 1 > Treasuror Falsifian 2019-05-052019-05-14 3 > > [1] * = Interim office (vacant or holder not elected) > [2] Vacant since this date > [3] Currently imposed > > > WEEKLY REPORTS > > Office ReportLast Published Late[1] > > ADoP Offices 2019-05-19[2] !!! > ArbitorJudicial matters 2019-06-11 > Astronomor Space 2019-05-21 (vacant) > Clork Politics 2019-05-21 (vacant) > Herald Matters of Honour 2019-04-07 (vacant) > Promotor Proposal pool 2019-06-12 > RefereeRule violations 2019-06-14 > Registrar Players, Fora 2019-06-17 > Rulekeepor Short Logical Ruleset 2019-06-16 > Treasuror Coins, other currencies 2019-06-13 > > [1] ! = 1 period missed, !! = 2, !!! = 3+ > [2] Not including this report > > MONTHLY REPORTS > > Office ReportLast Published Late > > Herald Patent titles 2019-03-31 (vacant) > Registrar Player history2019-06-01 > Rulekeepor Full Logical Ruleset 2019-06-16 > Tailor Ribbons 2019-05-15 > > > > ELECTIONS > > Office Initiated Phase Candidates > > Prime Minister 2019-03-03 Voting Aris, Corona, G. > > > UPCOMING ELECTIONS[1] > > Office Days Until Last Election > > Promotor 00 Days 2017-09-21 > ADoP 00 Days 2018-01-18 > Tailor 00 Days 2018-09-14 > Rulekeepor 00 Days 2018-11-25 > Arbitor56 Days 2019-05-14 > > [1] Anyone can start an election (with 2 support and also becoming a > candidate) 90 days after the previous one (or if it's interim and no > election is ongoing). This section shows the 5 elected offices with the > most time passed since the last election. > > > ABBREVIATIONS > - > ADoP Associate Director of Personnel > > > RECENT EVENTS (all times UTC) > ---
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8058-8065
Hey guys, see that "IAR writs repeal proposal, which I think passed? Why is that still in the ruleset? On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 7:28 AM Edward Murphy wrote: > > 8058* V.J. Rada 1.0 Medal of Honour Auctions V.J. Rada > AGAINST > > 8059* G. 1.0 honour is its own reward G. > PRESENT > > 8060* V.J. Rada 1.8 Notary-B-Gone V.J. Rada > FOR > > 8061+ Aris 1.0 Free ProposalsAris > PRESENT > > 8062* Trigon 3.0 The End of the World, Again Trigon > PRESENT > > 8063* V.J. Rada 2.0 IAR Writs Repeal V.J. Rada > PRESENT > > 8064* G. 1.0 Land Grants G. > FOR > > 8065* twg2.0 No undead courts twg > FOR > > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3739 Assigned to Falsifian
Gratuitous argument. Even if "deputisation" or "temporary deputisation" are totally distinct categories, the Cyan Ribbon category uses the word "deputises" rather than "deputisation". A person who engages in "temporary deputisation", even if distinct from "deputisation" still engages in the _verb_ "deputising". On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 5:51 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > This is CFJ 3739. I assign it to Falsifian. > > === CFJ 3739 === > >A person earns a Cyan Ribbon when e temporarily deputises for an >office. > > == > > Caller:G. > > Judge: Falsifian > > == > > History: > > Called by G.: 16 Jun 2019 18:34:55 > Assigned to Falsifian:[now] > > == > > Caller's Arguments: > > From Rule 2438 (Ribbons): >Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an office, that person earns >a Cyan Ribbon. > > The question is whether "temporary deputisation" is a sub-category of > "deputisation" (deserving of a Ribbon) or if the qualifier makes it > something totally separate and not ribbon-earning. > > From Rule 2160 (Deputisation): >5. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e is > doing so by deputisation or by temporary deputisation >[...] >When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the >holder of that office, unless the action being performed would >already install someone into that office, and/or unless the >deputisiation is temporary. > > The "deputisation or by temporary deputisation" implies they're > distinct things and not sub-categories, but the "unless the > deputisation is temporary" implies one is a sub-category of the other > (these are the only usages in the whole Ruleset of the term > "temporary". > > It makes some kinda sense that a ribbon reward is reserved for when > you actually take on an office, but I don't have a prejudice > otherwise: FWIW when I wrote the "temporary" rule I didn't think about > ribbons at all so there was no particular intent. > > == > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8058-8065
Oh it was rejected. Never mind! On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 8:26 PM Rebecca wrote: > Hey guys, see that "IAR writs repeal proposal, which I think passed? Why is > that still in the ruleset? > > On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 7:28 AM Edward Murphy wrote: > > > > 8058* V.J. Rada 1.0 Medal of Honour Auctions V.J. Rada > > AGAINST > > > 8059* G. 1.0 honour is its own reward G. > > PRESENT > > > 8060* V.J. Rada 1.8 Notary-B-Gone V.J. Rada > > FOR > > > 8061+ Aris 1.0 Free ProposalsAris > > PRESENT > > > 8062* Trigon 3.0 The End of the World, Again Trigon > > PRESENT > > > 8063* V.J. Rada 2.0 IAR Writs Repeal V.J. Rada > > PRESENT > > > 8064* G. 1.0 Land Grants G. > > FOR > > > 8065* twg2.0 No undead courts twg > > FOR > > > > > > -- > From R. Lee > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Breaking an Oath
Fines can be levied, surely, per the revised version of CFJ 3736, which
says they CAN, but not by announcement
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:13 PM D. Margaux wrote:
> As stated, this CFJ is trivially FALSE because no fine CAN be imposed for
> anything. Maybe there is a different way to pose the CFJ that would be
> PARADOXICAL though?
>
> > On Jun 16, 2019, at 1:25 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >
> > Oooh look, I broke my Oath. How unexpected!
> >
> > I point my finger at Jason Cobb for the Class 0 Crime of Oathbreaking.
> >
> > I fully admit that I am guilty of the above accusation.
> >
> >
> > [Also, sorry for all of the CFJ's I have created lately. I really don't
> mean to overload the people who have to deal with them.]
> >
> > I initiate a Call for Judgment on the following statement: "The
> investigator of the Finger-pointing done in this message CAN impose a fine
> on Jason Cobb for the Crime of Oathbreaking."
> >
> > Evidence:
> >
> > {
> >
> > Excerpt from Rule 2450 ("Pledges"):
> >
> > If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or
> > refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the pledge
> > within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of
> > Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states
> > otherwise. The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless the
> > pledge explicitly states otherwise.
> >
> >
> > Excerpt from Rule 2557 ("Removing Blots"):
> >
> > When the rules authorize an investigator to impose the Cold Hand
> > of Justice for a violation, e CAN do so by levying a fine on the
> > perp with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 2x the base value of the
> > violation, within the following guidelines:
> >- If the violation is described by the rules as a Class N
> crime,
> >then N is the base value; otherwise the base value is 2.
> >
> > }
> >
> > Arguments:
> >
> > {
> >
> > Under Rule 2450, I have violated my Oath by sending the message in which
> I called this CFJ. The Oath explicitly states that the Oath was under
> penalty of a Class 0 Crime. Thus, under Rule 2450, I am guilty of the Class
> 0 Crime of Oathbreaking. Thus, under Rule 2478 ("Vigilante Justice", not
> quoted here), the investigator SHALL (and CAN, by CFJ precedent) impose the
> Cold Hand of Justice on the perp (me).
> >
> > I note that the Rules do not explicitly state that N in a Class N crime
> must be positive, or even an integer. I thus argue that a Class 0 Crime is
> a thing that can happen.
> >
> > Since the crime committed was a Class 0 Crime, the base value for the
> crime (in Rule 2557's parlance) is 0. Thus, under Rule 2557, the
> investigator CAN do so by levying a fine on me with a minimum of 1 (Blot)
> and a maximum of 0 (Blots). This is a mathematical impossibility. There is
> no valid number of blots that the investigator CAN fine me, yet the Rules
> assert that e CAN.
> >
> > At this point, I will attempt to argue what I think the resolution
> should be.
> >
> > I think this is clearly not IRRELEVANT. I don't believe it should be
> INSUFFICIENT, as I have (hopefully) provided everything that supports my
> argument. I don't think it should be DISMISS.
> >
> > That leaves TRUE, FALSE, and PARADOXICAL.
> >
> > The following is admittedly somewhat shaky, but here it goes:
> >
> > I know of no rules or precedent that states what happens when the Rules
> require a mathematical impossibility. The Rules also do not state whether
> or not the rules of math take precedence over the Rules.
> >
> > Regarding TRUE: The Rules define "CAN" as "Attempts to perform the
> described action are successful." This does not describe applying a fine
> here, as there is no valid number of Blots that I could be fined that would
> be permitted under Rule 2557. Thus any attempts to do so would NOT be
> successful.
> >
> > Regarding FALSE: I think this might be a valid outcome, but I also think
> that the Rules explicitly state that the investigator CAN do so, and that
> should be taken into account.
> >
> > Regarding PARADOXICAL: I think this might be a valid outcome. The Rules
> state that a person CAN do something that is mathematically impossible to
> do. That sounds like a paradox to me :).
> >
> > }
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> >> On 6/16/19 12:46 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >> I pledge, on penalty of a Class 0 Crime, to not send messages to public
> fora for the next 24 hours.
> >>
>
--
>From R. Lee
DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report
As I said, per the revised version of that CFJ, the referee CAN impose the CHoJ, by announcement or some other mechanism On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:21 PM D. Margaux wrote: > I publish the below report and claim a 5 coin reward for doing so. > > Referee’s Weekly Report > Date of This Report: 2019-06-18 > Date of Last Report: 2019-06-12 > > BLOT HOLDINGS > === > This section self-ratifies. > > BlotsPlayer > --- >8Corona >7twg >3V.J. Rada >3Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > 1L. > 1Murphy > > BlotsFugitive > - > 4Kenyon > > RECENT CHANGES > == > This section does not self-ratify. > > [No recent changes because, evidently, players CANNOT expunge blots nor > impose the CHoJ] > > RECENT FINGER POINTS & INVESTIGATION RESULTS > = > This section does not self-ratify. > > 2019-06-11 G. pointed eir finger at Aris for failure to publish a > Promotor's weekly report. RESULT: Finger pointing was well taken, > and Aris was fined 1 blot--except this was INEFFECTIVE because CHoJ is > broken. > > 2019-06-13 Falsifian pointed eir finger at D. Margaux and Murphy for > Abetting Heresy. RESULT: Finger pointing was well taken, and a fine of 3 > blots on D. Margaux and 1 blot on Murphy was attempted and failed because > CHoJ is broken. > > 2019-06-16 Falsifian pointed eir finger at emself for Class 0 > Oathbreaking. RESULT: Well taken, but I CANNOT impose a fine because the > CHoJ is broken. > > 2019-06-19 Jason Cobb pointed eir finger at Falsifian for Making eir Eyes > Bleed. RESULT; Well taken, but I CANNOT impose a fine because the CHoJ is > broken. > > > > > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Fwd: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3736 assigned to omd
Oh sorry! You're right, go ahead. On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 11:52 PM D. Margaux wrote: > R. Lee-- Is this not the operative decision on Cfj 3736? Seems to hold that > CHOJ is broken. > > -- Forwarded message - > From: omd > Date: Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:43 AM > Subject: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3736 assigned to omd > To: > > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:31 PM omd wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:24 PM Aris Merchant > > wrote: > > > I intend with 2 support to group-file a motion to reconsider. This > > > ruling suggests that a person could potentially change a regulated > > > quantity by communicating with its recordkeepor even if that method > > > was not explicitly specified by a rule. This flatly contradicts Rule > > > 2125, which says in part "A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as > > > described by the Rules, and only using the methods explicitly > > > specified in the Rules for performing the given action." The opinion > > > cites CFJ 3425, but the "methods explicitly specified" provision did > > > not exist at the time of that CFJ, and appears to abrogate the > > > precedent it set. > > > > Whoops. I self-file a motion to reconsider. > > Revised judgement: > > I overlooked the "only using the methods" clause, which indeed > postdates CFJ 3425 (it dates to 2017, while CFJ 3425 was judged in > 2014). > > Levying a fine is certainly a regulated action, and Rule 2125 takes > precedence over all of the Cold Hand of Justice-related rules due to > higher power, so it seems that imposing the Cold Hand of Justice is > impossible after all. > > I note in passing that there might be odd results if a similar > situation occurred (rule claiming to make something POSSIBLE without > specifying a method) with a rule that takes precedence over Rule 2125. > > I re-judge CFJ 3736 FALSE, and earn another 5 coins for doing so. > -- > D. Margaux > -- >From R. Lee
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making an Oath
There is a directly on point CFJ in re pledges and that "no prohibition"
clause, that being 3538. To quote it
"I agree that the pledge, if effective, would be a severe enough
restriction on V.J. Rada's participation in the Fora as to run afoul
of Rule 478 (as even though e is not strictly required to send
messages to agora-discussion to participate, we have a strong
expectation that players will). Although Rule 478 uses the word
"shall", that doesn't necessarily mean "SHALL", and both game custom
and the best interests of the game strongly favor giving the clause
teeth. When it comes to attempts to prohibit participation through
the legal system, it should be interpreted as overriding such
prohibitions altogether, not merely criminalizing their creation."
On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 10:59 AM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It doesn’t actually require all capitals. It says "These definitions are
> used when rule includes a term in all caps, and provide guidance in
> determining
> the ordinary-language meaning of a term when a rule includes a term
> otherwise." So we're allowed (and arguably encouraged) to interpret it as
> establishing criminal liability, but we don't have to do so.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 5:56 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
>
> > I don't think you can interpret as establishing criminal liability,
> > since it says "shall" and Rule 2152 ("Mother, may I?") specifically
> > requires all capitals ("SHALL").
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> > On 6/18/19 8:42 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > > On Jun 16, 2019, at 12:46 AM, Jason Cobb
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I pledge, on penalty of a Class 0 Crime, to not send messages to
> public
> > fora for the next 24 hours.
> > > Does this pledge operate?
> > >
> > > Rule 478/34 (Power=3)
> > > Fora
> > >
> > >Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of
> > >any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player
> shall
> > >be prohibited from participating in the Fora, nor shall any
> person
> > >create physical or technological obstacles that unduly favor
> some
> > >players' fora access over others.
> > >
> > >[…]
> > >
> > > Rule 2450/5 (Power=1.7)
> > > Pledges
> > >
> > >If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform
> (or
> > >refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the
> pledge
> > >within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of
> > >Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states
> > >otherwise. The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless the
> > >pledge explicitly states otherwise.
> > >
> > >If breaking the pledge harms specific other parties, the Referee
> > >SHOULD solicit the opinion of those parties in determining an
> > >appropriate fine.
> > >
> > > Depending on whether “no Player shall be prohibited” is a restriction
> on
> > acting (in which case I shall, ha ha, point the finger), a restriction on
> > interpreting or applying the rules (in which case I believe I shall call
> > for judgement), or a non-binding resolution of some variety (in which
> case,
> > shall we strengthen it?), I believe it’s possible that a pledge not to
> post
> > can only be enforced through clicked tongues and private judgement.
> > >
> > > -o
> > >
> >
>
--
>From R. Lee
Re: DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform
what if you repeal regulations and change regulations to mean this
On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:38 PM Jason Cobb wrote:
> I would suggest "regulating", but I feel like that could easily get
> confused with regulations.
>
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 6/19/19 11:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I'd personally create a shorter word for "requirement-creating
> > entity". I'm not sure what it should be, but there has to be
> > something.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 8:16 PM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >> Nice.
> >>
> >> I think you can shorten this by getting rid of most of the "entities"
> like
> >> so:
> >>
> >> "An entity is requirement-creating if and only if..."
> >>
> >> "Regulations are requirement-creating."
> >> "Contracts are requirement-creating."
> >> Etc.
> >>
> >> On 6/19/2019 6:08 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> >>> Here it is. This one (hopefully) isn't a victim of scope creep. I
> actually
> >>> like this one a lot more because it's so much simpler.
> >>>
> >>> {
> >>>
> >>> Amend Rule 2493 ("Regulations") as follows:
> >>>
> >>> Append the following text to the first paragraph: "Regulations are
> >>> requirement-creating entities."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Amend Rule 1742 ("Contracts") as follows:
> >>>
> >>> Append the following sentence to the first paragraph: "Contracts
> are
> >>> requirement-creating entities."
> >>> Append the following paragraph after the paragraph beginning
> >>> "Parties to a contract governed by the rules":
> >>>
> >>> Contracts CAN define new actions. These actions CAN only be
> >>> sequences of actions that are game-defined, but may include
> >>> conditionals, repetition, and other similar constructs.
> >>> Contracts CAN regulate actions that are defined in other
> >>> requirement-creating entities. Any actions that meet these are
> >>> regulated by the contract. Any actions that do not meet these
> >>> criteria are not regulated by the contract.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Amend Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions") to read:
> >>>
> >>> An entity is a requirement-creating entity if and only if the
> Rules
> >>> designate it as such. The Rules as a whole is a
> requirement-creating
> >>> entity.
> >>>
> >>> An action is regulated by a requirement-defining entity if: (1)
> the
> >>> entity directly and explicitly defines, limits, allows, enables,
> >>> permits, forbids, or requires its performance; (2) the entity
> >>> describes the circumstances under which the action would succeed
> or
> >>> fail; or (3) the action would, as part of its effect, modify
> >>> information for which the entity requires some player to be a
> >>> "recordkeepor"; or (4) the Rules state that the action is
> regulated
> >>> by the entity.
> >>>
> >>> The above notwithstanding, if the Rules state that an action is
> not
> >>> regulated by an entity, the action is not regulated by that
> entity.
> >>>
> >>> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a requirement-creating
> entity
> >>> CANNOT add or remove ways of performing actions that it does not
> >>> define, but it CAN forbid or require the performance of such
> actions.
> >>>
> >>> The set of actions that are regulated by an entity is the entity's
> >>> set of regulated actions.
> >>>
> >>> An action that is regulated by a requirement-creating entity CAN
> >>> only be performed as described by the entity, and only using the
> >>> methods explicitly specified in the entity for performing the
> given
> >>> action. The entity SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe
> >>> actions that are not regulated by it.
> >>>
> >>> An action is game-defined if and only if it is a regulated action
> of
> >>> some requirement-creating entity.
> >>>
> >>> Retitle Rule 2125 to "Requirement-Creating Entities".
> >>>
> >>> Set the power of Rule 2125 to 3.1.
> >>>
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Jason Cobb
> >>>
> >>> On 6/19/19 7:47 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> Hey Aris,
>
> Thank you for your message. It's very helpful to be able to see some
> of
> your past experience and the knowledge gained from it. (Sorry, this is
> awkward. Thanking people by email is hard :P)
>
> After reading it, I realized this effectively became a (poorly
> executed)
> attempt at unifying rules, contracts, and regulations under one system
> (which I think is probably not a bad idea, but it needs to be done
> incrementally), instead of what it originally was, which was just to
> extend the useful concept of "regulated actions" to things besides
> the Rules.
>
> I'll submit a vastly simpler proto shortly.
>
> To close, here's just some things I thought when reading your message:
>
> > I think you're probably going to have to take another go at it.
> I fully expected this. That's why I submitted it to agora-discus
