DIS: Re: BUS: So I heard you were looking for more players

2018-05-24 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Full disclosure: I've actually been lurking for about a month now, to learn how 
the game works. I still only have a tenuous grasp on the current gamestate, 
though (I've lost track of things since the last Cartographor and Treasuror 
reports; and there hasn't been a Rulekeepor report since I found the list, so 
occasionally you refer to rules that aren't in the SLR yet, and I have to trawl 
the archives to find the original proposal) so I'm not going to do much for 
now, but it would be rude of me to keep quiet when you've just been talking 
about how there isn't enough activity.

- twg

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On May 24, 2018 9:46 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey <m...@timon.red> wrote:

> I intend to register as a player at this time. I cause myself to receive a 
> Welcome Package.
>
> - twg

Re: Fwd: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Agora and G. accumulate more wealth; zombies & public facilities bankrupt, as always

2018-06-11 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
I suppose there's rule 2143/27, which says:

A person SHALL NOT publish information that is inaccurate or
misleading while performing an official duty, or within a document
purporting to be part of any person or office's weekly or monthly
report.

But the statement "Corona intends to win by Apathy without objection" was 
perfectly accurate, so I don't think it applies here. Maybe one could argue 
that its position within the document was misleading, but does the location of 
a piece of information count as information itself?

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 11, 2018 11:49 AM, Corona  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> CFJs can only interpret rules, and I don't know any rules that could be
> 
> reasonably construed to mean that what I did was illegal.
> 
> -- Forwarded message --
> 
> From: Ned Strange edwardostra...@gmail.com
> 
> Date: Monday, June 11, 2018
> 
> Subject: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Agora and G. accumulate more
> 
> wealth; zombies & public facilities bankrupt, as always
> 
> To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
> 
> Don't we have a CFJ ruling that trying to insert apathy wins in a report
> 
> was an abuse? Or it might have been the opposite. But I vividly remember
> 
> such a CFJ.
> 
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 7:52 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
> 
> > y'know, that was a silly reaction. I give 2 incense to Corona.
> > 
> > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > 
> > > I Object to the intent.
> > > 
> > > I Levy a fine of 2 Blots on Corona (Summary Judgement) for this
> > > 
> > > abuse of office.
> > > 
> > > On Sun, 10 Jun 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I object to Corona's intent to win by Apathy.
> > > > 
> > > > I nominate myself for Treasuror.
> > > > 
> > > > -twg
> > > > 
> > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > > > 
> > > > On June 10, 2018 8:12 PM, Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > [Sun Jun 10 22:12] This line is not a part of the report. Corona
> > > > > 
> > > > > intends to
> > > 
> > > > win by Apathy without objection.
> 
> --
> 
> From V.J. Rada
> 
> 
> --
> 
> ~Corona




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Got some new toys.

2018-06-12 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Sorry. :P I just figured it would be more helpful to speak up now instead of 
risking the possibility that the Treasuror would rule against it in eir next 
report without pointing it out to anyone. I don't know whether your argument is 
valid (or even whether mine was in the first place).

-twg

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On June 12, 2018 10:25 AM, Reuben Staley  wrote:

> Could you guys let me do one thing in this game without pointing out how I 
> messed up?
>
> Okay, okay. Here's a flimsy argument for why this works:
>
> I could only possibly transfer items to myself from a facility on a land unit 
> I'm on. Therefore, "that unit" should mean "the unit I'm on" since that's the 
> only option for transferring. Therefore, the attempt succeeds.
>
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018, 04:13 Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
>
>> On June 12, 2018 8:25 AM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
>>
>>> I destroy a coin to make (-2, -1) black and switch the alternating type.
>>>
>>> I transfer the mine on that unit's resources to myself.
>>
>> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this fails, because (-2, -1) doesn't 
>> have a mine on it, and wasn't where you were standing anyway. I think you 
>> meant to reference the mine at (-1, -1), but I can't come up with a parsing 
>> where "that unit" refers to anything other than (-2, -1).
>>
>> -twg

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Got some new toys.

2018-06-12 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
I wasn't aware of that definition of "silly" (I can't find it in the FLR, so I 
assume the rule was repealed). But in any case, I think common sense indicates 
that your own assessment of what "significantly harms" you is more accurate 
than mine, so since you disagree, I believe that means my actions on your 
behalf fail.

I didn't mean to cause any offense, I just thought it was amusing. :)

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 12, 2018 10:47 AM, Ned Strange  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> I call a CFJ with the statement "The four below actions are each
> 
> extremely silly, and none significantly harm my standing in the game".
> 
> None of them are remotely silly. Silly in an Agoran context is a
> 
> common-law term of art related to Silly proposals. Even if not, no
> 
> ordinary meaning of the word silly encompasses these game actions. And
> 
> also, even if losing two apples doesn't harm me, losing 3 stone, two
> 
> ore and 2 apples does. The actions must all be evaluated seperately,
> 
> so even if the first three actions work, the fourth should not.
> 
> Anyway, significantly should be interpreted as "not de minimis", and
> 
> any asset loss is more than a minimal effect on my standing in the
> 
> game.
> 
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:39 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> 
> > I become a party to the contract "Sillyness by contract".
> > 
> > I act on behalf of V.J. Rada to perform the following actions: {
> > 
> > Destroy 1 apple to move V.J. Rada to (0, -1).
> > 
> > Destroy 1 apple to move V.J. Rada to (-1, -1).
> > 
> > Transfer all liquid assets from the mine at (-1, -1) to V.J. Rada.
> > 
> > Transfer 3 stone and 2 ore from V.J. Rada to Trigon.
> > 
> > }
> > 
> > This meets the requirement of being extremely silly because it is only 
> > necessary due to a minor grammatical error on Trigon's part, and it meets 
> > the requirement of not harming V.J. Rada's standing in the game 
> > significantly because eir only loss from these actions is 2 apples (which 
> > ey already have plenty of) and the right to transfer assets from a 
> > preserved facility before next Friday (which ey already have enough assets 
> > not to have much need of).
> > 
> > -twg
> > 
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > 
> > On June 12, 2018 10:31 AM, Ned Strange edwardostra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > it doesn't, do it again
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Reuben Staley reuben.sta...@gmail.com 
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Could you guys let me do one thing in this game without pointing out 
> > > > how I
> > > > 
> > > > messed up?
> > > > 
> > > > Okay, okay. Here's a flimsy argument for why this works:
> > > > 
> > > > I could only possibly transfer items to myself from a facility on a land
> > > > 
> > > > unit I'm on. Therefore, "that unit" should mean "the unit I'm on" since
> > > > 
> > > > that's the only option for transferring. Therefore, the attempt 
> > > > succeeds.
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018, 04:13 Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On June 12, 2018 8:25 AM, Reuben Staley reuben.sta...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > I destroy a coin to make (-2, -1) black and switch the alternating 
> > > > > > type.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I transfer the mine on that unit's resources to myself.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this fails, because (-2, -1)
> > > > > 
> > > > > doesn't have a mine on it, and wasn't where you were standing anyway. 
> > > > > I
> > > > > 
> > > > > think you meant to reference the mine at (-1, -1), but I can't come 
> > > > > up with
> > > > > 
> > > > > a parsing where "that unit" refers to anything other than (-2, -1).
> > > > > 
> > > > > -twg
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 
> > > From V.J. Rada
> 
> --
> 
> From V.J. Rada




DIS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for June week 1

2018-06-12 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Lovely. I pay 6 coins to Agora to transfer the land unit at (+5, 0) to myself.

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 12, 2018 1:00 AM, Reuben Staley  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> I resolve the land auctions as such (yes i know they should have ended
> 
> last week, screw off):
> 
> AUCTION 1
> 
> Bidder Amount
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trigon 1c.
> 
> twg 2c.
> 
> G. 5c.
> 
> Corona 6c.
> 
> G. 8c.
> 
> AUCTION 2
> 
> Bidder Amount
> 
> 
> -
> 
> Trigon 1c.
> 
> ATMunn 3c.
> 
> G. 3c.
> 
> twg 4c.
> 
> Corona 5c.
> 
> twg 6c.
> 
> AUCTION 3
> 
> Bidder Amount
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Trigon 1c.
> 
> ATMunn 3c.
> 
> Corona 5c.
> 
> AUCTION 4
> 
> Bidder Amount
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trigon 1c.
> 
> ATMunn 3c.
> 
> Murphy 6c.
> 
> Corona 7c.
> 
> Murphy 8c.
> 
> AUCTION 5
> 
> Bidder Amount
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trigon 1c.
> 
> ATMunn 3c.
> 
> Corona 5c.
> 
> Murphy 6c.
> 
> Wow, this was disappointing.
> 
> On 05/31/2018 04:59 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> 
> > There are currently 7 public, unpreserved, non-aether land units in
> > 
> > existence. 5 land units of my choice are put up for auction.
> > 
> > For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the
> > 
> > auctioneer, and the minimum bid is 1 coin, and the lots are as such:
> > 
> > AUCTION 1: the white land unit at (+3, -1)
> > 
> > AUCTION 2: the white land unit at (+5,  0)
> > 
> > AUCTION 3: the white land unit at (+6,  0)
> > 
> > AUCTION 4: the black land unit at (+6, +1)
> > 
> > AUCTION 5: the black land unit at (+6, +2)
> 
> --
> 
> Trigon




DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for June week 3

2018-06-12 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
I bid 10 coins in auction 1.

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 12, 2018 8:41 AM, Corona  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> I bid 11 coins in auction 3 and I bid 9 coins in auction 1.
> 
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> 
> > I withdraw my bid in auction 3. I bid 8 coins in auction 1.
> > 
> > -twg
> > 
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > 
> > On June 12, 2018 7:53 AM, Ned Strange edwardostra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > I bid ten coins in auction 3
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 5:46 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I bid 9 coins in auction 3.
> > > > 
> > > > -twg
> > > > 
> > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > > > 
> > > > On June 12, 2018 6:24 AM, Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > I bid eight (8) coins in each auction.
> > > > > 
> > > > > ~Corona
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 6:28 AM, Ned Strange
> > > > > 
> > > > > edwardostra...@gmail.com
> > > 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > I bid six coins in each auction
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Kerim Aydin
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ke...@u.washington.edu
> > > 
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I bid 5 coins in each auction.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I bid 3 coins in each auction
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 2:06 PM, Kerim Aydin
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > ke...@u.washington.edu
> > > 
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I bid 2 coins in each auction. -G.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > There are currently more public, unpreserved, non-aether
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > land units
> > > 
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > existence than I feel like counting. 5 land units of my
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > choice are
> > > 
> > > > > > > > > > put up for
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > auction.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > From this point on, I intend to prioritize land units
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > closer to the
> > > 
> > > > > > > > > > center
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > island over those on the rim since those are probably more
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > useful.
> > > 
> > > > > > > > > > For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > 
> > > > > > > > > > auctioneer, and
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > the minimum bid is 1 coin, and the lots are as such:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > AUCTION 1: the land unit at (+3, +1)
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > AUCTION 2: the land unit at (+3, -2)
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > AUCTION 3: the land unit at (+4, -1)
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > AUCTION 4: the land unit at (-2, 0)
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > AUCTION 5: the land unit at (-3, 0)
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Trigon
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > From V.J. Rada
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > From V.J. Rada
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 
> > > From V.J. Rada
> 
> --
> 
> ~Corona




DIS: Re: BUS: Got some new toys.

2018-06-12 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
On June 12, 2018 8:25 AM, Reuben Staley  wrote:

> I destroy a coin to make (-2, -1) black and switch the alternating type.
> 
> I transfer the mine on that unit's resources to myself.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this fails, because (-2, -1) doesn't 
have a mine on it, and wasn't where you were standing anyway. I think you meant 
to reference the mine at (-1, -1), but I can't come up with a parsing where 
"that unit" refers to anything other than (-2, -1).

-twg


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Treasuror] new layout with zombies separated - do you like it?

2018-06-18 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Yes, Corona's incense balance is correct now. But yours, G., was 33 in the last 
report, and is still 33, despite giving 2 incense to Corona.

When I said it "effectively cancels out the six-incense-for-four-blots 
confusion", I meant that it would have the same effect as if you hadn't given 
Corona the incense, and e had only destroyed 4 incense to expunge eir 4 blots - 
which presumably would have been your respective intentions if you'd been aware 
at the time that the attempt to impose Summary Judgement would be ineffective. 
I'm aware this makes assumptions about your intentions which aren't necessarily 
my place to make, which is why I left it up to either of you (or, technically, 
I suppose, anyone else) to make an actual CoE if you felt it appropriate.

(I also have a feeling that I'm horribly overthinking this!)

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 18, 2018 6:09 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> E had 20 incense in the last report.
> 
> Indicated on transfers:
> 
> -   destroyed 3 to expunge 3 blots.
> -   destroyed 6 to expunge 4 blots (questionable).
> -   given 2 by G.
> 
> Net, counting the questionable 6: 13 incense.
> 
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> 
> 
> > This time you gave yourself the 2 incense but didn't take it away from G. 
> > (I accept partial responsibility, since it would probably have been more 
> > helpful if I'd written "numbers" instead of "number" in my CoE...)
> > 
> > I'm not going to raise another formal CoE because this error effectively 
> > cancels out the six-incense-for-four-blots confusion, so I don't think it 
> > would be entirely unfair to let it self-ratify - I'll leave it up to your 
> > (and G.'s) discretion.
> > 
> > -twg
> > 
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > 
> > On June 18, 2018 5:54 PM, Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > Sorry. Revision:
> > > 
> > > +-++++---+++++++
> > > 
> > > |Entity |Ston|Appl|Corn|Ore|Lmbr|Cotn|Coin|Papr|Fabr|Incs|
> > > 
> > > +-++++---+++++++
> > > 
> > > |ATMunn | 6| 32| 1| 0| 7| 0| 64| 14| 0| 12|
> > > 
> > > |Aris | 5| 30| 9| 0| 5| 0| 97| 7| 0| 11|
> > > 
> > > |Corona | 28| 76| 28| 0| 8| 30| 76| 29| 0| 13|
> > > 
> > > |CuddleBeam | 11| 18| 9| 4| 8| 9| 50| 10| 0| 11|
> > > 
> > > |G. | 25| 85| 15| 0| 18| 0| 116| 52| 0| 33|
> > > 
> > > |Gaelan | 14| 28| 2| 6| 2| 0| 47| 10| 0| 11|
> > > 
> > > |Kenyon | 14| 37| 4| 6| 20| 3| 45| 9| 0| 11|
> > > 
> > > |Murphy | 5| 30| 4| 0| 8| 0| 56| 11| 0| 11|
> > > 
> > > |omd | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |Ouri | 0| 10| 0| 0| 0| 0| 24| 4| 0| 11|
> > > 
> > > |PSS | 5| 15| 0| 0| 5| 0| 20| 5| 0| 3|
> > > 
> > > |Trigon | 6| 11| 15| 4| 2| 15| 30| 7| 0| 11|
> > > 
> > > |twg | 3| 8| 0| 2| 5| 0| 14| 5| 0| 3|
> > > 
> > > |VJ Rada | 10| 55| 2| 0| 10| 0| 78| 17| 0| 11|
> > > 
> > > +-++++---+++++++
> > > 
> > > |Entity |Ston|Appl|Corn|Ore|Lmbr|Cotn|Coin|Papr|Fabr|Incs|
> > > 
> > > +-++++---+++++++
> > > 
> > > |nichdel | 0| 5| 0| 0| 0| 0| 10| 2| 0| 3|
> > > 
> > > |o | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |pokes | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |Quazie | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |Telnaior | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |天火狐 | 0| 5| 0| 0| 0| 0| 10| 2| 0| 3|
> > > 
> > > +-++++---+++++++
> > > 
> > > |farm (1,-1) | 0| 0| 3| 0| 0| 3| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |mine (-1,-1) | 3| 0| 0| 2| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |mine (1,1) | 3| 0| 0| 2| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |orchard (-1,1) | 0| 3| 0| 0| 3| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |Corona’s ref. (0,2) | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 259| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |Corona’s mine (2,2) | 12| 0| 0| 8| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |Corona’s orch. (2,1) | 0| 6| 0| 0| 6| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |Corona’s mine (2,-1) | 12| 0| 0| 4| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |Corona’s orch. (2,-2)| 0| 6| 0| 0| 6| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> 

DIS: Re: BUS: [Treasuror] new layout with zombies separated - do you like it?

2018-06-18 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
ona doubleposted the previous conditional action
> 
> (nothing happened) and if the orchard (-1,1) was nonempty (TRUE), Corona
> 
> looted it, destroying 2 apples
> 
> [Wed Apr 11 07:39:24] If mine at (-1,-1) was nonempty (TRUE), Corona looted
> 
> it via Quazie, transferring & destroying 3 apples
> 
> [Wed Apr 11 07:16:45] Trigon moved around, looted (from (1,1)) & built,
> 
> destroying 2 apples, 1 corn, 5 stones, 4 lumber and 3 coins
> 
> Tue Apr 10 13:28:06] ATMunn paid 10 coins to Agora for zombie nichdel
> 
> [Tue Apr 10 13:23:36] Gaelan transferred 13 coins to Agora for the land
> 
> unit (-1,-2)
> 
> [Tue Apr 10 06:43:05] Corona looted Quazie’s body and paid 31 coins to
> 
> Agora for 2 land units
> 
> [Tue Apr 10 06:29:13] Trigon paid 15 coins to Agora for the land unit (0,-2)
> 
> [Tue Apr 10 05:34:04] Kenyon paid 13 coins to Agora for the land unit (-1,2)
> 
> [Tue Apr 10 05:23:17] Corona paid 5 coins to Agora for zombie Quazie
> 
> [Tue Apr 10 04:31:55] VJ Rada looted PSS’s body
> 
> [Tue Apr 10 01:53:08] G. spent 1 paper to pend “Nothing to worry about”
> 
> [Tue Apr 10 01:12:02] VJ Rada transferred 12 coins to Agora for zombie PSS
> 
> [Mon Apr 9 17:58:39] G. looted pokes’ and o’s bodies
> 
> [Mon Apr 9 17:55:58] G. paid 21 coins to Agora on behalf of omd for zombie
> 
> pokes, G. paid 21 coins to Agora for zombie o
> 
> [Mon Apr 9 17:26:41] G. transferred 25 coins to omd
> 
> [Mon Apr 09 00:00] new week begins (assets are produced in facilities)
> 
> [Sun Apr 8 19:11:06] Kenyon pended “Paydays Fix” with 1 paper
> 
> [Sun Apr 8 13:25:58] ATMunn gave Kenyon 2 coins for reports
> 
> [Sat Apr 7 19:30:53] Trigon moved around and created land units, using 15
> 
> apples
> 
> [Thu Apr 5 00:52:50] Kenyon pended “Gray Land and the Fountain” with 1 paper
> 
> [Tue Apr 3 13:15:34] ATMunn destroyed an apple to move to (-1,0) and
> 
> destroyed an apple to move to (-1,1) and transferred all assets (none) from
> 
> (-1,1) to emself
> 
> [Tue Apr 3 04:59:23] Gaelan destroyed 2 apples to move to (-1,-1) and
> 
> grabbed everything there (9 stones, 6 ore)
> 
> [Mon Apr 2 16:52:14] Corona took all contents (6 stones, 4 ore) of the mine
> 
> at (1, 1)
> 
> [Mon Apr 2 16:24:01] Kenyon took all contents (6 apples, 6 lumber) of the
> 
> orchard at (-1,1)
> 
> [Mon Apr 2 06:37:25] G. acted on behalf of omd to transfer all eir
> 
> currencies to emself
> 
> [Mon Apr 02 00:00] new week begins (assets are produced in facilities)
> 
> [Sun Apr 01 22:46] Gaelan destroyed 1 paper to pend Cross-Polination
> 
> [Sun Apr 01 00:00] new month begins (payday)
> 
> [Mon Mar 26 14:21] ATMunn destroyed 1 paper to pend Free Tournaments
> 
> [Mon Mar 26 00:00] new week begins (assets are produced in facilities)
> 
> [Fri Mar 23 20:52] Reportor repealed by Proposal 8027
> 
> [Mon Mar 19 22:56] Corona transferred all currencies (3 stones, 2 ore) from
> 
> 1,1 to Corona
> 
> [Mon Mar 19 15:50] Murphy resolved the Rulekeepor election, no candidates
> 
> [Mon Mar 19 15:50] Murphy resolved the Referee election, electing Cuddle
> 
> Beam
> 
> [Mon Mar 19 15:50] Murphy resolved the Prime Minister election, electing G.
> 
> [Mon Mar 19 15:50] Murphy resolved the Notary election, electing VJ Rada
> 
> [Mon Mar 19 15:37] CuddleBeam transferred all currencies (6 corn, 6 cotton)
> 
> from 1,-1 to CuddleBeam
> 
> [Mon Mar 19 14:24] G. destroyed 1 paper to pend Blots v1.0
> 
> [Mon Mar 19 01:17] if -1,1 has any assets (true), Kenyon transferred all
> 
> currencies (6 apples, 6 lumber) from -1,1 to Kenyon
> 
> [Mon Mar 19 00:00] new week begins (assets are produced in facilities)
> 
> [Sun Mar 18 13:18] Aris transferred all currencies (nothing) from -1,-1 to
> 
> Aris
> 
> [Fri Mar 16 22:05] if PAoaM Patch isn't pending (false), Kenyon destroyed 1
> 
> paper to pend PAoaM Patch
> 
> [Fri Mar 16 18:06] ATMunn destroyed 1 paper to pend PAoaM Patch
> 
> [Mon Mar 12 16:28] if there exists a mine at 1,1 and 1,1 has any assets
> 
> (true), Corona transferred all currencies (3 stones, 2 ore) from 1,1 to
> 
> Corona
> 
> [Mon Mar 12 16:28] if there exists a mine at 1,1 and 1,1 has any assets
> 
> (true), Corona destroyed 2 apples
> 
> [Mon Mar 12 01:28] if -1,-1 has any assets (false), Aris transferred all
> 
> currencies (nothing) from -1,-1 to Aris
> 
> [Mon Mar 12 01:28] if -1,-1 has any assets (false), Aris destroyed 2 apples
> 
> [Mon Mar 12 01:12] Kenyon transferred all currencies (3 stones, 2 ore) from
> 
> -1,-1 to Kenyon
> 
> [Mon Mar 12 00:00] new week begins (assets are produced in facilities)
> 
> 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Treasuror] new layout with zombies separated - do you like it?

2018-06-18 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Do you mean the formatting? Yeah, my email client is doing something bizarre 
with the formatting of messages I quote in replies. I reported it to the 
developers; apparently they're aware of it and working to fix it. Let me know 
if it's causing issues and I'll try to manually clean things up when replying 
to them.

It only happens for quoted messages, not to ones I write personally, so it 
shouldn't affect my reports if I'm elected Treasuror.

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 18, 2018 6:08 PM, ATMunn  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> yeah uh - what exactly happened here
> 
> On 6/18/2018 2:05 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> 
> > This time you gave yourself the 2 incense but didn't take it away from G. 
> > (I accept partial responsibility, since it would probably have been more 
> > helpful if I'd written "numbers" instead of "number" in my CoE...)
> > 
> > I'm not going to raise another formal CoE because this error effectively 
> > cancels out the six-incense-for-four-blots confusion, so I don't think it 
> > would be entirely unfair to let it self-ratify - I'll leave it up to your 
> > (and G.'s) discretion.
> > 
> > -twg
> > 
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > 
> > On June 18, 2018 5:54 PM, Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > Sorry. Revision:
> > > 
> > > +-++++---+++++++
> > > 
> > > |Entity |Ston|Appl|Corn|Ore|Lmbr|Cotn|Coin|Papr|Fabr|Incs|
> > > 
> > > +-++++---+++++++
> > > 
> > > |ATMunn | 6| 32| 1| 0| 7| 0| 64| 14| 0| 12|
> > > 
> > > |Aris | 5| 30| 9| 0| 5| 0| 97| 7| 0| 11|
> > > 
> > > |Corona | 28| 76| 28| 0| 8| 30| 76| 29| 0| 13|
> > > 
> > > |CuddleBeam | 11| 18| 9| 4| 8| 9| 50| 10| 0| 11|
> > > 
> > > |G. | 25| 85| 15| 0| 18| 0| 116| 52| 0| 33|
> > > 
> > > |Gaelan | 14| 28| 2| 6| 2| 0| 47| 10| 0| 11|
> > > 
> > > |Kenyon | 14| 37| 4| 6| 20| 3| 45| 9| 0| 11|
> > > 
> > > |Murphy | 5| 30| 4| 0| 8| 0| 56| 11| 0| 11|
> > > 
> > > |omd | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |Ouri | 0| 10| 0| 0| 0| 0| 24| 4| 0| 11|
> > > 
> > > |PSS | 5| 15| 0| 0| 5| 0| 20| 5| 0| 3|
> > > 
> > > |Trigon | 6| 11| 15| 4| 2| 15| 30| 7| 0| 11|
> > > 
> > > |twg | 3| 8| 0| 2| 5| 0| 14| 5| 0| 3|
> > > 
> > > |VJ Rada | 10| 55| 2| 0| 10| 0| 78| 17| 0| 11|
> > > 
> > > +-++++---+++++++
> > > 
> > > |Entity |Ston|Appl|Corn|Ore|Lmbr|Cotn|Coin|Papr|Fabr|Incs|
> > > 
> > > +-++++---+++++++
> > > 
> > > |nichdel | 0| 5| 0| 0| 0| 0| 10| 2| 0| 3|
> > > 
> > > |o | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |pokes | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |Quazie | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |Telnaior | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |天火狐 | 0| 5| 0| 0| 0| 0| 10| 2| 0| 3|
> > > 
> > > +-++++---+++++++
> > > 
> > > |farm (1,-1) | 0| 0| 3| 0| 0| 3| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |mine (-1,-1) | 3| 0| 0| 2| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |mine (1,1) | 3| 0| 0| 2| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |orchard (-1,1) | 0| 3| 0| 0| 3| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |Corona’s ref. (0,2) | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 259| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |Corona’s mine (2,2) | 12| 0| 0| 8| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |Corona’s orch. (2,1) | 0| 6| 0| 0| 6| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |Corona’s mine (2,-1) | 12| 0| 0| 4| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |Corona’s orch. (2,-2)| 0| 6| 0| 0| 6| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |Corona’s farm (1,-2) | 0| 0| 6| 0| 0| 6| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |ATMunn’s farm (1,3) | 0| 0| 18| 0| 0| 18| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |Trigon’s mine (0,-2) | 3| 0| 0| 2| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |twg’s orch. (5,0) | 0| 3| 0| 0| 3| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |FPW | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > |Agora | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 384| 0| 0| 0|
> > > 
> > > +-++++---+++++++
> > > 
> > > |Entity |Ston|Appl|Corn|Ore|Lmbr|Cotn|Coin|Papr|Fabr|

DIS: Re: BUS: Election update

2018-06-18 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
I vote [twg, ATMunn, Corona] in the Treasuror election and PRESENT in the 
Referee election.

-twg
​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 17, 2018 6:55 PM, Edward Murphy  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the Referee
> 
> election. The vote collector is the ADoP (me), the valid options are
> 
> Aris and Corona and V.J. Rada and anyone else who becomes a candidate
> 
> before voting ends, and the voting method is instant runoff. And I
> 
> think quorum is 4 (due to 6 players voting on Proposal 8052).
> 
> Rulekeepor election ends with no candidates.
> 
> I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the Treasuror
> 
> election. The vote collector is the ADoP, the valid options are
> 
> ATMunn and Corona and twg and anyone else who becomes a candidate
> 
> before voting ends, and the voting method is instant runoff. And I
> 
> think quorum is 4.




DIS: Re: BUS: Pay Agora for your land units! (attn: Murphy, twg)

2018-06-13 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
I was under the impression that, per rule 2551/1, paying for an auction lot is 
done by transferring the amount of the bid to the auctioneer (in this case, 
Agora), not by destroying the coins.

I already did the former, here: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg32012.html

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 13, 2018 2:26 AM, Reuben Staley  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> In order for the transfer of lots at the end of an auction to take
> 
> place, the highest bidder must send a message to the public forum
> 
> stating that they destroy some amount of coins in exchange for the lot.
> 
> Murphy, you need to destroy 14 coins. twg, you need to destroy 6 coins.
> 
> Failing to do so means you don't get the land units. So... get on that.
> 
> Please and thank you,
> 
> your humble mapmaker,
> 
> Trigon




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Got some new toys.

2018-06-12 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
I actually knew that already, so I'm not sure what I was thinking when I wrote 
that. Thanks for the correction, though.

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 12, 2018 12:35 PM, Corona  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> FYI: The Spivak pronoun nominative is "e", not "ey" (reflecting "he" and
> 
> "she"), though you can, of course, use any pronouns you want.
> 
> I favor the CFJ called by V.J. Rada in this thread.
> 
> On Tuesday, June 12, 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> 
> > I become a party to the contract "Sillyness by contract".
> > 
> > I act on behalf of V.J. Rada to perform the following actions: {
> > 
> > Destroy 1 apple to move V.J. Rada to (0, -1).
> > 
> > Destroy 1 apple to move V.J. Rada to (-1, -1).
> > 
> > Transfer all liquid assets from the mine at (-1, -1) to V.J. Rada.
> > 
> > Transfer 3 stone and 2 ore from V.J. Rada to Trigon.
> > 
> > }
> > 
> > This meets the requirement of being extremely silly because it is only
> > 
> > necessary due to a minor grammatical error on Trigon's part, and it meets
> > 
> > the requirement of not harming V.J. Rada's standing in the game
> > 
> > significantly because eir only loss from these actions is 2 apples (which
> > 
> > ey already have plenty of) and the right to transfer assets from a
> > 
> > preserved facility before next Friday (which ey already have enough assets
> > 
> > not to have much need of).
> > 
> > -twg
> > 
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > 
> > On June 12, 2018 10:31 AM, Ned Strange edwardostra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > it doesn't, do it again
> > > 
> > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:25 PM, Reuben Staley reuben.sta...@gmail.com
> > > 
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Could you guys let me do one thing in this game without pointing out
> > > > 
> > > > how I
> > > 
> > > > messed up?
> > > > 
> > > > Okay, okay. Here's a flimsy argument for why this works:
> > > > 
> > > > I could only possibly transfer items to myself from a facility on a
> > > > 
> > > > land
> > > 
> > > > unit I'm on. Therefore, "that unit" should mean "the unit I'm on" since
> > > > 
> > > > that's the only option for transferring. Therefore, the attempt
> > > > 
> > > > succeeds.
> > > 
> > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018, 04:13 Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On June 12, 2018 8:25 AM, Reuben Staley reuben.sta...@gmail.com
> > > > > 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > I destroy a coin to make (-2, -1) black and switch the alternating
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > type.
> > > 
> > > > > > I transfer the mine on that unit's resources to myself.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this fails, because (-2, -1)
> > > > > 
> > > > > doesn't have a mine on it, and wasn't where you were standing
> > > > > 
> > > > > anyway. I
> > > 
> > > > > think you meant to reference the mine at (-1, -1), but I can't come
> > > > > 
> > > > > up with
> > > 
> > > > > a parsing where "that unit" refers to anything other than (-2, -1).
> > > > > 
> > > > > -twg
> > > 
> > > --
> > > 
> > > From V.J. Rada
> 
> --
> 
> ~Corona




Re: DIS: Re: BAK: [Assessor] Humiliations Galore

2018-06-13 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
On June 13, 2018 7:50 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> So the second copy (sent to both BAK and BUS) came to both BAK and BUS,
> 
> I got both copies. Then your reply to DIS came through. I replied to you
> 
> in DIS, and my reply seems to have been eaten too. Also, the mailman web
> 
> archives aren't responding.

If you mean your reply at 7:14 PM UTC, I received it successfully.

I also can't access the mailman archives, although the ones on mail-archive.com 
are working fine for me: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/

Has anything like this happened before? If so, does omd tend to notice and 
respond, or should we get in touch with em directly?

-twg


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

2018-06-15 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Sorry, was about to get around to responding to this chain.

I have NOT received the email resolving proposals 8050-8052. It's not in my 
spam folder either.

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 15, 2018 8:45 PM, Aris Merchant  
wrote:

> ​​
> 
> Poll: Who has and hasn't received the email? Please reply, and we'll use
> 
> the honor system.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:43 PM Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > 
> > > Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my
> > > 
> > > prior
> > > 
> > > CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."
> > 
> > Gratuitous: 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: agora-official-boun...@agoranomic.org
> > 
> > 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 ke...@kerim.deskmail.washington.edu; 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 ke...@u.washington.edu; 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 agora-offic...@agoranomic.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700
> > 
> > X-Auth-Received: from hymn01.u.washington.edu (hymn01.u.washington.edu
> > 
> > [140.142.9.110]) (authenticated authid=mailadm)
> > 
> > by smtp.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP id
> > 
> > w5EIlNOo032150
> > 
> > (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)
> > 
> > for agora-offic...@agoranomic.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700
> > 
> > X-UW-Orig-Sender: mail...@smtp.washington.edu
> > 
> > X-Auth-Received: from [161.55.36.23] by hymn01.u.washington.edu via HTTP;
> > 
> > Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 PDT
> > 
> > Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
> > 
> > From: Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu
> > 
> > To: Agora Official agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
> > 
> > Message-ID: alpine.lrh.2.01.1806141147230.22...@hymn01.u.washington.edu
> > 
> > User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20)
> > 
> > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > 
> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> > 
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
> > 
> > X-PMX-Version: 6.4.3.2751440, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.2107409,
> > 
> > Antispam-Data: 2018.6.14.183916, AntiVirus-Engine: 5.49.1, AntiVirus-Data:
> > 
> > 2018.4.20.5491003
> > 
> > X-PMX-Server: mxe29.s.uw.edu
> > 
> > X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=, Probability=8%, Report=
> > 
> > REPLYTO_FROM_DIFF_ADDY 0.1, HTML_00_01 0.05, HTML_00_10 0.05,
> > 
> > BODY_SIZE_6000_6999 0, BODY_SIZE_7000_LESS 0, DATE_TZ_NA 0, DQ_S_H 0,
> > 
> > NO_CTA_URI_FOUND 0, NO_URI_FOUND 0,
> > 
> > NO_URI_HTTPS 0, RDNS_NXDOMAIN 0, RDNS_SUSP 0, RDNS_SUSP_GENERIC 0,
> > 
> > SPF_NONE 0, __CP_NOT_1 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0,
> > 
> > __DQ_IP_FSO_LARGE 0, __DQ_S_HIST_1 0,
> > 
> > __DQ_S_HIST_2 0, __DQ_S_IP_MC_5_P 0, __DQ_S_IP_SD_1_P 0, __HAS_FROM
> > 
> > 0, __HAS_LIST_HEADER 0, __HAS_LIST_HELP 0, __HAS_LIST_ID 0,
> > 
> > __HAS_LIST_SUBSCRIBE 0,
> > 
> > __HAS_LIST_UNSUBSCRIBE 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __HAS_REPLYTO 0,
> > 
> > __INVOICE_MULTILINGUAL 0, __LINES_OF_YELLING 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0,
> > 
> > __MIME_TEXT_P 0, __MIME_TEXT_P1 0,
> > 
> > __MIME_VERSION 0, __NO_HTML_TAG_RAW 0, __SANE_MSGID 0,
> > 
> > __STOCK_PHRASE_24 0, __SUBJ_ALPHA_NEGATE 0, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __TO_NAME
> > 
> > 0, __TO_NAME_DIFF_FROM_ACC 0,
> > 
> > __TO_REAL_NAMES 0, __USER_AGENT 0
> > 
> > Subject: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8050-8052
> > 
> > X-BeenThere: agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
> > 
> > X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
> > 
> > Precedence: list
> > 
> > List-Id: "Agora Nomic reports, etc. (PF)"  > 
> > > 
> > 
> > List-Unsubscribe: <
> > 
> > http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/agora-official>,
> > 
> > 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

2018-06-15 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
I don't believe I've received this second attempt either.

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 15, 2018 8:45 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> 
> > Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my prior
> > 
> > CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."
> 
> Except now - haha - I made a second, hopefully successful attempt to resolve a
> 
> few moments before this second CFJ came in, so this would now be true if
> 
> that second attempt succeeded - sorry about that...




DIS: Re: BUS: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8050-8052 (second fwd)

2018-06-15 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Received

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 15, 2018 9:00 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> If I have not previous resolved decisions to adopt Proposals 8050-8052,
> 
> I resolve them as indicated in the original message below.
> 
> [Please confirm receipt, someone!]
> 
> -- Forwarded message --
> 
> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 13:34:55 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> From: Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu
> 
> To: Agora Official agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
> 
> Subject: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8050-8052 (fwd)
> 
> If the below decisions were not resolved on the date indicated below,
> 
> I resolve them as indicated:
> 
> -- Forwarded message --
> 
> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> From: Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu
> 
> To: Agora Official agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
> 
> Subject: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8050-8052
> 
> I resolve the Agoran Decisions to adopt Proposals 8050-8052 as follows.
> 
> Quorum is 6 for all of these proposals.
> 
> 8050 (Pledge Simply by G., AI-1.7)
> 
> FOR: V.J. Rada, 2xG., Corona, twg, Aris
> 
> AGAINST:
> 
> PRESENT: Murphy
> 
> F/A: 6/0
> 
> RESULT: ADOPTED
> 
> 8051 (Zombie Overhaul v1.0 by G., Aris, AI-3.0)
> 
> FOR: V.J. Rada, 2xG., o, Telnaior, omd, pokes, twg, Aris
> 
> AGAINST:
> 
> PRESENT: Murphy, Corona
> 
> F/A: 9/0
> 
> RESULT: ADOPTED
> 
> 8052 (Let's not make game assets one letter different from each other
> 
> by V.J. Rada, AI-3.0)
> 
> FOR: Murphy, Aris, twg, 2xG.
> 
> AGAINST:
> 
> PRESENT: o, Telnaior
> 
> F/A: 5/0
> 
> RESULT: ADOPTED
> 
> TEXT OF ADOPTED PROPOSALS
> 
> //
> 
> ID: 8050
> 
> Title: Pledge Simply
> 
> Adoption index: 1.7
> 
> Author: G.
> 
> Co-authors:
> 
> [The Asset-nature of pledges is complicated and serves no purpose;
> 
> if pledges are to be used for out-of-Agora agreements, the Agoran
> 
> Consent constraint makes no sense as it's not a voting matter].
> 
> Amend Rule 2450 (Pledges) to read in full:
> 
> 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.
> 
> The Notary's Weekly Report includes a copy of all pledges that
> 
> are within their time window, and the dates the pledges were
> 
> made.
> 
> All pledges that existed as assets the instant before this Proposal
> 
> took effect are hereby made pledges under the current version of
> 
> Rule 2450, with their creation dates equal to their date of creation
> 
> as assets.
> 
> //
> 
> ID: 8051
> 
> Title: Zombie Overhaul v1.0
> 
> Adoption index: 3.0
> 
> Author: G.
> 
> Co-authors: Aris
> 
> [TODO: Check proposals adopted since the last SLR for conflicts]
> 
> Create the following Rule, Zombie Life Cycle, power=3:
> 
> Any player CAN, with Notice, flip the master switch of an active
> 
> player who has not made a public announcement in the past 60 days
> 
> to Agora.
> 
> Resale is a secured natural switch for zombies, tracked by the
> 
> Registrar, with a default value of 2. Whenever a zombie's master
> 
> switch is flipped to a player other than emself, eir resale value
> 
> is decreased by 1.
> 
> A zombie with a resale value of 0 CANNOT have eir master switch
> 
> flipped to a player other than emself, rules to the contrary
> 
> notwithstanding.
> 
> Any player CAN, with Notice:
> 
> - If a zombie has been a zombie for the past 90 days and not had
> 
> Agora for a master during any of that time, flip the zombie's
> 
> master switch to Agora;
> 
> - If a player is master to more than one zombie, flip the master
> 
> switch of one of that master's zombies to Agora;
> 
> - Deregister a zombie whose master is Agora and who has a Resale
> 
> value of 0.
> 
> The Registrar SHALL track the date that each zombie last belonged
> 
> to Agora in eir weekly report. The Registrar SHALL perform all
> 
> POSSIBLE actions in the preceding paragraph in a timely fashion
> 
> after first reporting their possibility via the facts in eir
> 
> weekly report.
> 
> Amend Rule 2532 (Zombies) to read in full:
> 
> Master is a secured player switch with possible values of any
> 
> player, and Agora. Every player's default master is emself; rules
> 
> to the contrary notwithstanding, a player CAN always flip eir own
> 
> master to emself by announcement.
> 
> A player whose master is not emself is a zombie (syn. inactive);
> 
> all other players are active. A zombie's master, if another
> 
> player, is allowed to 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Pledge handoff to Notary

2018-06-17 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Not sure if this helps, but I sent a test email to Official on Friday to try 
and narrow down the problem. It hasn't even showed up in the list at 
mail-archive.com, let alone been delivered to anybody.

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 16, 2018 11:22 PM, Aris Merchant  
wrote:

> ​​
> 
> Okay, anyone using gmail didn't receive it. However, this can't just be
> 
> gmail's fault, because plenty of people who aren't using gmail also haven't
> 
> received it. I'm quite confused. It would be great if those who have
> 
> received the messages could look at the headers and see if anything looks
> 
> different from pre-problem OFF and the other lists, because this is just
> 
> weird.
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 4:17 PM Ned Strange edwardostra...@gmail.com
> 
> wrote:
> 
> > same
> > 
> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2018 at 12:41 AM, ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > The original message? No, I haven't received it.
> > > 
> > > On 6/15/2018 4:45 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Poll: Who has and hasn't received the email? Please reply, and we'll use
> > > > 
> > > > the honor system.
> > > > 
> > > > -Aris
> > > > 
> > > > On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 1:43 PM Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu
> > > > 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > On Fri, 15 Jun 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Oops. Yeah, I'm pretty sure that one has been resolved. I retract my
> > > > > 
> > > > > prior
> > > > > 
> > > > > > CFJ, and CFJ "Proposal 8050 has been resolved."
> > > > > 
> > > > > Gratuitous: 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: agora-official-boun...@agoranomic.org
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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 ke...@kerim.deskmail.washington.edu; 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 ke...@u.washington.edu; 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 agora-offic...@agoranomic.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23
> > > > > 
> > > > > -0700
> > > 
> > > > > X-Auth-Received: from hymn01.u.washington.edu (hymn01.u.washington.edu
> > > > > 
> > > > > [140.142.9.110]) (authenticated authid=mailadm)
> > > > > 
> > > > > by smtp.washington.edu (8.14.4+UW14.03/8.14.4+UW16.03) with ESMTP
> > > > > 
> > > > > id
> > > 
> > > > > w5EIlNOo032150
> > > > > 
> > > > > (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT)
> > > > > 
> > > > > for agora-offic...@agoranomic.org; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23
> > > > > 
> > > > > -0700
> > > 
> > > > > X-UW-Orig-Sender: mail...@smtp.washington.edu
> > > > > 
> > > > > X-Auth-Received: from [161.55.36.23] by hymn01.u.washington.edu via
> > > > > 
> > > > > HTTP;
> > > 
> > > > > Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 PDT
> > > > > 
> > > > > Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 11:47:23 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > > 
> > > > > From: Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu
> > > > > 
> > > > > To: Agora Official agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
> > > > > 
> > > > > Message-ID: <
> > > > > 
> > > > > alpine.lrh.2.01.1806141147230.22...@hymn01.u.washington.edu>
> > > 
> > > > > User-Agent: Web Alpine 2.01 (LRH 1302 2010-07-20)
> > > > > 
> > > > > MIME-Version: 1.0
> > > > > 
> > > > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
> > > > > 
> > > > > 

DIS: "Corn" vs "coin"

2018-06-01 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Since we're talking about proposals that aren't in the SLR yet, I noticed this 
in the Consolidated Patch (proposal 8041):

> Amend Rule 2003, Actions in Arcadia, by changing the text "substitute 3
> apples for 1 corn" to read "substitute 1 coin for three or fewer apples"

Was the change from "corn" to "coin" intentional or a typo? And if it was 
intentional - what was the purpose? As far as I can see, it makes corn useless.

-twg


Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Q*Bert movement for June week 1

2018-06-01 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
On June 1, 2018 1:06 AM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

> -   The message would be forwarded by you, but then there would need to be
> 
> a way to verify not just that server message but also that you
> 
> hadn't made any other similar requests.

Thinking idly: A way to get around this would be for multiple people to 
generate a random number independently, and add them together (modulus 4). It 
yields a number with the correct probability distribution, and can't be 
influenced by just one person. But it seems excessively complicated, and I 
agree with G. that working on trust is probably sufficient.

-twg


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: So I heard you were looking for more players

2018-06-01 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Sorry, forgot to reply to this! Yes, that works as a nickname.

-twg

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On May 25, 2018 1:18 AM, Ned Strange  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> Welcome! I assume your nickname is twg?
> 
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 7:46 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> 
> > I intend to register as a player at this time. I cause myself to receive a
> > 
> > Welcome Package.
> > 
> > -   twg
> 
> --
> 
> From V.J. Rada




Re: DIS: Kenyon (Re: BUS: Missing Reports: Corona, Trigon, Kenyon, Murphy, V.J. Rada)

2018-06-01 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Of course, I mean "if e will react to this". Sorry.

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 1, 2018 6:59 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> I wonder if he will react to this:
> 
> I intend to cause the office of Rulekeepor to become vacant, without 2 
> objections.
> 
> -twg
> 
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> 
> On June 1, 2018 12:00 AM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 31 May 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > 
> > > > Kenyon, for Rulekeepor (last Apr 7).
> > > > 
> > > > 3 Blots (substantial impact on game, very very late), Unforgivable
> > > > 
> > > > (no work in May).
> > 
> > This is somewhat mysterious as e is posting to the list without reacting
> > 
> > in any way to the punishments...
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > 
> > Ørjan.




DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Cartographor] Land auctions for June week 1

2018-06-05 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
I bid 6 coins in auction 2.

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 5, 2018 4:23 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> I bid 8 coins in auction 1. -G.
> 
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2018, C. V. wrote:
> 
> > I bid 6 coins in auction 1.
> > 
> > I bid 5 coins in auction 2.
> > 
> > I bid 5 coins in auction 3.
> > 
> > I bid 7 coins in auction 4.
> > 
> > I bid 5 coins in auction 5.
> > 
> > ~Corona
> > 
> > On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 5:13 AM, Edward Murphy emurph...@zoho.com wrote:
> > 
> > > Trigon wrote:
> > > 
> > > There are currently 7 public, unpreserved, non-aether land units in
> > > 
> > > > existence. 5 land units of my choice are put up for auction.
> > > > 
> > > > For the following 5 auctions, I am the announcer, Agora is the
> > > > 
> > > > auctioneer, and the minimum bid is 1 coin, and the lots are as such:
> > > > 
> > > > AUCTION 1: the white land unit at (+3, -1)
> > > > 
> > > > AUCTION 2: the white land unit at (+5, 0)
> > > > 
> > > > AUCTION 3: the white land unit at (+6, 0)
> > > > 
> > > > AUCTION 4: the black land unit at (+6, +1)
> > > > 
> > > > AUCTION 5: the black land unit at (+6, +2)
> > > 
> > > I bid half a dozen coins in auction 4.
> > > 
> > > Be seeing you.




Re: DIS: Proto: MALF

2018-06-29 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Can I ask why the land auction was split into five originally? Unless I'm 
misunderstanding something, having it as one auction with five lots ensures 
that each lot goes to a different person, which makes it impossible for one 
person to monopolise land as Corona seems to be planning to do imminently.

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 29, 2018 3:51 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> Thanks for the explanation.
> 
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> 
> > This. This is exactly what I was about to respond with.
> > 
> > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:47 Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > What's not working?
> > > 
> > > 1.  land transfiguration (kind of the reason land types exist in the first
> > > 
> > > place) is useless
> > > 
> > > 2.  I think I can make a terribly overpowered lv. 5 refinery (13 coins/1
> > > 
> > > ore) next week, meaning I'll have so many coins that nobody else will 
> > > be
> > > 
> > > able to win any more land, ever.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ~Corona
> > > 
> > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:37 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu
> > > 
> > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > So I've been planning land purchases, upgrades, and production flow for
> > > > 
> > > > the next month, it's been fun to do. It's a nice little resource
> > > > 
> > > > management/placement game right now.
> > > > 
> > > > But each/every proposal like this throws such planning out the window.
> > > > 
> > > > If something like this goes through atm, I'm probably going to check out
> > > > 
> > > > of the land game and not bother to plan or play again.
> > > > 
> > > > At what point do we not change things for a bit and just play? What
> > > > 
> > > > isn't working with the present system? Sometimes you should play the
> > > > 
> > > > basic game a few times before adding expansion sets...
> > > > 
> > > > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Well, since ranks would no longer exist, why would we need anything
> > > > > 
> > > > > but a
> > > > 
> > > > > flat rate?
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 09:28 Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com
> > > > > 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > > It did, it's just that nobody discussed it, I guess. Why did you
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > change the
> > > > > 
> > > > > > upkeep of the processing facilities to 5 coins flat in the second
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > email?
> > > > > 
> > > > > > ~Corona
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Reuben Staley <
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > reuben.sta...@gmail.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I think this email didn't get sent to you guys, so I'm just going
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > to
> > > > 
> > > > > > > forward it.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > -- Forwarded message -
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > From: Reuben Staley reuben.sta...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Date: Thu, Jun 21, 2018, 16:50
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Subject: DIS: Proto: MALF
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > To: Agora Discussion agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Name: More Advanced Land Features
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > AI: TBD
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Author: Trigon
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Co-authors:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > [ PART I: CLEAN-UP ]
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > [ PART I, SECTION I: GLATF ]
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > [ There are no technical problems with the rules introduced by 
> > > > > > > Gray
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Land
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > and the Fountain, but these could be added to already existing
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > rules
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > to reduce clutter. Currently, there are six rules that contain
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > only
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > one or two paragraphs. I think this is inefficient, so I'm
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > repealing
> > > > > 
> > > > > > > all these rules and sticking them onto more relevant ones. ]
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Repeal Rule 2568 "Facility Colors".
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Amend Rule 2567 "Facility Categories" by replacing its text with:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Each facility can be either a Production, Processing,
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Monument, or
> > > > > 
> > > > > > >Miscellaneous Facility. This is to be set by the rule that
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > defines
> > > > 
> > > > > > >that facility type.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >A facility has a number of Allowed Land Types not equal to
> > > > > > > 
> > > 
> > > 0.  
> > > 
> > > > This
> > > > 
> > > > > > >is to be set by the rule that defines the facility type. If
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > it is
> > > > 
> > > > > > >not set by that rule, the facility type's Allowed Land 
> > > > > > > Types
> > > > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > are
> > > > 
> > > > > > >Black and White.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >

DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie ribbons - I wonder if this works?

2018-06-29 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Side note: This message (from G.) is the only one I've received in this thread. 
I didn't receive Aris's, or copies of my own, although I can see them at 
mail-archive.com.

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 29, 2018 4:31 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> I object.
> 
> (Not that I disagree with the arguments, but that's a loophole that
> 
> shouldn't be supported. We should definitely add "call a CFJ" to the
> 
> list of things you can't have your zombie do).
> 
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> 
> > If it is possible, I act on behalf of Kenyon to publicly acknowledge that 
> > today is Agora's Birthday.
> > 
> > I act on behalf of Kenyon to initiate a CFJ: "At the time this CFJ was 
> > initiated, Kenyon qualified for a Magenta Ribbon."
> > 
> > I think it's common sense that "publicly acknowledging" something means 
> > stating it in a public message, which it's not possible to do on behalf of 
> > someone else, so this should be FALSE. But on the other hand, the action of 
> > "publicly acknowledging" something doesn't appear to be defined or 
> > referenced anywhere else in the rules, and past assumption seems to have 
> > been that any action can be taken on behalf of a zombie unless it's 
> > specifically prohibited, so I can see an argument for TRUE as well. Anyone 
> > else have opinions?
> > 
> > I favour the CFJ initiated earlier in this message and intend, without 3 
> > objections, to assign it to myself. If the aforementioned CFJ is assigned 
> > to me, I intend to judge it FALSE, based on my own arguments for FALSE.
> > 
> > -twg




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie ribbons - I wonder if this works?

2018-06-29 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Ah, it turns out this is because my email provider is being targeted by a 
denial-of-service attack at the moment. No problem on Agora's end this time. 
Frankly I'm quite impressed they're still managing to get my own messages to 
you.

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 29, 2018 4:54 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> Side note: This message (from G.) is the only one I've received in this 
> thread. I didn't receive Aris's, or copies of my own, although I can see them 
> at mail-archive.com.
> 
> -twg
> 
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> 
> On June 29, 2018 4:31 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
> 
> > I object.
> > 
> > (Not that I disagree with the arguments, but that's a loophole that
> > 
> > shouldn't be supported. We should definitely add "call a CFJ" to the
> > 
> > list of things you can't have your zombie do).
> > 
> > On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > 
> > > If it is possible, I act on behalf of Kenyon to publicly acknowledge that 
> > > today is Agora's Birthday.
> > > 
> > > I act on behalf of Kenyon to initiate a CFJ: "At the time this CFJ was 
> > > initiated, Kenyon qualified for a Magenta Ribbon."
> > > 
> > > I think it's common sense that "publicly acknowledging" something means 
> > > stating it in a public message, which it's not possible to do on behalf 
> > > of someone else, so this should be FALSE. But on the other hand, the 
> > > action of "publicly acknowledging" something doesn't appear to be defined 
> > > or referenced anywhere else in the rules, and past assumption seems to 
> > > have been that any action can be taken on behalf of a zombie unless it's 
> > > specifically prohibited, so I can see an argument for TRUE as well. 
> > > Anyone else have opinions?
> > > 
> > > I favour the CFJ initiated earlier in this message and intend, without 3 
> > > objections, to assign it to myself. If the aforementioned CFJ is assigned 
> > > to me, I intend to judge it FALSE, based on my own arguments for FALSE.
> > > 
> > > -twg




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fantasy Rules Contract Proto

2018-06-29 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
It's not really my kind of thing but I'll certainly join in if it happens. I 
can't see any loopholes.

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 29, 2018 5:15 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> So there were no comments on this is there interest? I have a few
> 
> minor edits but otherwise it can be started - but depends on whether
> 
> people want to play it.
> 
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 
> > [
> > 
> > Ok, running out of time. This is a quick job. Please look and
> > 
> > consider!
> > 
> > reference: 
> > https://sites.google.com/site/fantasyrulescommittee/regular-ordinances-of-the-frc
> > 
> > ]
> > 
> > FANTASY RULES CONTRACT PROTO.
> > 
> > 0.  G. is the only member of this contract. G. CANNOT win the Contest
> > 
> > or become a Contestant. G. is the Judge (gamemaster) of this game.
> > 
> > 1.  The CONTEST begins June 30, 2018, 00:00:00 GMT +1200.
> > 
> > 2.  For 48 hours after the contest begins, any person can enter the
> > 
> > contest (becoming a Contestant) by publishing a body of text
> > 
> > clearly intended to be a Fantasy Rule, on behalf of themselves
> > 
> > (no zombies or other act-on-behalf play). Entering the contest
> > 
> > is NOT becoming a party to this contract. When a contestant is
> > 
> > eliminated (ceases being a contestant), e cannot re-enter.
> > 
> > 3.  After 48 hours have passed since the contest began, no new
> > 
> > Contestants can join.
> > 
> > 4.  Only Contestants can publish valid fantasy rules.
> > 
> > 5.  For a fantasy rule to be valid, it must be consistent with all
> > 
> > previous valid fantasy Rules.
> > 
> > 6.  When a contestant publishes an invalid fantasy rule, e receives
> > 
> > a Strike. When e received 3 strikes, e is eliminated.
> > 
> > 7.  For a fantasy rule to be valid, it must be possible for any
> > 
> > remaining contestant to publish a valid rule following it.
> > 
> > A contestant can publicly challenge that a particular rule
> > 
> > makes it impossible to continue. In that case, the publisher
> > 
> > of that rule has 24 hours to send the judge (privately or
> > 
> > publicly) a proposed valid rule that would work. If e does
> > 
> > so, the challenger receives a strike, otherwise the rule is
> > 
> > invalid.
> > 
> > 8.  After the first 72 hours, the elimination period begins. During
> > 
> > this period, a contestant is eliminated if 24 hours have passed
> > 
> > since e last published a valid rule AND 12 hours have passed
> > 
> > since any contestant last published a valid rule.
> > 
> > 9.  The judge shall declare whether each fantasy rule is valid or
> > 
> > invalid, and will award between -3 and +3 Style Points to each
> > 
> > valid rule, by announcement, based on the quality of the rule
> > 
> > with respect to the theme.
> > 
> > 10.  The judge's final opinions are binding, although contestants
> > 
> > may publicly or privately appeal (to the judge) any judicial
> > 
> > ruling they feel was made in error, and the judge may revise
> > 
> > eir judgement at any time.
> > 
> > 11.  When all contestants have been eliminated from the contest, the
> > 
> > winners are (1) the last contestant eliminated and (2) the
> > 
> > person with the most style points after all contestants have
> > 
> > been eliminated.
> > 
> > 12.  The judge is the final arbitor of matters of this contract, and
> > 
> > eir decisions can only be overturned if a CFJ finds eir decisions
> > 
> > were made with arbitrary or capricious disregard for the terms of
> > 
> > this contract. The judge shall adjudicate this contract in equitable
> > 
> > terms, with emphasis placed on the intent of the clauses.
> > 
> > 13.  The judge CAN terminate this contract with Notice after August 1,
> > 
> > 14.  
> > 15.  The theme of the Contest is "OYEZ, OYEZ! THE DISPUTE BEFORE US
> > 
> > TODAY IS WHETHER FRC OR AGORA IS THE TRUE INHERITOR OF NOMIC WORLD".
> >




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Treasuror] Facilities starting to proliferate again

2018-06-25 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
I actually noticed that some of the zombies were misclassified about 30 seconds 
after I sent that off. Oh well.

I don't believe that aspect of this report can self-ratify, so I'm just going 
to ignore it for now, but I'll fix it for next week (or if someone points out a 
different error).

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 25, 2018 8:37 AM, Corona  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> I haven't checked for mistakes yet, but looks good!
> 
> Also note that I divided the players into two sections (separated by the
> 
> row of column names) -- nonzombies and zombies. I thought that would make
> 
> the table of players less cluttered. If you're going to keep that layout,
> 
> you might want to regularly check if any player's zombification status has
> 
> changed.
> 
> On Monday, June 25, 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> 
> > I modified the layout slightly to make it easier for me to tell each
> > 
> > facility's rank when creating assets. Unfortunately this comes with a
> > 
> > slight readability cost, but the abbreviations for nicknames are the same
> > 
> > as on the Cartographor report so I don't think it's too hard to interpret.
> > 
> > Is it fine for the rest of you?
> > 
> > +-++++---+++++++
> > 
> > |Entity |Ston|Appl|Corn|Ore|Lmbr|Cotn|Coin|Papr|Fabr|Incs|
> > 
> > +-++++---+++++++
> > 
> > |ATMunn | 6| 32| 1| 0| 7| 0| 64| 14| 0| 12|
> > 
> > |Aris | 5| 30| 9| 0| 5| 0| 97| 7| 0| 11|
> > 
> > |Corona | 28| 76| 28| 0| 8| 30| 37| 29| 0| 13|
> > 
> > |CuddleBeam | 11| 18| 9| 4| 8| 9| 50| 10| 0| 11|
> > 
> > |G. | 15| 79| 15| 0| 3| 0| 83| 52| 0| 33|
> > 
> > |Gaelan | 14| 28| 2| 6| 2| 0| 47| 10| 0| 11|
> > 
> > |Kenyon | 14| 37| 4| 6| 20| 3| 45| 9| 0| 11|
> > 
> > |Murphy | 5| 30| 4| 0| 8| 0| 56| 11| 0| 11|
> > 
> > |omd | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > 
> > |Ouri | 0| 10| 0| 0| 0| 0| 24| 4| 0| 11|
> > 
> > |PSS | 5| 15| 0| 0| 5| 0| 20| 5| 0| 3|
> > 
> > |Trigon | 6| 11| 15| 4| 2| 15| 30| 7| 0| 11|
> > 
> > |twg | 3| 8| 0| 2| 5| 0| 34| 5| 0| 3|
> > 
> > |VJ Rada | 10| 55| 2| 0| 10| 0| 58| 17| 0| 11|
> > 
> > +-++++---+++++++
> > 
> > |Entity |Ston|Appl|Corn|Ore|Lmbr|Cotn|Coin|Papr|Fabr|Incs|
> > 
> > +-++++---+++++++
> > 
> > |nichdel | 0| 5| 0| 0| 0| 0| 10| 2| 0| 3|
> > 
> > |o | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > 
> > |pokes | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > 
> > |Quazie | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > 
> > |Telnaior | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > 
> > |天火狐 | 0| 5| 0| 0| 0| 0| 10| 2| 0| 3|
> > 
> > +-++++---+++++++
> > 
> > |Entity |Ston|Appl|Corn|Ore|Lmbr|Cotn|Coin|Papr|Fabr|Incs|
> > 
> > +-++++---+++++++
> > 
> > | R1 farm (+1, -1)| 0| 0| 6| 0| 0| 6| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > 
> > | R1 mine (-1, -1)| 6| 0| 0| 4| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > 
> > | R1 mine (+1, +1)| 6| 0| 0| 4| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > 
> > | R1 orch. (-1, +1)| 0| 6| 0| 0| 6| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > 
> > |C's R2 ref. ( 0, +2)| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 259| 0| 0| 0|
> > 
> > |C's R2 mine (+2, +2)| 18| 0| 0| 12| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > 
> > |C's R2 orch. (+2, +1)| 0| 12| 0| 0| 12| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > 
> > |C's R2 mine (+2, -1)| 18| 0| 0| 8| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > 
> > |C's R2 orch. (+2, -2)| 0| 12| 0| 0| 12| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > 
> > |C's R2 farm (+1, -2)| 0| 0| 12| 0| 0| 12| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > 
> > |u's R1 farm (+1, 3)| 0| 0| 21| 0| 0| 21| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > 
> > |T's R1 mine ( 0, -2)| 6| 0| 0| 4| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > 
> > |t's R1 orch. (+5, 0)| 0| 6| 0| 0| 6| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > 
> > |G's R1 mine (+3, -2)| 3| 0| 0| 2| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > 
> > |G's R1 mine (+4, -1)| 3| 0| 0| 2| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > 
> > |G's R1 orch. (+4, 0)| 0| 3| 0| 0| 3| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > 
> > |G's R1 mine (+3, 0)| 3| 0| 0| 2| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > 
> > |G's R1 orch. (+2, 0)| 0| 3| 0| 0| 3| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0|
> > 
> > +-++++---+++++++
> > 
> > |Entity |Ston|Appl|Corn|Ore|Lmbr|Cotn|Coin|Papr|Fabr|Incs|
> > 
> > +-++++---+++++++
> > 
> > |F

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Contract Competition: It's a subgame boiz!!!!!!

2018-06-25 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
I received both of these as well.

Comparing my inbox to mail-archive.com, it seems I've been receiving all your 
emails _except_ those sent on June 24 (UTC) to DIS or BUS. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 25, 2018 9:41 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
 wrote:

> ​​
> 
> TTttPF
> 
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 5:40 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> 
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > I withdraw my previous bid and instead bid 2 coins.
> > 
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 3:55 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> > 
> > > Fabulous, thank you! I bid 20 coins in the ongoing zombie auction.
> > > 
> > > -twg
> > > 
> > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > > 
> > > On June 25, 2018 12:45 AM, Rebecca edwardostra...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > > The only other party to this Contract is twg. I transfer em 20 coins.
> > > > 
> > > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:39 AM, Ned Strange edwardostra...@gmail.com 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Right this is my one attempt to revitalize the institution of 
> > > > > Contracts.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I create the following Contract (spending a coin)
> > > > > 
> > > > > Title: Contract Competition Contract
> > > > > 
> > > > > Text:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Anyone may become a Party to this Contract by announcement.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Parties to this Contract SHOULD join, create and interact with a
> > > > > 
> > > > > variety of Contracts over the next 10 days.
> > > > > 
> > > > > V.J. Rada SHALL judge in a timely fashion after the next 10 days which
> > > > > 
> > > > > other party to this contract gave the best contribution to the world
> > > > > 
> > > > > of Contracts recently.
> > > > > 
> > > > > V.J. Rada SHALL give that party 20 coins in the same message as that 
> > > > > judgement.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If nobody does anything interesting, parties to this Contract and
> > > > > 
> > > > > non-parties SHOULD vote to repeal Contracts ASAP.
> > > > > 
> > > > > From V.J. Rada
> > > > 
> > > > --
> > > > 
> > > > From V.J. Rada




Re: DIS: hmmm?

2018-06-25 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Ah, yes, it was directly from you, not via Discussion. Sorry, I didn't notice 
the contents of the "From" field (or the "To" field in the reply).

Interestingly, I have received "DIS: Regarding CFJ 3642" and "DIS: Re: BUS: 
[Distributor] about agora-official" from you via Discussion, but not "Re: DIS: 
Re: BUS: Judgement in CFJ 3646" which I can see you sent from V.J. Rada's reply.

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 24, 2018 9:08 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
 wrote:

> ​​
> 
> Did you receive it directly from me or via discussion?
> 
> 
> --
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> 
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 5:06 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> 
> > Yes! What did you change?
> > 
> > -twg
> > 
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > 
> > On June 24, 2018 8:58 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
> > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > Did you receive this?
> > > 
> > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I haven't, no. Very bizarre. I have been receiving email from other 
> > > > Gmail users like ATMunn and Corona, so I'm not sure what the problem 
> > > > might be.
> > > > 
> > > > If it helps narrow anything down, the last email I received from you 
> > > > was on June 22, 2018 10:16 PM UTC, saying you liked Corona's suggestion 
> > > > of a hyperbolic map.
> > > > 
> > > > -twg
> > > > 
> > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > > > 
> > > > On June 24, 2018 6:08 PM, ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > twg
> > > > > 
> > > > > On 6/24/2018 12:55 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > This could be one of the infamous problems with gmail. Have you
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > received this message?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red 
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I haven't received it, and I also haven't received any of PSS's 
> > > > > > > messages to DIS that you're all replying to.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > -twg
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On June 24, 2018 4:20 PM, Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com 
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Neither have I.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > ~Corona
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Publius Scribonius 
> > > > > > > > Scholasticus <
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I have not received it.
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 10:28 AM, ATMunn 
> > > > > > > > > iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Nope, it was much later than that.
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > On 6/24/2018 10:11 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus 
> > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > This?
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > -- Forwarded message --
> > > > > > > > > > &g

Re: DIS: hmmm?

2018-06-25 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Yes, it was sent to PSS directly - I didn't notice that the message e sent me 
saying "Did you receive this?" was actually sent directly to me as well as to 
DIS, and clicked Reply without checking where I was sending it to.

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 25, 2018 7:49 AM, Corona  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> I didn't receive the email sent by twg which you're replying to in this
> 
> message. Was this sent to you directly or was it sent to a list?
> 
> On Sunday, June 24, 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> 
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Did you receive it directly from me or via discussion?
> > --
> > 
> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > 
> > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 5:06 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> > 
> > > Yes! What did you change?
> > > 
> > > -twg
> > > 
> > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > > 
> > > On June 24, 2018 8:58 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> > > 
> > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Did you receive this?
> > > > 
> > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 4:55 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > I haven't, no. Very bizarre. I have been receiving email from other
> > > > > 
> > > > > Gmail users like ATMunn and Corona, so I'm not sure what the problem 
> > > > > might
> > > > > 
> > > > > be.
> > > 
> > > > > If it helps narrow anything down, the last email I received from you
> > > > > 
> > > > > was on June 22, 2018 10:16 PM UTC, saying you liked Corona's 
> > > > > suggestion of
> > > > > 
> > > > > a hyperbolic map.
> > > 
> > > > > -twg
> > > > > 
> > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > > > > 
> > > > > On June 24, 2018 6:08 PM, ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > twg
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On 6/24/2018 12:55 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This could be one of the infamous problems with gmail. Have you
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > received this message?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > > I haven't received it, and I also haven't received any of PSS's
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > messages to DIS that you're all replying to.
> > > 
> > > > > > > > -twg
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On June 24, 2018 4:20 PM, Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > > > Neither have I.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > ~Corona
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Publius Scribonius
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Scholasticus <
> > > 
> > > > > > > > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > I have not received it.
> > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 10:28 AM, ATMunn
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Nope, it was much later than that.
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > 

Re: DIS: Draft contract for playing chess on the map

2018-06-23 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Awesome, thanks for the feedback!

On June 21, 2018 1:59 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> Define who tracks these switches or are they untracked? (being the
> recordkeepor for chess pieces doesn't mean recordkeepor for the switches).
Ah, that's a misconception I hadn't realised I had - that switches are 
necessarily tracked by the same person as their entities. Looking over this 
that's actually the root cause of many of the other problems with this. I'll 
read the rules about switches more carefully and rephrase to accommodate them. 
Really

> More generally, this puts a burden on the Cartographer. And this also
> implies that if the Cartographer isn't a party, there's no recordkeepor?
My intention was that the Cartographor could choose, by becoming a party to the 
contract or not, whether to bother spending time trying to keep track of the 
pieces (actually the switches, see above). Mainly, it was just a way to keep up 
the "we are actually playing on the map" metaphor going. I don't think it would 
be too difficult to keep track of the board even without a recordkeepor - 
correspondence chess players manage it in real life all the time - but if it 
were converted to a tournament, the gamemaster would be the obvious choice for 
recordkeepor.

> > (Parties to this contract are ENCOURAGED to vote for
> > any Proposal that would enable backing documents to define switches
> > possessed by the assets those backing documents define.)
> There are arguments for or against this but I'd cut this and advocate/
> propose it separately.
Oh, I do intend to propose it separately as well - after Aris's "Minimalist 
Contracts" has been passed/rejected, so I know what it is I'm proposing an 
amendment to. I modelled it after the sentence in V.J. Rada's contract 
competition: "If nobody does anything interesting, parties to this Contract and 
non-parties SHOULD vote to repeal Contracts ASAP." It's not a particularly 
important part and I'd happily cut it out if you think it wise.

> > Any party to this contract MAY, by announcement, move a chess piece.
> I think in place of MAY you want "CAN, subject to the restrictions of
> this contract,"
Ah, I hadn't read rule 2152 carefully enough - I hadn't realised MAY and CAN 
were subtly different. Thanks for pointing that out. I believe the clause 
"subject to the restrictions of this contract" is covered by "Where this 
contract contradicts itself, later statements take precedence over earlier 
ones." near the beginning. In my first few drafts I did explicitly specify 
every time a statement overrode another, but that got unwieldy quickly; this 
way, as long as the paragraphs are ordered correctly, it can be parsed almost 
exactly the same way as natural language.

> Turn-based games can sometimes stall out waiting for the other players'
> turn - what happens if you end up with only one person taking black and
> they don't respond? Maybe add a game clock: "if a move isn't made by
> X time, than [either a PASS or the other side can move that color]"
Allowing either side to pass would make the game nearly unwinnable. (Actually, 
that reminds me that I didn't put in any allowance for a draw.) I see two 
possibilities - either allow the other side to move the colour, like you 
suggested, or just forfeit the game, which would be less complicated: "If, 
after the current turn is flipped, no party to this contract moves a chess 
piece in a timely fashion, the White King is destroyed if it is White's turn, 
and the Black King is destroyed if it is Black's turn."

> The way this reads, a player moves the pawn (successfully), but if
> e fails to create a piece, then e breaks the terms of the contract (fails
> the MUST) but the pawn is still stuck in the last rank and can't be
> converted.
Good point. Another way of doing this would be to decouple the promotion from 
the act of moving the pawn - something like "If there is a Pawn at [...], a 
party to this contract CAN and SHOULD, by announcement, destroy the Pawn and 
create a Knight, Bishop, Rook or Queen..." (with a restriction to players of 
the same colour as the pawn). And require that to happen before the other side 
takes their turn. That way there's less scope for a move to fail without anyone 
noticing, which would be bad.

> I'd hard-code the reward a bit more. I'd suggest making this a Free
> Tournament (R2566) although I don't know if having this be Regulations
> rather than a Contract makes anything in here not work (e.g. you can't
> become "party" to a set of regulations I don't think). You could do it
> by reference though. Set up the Contract, then make a Tournament with a
> single regulation: "whomever wins the Contract wins the Tournament".
Yes, I agree this is probably more suited to a tournament. (I'm sure it could 
be slightly rephrased to remove references to "parties", which would make it 
considerably simpler to read anyway.) I don't want to distract from the 
birthday tournament, though, and it clearly needs more work 

Re: DIS: Draft contract for playing chess on the map

2018-06-23 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
On June 23, 2018 10:07 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> Ah, that's a misconception I hadn't realised I had - that switches are 
> necessarily tracked by the same person as their entities. Looking over this 
> that's actually the root cause of many of the other problems with this. I'll 
> read the rules about switches more carefully and rephrase to accommodate 
> them. Really

Please ignore the "Really", it was the first part of a sentence I (intended to) 
cut out during editing.

-twg


Re: DIS: hmmm?

2018-06-24 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
I haven't, no. Very bizarre. I have been receiving email from other Gmail users 
like ATMunn and Corona, so I'm not sure what the problem might be.

If it helps narrow anything down, the last email I received from you was on 
June 22, 2018 10:16 PM UTC, saying you liked Corona's suggestion of a 
hyperbolic map.

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 24, 2018 6:08 PM, ATMunn  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> twg
> 
> On 6/24/2018 12:55 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> 
> > This could be one of the infamous problems with gmail. Have you
> > 
> > received this message?
> > 
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > 
> > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 12:30 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> > 
> > > I haven't received it, and I also haven't received any of PSS's messages 
> > > to DIS that you're all replying to.
> > > 
> > > -twg
> > > 
> > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > > 
> > > On June 24, 2018 4:20 PM, Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Neither have I.
> > > > 
> > > > ~Corona
> > > > 
> > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> > > > 
> > > > p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > I have not received it.
> > > > > ---
> > > > > 
> > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > > > > 
> > > > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 10:28 AM, ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Nope, it was much later than that.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On 6/24/2018 10:11 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > This?
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > -- Forwarded message --
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > From: ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 11:09 AM
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8054-8057
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I do the same as the last three people in this thread.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > On 6/23/2018 6:14 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I also vote FOR proposals 8053-8057.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > -twg
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > On June 23, 2018 8:41 AM, Ned Strange edwardostra...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > I vote FOR each listed proposal
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Aris Merchant
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > I vote as follows:
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > ID Author(s) AI Title Pender
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 8053* G., Aris 1.0 patch patch patch G. [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > FOR
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 8054+ Aris, [2] 3.0 Minimalist Contracts v2 Aris
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > FOR
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 8055+ Aris, G. 3.0 Distributed Assets v3 Aris
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > FOR
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 8056+ Aris, G. 3.0 Deregulation Act v2 Aris
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > FOR
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > 8057* Corona 1.0 No quorum, no medal Corona [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > FOR
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > -Aris
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > From V.J. Rada




Re: DIS: hmmm?

2018-06-24 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
I haven't received it, and I also haven't received any of PSS's messages to DIS 
that you're all replying to.

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 24, 2018 4:20 PM, Corona  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> Neither have I.
> 
> ~Corona
> 
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> 
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I have not received it.
> > ---
> > 
> > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > 
> > On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 10:28 AM, ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > 
> > > Nope, it was much later than that.
> > > 
> > > On 6/24/2018 10:11 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > > 
> > > > This?
> > > > 
> > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > > > 
> > > > -- Forwarded message --
> > > > 
> > > > From: ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com
> > > > 
> > > > Date: Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 11:09 AM
> > > > 
> > > > Subject: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8054-8057
> > > > 
> > > > To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org
> > > > 
> > > > I do the same as the last three people in this thread.
> > > > 
> > > > On 6/23/2018 6:14 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > I also vote FOR proposals 8053-8057.
> > > > > 
> > > > > -twg
> > > > > 
> > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > > > > 
> > > > > On June 23, 2018 8:41 AM, Ned Strange edwardostra...@gmail.com
> > > > > 
> > > > > wrote:
> > > 
> > > > > > I vote FOR each listed proposal
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 4:04 PM, Aris Merchant
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I vote as follows:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > ID Author(s) AI Title Pender
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 8053* G., Aris 1.0 patch patch patch G. [1]
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > FOR
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 8054+ Aris, [2] 3.0 Minimalist Contracts v2 Aris
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > FOR
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 8055+ Aris, G. 3.0 Distributed Assets v3 Aris
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > FOR
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 8056+ Aris, G. 3.0 Deregulation Act v2 Aris
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > FOR
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 8057* Corona 1.0 No quorum, no medal Corona [1]
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > FOR
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > -Aris
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > From V.J. Rada




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8054-8057

2018-06-23 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Actually, I wonder if the problems mightn't run even deeper than that. I don't 
think "I do the same thing as the last X people in this thread" necessarily 
implies "I do the same thing as the last X people in this thread _did in this 
thread_". Aris, V.J. Rada and I have all previously performed actions other 
than voting on these proposals, and "the same thing" (singular) is too 
ambiguous to distinguish any of those actions from the votes. So I would argue 
neither ATMunn nor Trigon, let alone Corona, have voted on these five proposals.

​​-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On June 23, 2018 9:33 PM, Alex Smith  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> On Sat, 2018-06-23 at 23:25 +0200, Corona wrote:
> 
> > I'm not using infinite regression. I'm basing my vote on the next
> > 
> > (hypothetical) player to vote, who would vote "I do the same as the last
> > 
> > six people in this thread", the six people being Aris, VJ Rada, twg,
> > 
> > ATMunn, Trigon (who all voted FOR all proposals) and me.
> > 
> > Thus the only way for their conditional vote to resolve as FOR all
> > 
> > proposals is for my conditional vote to resolve as FOR all proposals (if I
> > 
> > voted differently, their conditional vote would be indeterminate and
> > 
> > default to PRESENT).
> 
> Either you've done the same thing as the other people or you've done
> 
> something different.
> 
> If we're assuming that you've done something different, "I do the same
> 
> as the last six people in the thread" won't do anything because it's
> 
> too ambiguous.
> 
> If we're assuming that you've done something that's the same, then
> 
> you've made a conditional vote. So the next person, who's doing
> 
> something the same as everyone else (including you) is therefore making
> 
> a conditional vote, based on the hypothetical person after them.
> 
> If you're arguing "but it's only me who made a conditional vote, the
> 
> other people didn't!" then you're arguing that you've done something
> 
> that's relevantly different from the other people in the thread, and as
> 
> such your hypothetical can't possibly succeed.
> 
> 
> -
> 
> ais523




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposals] Feasible Victory & Better Auctions

2018-07-03 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
It's weird, I can't imagine how I would pronounce "SHA". I suspect the cause is 
just that I've only ever seen it written down and never actually spoken about 
it, so I've never _needed_ to pronounce it, but it's actually quite disturbing 
not being able to sound it in my head like with other words.

More on-topic, if we're using hashes for the announcer's bid, why not just go 
the whole way and make _everyone_ submit hashes of their bids, to be revealed 
after the auction ends? That way, there's no need to place any trust in the 
announcer at all.

I do have my own reservations about using hashes at all, though, because this 
particular context seems easier than many hashes to brute-force. There are only 
a limited number of possible bids, and although you can obfuscate it a bit by 
using different typographical conventions ("21", "21 coins", "21 Coins", "21 
instances of Agora's official currency"), that seems easy for someone not 
terribly familiar with computers/IT to mess up and accidentally reveal their 
bid.

Apologies for the delay on the Treasuror report, by the way; it's taking a 
while to sift through last month's reports to see who's due how many salaries, 
because several offices were created or abolished and agora-official was 
unavailable for part of the time. Hoping to have it up tomorrow (Wednesday).

-twg
​​

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐

On July 3, 2018 10:58 PM, Reuben Staley  wrote:

> ​​
> 
> Obviously, it is ess-aych-ay-five-twelve.
> 
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018, 08:11 ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > On 7/1/2018 8:04 PM, 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.
> > > 
> > > Wait, an SHA-512 hash? Meaning you pronounce each letter instead of
> > > 
> > > just saying "sha five twelve"?
> > 
> > Anyways, acronym pronunciations aside, I agree with everything you said
> > 
> > here.




DIS: Re: BUS: Bank Heist

2018-10-12 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Very nice! I believe this would work if there were anything in the rules to 
suggest that a terminated contract cannot own assets. :)

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, October 11, 2018 11:42 PM, Kerim Aydin  
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote:
>
> > I have sent to G. certain text that has the below SHA-256 hash, and I
> > consent to be bound by that text as a contract if G. accepts the contract
> > within the next 24 hours.
> > 2041D49B9354D9BEB770BA513025B4E3D34E5529A18AFF5681FB51AE10FAF930
>
> The above-referenced Contract reads:
> G. and D. Margaux agree that the contract entitled the First Bank of Agora is 
> terminated.
>
> If and only if my intent regarding the lost department, announced
> in my Herald’s Weekly report of 07-Oct-18 (reproduced below for reference),
> is EFFECTIVE to enable, absent objection, the action it describes, then:
>
> 1.  I agree to the contract above to terminate the Bank contract;
>
> 2.  Without Objection, I transfer all coins in the Lost and Found
> Department to myself; and
>
> 3.  I transfer 606 coins to D. Margaux.
>
> BELOW IS A REPEAT OF AN EARLIER MESSAGE -
> IT IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO PUBLISH A CURRENT REPORT.
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu
> Date: October 7, 2018 at 4:48:34 PM EDT
> To: Agora Official agora-offic...@agoranomic.org
>
> Subject: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report
> Reply-To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
>
> Herald’s Weekly report
>
> Date of Last Report: 30 Sep 2018
> Date of This Report: 07 Oct 2018
>
> Karma Entity
>
> 
> 
>
>
> - ABOVE HERE BE THE SAMURAI
> +6 twg <= SHOGUN
> +5 D. Margaux
> +2 Corona
> +2 Trigon
> +1 ATMunn
> -1 Kenyon
> -1 Telnaior
> -2 Murphy
> -2 Ouri
> -3 Gaelan
> -3 CuddleBeam
> -4 VJ Rada <= HONOURLESS WORM
>
> - BELOW HERE BE THE GAMMAS
>
> -
>
> All other entities have 0 Karma (0's included on the list
> indicate an honour change since the last report).
>
> Notices of Honour:
>
> Gaelan via Master G. INVALID, NOT FIRST IN WEEK
> -1 twg (for making someone a zombie who was clearly returning)
> +1 ATMunn (welcome back!
>
> twg (03 Oct 2018)
> +1 D. Margaux (managing to sneak this one past me)
> -1 Kenyon (arbitrarily selected zombie)
>
> Gaelan via Master G. (01 Oct 2018)
> +1 CuddleBeam (for taking the burden G.'s RL bank balance).
> -1 Ouri (more karma decay for zombies)
>
> G. (01 Oct 2018)
> +1 twg (for this great addition to the assessor's results)
> -1 Ouri (zombies close to deregistration mean nonzero karma
> balance in Agora eventually).
>
> [New Week]
> [Time of Last Report]
>
> twg (30 Sep 2018)
> +1 D. Margaux (fulfilling agreed obligation)
> -1 Telnaior (arbitrarily selected zombie)
>
> Aris (24 Sep 2018)
> -1 G. (unclear communication)
> +1 omd (serving as our Distributor)
>
> Gaelan, via master G. (24 Sep 2018)
> -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.
>
> G. (24 Sep 2018)
> -1 Aris (because really, I feel like it).
> +1 CuddleBeam (because I'm tired of seeing that name at the bottom).
>
> [New Week]
>
> Trigon (23 Sep 2018)
> -1 to D. Margaux for being a manipulator
> +1 to D Margaux for helping debug zombie rules
>
> Aris (23 Sep 2018)
> -1 G. (complaining about proposals being readded while resisting
> any attempt to lower quorum or otherwise resolve the problem of
> them failing quorum)
> +1 D Margaux (helping fix problems by debugging the proposals)
>
> Telnaior, via master Aris (23 Sep 2018)
> -1 D Margaux (manipulating zombies to gain honor)
> +1 nichdel (being mainipulated)
>
> D. Margaux (23 Sep 2018)
> -1 nichdel (having the misfortune of being D. Margaux’s zombie)
> +1 D Margaux (for revealing what might be yet another zombie exploit)
>
> G. (23 Sep 2018)
> -1 Aris (for persisting with group of low-quorum proposals).
> +1 D. Margaux (for finding bugs after several votings).
>
> [New Week]
>
> D. Margaux (15 Sep 2018)
> -1 D. Margaux (misnaming G.)
> +1 G. (being gracious about that misnaming)
>
> [New Week]
>
> G. (9 Sep 2018)
> -1 Trigon (being generally MIA on land)
> +1 D. Margaux (keeping up officer report standards via SJ)
>
> [New Week]
>
> [New Week]
>
> G. 29 Aug 2018
> -1 G (not reading proposals carefully)
> +1 D. Margaux (reading carefully and researching back beyond eir tenure)
>
> twg 26 Aug 2018
> [attempted to issue a Notice of Honour, but failed because it was eir
> second that week]
>
> twg (20 Aug 2018)
> -1 Corona (violating rule 2201, which e cannot be fined for because
> it occurred >14 days ago). Not part of report: I intend without
>
>objection to transfer all coins in the lost department 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Bank Heist

2018-10-12 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
G. wrote:
> It is no longer a contract, because no one agrees to it, which is basic
> to the definition of "contract". So it cannot own assets.

R1742 actually gives a definition of "contract":

  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.

The FBoA is an agreement that was made between consenting persons with that 
intention. Whether those consenting persons _still_ so intend is not a factor 
that the definition takes into account.

And they are still "consenting persons", as per R2519...

  A person gives consent (syn. consents) to an action when e, acting
  as emself, publicly states that e agrees to the action.

...which does not provide a mechanism to _revoke_ consent.

Aris wrote:
> Terminated contracts don’t exist.

Again, I see nothing in the rules to support this assumption.

-twg


DIS: Apology for Tardiness

2018-10-15 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
(Unofficial - I don't believe it's actually possible to submit an official 
apology until after the Referee has imposed the Cold Hand of Justice (if, 
indeed, a Finger is Pointed at all). Though I could be wrong?)

I'm sorry I missed the Treasuror report last week (and, to a lesser extent, the 
Humiliating Public Reminder about Proposal 8104, though I can't imagine anyone 
felt disappointment about its absence). Last week was quite unpleasant and I 
haven't really had time for Agoran stuff. I will try to get the Treasuror 
report and resolution of P8104 published this week, although I must say it 
would be helpful if there weren't validity CFJs pending against like 80% of 
recent transactions...

I also apologise for not taking over Rulekeepor like I said I would at some 
point. Trigon's new FLR format is amazing, though, and realistically I probably 
wouldn't have had time for three offices anyway.

-twg


DIS: Re: BUS: Round Robin CFJs

2018-10-15 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Hmm. For some reason this feels like a build-up to a scam. Oh well, let's see 
what happens.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, October 15, 2018 7:24 PM, D Margaux  wrote:

> I CFJ the following three statements, and suggest to the Arbitor that they 
> should probably be assigned to the same judge:
>
> > 1.  “All pure active players could have won by announcement on the Effective
> > Date under rule 2580”
> >
> >
> > and
> >
> > 2.  “Trigon, twg, D. Margaux, G., and L could win the game by announcement
> > under rule 2580 on the Effective Date after the expungement of Trigon’s
> > blot”
> >
> >
> > and
> >
> > 3.  “Trigon, twg, and L won the game on the Effective Date under rule 2580”
>
> For arguments and evidence, I refer to the email chain and the text of Rule 
> 2580, provided below.
>
> Rule 2580/2 (Power=1)
> Round Robin
>
> The "Effective Date" is the Agoran day that is 8 days after the
> Agoran day on which this Rule was enacted. This Rule is
> automatically repealed at 00:01 UTC on the Agoran day after the
> Effective Date.
>
> The Slate A players are VJ Rada, Cuddle Beam, D. Margaux, Aris,
> G., omd, Murphy, ATMunn, and Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
>
> The Slate B players are VJ Rada, D. Margaux, G., L., omd, Corona,
> Trigon, twg, and Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
>
> The Slate C players are Cuddle Beam, Aris, L., Corona, Murphy,
> Trigon, ATMunn, and twg.
>
> The Slate A players CAN win the game by announcement on the
> Effective Date, unless the Slate B players also CAN win the game
> by announcement on the Effective Date.
>
> The Slate B players CAN win the game by announcement on the
> Effective Date, unless the Slate C players also CAN win the game
> by announcement on the Effective Date.
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> > > > > > > On 10/11/2018 08:28 AM, D Margaux wrote:
> > > > > > > I think this is an admirably clear way to put it. I personally 
> > > > > > > had in
> > > > > > > mind the set/inclusive interpretation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > The “individual” interpretation would make each slate’s winning
> > > > > > > chances
> > > > > > > depend in part upon which slates happen to have impure players. 
> > > > > > > That
> > > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > undesirable to me, because the players were randomly assigned, 
> > > > > > > and the
> > > > > > > fun
> > > > > > > of the proposal isn’t really advanced by treating players 
> > > > > > > differently
> > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > on the happenstance of where impure players are assigned.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > In some cases (such as the one here), applying the set/exclusive
> > > > > > > interpretation might run afoul of the No Cretans rule. In 
> > > > > > > particular,
> > > > > > > here,
> > > > > > > the Rule says (i) A CAN win unless B and (ii) B CAN win unless C. 
> > > > > > > Under a
> > > > > > > set/exclusive interpretation, I think (i) and (ii) are in 
> > > > > > > conflict with
> > > > > > > respect to whether the (A,B) players can win. As a result, 
> > > > > > > because (ii)
> > > > > > > comes after (i), I think applying No Cretans means that (A, B) 
> > > > > > > should win
> > > > > > > then too.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > What do people think is the clearest way to CFJ this? A very 
> > > > > > > simple
> > > > > > > CFJ
> > > > > > > like, “At least one player won by Round Robin,” might give a 
> > > > > > > judge the
> > > > > > > opportunity to opine more broadly about who actually won.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 2018, at 9:29 PM, Reuben Staley 
> > > > > > > > reuben.sta...@gmail.com
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I understand more theories are the last thing we probably need 
> > > > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > now but oh well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Let me make a chart for reference.
> > > > > > > > A and B B and C C and A
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > VJ Rada L. Cuddles
> > > > > > > > Margaux Corona Aris
> > > > > > > > PSS Trigon Murphy
> > > > > > > > G. twg ATMunn
> > > > > > > > In the rule "Round Robin", it is stated that Slate A players 
> > > > > > > > cannot
> > > > > > > > win if Slate B players can.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > One interpretation (the "set" interpretation) of this is that 
> > > > > > > > the set
> > > > > > > > of Slate A players cannot win if there is a mechanism for Slate 
> > > > > > > > B players
> > > > > > > > to. In this case, all Slate A players can announce that they 
> > > > > > > > win, but it
> > > > > > > > might not work if you're criminal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Another interpretation (the "individual" interpretation) of 
> > > > > > > > this is
> > > > > > > > that each the set of Slate A players cannot win if all the 
> > > > > > > > Slate B
> > > > > > > > players
> > > > > > > > can.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > That's one thing we need to figure out. The other is how the 
> > > > > > > > overlap
> > > > > > > > works.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > One interpretation of this argument 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8105-8110

2018-10-16 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Ah, the CFJ 1460 judgement doesn't actually use the word "action" - that was 
part of my paraphrasing, apologies for the confusion. I don't believe it's 
germane whether or not the intent or the objection are in fact actions 
performed by announcement. In fact, the first example given in the judgement of 
a requirement for "unreasonably excessive effort" to interpret a message is 
actually an announcement of intent:

   I announce my intent to remove the first n listed proposals from the
   proposal pool, where n is the minimum of 5 and the number of
   counterexamples to the Riemann hypothesis

Your second argument seems more convincing to me but I don't feel qualified to 
decide whether or not it's valid - it seems at least partially based on 
intuition rather than the rules themselves but perhaps that's just my own lack 
of knowledge about game custom.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 12:25 AM, Alex Smith  
wrote:

> On Tue, 2018-10-16 at 00:18 +, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > CFJ, barring G.: "In the quoted message, G. objected to at least one
> > intent to perform a dependent action."
> > Caller's arguments: According to the judgement issued by Maud in CFJ
> > 1460, an action is only effective if "unreasonably excessive effort"
> > is not required to determine what the action is. To determine exactly
> > what actions G. took here, one would need to carefully read each of
> > the messages sent to the public fora in the last 14 days, forming a
> > list of the intents to perform dependent actions in those messages
> > (including any and all inconspicuous or obfuscated such intents), and
> > evaluate which of those meet the criteria listed in G.'s message. I
> > believe this is "unreasonably excessive".
>
> Arguments: Intents aren't really actions, based on the "backwards way"
> we look at them. It may well be that objections aren't actions, either.
> Even if they are, it's up to the resolver to find objections, not the
> objector to find the intent; this objection is one that resolvers
> should have no real problem finding.
>
> --
>
> ais523




DIS: Re: BUS: Auction related proposals

2018-10-18 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Good idea! Minor comments on the second one:

> A player who is not the auctioneer of an existing Auction
> specified by this rule CAN, by announcement, initiate an auction
> with emself as the auctioneer The lots, minimum bid, and currency
> of the Auction shall be set by said player.

- This says "auctioneer" instead of "Auctioneer" like the first one does - I 
would make them consistent to prevent potential confusion (for example, see 
R2549 where "announcer" and "Announcer" mean different things).
- Missing a full stop before "The lots".
- I don't think the last sentence ("The lots" onwards) is actually necessary. 
R2549 already requires the announcer to specify the lots, minimum bid and 
(optionally) currency of the Auction, and there are no other rules that would 
prevent em from specifying anything e liked.
- Relatedly, unless you replace "emself as the auctioneer" with "emself as the 
Auctioneer and Announcer", it's possible to make _any other player_ the 
Announcer without eir consent.

-twg


Re: BUS: Re: DIS: [Prime Minister] Regarding Wins

2018-10-21 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
twg wrote:
> The CFJ is something that I'd been toying with for a while as a potential scam
> idea. I hadn't tried using it properly because I'm actually pretty sure it
> doesn't work. ''I intend to Declare Apathy Without Objection, specifying
> myself." is found in a message and then someone else says something like "I
> object to all announcements of intent to Declare Apathy made by players other
> than myself within the past 14 days." - this is something that's happened a
> few times before with nobody complaining.

Aris wrote:
> By the way, I object to each announcement of intent to perform an action
> without N objections or with N Agoran consent, where N is a number.

Ah, darn it. (This message best viewed in a fixed-width font.) I don't know 
whether this would have worked anyway but it would have been amusing.

For the record, I'm starting to get burned out on attempts to declare apathy. 
No more from me for a while.

-twg


DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ assignments

2018-10-18 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
I'm sorry, I hadn't realised CFJ 3664 had already been assigned (I remembered 
favouring it but thought the assignment was one of the things we were waiting 
on Murphy for). I'll aim to publish the judgement later today.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, October 18, 2018 1:22 AM, D. Margaux  wrote:

> In an effort to clear up some of the CFJ backlog, I cause nichdel to point
> eir finger at:
>
> Murphy for late decision on CFJ 3645;
>
> CuddleBeam for late decision on CFJ 3652;
>
> L for late decision on CFJ 3665 and 3666;
>
> twg for late decision on CFJ 3664; and
>
> Murphy for being late to reassign those CFJs.
>
> Blots will be higher for any late CFJs that remain unjudged when I get
> around to writing the referee weekly report later this week.
>
> On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 11:01 PM Edward Murphy emurph...@zoho.com wrote:
>
> > 3645: I remove V.J. Rada and assign myself.
> > 3648: I remove V.J. Rada and assign D. Margaux.
> > 3652: I remove Corona and assign Cuddle Beam.
> > 3661: I remove Corona and assign Aris.
> > 3664: I assign twg.
> > 3665 and 3666: I assign L.




DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3644 judged TRUE

2018-10-18 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Bugger, got my time zones mixed up. This was, of course, judged at 10:24, not 
11:24.

This is my first ever CFJ judgement - please do not hesitate to say if I got 
something wrong.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, October 18, 2018 10:24 AM, 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 liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com 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 defini

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Round Robin CFJs

2018-10-16 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
I meant the way there are separate CFJs ruling on "Trigon, twg, D. Margaux, G., 
and L" and "Trigon, twg, and L". It feels like you're going to pull out some 
sort of technicality that means only you and G. won. :P (I do realise they are 
semantically different too, I just found it amusing)

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, October 15, 2018 11:38 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

> No scam in this one. This was the culmination of the discussion thread
> about what CFJs were needed after the Round Robin confusion. I suggested
> one judge because the issues are very intermingled. (Can’t be me because I
> called the CFJs.)
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 5:10 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
>
> > Hmm. For some reason this feels like a build-up to a scam. Oh well, let's
> > see what happens.
> > -twg
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > On Monday, October 15, 2018 7:24 PM, D Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I CFJ the following three statements, and suggest to the Arbitor that
> > > they should probably be assigned to the same judge:
> > >
> > > > 1.  “All pure active players could have won by announcement on the
> > > > Effective
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Date under rule 2580”
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > and
> > > >
> > > > 2.  “Trigon, twg, D. Margaux, G., and L could win the game by
> > > > announcement
> > > >
> > >
> > > > under rule 2580 on the Effective Date after the expungement of
> > > >
> >
> > Trigon’s
> >
> > > > blot”
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > and
> > > >
> > > > 3.  “Trigon, twg, and L won the game on the Effective Date under rule
> > > > 2580”
> > > >
> > >
> > > For arguments and evidence, I refer to the email chain and the text of
> > > Rule 2580, provided below.
> > > Rule 2580/2 (Power=1)
> > > Round Robin
> > > The "Effective Date" is the Agoran day that is 8 days after the
> > > Agoran day on which this Rule was enacted. This Rule is
> > > automatically repealed at 00:01 UTC on the Agoran day after the
> > > Effective Date.
> > > The Slate A players are VJ Rada, Cuddle Beam, D. Margaux, Aris,
> > > G., omd, Murphy, ATMunn, and Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
> > > The Slate B players are VJ Rada, D. Margaux, G., L., omd, Corona,
> > > Trigon, twg, and Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.
> > > The Slate C players are Cuddle Beam, Aris, L., Corona, Murphy,
> > > Trigon, ATMunn, and twg.
> > > The Slate A players CAN win the game by announcement on the
> > > Effective Date, unless the Slate B players also CAN win the game
> > > by announcement on the Effective Date.
> > > The Slate B players CAN win the game by announcement on the
> > > Effective Date, unless the Slate C players also CAN win the game
> > > by announcement on the Effective Date.
> > > Begin forwarded message:
> > >
> > > > > > > > > On 10/11/2018 08:28 AM, D Margaux wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I think this is an admirably clear way to put it. I
> > > > > > > > > personally had in
> > >
> > > > > > > > > mind the set/inclusive interpretation.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The “individual” interpretation would make each slate’s
> > > > > > > > > winning
> > >
> > > > > > > > > chances
> > > > > > > > > depend in part upon which slates happen to have impure
> > > > > > > > > players. That
> > >
> > > > > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > > undesirable to me, because the players were randomly
> > > > > > > > > assigned, and the
> > >
> > > > > > > > > fun
> > > > > > > > > of the proposal isn’t really advanced by treating players
> > > > > > > > > differently
> > >
> > > > > > > > > based
> > > > > > > > > on the happenstance of where impure players are assigned.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In some cases (such as the one here), applying the
> > > > > > > > > set/exc

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

2018-10-17 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 1:56 AM, Reuben Staley  
wrote:

> Okay so overall, this is a decent idea, but I don't really want to play
> this version of it. Why? It suffers from Boilerplate Syndrome. This is a
> feature of proposed new minigames where the core mechanics are too
> lightweight for their own good. Many hypothesize that the proposer
> assumes that people will just add on with new proposals and create a
> well-balanced game after the fact. Contrarily, minigames infected with
> Boilerplate Syndrome tend to be forgotten quickly due to a lack of
> interesting mechanics in the already existing game.
>
> The best way to combat Boilerplate Syndrome is to add interesting
> gameplay. I don't know where you want to go with this so I'm just going
> to throw some of my ideas here and leave you to be insprired.
>
> (1) How about instead of a destroyed switch, ships have hit points and
> you have to repair the ship using coins or some other asset. If a ship
> has 0 hit points, it becomes immobile until you buy another ship, which
> resets all of your switches
>
> (2) Crewmen can be hired for money. The more you have, the faster you
> can repair your ship. When you are defeated in a space battle, the enemy
> can capture some crewmen to aid them.
>
> (3) Ships are upgradable. "Modules" can be added to a ship to increase
> the maximum value of your different switches. When you're defeated in a
> space battle, the enemy can steal some of your modules. When your ship's
> hit points are 0 and you have to replace your ship, you can attempt to
> salvage some modules before resetting.
>
> (4) The number of sectors is two times the number of active players.
> Each sector has two wormholes open at a time. You can travel back and
> forth between any two sectors connected by a wormhole. When a player
> deregisters or becomes inactive, two random sectors are deleted and all
> wormholes move to sectors that exist. Each month, the wormholes all
> change. (this takes lots of effort to keep track of but it's cool)
>
> (5) If you're famous, you can decrease your fame by 1 to gain either
> coins or voting power or modules or something.

Ooh, I like these ideas. I don't necessarily agree that they all need to be put 
in the same proposal - your plan for avoiding Boilerplate Syndrome works just 
as well if people _know_ that more mechanics are in the works even if they 
haven't been adopted yet. So it's fun to think about but I agree with G. that 
we should get the core mechanics running and being playtested first.

A bit of riffing off your idea though:

//
Title: [proto] Spaceship Modules
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: twg
Co-authors: Trigon

If the proposal titled "spaaace?" authored by ATMunn has not been
adopted, this proposal has no effect.

Enact a new rule "Spaceship Modules" with power 1.0:

Spaceship Modules (syn. "modules") are assets tracked by
[somebody]. Modules can be owned by players and spaceships.

To equip a module to a spaceship is to transfer it to that
spaceship. To de-equip a module from a spaceship is to transfer it
from that spaceship to oneself. Any player CAN, by announcement,
de-equip a module if e is the spaceship's owner or has the
express or reasonably implied consent of the spaceship's owner.

A spaceship CANNOT own more than 3 Utility Modules or more than
1 Auxiliary Module. Any attempt to transfer a Module to a
spaceship such that it would violate this constraint fails.

A player CAN create a Module in eir possession by paying the
Module's Cost, as defined in this rule.

While a Module is owned by a spaceship, its Effect, as defined
in this rule, applies to that spaceship.

The following types of Module are defined:

Armor
- Type: Utility Module
- Cost: 10 coins
- Effect: The spaceship's maximum hit points are increased by
  50. [Assumes your hit points idea is adopted]

Shields
- Type: Utility Module
- Cost: 5 coins
- Effect: The spaceship's maximum hit points are increased by
  50. The spaceship's maximum Power is decreased by 4. [Does
  not currently work as intended with the way "Power" is
  defined in ATMunn's proposal but that could be changed]

Reactor Booster
- Type: Auxiliary Module
- Cost: 5 coins
- Effect: The spaceship's maximum Power is increased by 5.

Nanobot Repair System
- Type: Auxiliary Module
- Cost: 20 coins
- Effect: The spaceship's owner CAN, by announcement, cause the
  spaceship to regain 3 hit points if e has not yet done so in
  the current Agoran day. [Assumes the hypothetical hit points
  rule already defines "regaining" hit points, and prevents
  exceeding the hit point maximum]

//

-twg


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deputisation

2018-10-28 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 10:31 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:
> To the contrary, it is a dependent action—dependent on notice.

Nope. R2472/2 says:

  If a player is Overpowered, any player CAN Demand Resignation from
  em by announcement, provided e has announced intent do to so
  between four and fourteen days earlier. The Overpowered player is
  then removed from all offices.

_not_:

  If a player is Overpowered, any player CAN Demand Resignation from
  em With Notice. The Overpowered player is then removed from all
  offices.

These two passages are mechanically identical, but the rule as written does not 
say "With Notice" (or "Without Objection", etc...) so it is not a dependent 
action.

-twg


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deputisation

2018-10-28 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 10:18 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

> So here’s the scam—I think that nothing prevents me from objecting to this
> intent multiple times, every 48 hours, and thereby preventing Agora from
> ever becoming satisfied with it.

Yes there is, which is that Demanding Resignation is _not_ a Dependent Action, 
for this precise reason. Attempts to support or object to it are INEFFECTIVE.

To be sure, you have limited dictator-like powers for the next 96 hours. But 
that's all it is. Sorry.

-twg


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deputisation

2018-10-28 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
CFJ 3664 held that informal grants of permission like this _are_ contracts, 
once another player implicitly accepts the contract by performing the action it 
permits.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 10:25 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> How does this work? Rules seem to only allow for contacts to allow acting on 
> behalf.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Oct 28, 2018, at 3:00 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.




Re: DIS: [Promotor] Index Proposalorum

2018-10-28 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
"Trust no one" has already been adopted as Proposal 8105. Of course that 
doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't accidentally submitted again!

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 7:11 AM, Aris Merchant 
 wrote:

> Does this list of proposals look complete and accurate to you all?
> Thanks in advance!
>
> 8112 Trigon 0.5 Trust no one
> 8113 Trigon 1.5 Heraldic uncertainty
> 8114 G., ATMunn 1.0 The Middle Way
> 8115 Trigon 1.0 Auction cleanup
> 8116 Trigon 1.0 Free auctions 2
> 8117 Trigon, D Margaux 1.5 Control-C, Control-V
> 8119 G. 3.0 Retroactive Documents
> 8120 G. 2.0 Fix for Uncertain Laurelings
> 8121 G. 2.0 Laurels Last Longer
> 8122 D Margaux 2.0 Criminal Justice Adjustments Act
> 8123 Murphy 3.0 Middle of the road
> 8124 D Margaux 2.0 Blot Decay
>
> -Aris




Re: DIS: Attn. Trigon (Re: BUS: CFJ 3672 reassigned and new CFJ issued)

2018-10-29 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
This is what I thought as well, but G. seems to be saying that it's possible 
Trigon and D. Margaux are _both_ the judge of CFJ 3672. I'm a bit hazy on the 
details. Maybe wait for G. to give eir opinion before doing anything?

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 12:11 AM, Aris Merchant 
 wrote:

> As I understand it, for CFJ 3672 it's unclear whether you’re actually the
> judge. If you want to judge it TRUE, you should post your opinion, but not
> attempt to assign the judgement. If you want to judge it FALSE, you should
> both post your opinion and assign the judgement. The reason for this is
> that if it’s TRUE, you’re not a judge, so you can’t assign a judgement to
> it at all.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 4:55 PM Reuben Staley reuben.sta...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
> > Okay, this is very confusing. Can someone give me a short description of
> > what happened and what I need to do now? Should I just publish the
> > judgement for 3671-3 that I was already planning on publishing?
> > On 10/29/2018 11:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > > I think the critical question here is to Trigon. If Trigon's
> > > judgement is TRUE and reasonable enough not to trigger appeal,
> > > then all is fine - D. Margaux happened to deliver it first, but
> > > the arguments came from a neutral source (since D. Margaux, in
> > > eir judgement attempt, explicitly deferred to Trigon's arguments).
> > > If Trigon would find that D. Margaux is not laureled, then it's
> > > fine too: all of D. Margaux attempts failed (e didn't become
> > > Speaker, and e didn't assign the case to emself).
> > > I'm not seeing PARADOX results or anything more complicated than
> > > that - am I missing something there?
> > > On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> > >
> > > > From the Arbitor’s Weekly:
> > > >
> > > > > 3672 called 15 October 2018 by D. Margaux, assigned to Trigon 20
> > > > > October 2018: "Trigon, twg, D. Margaux, G., and L could win the game
> > > > > by announcement under rule 2580 on the Effective Date after the
> > > > > expungement of Trigon's blot."
> > > >
> > > > I issue a cabinet order of certiorari to assign CFJ 3672 to myself.
> > > > I judge CFJ 3672 TRUE for the reasons described in the arguements of
> > > > Trigon and myself copied in the emails below.
> > >
> > > > I CFJ this statement: “D. Margaux’s attempt in this message to assign
> > > > CFJ 3672 to emself was EFFECTIVE.”
> > >
> > > > Arguments regarding that new CFJ:
> > > > This CFJ depends on whether I was able to deputise for Prime Minister
> > > > to appoint myself Speaker. Assuming I were laureled, I believe I could 
> > > > do
> > > > that, because (1) no speaker had been appointed since the Left/Right 
> > > > wins
> > > > that had occurred on October 1, (2) the Deputisation Rule is higher 
> > > > powered
> > > > than Office Incompatibilities Rule, and (3) game precedent seems to
> > > > recognize this because earlier this year G. deputised for PM to appoint
> > > > emself speaker.
> > >
> > > > So the next question is, am I laureled? I was the last player to
> > > > announce victory by Round Robin, which is also the last time anyone
> > > > attempted to win (except for my later failed attempt to win by apathy).
> > > > Therefore, I am laureled, if and only if I was eligible to win by Round
> > > > Robin.
> > >
> > > > Was I eligible to win by Round Robin? That is the question presented in
> > > > CFJ 3672, which I attempted to assign to myself by certiorari. I believe
> > > > the answer is TRUE, and I was eligible, for the reasons described below.
> > >
> > > > However, if Trigon disagrees with that and attempts to give a FALSE
> > > > judgement to CFJ 3672, and if that judgement is not overturned by moot 
> > > > or
> > > > reconsideration, then the judgement in this new CFJ might be 
> > > > PARADOXICAL!
> > > > Otherwise, I think it is TRUE.
> > >
> > > > > On Oct 11, 2018, at 11:06 PM, Reuben Staley reuben.sta...@gmail.com
> > > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Perhaps we could call a CFJ about the set vs. individual
> > > > > interpretations and then, if set is chosen, we could call another one 
> > > > > about
> > > > > clusivity.
> > >
> > > > > A potential wording for the first would be "All players could have won
> > > > > by announcement under rule 2580" and one for the second could be "VJ 
> > > > > Rada,
> > > > > D Margaux, PSS, and G. could have won by announcement under rule 
> > > > > 2580"? I
> > > > > don't know. I only really started paying attention to the CFJ system 
> > > > > once I
> > > > > started making new annotations.
> > >
> > > > > And, for the record, I thought the same as you with regard to
> > > > > interpretations.
> > >
> > > > > > On 10/11/2018 08:28 AM, D Margaux wrote:
> > > > > > I think this is an admirably clear way to put it. I personally had
> > > > > > in mind the set/inclusive interpretation.
> > >
> > > > > > The “individual” interpretation would make each slate’s winning
> > 

DIS: Re: BUS: Stop Speaking

2018-10-31 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Although I guess whether or not you are the Speaker is still subject to CFJ? 
I'm not sure, I don't really have a firm grasp of what's going on. Either way, 
this is unnecessarily confusing at best and might actively cause havoc at worst.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 12:48 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  
wrote:

> I object, on the basis that you are the Speaker and could do this 
> unilaterally by resigning, so this is clearly part of some sort of scam, even 
> though I don't know what it is.
>
> -twg
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 12:09 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com 
> wrote:
>
> > I intend to cause the office of Speaker to become vacant without 2 
> > objections.




Re: DIS: Because I'm new like that

2018-10-31 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
No, not that I know of. As I recall, there was some discussion about making one 
a while ago (for precisely this reason - it's intimidating to new players). But 
it never came to anything.

In my opinion, these are the most important things to know (other people feel 
free to disagree / chip in):

- You take game actions by stating you are taking them in a message to a 
"public forum" (usually agora-busin...@agoranomic.org).
- "Officers" are people who have signed up to keep track of parts of the game's 
status: for example, the Registrar is an officer who keeps track the list of 
players, amongst other things. These details are reported regularly to 
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org. Most officers are elected.
- Anyone can propose changes to the rules. Each week (give or take), we all 
vote on that week's proposals to decide whether to adopt them. Each rule has a 
"Power" rating: the higher the Power, the greater a majority of votes you need 
to change it.
- Disputes about what the rules mean are solved by Calls for Judgement (CFJs). 
You can make a CFJ on any statement, and after a while a 
(hopefully-)knowledgeable person will judge the statement true or false.
- If you break a rule, you get Blots. The more Blots you have, the less highly 
your votes on proposals, officer elections etc. are weighted.
- You get in-game coins when a proposal you made is adopted, when you judge a 
CFJ, or as a monthly salary for being an officer. You lose coins when a 
proposal you made is rejected. You can use coins to buy things.
- Lying is prohibited on the public forums (agora-business and agora-official).
- We generally refer to each other with gender-neutral pronouns: e, em, eir, 
emself.
- We often have "subgames" going on with more interesting and complicated 
rules. The most recent one, "The Land of Arcadia", was ended a few days ago, so 
we're still in the process of coming up with a new one (or two, it's looking 
like).

You picked a fairly good time to arrive because November is about to start, so 
any officers with monthly-scheduled reports will likely be starting to post 
them over the next week or so. That will give you a better idea of what's going 
on at the moment.

Old CFJs are archived here if you're bored one afternoon: 
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 3:43 PM, Aharon Zingman  
wrote:

> Is there a summary of the rules? I'm trying to read the whole SLR but it's
> about as concise as the US tax code.
>
> 
>
> This is a student email account managed by the
> Iowa City Community School
> District.




Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Reminder to claim violet ribbons

2018-11-01 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
No way to take it back now, but for future reference, awarding someone a 
(non-grey) ribbon against eir will is not necessarily a boon, because it makes 
it marginally more difficult to qualify for a transparent ribbon in the future. 
You already have one, but ATMunn and Corona don't. (Nor does Trigon but 
presumably e knows what e's doing.)

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, November 1, 2018 5:46 AM, Kerim Aydin  
wrote:

>
>
> Oh foo, I award a Violet ribbon to each of the below-indicated persons
> who doesn't have one yet.
>
> Notice of Honour
> +1 twg (reminding us)
> -1 Trigon (a little less helpful then twg here :P )
>
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> > Technically, any player can award any other player a ribbon e has earned.
> > I'm not going to do that, though. I award myself a Violet Ribbon.
> > On 10/30/2018 02:08 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> >
> > > The following players earned Violet Ribbons for participating in PAoaM and
> > > can still claim them up until Saturday:
> > > ATMunn
> > > Corona
> > > G.
> > > Trigon
> > > (I internally debated with myself about whether to remind you, but my
> > > fairness-loving side won out.)
> > > -twg
> >
> > --
> > Trigon




Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] let's do some space

2018-11-01 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
I appreciate you've just spent a lot of time writing it _out_ of the proposal, 
but I actually preferred the system where spaceships were assets, like someone 
else (I think Gaelan?) mentioned on the previous draft. It makes extensibility 
much easier because we can say things like

Spaceships can own Modules. A player CAN, by announcement, transfer
a Module from a Spaceship in eir possession to emself.

instead of

A player CAN, by announcement, Equip a Module in eir possession.
Doing so adds the Module to eir Equipped Modules, which is a
Spaceship player switch with values of any set of Modules in the
player's possession (default the empty set). A player CAN also by
announcement Deequip a Module in eir Equipped Modules, which
removes that Module from eir Equipped Modules. Modules in a
player's Equipped Modules are fixed.

It also opens up the possibility for people to have multiple spaceships, or to 
sell spaceships to each other.

Re: recordkeepors, my idea was going to be Astrogator, but honestly I like 
Astronomor better.

I might add something like "The Astronomor SHOULD, in eir weekly report, 
include simple instructions and/or resources for players to use for the 
generation of SHA-512 hashes in Space Battles." When we were discussing the 
previous draft someone (I think Trigon?) mentioned that e didn't really 
understand what a SHA-512 hash was and would find it quite confusing to play, 
so having simple instructions to follow might help with that.

Idea for streamlining Space Battles: The person initiating the Space Battle has 
to provide eir hash in the same message e initiates the Space Battle. Then, the 
second person doesn't need to use a hash at all (there's no point, since the 
first player can't change the energy e decided on). That means the first person 
can reveal eir hash, resolving the Space Battle, in only the second message e 
posts.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, November 1, 2018 1:31 AM, ATMunn  wrote:

> Comments on comments below.
>
> On 10/31/2018 5:50 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:
>
> > Comments inline
> > Gaelan
> >
> > > On Oct 31, 2018, at 2:19 PM, ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > So I've been working on the space proposal some more. It's taken me a lot 
> > > longer than I thought it would, but I've made a ton of progress. I still 
> > > have that feeling that there's something super important I've missed, but 
> > > I can't think of it. Of course, this "update" doesn't really include any 
> > > more features, but I still want to get the core working first. There's a 
> > > changelog at the bottom, by the way.
> > > Title: "spaaace? v0.2"
> > > AI: 1
> > > Author: ATMunn
> > > Co-author(s): [probably lots of people]
> > > Enact a new rule entitled "Sectors", with power 1.0 and the following
> > > text:
> > > {
> > > Sector Count is an untracked singleton switch, which is always the
> > > number of active players plus two.
> >
> > Can just be "The Sector Count is equal to the number of active players plus 
> > two. >
> >
> > > Imminent Sector is an singleton switch, tracked by the Spacekeepor,
> > > defaulting to 1. Every time a player receives a Welcome Package, the
> > > Imminent Sector is increased by one. If the Imminent Sector ever is
> > > greater than the current Sector Count, it is instead set to 1.
> > > [does this rule even work like I want it to?]
> > > }
> > > Enact a new rule entitled "The Spacekeepor", with power 1.0 and the
> > > following text:
> > > {
> > > The Spacekeepor [name suggestions?] is an office; its holder is the
> > > recordkeepor of space. [I don't know if the second clause is even
> > > necessary but it sounds cool]
> >
> > Astronomor?
>
> Sure, if nobody has anything better.
>
> > > The Spacekeepor's Weekly Report shall include:
> > >
> > > 1.  all players' Spaceship switches;
> > > 2.  the current Imminent Sector;
> > > 3.  a list of which players are in which sectors; and
> > > 4.  all space battles that have occured since the last report.
> >
> > IIRC you don’t need to mention switches (they are already tracked by the 
> > spacekeepor).
> > Don’t need to require listing players in sectors, that’s already a switch
>
> Redundancy is nice. But idk maybe I'll take it out.
>
> > > }
> > > Enact a new rule entitled "Spaceships", with power 1.0 and the following
> > > text:
> > > {
> > > Each active player has a set of Switches, collectively known as
> > > Spaceship switches, all tracked by the Spacekeepor. Each of the
> > > following is a Spaceship switch, with its possible values being any
> > > integer in the specified range:
> >
> > Probably a good idea for switches not to go away when a player becomes 
> > inactive.
>
> Probably, I just don't want players fighting against their zombies.
>
> > > Sector, with an inclusive range of 1 to the current Sector Count;
> > >
> > > Energy, with an inclusive range of 0 to 20; and
> > >
> > >
> > > Armour, with an inclusive range of 0 

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Reminder to claim violet ribbons

2018-11-01 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Yes, but if you don't already own the ribbon before earning it, there is a 
longer time period in which it counts towards the transparent ribbon.

For example:

Day 1 12:00: You earn a violet ribbon, but don't qualify for it because you 
already have one. The earning of the violet ribbon begins to count against the 
5 ribbons you need for a transparent ribbon.
Day 8 12:00: 7 days have passed, so the earning of the violet ribbon no longer 
counts against the 5 ribbons you need for a transparent ribbon.

as opposed to:

Day 1 12:00: You earn a violet ribbon, and qualify for it because you don't 
already have one. The qualification for the violet ribbon begins to count 
against the 5 ribbons you need for a transparent ribbon.
Day 5 15:32: You award yourself the violet ribbon, so you no longer qualify for 
it.
Day 12 15:32: 7 days have passed, so the qualification for the violet ribbon no 
longer counts against the 5 ribbons you need for a transparent ribbon.

-twg

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, November 1, 2018 12:03 PM, Reuben Staley  
wrote:

> Actually, that's false. You don't have to award yourself five ribbons to get 
> Transparent, you just have to meet the qualifications.
>
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 01:45 Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
>
> > No way to take it back now, but for future reference, awarding someone a 
> > (non-grey) ribbon against eir will is not necessarily a boon, because it 
> > makes it marginally more difficult to qualify for a transparent ribbon in 
> > the future. You already have one, but ATMunn and Corona don't. (Nor does 
> > Trigon but presumably e knows what e's doing.)
> >
> > -twg
> >
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > On Thursday, November 1, 2018 5:46 AM, Kerim Aydin  
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh foo, I award a Violet ribbon to each of the below-indicated persons
> > > who doesn't have one yet.
> > >
> > > Notice of Honour
> > > +1 twg (reminding us)
> > > -1 Trigon (a little less helpful then twg here :P )
> > >
> > > On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > >
> > > > Technically, any player can award any other player a ribbon e has 
> > > > earned.
> > > > I'm not going to do that, though. I award myself a Violet Ribbon.
> > > > On 10/30/2018 02:08 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The following players earned Violet Ribbons for participating in 
> > > > > PAoaM and
> > > > > can still claim them up until Saturday:
> > > > > ATMunn
> > > > > Corona
> > > > > G.
> > > > > Trigon
> > > > > (I internally debated with myself about whether to remind you, but my
> > > > > fairness-loving side won out.)
> > > > > -twg
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Trigon


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

2018-11-01 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
On Thursday, November 1, 2018 2:01 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> (Remove this comment before publishing the report!)

Drat.

-twg


DIS: Reminder to claim violet ribbons

2018-10-30 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
The following players earned Violet Ribbons for participating in PAoaM and can 
still claim them up until Saturday:

ATMunn
Corona
G.
Trigon

(I internally debated with myself about whether to remind you, but my 
fairness-loving side won out.)

-twg


DIS: Re: BUS: Deputisation

2018-10-30 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
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  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.




Re: DIS: [Proto] Criminal Justice Reform Act

2018-10-25 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
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  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 SHOULD assign the appropriate verdict first-listed below 
> > > > and identify all other appropriate verdicts. If the delivered verdict 
> > > > is believed to be inappropriate, or if a verdict listed earlier below 
> > > > is believed to be appropriate, then any player can change it to the 
> > > > appropriate verdict first-listed below with 1 Agoran Consent. A player 
> > > > SHOULD NOT do so unless it is clear that the new verdict is an 
> > > > appropriate verdict, e.g. because a CFJ has determined that that is the 
> > > > case. Once this occurs, any effects of the of the verdict, such as 
> > > > blots, are prospectively undone.




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

2018-10-27 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Well, none of the report actually self-ratifies at the moment because of the 
bug I pointed out last week, but zombie status wouldn't do anyway, no.

I'll fix this for next week's report and publish it as a revision to this one. 
Sorry Gaelan.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 2:59 PM, Kerim Aydin  
wrote:

>
>
> I don't think it self-ratifies due to your report, but in case it
> does: CoE: Gaelan is no longer a zombie.
>
> > Coins Zombie
> >
> >0Gaelan
> >




DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Weekly report: Delenda fuit

2018-10-27 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Yep, G. pointed this out too. Sorry for the misclassification - I've fixed it 
for the next report (which will be in less than a week so no need to bother 
posting a revision now).

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, October 27, 2018 6:58 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> CoE: I’m not a zombie.
>
> > On Oct 27, 2018, at 7:33 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> >
> > COIN BALANCES
> >
> > ==
> >
> > Rules summary:
> >
> > -   You earn coins when your proposal is adopted; when you judge a CFJ;
> > and at Paydays.
> >
> > -   You lose coins when your proposal is rejected and when a proposal that
> > you didn't vote on fails quorum.
> > Coins Active player
> >
> > 12 ATMunn
> > 18 Aris
> > 1 Corona
> > 9 CuddleBeam
> > 611 D. Margaux
> > 412 G.
> > 10 Hālian
> > 10 L.
> > 14 Murphy
> > 6 omd
> > 8 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > 10 Trigon
> > 44 twg
> > Coins Zombie
> >
> > 0Gaelan
> > 0nichdel
> > 4pokes
> > 0Telnaior
> > 3天火狐
> >
> >
> > 14 V.J. Rada
> > Coins Non-player entity
> >
> > 1097 Agora
> > 12 Lost and Found Department
> >
> >
> > RECORDKEEPOR INDEX
> >
> > ===
> >
> > Asset class Recordkeepor
> >
> > Coins Treasuror
> > Blots Referee
> >
> > RECENT CHANGES
> >
> > ===
> >
> > All times are in UTC. % marks an entry new since the last report.
> > Saturday, October 27, 2018
> > % 14:26 Proposal 8110, "Delenda Est", is adopted, destroying all
> > ore, stones, lumber, apples, cotton, corn, papers, fabric
> > and steel.
> > Monday, October 22, 2018
> > % 00:00 Start of a new week; assets are created in facilities.
> > Saturday, October 20, 2018
> > % 14:02 Hālian receives a Welcome Package of 10 coins, 5 lumber,
> > 5 stones, 10 apples, 3 paper and 5 steel. L. receives a
> > Welcome Package of 10 coins, 5 lumber, 5 stones, 10 apples,
> > 3 paper and 5 steel.
> > Tuesday, October 16, 2018
> > 00:15 o, Kenyon, Quazie and Ouri are deregistered and their
> > assets become property of the Lost and Found Department.
> > Monday, October 15, 2018
> > 00:00 Start of a new week; assets are created in facilities.
> > Thursday, October 11, 2018
> > 23:42 The First Bank of Agora is terminated and its assets become
> > property of the Lost and Found Department. G. transfers
> > 1006 coins from the Lost and Found Department to emself.
> > G. transfers 606 coins to D. Margaux.
> > Monday, October 8, 2018
> > 00:00 Start of a new week; assets are created in facilities.
> > Sunday, October 7, 2018
> > 23:45 The Cartographor's weekly report of September 30, 2018
> > self-ratifies. D. Margaux's orchard at (-3, 1) is destroyed.
> > Tuesday, October 2, 2018
> > 17:45 twg eats 12 apples. twg collects 45 corn from eir farm at
> > (6, -2). twg eats 126 corn.
> > 14:29 D. Margaux transfers 1 coin to nichdel. nichdel pays Agora
> > 1 coin for a land unit.
> > Monday, October 1, 2018
> > 00:50 A batch of proposals are adopted.
> > - 8080 "From each according to eir means v3": Gaelan
> > transfers 10 coins to G. nichdel transfers 10 coins to
> > D. Margaux. Telnaior transfers 30 coins to Aris. ATMunn
> > loses 102 coins. Aris loses 154 coins. Corona loses 9
> > coins. D. Margaux loses 49 coins. G. loses 100 coins.
> > Murphy loses 122 coins. omd loses 54 coins. Publius
> > Scribonius Scholasticus loses 65 coins. Trigon loses
> > 84 coins. twg loses 396 coins. V.J. Rada loses 121
> > coins. Kenyon loses 9 coins. o loses 36 coins. Ouri
> > loses 27 coins. pokes loses 36 coins. Quazie loses 36
> > coins. 天火狐は27コインを失う。
> > - 8082 "Gamestate correction for July 2018": 54 apples
> > and 54 lumber are created in Corona's possession.
> > 00:00 Start of a new week; assets are created in facilities.
> > 00:00 Upkeep costs are due. No facilities are destroyed.
> > 00:00 Payday! All players receive 10 coins, 5 apples and 2 papers.
> > The following officers each receive 5 coins and 1 corn:
> > - Associate Director of Personnel (Murphy)
> > - Arbitor (Murphy)
> > - Assessor (twg)
> > - Cartographor (Trigon)
> > - Distributor (omd)
> > - Prime Minister (Aris)
> > - Promotor (Aris)
> > - Referee (D. Margaux)
> &g

DIS: Since we're doing fancy contracts...

2018-10-27 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
...here's another idea I've been toying with for a while:


This document is a contract between twg (the "Game Master" or "GM") and one or 
more other parties (the "Competitors"). Any player can become a Competitor and 
any Competitor can cease to be a party to this contract. The GM cannot cease to 
be a party.

The text of this document is divided into two sections: the "Immutable Rules" 
and the "Mutable Rules". The Immutable Rules are the portion of the text up to 
and including the first paragraph, other than this one, that contains the 
phrase "The Mutable Rules begin here." The Mutable Rules are the portion of the 
text that is not the Immutable Rules.

The GM SHALL make reasonable efforts to ensure that e remains in possession of 
a full and complete copy of this document, and that its contents are not 
deleted, destroyed, corrupted, stolen, irreversibly encrypted, or otherwise 
placed beyond eir capability to read. The GM SHALL NOT disclose substantial 
portions of the Mutable Rules to other players, except that should a player 
Point eir Finger citing an alleged failure to act in accordance with this 
contract, the GM MAY and SHOULD privately disclose portions of the Mutable 
Rules to the investigator of that Finger Pointing, as necessary for the 
investigator to perform eir investigation. The GM is ENCOURAGED to maintain a 
public version of this document that has each paragraph of the Mutable Rules 
replaced by its SHA-512 hash.

Any party to this contract CAN, With Agoran Consent from Competitors and 
Without Objection from the GM, modify this contract by altering the Immutable 
Rules.  The GM SHOULD NOT object to an announcement of intent to modify this 
contract unless e believes that the modification would be significantly 
detrimental to its correct functioning.

Any party to this contract CAN, With Agoran Consent from Competitors, modify 
this contract by performing any number of the following alterations, in a 
specific order, to the Mutable Rules:
- Adding, at a specific position of eir choice, a paragraph whose text has been 
disclosed to the GM and whose text has been uniquely identified (for example, 
by means of a SHA-512 hash) as part of the announcement of intent to modify the 
contract.
- Removing a specific paragraph.
- Replacing all occurrences of a specific word or phrase with a different 
specific word or phrase.

The Mutable Rules begin here.


-twg


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Quick proposals

2018-11-03 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
On Saturday, November 3, 2018 2:41 AM, Reuben Staley  
wrote:
> * Having a Thesis pass peer-review and be granted a Degree based
> on its merit: 20 shinies

Apparently we call these "coins" now.

-twg


DIS: Uh-oh: CFJ ID clash

2018-11-03 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
D. Margaux wrote:
> Fair enough. This is CFJ 3678. I assign it to Murphy.
(in response to a long email chain that I won't reproduce here)

D. Margaux wrote:
> I CFJ barring twg: “If in the last 48 hours the Speaker has objected to any
> announced intents to Demand Resignation, then Agora is not satisfied with 
> those
> intents and an attempt to Demand Resignation would be INEFFECTIVE.”
>
> I CFJ barring twg: “A player CAN object more than once to a dependent action 
> if
> e has not ever withdrawn an objection to that dependent action.”
>
> These are CFJs 3679 and 3680. I assign them to G.
>
> For what it’s worth, I think they are, in order, FALSE (for reasons twg gave)
> and TRUE (for reasons I gave).

G. attempted to judge these "CFJ 3679" and "CFJ 3680" on November 2.


D. Margaux wrote:
>> On Oct 31, 2018, at 12:32 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
>>
>> I CFJ: "Gaelan transferred a coin to me today."
>
> This is CFJ 3678. I assign it to Murphy.
>
>
>> On Nov 1, 2018, at 5:45 PM, ATMunn  wrote:
>>
>> I CFJ on the following statement: "VJ Rada violated No Faking in the below
>> quoted message."
>
> This is CFJ 3679. I assign it to Trigon.
>
>
>> On Nov 1, 2018, at 5:52 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
>>
>> And I CFJ (linked with the below, please): "V.J. Rada committed the crime of
>> Oathbreaking in eir below-quoted message." Might as well cover all possible
>> bases.
>
> This is CFJ 3680. I assign to Trigon.

Trigon attempted to judge these "CFJ 3679" and "CFJ 3680" on November 3.

I believe that all the CFJs exist, have judges, and both G.'s and Trigon's 
attempts to assign judgements were EFFECTIVE (CFJ 1692-3), but it's going to be 
hellish for recordkeepors to try to deal with.

There are also two different CFJ 3678s assigned to Murphy, which I predict will 
result in a sitcom-like mix-up.

Since CFJ IDs are unregulated, we _can_ just collectively decide to start 
calling the CFJs something else, but that will be confusing for later 
archivists depending on what we choose. My preferred solution is to call the 
first set "CFJ 3678a-3680a" and the second set "CFJ 3678b-3680b", which at 
least preserves the numbers so that they can be searched on. Any other ideas?

-twg


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: 3679-80 judgements

2018-11-03 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
That's interesting. If I were asked to define "gratuitous" outside of an Agoran 
consent I would say "given freely" was the primary meaning, and I would only 
think of "unwarranted" later if at all. Perhaps it's dialectal? Are you 
somewhere in the US? (Brit here.)

In direct answer to your question, I believe "Gratuitous Arguments" were at one 
point rule-defined as something people could add by announcement to open CFJs - 
people still call them that by habit even though they're informal now. I don't 
know what the original justification for the name was, though.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, November 3, 2018 8:27 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

> I’ve been wondering why we call them “gratuitous” arguments. I would have 
> thought that a “gratuitous” argument is one that is unwarranted, excessive, 
> or improper, or at least one that wouldn’t change the outcome of the question 
> under consideration. “Gratuitous” has a secondary meaning of “free of 
> charge,” but I wouldn’t immediately think of that when parsing the phrase 
> “gratuitous argument.”
>
> > On Nov 3, 2018, at 1:53 PM, ATMunn iamingodsa...@gmail.com wrote:
> > You missed my gratuitous arguments, but you ended up with the same 
> > conclusion so whatever. ¯\(ツ)/¯
> >
> > > On 11/3/2018 3:22 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > > == Context message ==
> > > 1 Nov 2018, V.J. Rada:
> > >
> > > > 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.
> > > > == Callers' messages ==
> > > > 1 Nov 2018, ATMunn:
> > > > I CFJ on the following statement: "VJ Rada violated No Faking in the
> > > > below quoted message."
> > > > 1 Nov 2018, twg:
> > > > And I CFJ (linked with the below, please): "V.J. Rada committed the
> > > > crime of Oathbreaking in eir below-quoted message." Might as well
> > > > cover all possible bases.
> > > > == Arguments ==
> > > > 1 Nov 2018, G.:
> > > > There may be a meta-faking here.
> > > > Pledges are to perform or not perform actions, pledging that you are
> > > > someone or something isn't pledging an action (yes, "to be" is a verb,
> > > > but I still argue that a state of being isn't an action in this
> > > > sense).
> > > > So this fails to make a pledge, so is INEFFECTIVE. So if e was trying
> > > > to fool people into thinking this was an effective pledge, that could
> > > > be Faking.
> > > > == Relevant Rules ==
> > > > Rule 2471/1 (Power=1)
> > > > No Faking
> > > > A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that is a lie. A
> > > > statment is a lie if its publisher either knew or believed it to
> > > > be not to be true at the time e published it (or, in the case of
> > > > an action, not to be effective), and it was made with the intent
> > > > to mislead. Merely quoting a statement does not constitute making
> > > > it for the purposes of this rule. Any disclaimer, conditional
> > > > clause, or other qualifier attached to a statement constitutes
> > > > part of the statement for the purposes of this rule; the truth or
> > > > falsity of the whole is what is significant.
> > > > The previous provisions of this rule notwithstanding, a formal
> > > > announcement of intent is never a lie.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > > == Judgement of CFJ 3680 ==
> > > The Pledges rule doesn't use all that much terminology, to be honest, so
> > > it is a bit hard to check where the rules lie here. From my reading,
> > > V.J.'s claim to have made a pledge is INEFFECTIVE since e did not pledge
> > > to "perform (or refrain from performing)" any actions. Since e did not
> > > actually create the pledge, the next statement affirming the
> > > truthfulness of the pledge is also INEFFECTIVE. As there is no pledge,
> > > V.J. did not commit the crime of Oathbreaking.
> > > I judge FALSE.
> > > == Judgement of CFJ 3679 ==
> > > Since, per CFJ 3680, the pledge mentioned does not exist, the statement
> > > affirming the pledge's truthfulness is also INEFFECTIVE. INEFFECTIVE
> > > statements are not lies.
> > > The next paragraph also contains no lies.
> > > I also believe G.'s arguments to be irrelevent to the case, since they
> > > involve an abstraction of the actual statements, and No Faking does not
> > > allow people to be punished for such things.
> > > I judge FALSE.




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: 3679-80 judgements

2018-11-03 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
On Saturday, November 3, 2018 8:33 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> outside of an Agoran consent

I meant, of course, "outside of an Agoran context".

-twg


DIS: Re: BUS: the other conflict of interest

2018-10-29 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
No need. Demanding Resignation vacates _all_ the player's officers, not just 
the ones making em Overpowered, so my own announced intent works for these too.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, October 29, 2018 3:23 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> D. Margaux is both Arbitor and Referee, thus Overpowered.
>
> I intend to Demand Resignation from em.
>
> (If need be, I'll do Arbitor).




DIS: Hypothetical: What if a player dies?

2018-10-29 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
This randomly occurred to me recently.

Rule 869/44 indicates that a dead organism is not a person, because it is not 
capable of thinking. So if an organism who was a player died, e would cease to 
be a person and COULD NOT be a player any longer. But this is not the same as 
"deregistering", because that is the act of flipping a Citizenship switch to 
Unregistered, and non-persons do not have Citizenship switches. Are there rules 
that would malfunction if this happened?

Non-persons also cannot have Patent Titles, Ribbons etc, so we have a potential 
loss of historical information in Herald, Tailor and Registrar reports. Not to 
mention that dying could cause someone to cease to be a party to a contract 
that would otherwise prohibit em from doing so.

R2350 says:

> Creating a proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool. Once a proposal is created, 
> nether its text nor any of the aforementioned attributes can be changed. The 
> author (syn. proposer) of a proposal is the _person_ who submitted it.

(emphasis mine) If the organism that was once the author of a proposal dies, 
then that proposal's author is now undefined, which is a change in one of the 
aforementioned attributes. So the rule is self-contradictory! Same for 
co-authors.

Regulations Promulgated by an organism cease to be Regulations when the 
organism dies.

And what if an Auctioneer or vote collector dies?

Perhaps Rule 869 should be amended to state that any people continue to be 
people in perpetuity even if they stop meeting the definition of a person.

-twg


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: the other conflict of interest

2018-10-29 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Ah, fair enough. I also issued general permission for anyone to act on my 
behalf to fulfill that intent, but I suppose I could revoke that (not that I 
would do).

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, October 29, 2018 4:53 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> I know, but the Overpowered version of act w/intent doesn't allow me to
> act on others' intent. If D. Margaux resigns from PM, and whomever
> announced intent yesterday is satisfied with em stepping down from PM
> and doesn't carry through with eir intent, I wanted the option of removal
> for the Arbitor/Referee combo (and wanted to make it clear now why).
>
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > No need. Demanding Resignation vacates all the player's officers, not just 
> > the ones making em Overpowered, so my own announced intent works for these 
> > too.
> > -twg
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > On Monday, October 29, 2018 3:23 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > D. Margaux is both Arbitor and Referee, thus Overpowered.
> > > I intend to Demand Resignation from em.
> > > (If need be, I'll do Arbitor).




DIS: SCAM ALERT (was Re: BUS: Contract Hash)

2018-11-05 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Actually, why am I even bothering with trying to outmanoeuvre Gaelan on my own. 
3 coins is nothing in the scheme of things.

The text of the document in question is as follows:

{If proposal 8114 is resolved before Nov 7th (UTC), Gaelan SHALL pay twg 3 
coins.}

Proposal 8114, which I MUST resolve ADOPTED before 12th November 2018 01:16 
UTC, is reproduced below. Y'all've got 6 days to figure out what e's planning.

//
ID: 8114
Title: Free auctions 2
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Trigon
Co-authors: twg, G.


[ Comment: Not sure how I actually feel about this being enacted but
  proposals are cheap so I might as well.

  Version 2: Clear up wording. ]

Create a new power-1 rule entitled 'Free Auctions' with the text:

  A player who is not the Auctioneer of an existing Auction
  specified by this rule CAN, by announcement, initiate an auction
  with emself as the Announcer and Auctioneer.

//

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, November 5, 2018 8:38 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

> I consent to be bound by the terms of the document with this SHA-1 hash sent 
> to me by Gaelan.
>
> -twg
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Monday, November 5, 2018 7:55 PM, Gaelan Steele g...@canishe.com wrote:
>
> > 073e2cd64e36b95a054420a988ea6c37800d09cc
> > Gaelan




Re: DIS: [Promotor] Index Proposalorum

2018-11-11 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Also, you are missing "Bugfix: Treasuror doesn't self-ratify v2":

https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg32959.html

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, November 11, 2018 8:55 AM, Aris Merchant 
 wrote:

> Here's my draft list of proposals. If I'm missing anything, please let
> me know. Also, all ID numbers are provisional. Thank you!
>
> ID Author(s) AI Title
>
> 
>
> 8123 Gaelan 3.0 Independence
> 8124 Trigon 1.0 Only proposals should be distributed
> 8125 Trigon 3.0 Time periods are confusing
> 8126 Trigon 3.0 High-level asset verbs
> 8127 Trigon 2.0 Reinstituting Rewards
> 8128 Trigon 1.0 Happy Birthday To You
> 8129 twg 2.0 [1]
>
> [1] With not very much responsibility comes fewer shinies
>
> -Aris




DIS: Re: BUS: Dummy contract

2018-11-11 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
I have to say, I'm really, really curious what it is you have up your sleeve...

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, November 12, 2018 12:11 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> The quoted offer is void. New version with the actual text so that people 
> know it’s not dangerous:
>
> I agree to be bound by the following contract with one other player (after 
> that player agrees, I do not agree to further copies): {
> A party to this contract CAN, one time only, act on Gaelan’s behalf to 
> transfer 3 coins to emselves.
> Nothings are a currency. Gaelan CAN create Nothings in his possession by 
> announcement.
> }
>
> > On Nov 11, 2018, at 1:00 PM, Gaelan Steele g...@canishe.com wrote:
> > I need a contract for a thing.
> > I agree to be bound by the following contract with one other player (after 
> > that player agrees, I do not agree to further copies):
> > {
> > A party to this contract CAN, one time only, act on Gaelan’s behalf to 
> > transfer 3 coins to emselves.
> > Gaelan CAN amend this contract by announcement, as long as the amendment 
> > does not remove or modify these first two paragraphs, introduce any further 
> > obligations on parties to this contract other than Gaelan, allow acting on 
> > behalf of parties to this contract other than Gaelan, or allow amendments 
> > to this contract through a mechanism other than this one.
> > }
> > Gaelan




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8112-8122

2018-11-15 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Which is carried forward from the Promotor's report, which also lists its AI as 
1.5 and 3 in different places :P

Can you remember what you originally submitted as its AI, Trigon? (It doesn't 
affect whether or not it passed - only how many coins you earned for it.)

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Thursday, November 15, 2018 2:17 AM, Ørjan Johansen  
wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
>
> > Hold up. That's INEFFECTIVE since the rule it modifies is power 1.5. The AI
> > must have been misreported.
>
> Actually Proposal 8116 is probably either right or overpowered - the
> Assessor's Report says its AI is 1.5 and 3 in different places.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>
> > On 11/14/2018 04:35 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> >
> > > I award myself an Orange ribbon.
> > > On 11/11/2018 06:13 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > >
> > > > RIBBONS EARNED IN THIS RESOLUTION
> > > >
> > > > ==
> > > >
> > > > This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify.
> > > > Player    Ribbon    Proposal(s)
> > > >     --    --    ---
> > > >     G.    Orange    8112
> > > >     Trigon    Orange    8116
> > > >     D. Margaux    Orange    8119
> > > >     D. Margaux    Red   8120
> > > >     G.    Red   8121
> > > >     G.    Orange    8121
> > > >     Murphy    Red   8122
> >
> > --
> > Trigon




Re: DIS: SCAM ALERT (was Re: BUS: Contract Hash)

2018-11-06 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Normally when someone seems suspiciously anxious to have something happen at a 
certain time, I expect it to be intended to  help em qualify for a transparent 
ribbon. But I don't see any way for this proposal to inadvertently grant Gaelan 
one ribbon, never mind five.

It might work if e could somehow start an auction with Agora as Auctioneer and 
lots of eir own choice, but the proposed rule pretty clearly forbids that.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, November 5, 2018 10:53 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

> I confess I am hopelessly confused. The contract doesn’t seem to affect 
> anyone besides twg and Gaelan. Is it a flaw in the proposal? But then what 
> does that have to do with the timing of adoption?
>
> > On Nov 5, 2018, at 3:49 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> > Actually, why am I even bothering with trying to outmanoeuvre Gaelan on my 
> > own. 3 coins is nothing in the scheme of things.
> > The text of the document in question is as follows:
> > {If proposal 8114 is resolved before Nov 7th (UTC), Gaelan SHALL pay twg 3 
> > coins.}
> > Proposal 8114, which I MUST resolve ADOPTED before 12th November 2018 01:16 
> > UTC, is reproduced below. Y'all've got 6 days to figure out what e's 
> > planning.
> > //
> > ID: 8114
> > Title: Free auctions 2
> > Adoption index: 1.0
> > Author: Trigon
> > Co-authors: twg, G.
> > [ Comment: Not sure how I actually feel about this being enacted but
> > proposals are cheap so I might as well.
> > Version 2: Clear up wording. ]
> > Create a new power-1 rule entitled 'Free Auctions' with the text:
> > A player who is not the Auctioneer of an existing Auction
> > specified by this rule CAN, by announcement, initiate an auction
> > with emself as the Announcer and Auctioneer.
> > //////////
> > -twg
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> >
> > > On Monday, November 5, 2018 8:38 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red 
> > > wrote:
> > > I consent to be bound by the terms of the document with this SHA-1 hash 
> > > sent to me by Gaelan.
> > > -twg
> > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > >
> > > > On Monday, November 5, 2018 7:55 PM, Gaelan Steele g...@canishe.com 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > 073e2cd64e36b95a054420a988ea6c37800d09cc
> > > > Gaelan




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Weekly report: Forbes 500

2018-11-11 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
These are CoEs, not CFJs :)

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, November 11, 2018 7:18 PM, Kerim Aydin  
wrote:

>
>
> (Or, since D. Margaux also re-raised the issue and assigned a new
> case, these could be withdrawn).
>
> On Sun, 11 Nov 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > I favor these.
> > My apologies, I wrote 3/4 of the judgement in question but then real life
> > clobbered me this past week - if I'm assigned I can judge these within
> > 1-2 days of assignment.
> > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> >
> > > I CoE this report: "D. Margaux did not judge CFJ 3672, so e possesses 
> > > only 636 coins."
> > > I CoE this report: "Trigon did not judge CFJ 3672, so e possesses only 35 
> > > coins."
> > > In response to both these CoEs, I cite CFJ 3681.
> > > Notice of Honour:
> > > -1 G. (not having properly judged CFJ 3681 yet)
> > > +1 天火狐 (being an obedient zombie)
> > > -twg
> > > Original Message
> > > On Sunday, November 11, 2018 4:49 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Date of this weekly report: 2018-11-11
> > > > Date of last weekly report: 2018-10-30
> > > > [Hopefully this is the last time I rearrange the report layout for a
> > > > while! I'm fairly satisfied with it now.]
> > > > ASSET INDEX
> > > > ===
> > > > This section does not self-ratify.
> > > > Asset class Recordkeepor
> > > > Coins Treasuror (twg)
> > > > Blots Referee (twg)
> > > > COIN BALANCES
> > > > =
> > > > This section does not self-ratify due to a bug. See Proposal .
> > > > Coins Active players
> > > >
> > > >   17ATMunn
> > > >   33Aris
> > > >6Corona
> > > >   14CuddleBeam
> > > >  641D. Margaux
> > > >  426G.
> > > >   14Gaelan
> > > >   15Hālian
> > > >   15L.
> > > >   24Murphy
> > > >   16omd
> > > >   13Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> > > >   15Tarhalindur
> > > >   40Trigon
> > > >   65twg
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Coins Zombies
> > > >
> > > >5nichdel
> > > >0pokes
> > > >5Telnaior
> > > >0天火狐
> > > >   19V.J. Rada
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Coins Non-player entities
> > > >
> > > > 1135Agora
> > > >   12Lost and Found Department
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > RECENT HISTORY
> > > > =
> > > > This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify.
> > > > Entity Change Time (UTC) Reason
> > > >
> > > > D. Margaux + 5c. 2018-11-10 20:05 Judged CFJ 3686
> > > > D. Margaux + 5c. 2018-11-10 20:05 Judged CFJ 3685
> > > > G. + 9c. 2018-11-06 00:10 Transfer from pokes
> > > > pokes - 9c. 2018-11-06 00:10 Transfer to G.
> > > > twg + 8c. 2018-11-05 21:01 Transfer from 天火狐
> > > > 天火狐 - 8c. 2018-11-05 21:01 Transfer to twg
> > > > Agora + 13c. 2018-11-05 20:55 Zombie auction (天火狐)
> > > > twg - 13c. 2018-11-05 20:55 Zombie auction (天火狐)
> > > > Agora + 25c. 2018-11-05 15:12 Zombie auction (pokes)
> > > > G. - 25c. 2018-11-05 15:12 Zombie auction (pokes)
> > > > Trigon + 5c. 2018-11-03 07:22 Judged CFJ 3684
> > > > Trigon + 5c. 2018-11-03 07:22 Judged CFJ 3683
> > > > G. + 5c. 2018-11-02 17:45 Judged CFJ 3680
> > > > G. + 5c. 2018-11-02 17:45 Judged CFJ 3679
> > > > twg + 5c. 2018-11-01 13:56 Judged CFJ 3677
> > > > V.J. Rada + 5c. 2018-11-01 00:00 Payday
> > > > twg + 25c. 2018-11-01 00:00 Payday (Assessor etc.)
> > > > Trigon + 10c. 2018-11-01 00:00 Payday (Rulekeepor)
> > > > 天火狐 + 5c. 2018-11-01 00:00 Payday
> > > > Telnaior + 5c. 2018-11-01 00:00 Payday
> > > > Tarhalindur + 5c. 2018-11-01 00:00 Payday
> > > > P.S.S. + 5c. 2018-11-0

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8123-8132

2018-11-12 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
> > On Nov 11, 2018, at 9:38 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> > Votes inline
> > > On Nov 11, 2018, at 7:34 PM, Aris Merchant 
> > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > 8131 天火狐, twg 2.0 V.J. Rada Protection Act
> > > AGAINST, this is already handled by 2552/0¶1.

I disagree - the auction rules already say that "[for the purposes of auction 
resolution] Agora CAN do anything", and transferring a player is defined as 
being the flipping of eir master switch to the new owner. So technically Agora 
CAN flip a non-zombie's master switch to someone else, making them a zombie 
again (provided it is part of the resolution of an auction). No?

-twg


Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8123-8132

2018-11-12 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Yeah, a couple of people have mentioned that. I have no idea why, and it's 
really annoying. I assume it's some weird bug with my email provider, but I 
can't see anything obviously wrong in the headers. Your guess is as good as 
mine, I'm afraid.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, November 12, 2018 11:03 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> Actually, that sentence is gone now. But you’re right, this case isn’t 
> necessarily covered, but I still think maybe we should be adapting that 
> clause to handle this case? I’m not sure. I change my vote to PRESENT.
>
> Gaelan
>
> P.S. Whenever I reply to you, the email is addressed to both you and 
> agora-discussion, and I have to manually remove you. Any idea why that 
> happens?
>
> > On Nov 12, 2018, at 2:25 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> >
> > > > On Nov 11, 2018, at 9:38 PM, Gaelan Steele g...@canishe.com wrote:
> > > > Votes inline
> > > >
> > > > > On Nov 11, 2018, at 7:34 PM, Aris Merchant 
> > > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > 8131 天火狐, twg 2.0 V.J. Rada Protection Act
> > > > > AGAINST, this is already handled by 2552/0¶1.
> >
> > I disagree - the auction rules already say that "[for the purposes of 
> > auction resolution] Agora CAN do anything", and transferring a player is 
> > defined as being the flipping of eir master switch to the new owner. So 
> > technically Agora CAN flip a non-zombie's master switch to someone else, 
> > making them a zombie again (provided it is part of the resolution of an 
> > auction). No?
> > -twg




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Cuddle Beam Finger Points

2018-10-05 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
I wish I had a zombie at the moment so I could give you karma for this.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Friday, October 5, 2018 2:17 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> I suspect "Oatbreaking is per se prohibited by law" is trivially false,
> because I don't think that breaking oats is inherently forbidden by law.
>
> I might be wrong though, it's worth looking into our rights for oats. I eat
> a lot for breakfast so I'm quite concerned.
>
> On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 4:15 AM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > To be clear, the precise requirement for a penalty is that the action
> > in question must be "prohibited by law" (R2531). Rule 2152 makes it
> > clear that marking something ILLEGAL means that "Performing the
> > described action violates the rule in question", but no rule states
> > that such a marking is a necessary condition for an action to be a
> > violation. Furthermore, Rule 2450 implies quite strongly that
> > Oathbreaking is per se ILLEGAL.
> > I CFJ, barring CuddleBeam, "Committing a Crime is per se prohibited by
> > law". I CFJ, barring CuddleBeam, "Oatbreaking is per se prohibited by
> > law".
> > -Aris
> > On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 6:37 PM Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 4 Oct 2018, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> > >
> > > > After checking the rules: violating pledges is defined as a crime, but
> > > > I can't see any actual requirement to avoid committing crime. The
> > > > relationship between crimes and illegal actions does not seem to be
> > > > well-defined. The most plausible readings of the rules I can see (based
> > > > on Trigon's recent attempt at producing a ruleset) are:
> > >
> > > I just looked through, with the exception of pledges, it looks like all
> > > Crimes are directly associated with an explicit SHALL, SHALL NOT, or
> > > ILLEGAL (e.g. "players SHALL NOT X, doing so is the class N crime of...")
> > > Pledges used to have an ILLEGAL but that was removed on June 15.
> > > Maybe pledges have no force at all, so don't set up any requirements.




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Something to See Here After All

2018-10-02 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Also, I believe the appropriate judgement for the CFJ would be DISMISS, since 
it refers to an action that you did not take, whether or not it would have been 
EFFECTIVE. (You did not attempt to transfer coins from the contract to 
yourself; you attempted to _cause the contract_ to transfer coins from itself 
to you.)

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 4:47 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 2:29 PM, D Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I cause the contract between me and G entitled the First Bank of Agora to
> > transfer to me a number of coins equal to the number of coins that I have
> > previously transferred to that contract.
>
> By what rule-defined mechanism do you cause the contract to do this?
>
> -twg




DIS: Re: BUS: Something to See Here After All

2018-10-02 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 2:29 PM, D Margaux  wrote:
> I cause the contract between me and G entitled the First Bank of Agora to
> transfer to me a number of coins equal to the number of coins that I have
> previously transferred to that contract.

By what rule-defined mechanism do you cause the contract to do this?

-twg


DIS: Re: BUS: Nothing to See Here

2018-09-30 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Good attempt at a scam. I had already anticipated it, however, and I think you 
will find you'd rather have submitted to the currency revaluation.

If anyone spots the booby-trap, please don't point it out. I want the delicious 
satisfaction of seeing their reactions when it activates. c:

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, September 30, 2018 11:05 PM, D Margaux  wrote:

> The text of the contract between me and G. is provided at bottom of this
> email.
>
> I transfer 30 coins to nichdel.
>
> I transfer all of my coins to the contract below between me and G.
>
> I cause nichdel to transfer 30 coins to me.
>
> I CFJ (barring Aris) this statement: “D. Margaux’s attempt in this message
> to transfer coins to the contract between em and G. is EFFECTIVE.” (I note
> for the Arbitor’s benefit that G. is an interested party. Also twg might be
> considered an interested party because this transfer circumvents the
> “according to eir means” proposals that e authored.)
>
> If my attempt to transfer coins to the contract between me and G. was
> INEFFECTIVE, then I change my vote and cause nichdel to change eir vote on
> 8081B* to FOR.
>
> / Contract between D. Margaux and G. /
>
> 1.  This is a contract between D. Margaux and G. (the “parties”). Other
> players CANNOT join this contract without consent of both parties. This
> contract CAN be terminated by consent of both parties.
>
> 2.  The name of this contract is the “First Bank of Agora.”
> 3.  A party to this contract has “on deposit in the contract” an amount of
> coins equal to the total number of coins e has deposited in this contract,
> minus the total number of coins e has withdrawn from the contract.
>
> 4.  Any party to this contract CAN transfer coins to this contract. Making
> such a transfer is called “depositing” those coins in the contract.
>
> 5.  Any party to this contract CAN cause the contract to transfer to em any
> amount of coins less than or equal to the number of coins e has on deposit
> in the contract. Making such a transfer is called “withdrawing” the coins
> from the contract.
>
> / end of contract /
>
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 7:12 PM Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
>
>
> > I agree to the exchanged Contract with this hash. -G.
> > On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> >
> > > G. and I have exchanged a document that has text with the following
>
> SHA256
>
> > > hash:
> > > 58629980096A5E997EC5CF62C04B59EBFBEEAF81DD4785B50CCF190E1F24CE2D
> > > I agree to be bound by that text and I agree and consent for that text
>
> to
>
> > > be a contract between me and G., if G. likewise agrees.




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8077B-8081B, 8082A-8085A, 8087A-8089A and 8096-8103

2018-10-02 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
That reply was in response to D. Margaux's similar CoE, not yours. I properly 
responded to your CoE by citing the appropriate CFJ.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 6:29 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > It's not a conditional vote, it's a conditional action to change
> > the vote. You still submitted an unconditional vote; it's just thatthe 
> > content of your vote is, er, conditional on something else.
>
> How on earth do you come up with that reading? My message was:
>
> > I vote as follows [snip]
> > [...]
> > Conditional: If G. successfully transferred at least 1 coin to a
> > contract in this message, AGAINST, otherwise FOR.
>
> How is the "conditional" not clearly and obviously part of the vote
> (i.e. a conditional ballot)?




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8077B-8081B, 8082A-8085A, 8087A-8089A and 8096-8103

2018-10-02 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
It's not a conditional _vote_, it's a conditional _action to change the vote_. 
You still submitted an unconditional vote; it's just that the content of your 
vote is, er, conditional on something else.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 6:01 PM, D Margaux  wrote:

> I think my vote on 8081 was also conditional, unless I did it wrong. I
> wrote in the Bank of Agora email:
>
> > If my attempt to transfer coins to the contract
> > between me and G. was INEFFECTIVE, then I
> > change my vote and cause nichdel to
> > change eir vote on 8081B* to FOR.
>
> But maybe I messed up the conditional somehow.
>
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 1:56 PM Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
>
> > I CoE on my votes and Gaelan's votes on 8081. I believe it is
> > uncertain whether my conditional resolved to F or A, as it us uncertain
> > whether my transfers of coins to the contract succeeded.
> > This won't change the fact that 8081 was rejected, so there's no
> > game uncertainty that will propagate from this CoE outside the coin
> > holdings of myself and D. Margaux.
> > [This is true for 8080 as well, but I don't want to CoE that one -
> > it will be Adopted either way, and the uncertainty would propagate
> > to everyone's coin holdings in the mean time].
> > On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> >
> > > TALLY OF VOTES
> > >
> > > ===
> > >
> > > Brackets indicate a conditional vote.
> > >
> > >+++++++++++++
> > >|8077|8078|8079|8080|8081|8082|8083|8084|8085|8087|8088|8089|
> > >
> > >
> > > +--+++++++++++++
> > > |Aris | AA | AA | P | FF | FF | FF | FF | FF | AA | FF | FF | FF |
> > > |D. Margaux| F | F | F | F | A | F | F | F | F | F | F | F |
> > > |G. | F | A | A |(A )|(A )| F | F | A | F | A | P | P |
> > > |twg | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F |
> > > +--+++++++++++++
> > > |Gaelan | F | A | A |(A )|(A )| F | F | A | F | A | P | P |
> > > |Kenyon | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | P |
> > > |nichdel | F | F | F | F | A | F | F | F | F | F | F | F |
> > > |Telnaior | A | A | P | F | F | F | F | F | A | F | F | F |
> > > +--+++++++++++++
> > > |FOR | 5 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
> > > |AGAINST | 3 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
> > > |AI | 3.0| 2.0| 2.0| 2.0| 3.0| 1.0| 3.0| 1.0| 1.0| 1.0| 1.0| 1.0|
> > > |Ballots | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 |
> > > |Quorum | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
> > > |Resolved |REJ.|REJ.|REJ.|ADO.|REJ.|ADO.|ADO.|ADO.|ADO.|ADO.|ADO.|ADO.|
> > > +--+++++++++++++




DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8077B-8081B, 8082A-8085A, 8087A-8089A and 8096-8103

2018-10-02 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
I respond to your CoE by citing the CFJ inquiring into the statement "G.’s 
attempt in the message quoted below to transfer coins to the contract between 
em and D. Margaux is EFFECTIVE."

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 5:54 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> I CoE on my votes and Gaelan's votes on 8081. I believe it is
> uncertain whether my conditional resolved to F or A, as it us uncertain
> whether my transfers of coins to the contract succeeded.
>
> This won't change the fact that 8081 was rejected, so there's no
> game uncertainty that will propagate from this CoE outside the coin
> holdings of myself and D. Margaux.
>
> [This is true for 8080 as well, but I don't want to CoE that one -
> it will be Adopted either way, and the uncertainty would propagate
> to everyone's coin holdings in the mean time].
>
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > TALLY OF VOTES
> >
> > ===
> >
> > Brackets indicate a conditional vote.
> >
> >+++++++++++++
> >|8077|8078|8079|8080|8081|8082|8083|8084|8085|8087|8088|8089|
> >
> >
> > +--+++++++++++++
> > |Aris | AA | AA | P | FF | FF | FF | FF | FF | AA | FF | FF | FF |
> > |D. Margaux| F | F | F | F | A | F | F | F | F | F | F | F |
> > |G. | F | A | A |(A )|(A )| F | F | A | F | A | P | P |
> > |twg | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F | F |
> > +--+++++++++++++
> > |Gaelan | F | A | A |(A )|(A )| F | F | A | F | A | P | P |
> > |Kenyon | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | P | P |
> > |nichdel | F | F | F | F | A | F | F | F | F | F | F | F |
> > |Telnaior | A | A | P | F | F | F | F | F | A | F | F | F |
> > +--+++++++++++++
> > |FOR | 5 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 8 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
> > |AGAINST | 3 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
> > |AI | 3.0| 2.0| 2.0| 2.0| 3.0| 1.0| 3.0| 1.0| 1.0| 1.0| 1.0| 1.0|
> > |Ballots | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 |
> > |Quorum | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
> > |Resolved |REJ.|REJ.|REJ.|ADO.|REJ.|ADO.|ADO.|ADO.|ADO.|ADO.|ADO.|ADO.|
> > +--+++++++++++++




DIS: Re: BUS: RE: BU S: Some moves and such

2018-09-30 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Unfortunately this wouldn't converge the gamestate because, if these actions 
succeed, your location is now different to what it was before.

I don't believe they do succeed, though (and I see Trigon has made the same 
decision in eir Cartographor report just now), because even if the contract is 
invalid, D. Margaux has your reasonably implied consent to loot your 
facilities, so it's academic.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, September 30, 2018 10:06 PM, Corona  
wrote:

> PF
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 12:06 AM Corona liliumalbum.ag...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > To converge the gamestate, I perform the following actions (all
> > INEFFECTIVE if I have successfully given everything to D. Margaux):
> > I spend 1 apple to move to (0, 2).
> > I spend 1 apple to move to (1, 2).
> > I spend 1 apple to move to (2, 2) and take all the assets from the
> > facility at that location.
> > I spend 1 apple to move to (2, 1) and take all the assets from the
> > facility at that location.
> > I spend 1 apple to move to (3, 1).
> > I spend 1 apple to move to (2, 1)
> > I spend 1 apple to move to (2, 0)
> > I spend 1 apple to move to (2, -1) and take all the assets from the
> > facility at that location.
> > I spend 2 apples to move to (2, -2) and take all the assets from the
> > facility at that location.
> > I spend 1 apple to move to (1, -2) and take all the assets from the
> > facility at that location.
> > I spend 1 apple to move to (0, -2)
> > I spend 1 apple to move to (0, -3).
> > I spend 1 apple to move to (0, -2)
> > I spend 1 apple to move to (0, -1)
> > I spend 1 apple to move to (-1, -1)
> > I spend 2 apples to move to (-2, -1).
> > I spend 2 apples to move to (-2, 0) and take all the assets from the
> > facility at that location.
> > I spend 1 apple to move to (-3, 0) and take all the assets from the
> > facility at that location.
> > I spend 1 apple to move to (-4, 0) and take all the assets from the
> > facility at that location.
> > I spend 1 apple to move to (-5, 0) and take all the assets from the
> > facility at that location.
> > I pay the following upkeep for the following facilities:
> > 7 (+2, +2) 2 Mine 2 lumber
> > A (+2, -1) 2 Mine 2 lumber
> > G (-3, 0) 2 Mine 2 lumber
> > 8 (+2, +1) 2 Orchard 2 stones
> > B (+2, -2) 2 Orchard 2 stones
> > F (-2, 0) 2 Orchard 2 stones
> > J (-4, 0) 3 Orchard 4 stones
> > K (-5, 0) 3 Orchard 4 stones
> > C (+1, -2) 2 Farm 1 lumber & 1 stone
> > I transfer all my liquid assets to D. Margaux
> > ~Corona
> > On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 1:41 AM D Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > No idea if I got this all correct. But here goes.
> > > I spend 1 apple to move to (0, 2).
> > > I spend 1 apple to move to (1, 2).
> > > I spend 1 apple to move to (2, 2) and take all the assets from the
> > > facility at that location.
> > > I spend 1 apple to move to (2, 1) and take all the assets from the
> > > facility at that location.
> > > I spend 1 apple to move to (3, 1).
> > > I spend 1 apple to move to (2, 1)
> > > I spend 1 apple to move to (2, 0)
> > > I spend 1 apple to move to (2, -1) and take all the assets from the
> > > facility at that location.
> > > I spend 2 apples to move to (2, -2) and take all the assets from the
> > > facility at that location.
> > > I spend 1 apple to move to (1, -2) and take all the assets from the
> > > facility at that location.
> > > I spend 1 apple to move to (0, -2)
> > > I spend 1 apple to move to (0, -3).
> > > I spend 1 apple to move to (0, -2)
> > > I spend 1 apple to move to (0, -1)
> > > I spend 1 apple to move to (-1, -1)
> > > I spend 2 apples to move to (-2, -1).
> > > I spend 2 apples to move to (-2, 0) and take all the assets from the
> > > facility at that location.
> > > I spend 1 apple to move to (-3, 0) and take all the assets from the
> > > facility at that location.
> > > I spend 1 apple to move to (-4, 0) and take all the assets from the
> > > facility at that location.
> > > I spend 1 apple to move to (-5, 0) and take all the assets from the
> > > facility at that location.
> > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 8:34 AM D Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > I pay 1 apple to move to (-1, 2). I pay 1 apple to move to (0, 2). I
> > > > take the coins at (0, 2).
> > > > [Comment: I am pretty confident that I can do this, even if the
> > > > initial transfer was
> > > > INEFFECTIVE, because I have Corona's implied consent]
> > > > If Corona has transferred these facilities to me, then I pay the
> > > > following upkeep
> > > > for the following facilities:
> > > > 6 ( 0, +2) Refinery 3 steel
> > > > 7 (+2, +2) 2 Mine 2 lumber
> > > > A (+2, -1) 2 Mine 2 lumber
> > > > G (-3, 0) 2 Mine 2 lumber
> > > > 8 (+2, +1) 2 Orchard 2 stones
> > > > B (+2, -2) 2 Orchard 2 stones
> > > > F (-2, 0) 2 Orchard 2 stones
> > > > J (-4, 0) 3 Orchard 4 stones
> > > > K (-5, 0) 3 Orchard 4 stones
> > > > C (+1, -2) 2 Farm 1 lumber & 1 stone
> > > > If Corona has not transferred those facilities to me, then I 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8077B-8081B, 8082A-8085A, 8087A-8089A and 8096-8103

2018-10-02 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Oh crap. Yes, you're right, I think - hadn't realised it before. That's 
incredibly confusing (though still, I think, unlikely to happen).

OK, please nobody do anything major with coins until these CFJs are judged, 
otherwise we may end up with a horrible divergence.

On the plus side, both the most recent Treasuror report and the Assessor 
resolution we're all talking about are blocked from self-ratification, so we 
don't have a time limit for working it out. (Except Trigon being obliged to 
destroy all player-owned land next week, but that shouldn't affect coin/point 
ownership directly.)

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 9:20 PM, D Margaux  wrote:

> But just to clarify—if the CFJs find that G and i couldn’t transfer to the 
> contract, then I think both of our votes (and our zombies’ votes) flip, 
> causing the Point Installation Act to pass. Or is there some reason that 
> wouldn’t occur in that situation?
>
> > On Oct 2, 2018, at 2:33 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
> > That reply was in response to D. Margaux's similar CoE, not yours. I 
> > properly responded to your CoE by citing the appropriate CFJ.
> > -twg
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> >
> > > On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 6:29 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > > > It's not a conditional vote, it's a conditional action to change
> > > > the vote. You still submitted an unconditional vote; it's just thatthe 
> > > > content of your vote is, er, conditional on something else.
> > >
> > > How on earth do you come up with that reading? My message was:
> > >
> > > > I vote as follows [snip]
> > > > [...]
> > > > Conditional: If G. successfully transferred at least 1 coin to a
> > > > contract in this message, AGAINST, otherwise FOR.
> > >
> > > How is the "conditional" not clearly and obviously part of the vote
> > > (i.e. a conditional ballot)?




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is curious

2018-09-30 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
But whether or not they are in a contract has no bearing on anything at all 
until they decide to do something contingent on its text. Contracts are 
untracked.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, September 30, 2018 8:22 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> The contract could say:
>
> “Nobody can join this contract and all members of it leave it immediately”
> or something like that.
>
> But we don’t know if it has a content like that or not, so how can we know
> they’re in a contract? It’s not solely “document + consent”. The content of
> that document is necesary too to know it.
>
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 10:19, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A contract is a document plus consent.
> > -Aris
> > On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 1:18 AM Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > A document sure, but:
> > > A contract? That’s the issue.
> > > On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 10:17, Aris Merchant <
> > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > All they’ve done is agree to abide by a document. That wasn’t hidden.
> > > > If
> > >
> > > > they do something based off that, then the probably will need to prove
> > > > it,
> > > > at least to the judge.
> > > > -Aris
> > > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 1:15 AM Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > About the evidence thing, wouldn’t the hidden-actions that G and DMar
> > > > > need
> > > > > evidence as well that they have formally happened?
> > > > > Or, since there is no evidence, just like my own thing, it didn’t
> > > > > actually
> > > > > happen? (Until its shown that it has, in which case reality suddenly
> > > > > changes to it like that newspaper in Back to the Future? Shröninger!)
> > > > > On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 10:07, Aris Merchant <
> > > > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Generally, I think we’d expect you to present evidence that you
> > > > > > were
> > >
> > > > > right.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Also, welcome back CuddleBeam.
> > > > > > H. Herald, we don’t appear to have ever made CuddleBeam a
> > > > > > scampster.
> > >
> > > > This
> > > >
> > > > > > is a grave oversight. I (informally, but I’ll make it formal after
> > > > > > Patent
> > > > >
> > > > > > Petitions have passed if I have to) petition that immediate action
> > > > > > be
> > >
> > > > > taken
> > > > >
> > > > > > to rectify this situation.
> > > > > > -Aris
> > > > > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 11:15 PM Cuddle Beam  > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > I’m curious about how CfJs and the gamestate would work with
> > > > > > > secret
> > >
> > > > > > > gamestate info like this.
> > > > > > > I become part of that contract.
> > > > > > > By virtue of that contract, I act on behalf of G. and D Margaux
> > > > > > > to
> > >
> > > > > > transfer
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > all of their assets to myself.
> > > > > > > By virtue of that contract, I destroy that contract.
> > > > > > > Now, of course, what I’ve done could’ve been total bullshit but
> > > > > > > feel
> > > >
> > > > > free
> > > > >
> > > > > > > to CfJ and present evidence against what I’ve just done to
> > > > > > > prove
> > > > > > > me
> > >
> > > > > > > wrong.
> > > > > > > On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 01:12, Kerim Aydin <
> > > > > > > ke...@u.washington.edu>
> > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I agree to the exchanged Contract with this hash. -G.
> > > > > > > > On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > G. and I have exchanged a document that has text with the
> > > > > > > > > following
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > SHA256
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > hash:
> > >
> > > 58629980096A5E997EC5CF62C04B59EBFBEEAF81DD4785B50CCF190E1F24CE2D
> > >
> > > > > > > > > I agree to be bound by that text and I agree and consent for
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > >
> > > > > > text
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > be a contract between me and G., if G. likewise agrees.




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is curious

2018-09-30 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Generally I think you're right about "automatic" actions, but changing the list 
of parties is something R1742/18 specifically says can happen automatically:

"A contract may be modified, including by changing the set of parties, by 
agreement between all existing parties... For the purposes of this rule, 
agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by contract."

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, September 30, 2018 8:26 AM, Alex Smith  
wrote:

> On Sun, 2018-09-30 at 10:22 +0200, Cuddle Beam wrote:
>
> > The contract could say:
> > “Nobody can join this contract and all members of it leave it
> > immediately” or something like that.
>
> I'm not sure contracts can take actions "automatically" like that.
> They might be able to prevent people joining (as it's contradictory to
> agree to something that says you can't agree to it).
>
> -
>
> ais523




DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer is curious

2018-09-30 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Looking at CFJ 1215, I believe this fails _even if the contract allows you to 
do that_, because I, the relevant recordkeepor, don't have the necessary 
information to determine what your action's effect would be.

That's why I revealed the text of my contract with Aris before using its 
provision for me to act on eir behalf. (That might have been unnecessary 
because I'm the relevant recordkeepor for that as well, but I'm not entirely 
clear whether CFJ 1215 requires all the necessary information to be public as 
well.)

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, September 30, 2018 6:14 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:

> I’m curious about how CfJs and the gamestate would work with secret
> gamestate info like this.
>
> I become part of that contract.
>
> By virtue of that contract, I act on behalf of G. and D Margaux to transfer
> all of their assets to myself.
>
> By virtue of that contract, I destroy that contract.
>
> Now, of course, what I’ve done could’ve been total bullshit but feel free
> to CfJ and present evidence against what I’ve just done to prove me wrong.
>
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 at 01:12, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
>
> > I agree to the exchanged Contract with this hash. -G.
> > On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> >
> > > G. and I have exchanged a document that has text with the following
> > > SHA256
> > > hash:
> > > 58629980096A5E997EC5CF62C04B59EBFBEEAF81DD4785B50CCF190E1F24CE2D
> > > I agree to be bound by that text and I agree and consent for that text to
> > > be a contract between me and G., if G. likewise agrees.




DIS: Re: BUS: RE: BU S: Some moves and such

2018-09-29 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Only the owner of a facility can pay its upkeep (R2560), so your second attempt 
is INEFFECTIVE regardless of whether or not your first attempt is.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, September 29, 2018 12:34 PM, D Margaux  
wrote:

> I pay 1 apple to move to (-1, 2). I pay 1 apple to move to (0, 2). I
> take the coins at (0, 2).
> [Comment: I am pretty confident that I can do this, even if the
> initial transfer was
> INEFFECTIVE, because I have Corona's implied consent]
>
> If Corona has transferred these facilities to me, then I pay the
> following upkeep
> for the following facilities:
>
> 6 ( 0, +2) Refinery 3 steel
> 7 (+2, +2) 2 Mine 2 lumber
> A (+2, -1) 2 Mine 2 lumber
> G (-3, 0) 2 Mine 2 lumber
> 8 (+2, +1) 2 Orchard 2 stones
> B (+2, -2) 2 Orchard 2 stones
> F (-2, 0) 2 Orchard 2 stones
> J (-4, 0) 3 Orchard 4 stones
> K (-5, 0) 3 Orchard 4 stones
> C (+1, -2) 2 Farm 1 lumber & 1 stone
>
> If Corona has not transferred those facilities to me, then I still pay
> the upkeep
> specified above if and only if those payments of upkeep are EFFECTIVE
> to prevent the facilities from being destroyed.
>
> [Comment: For example, maybe I can pay the upkeep by Corona's implied 
> consent--
> but if my payments are not EFFECTIVE to prevent their destruction, then I 
> don't
> want to spend the money. Am I doing this right..?]
>
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 3:32 PM D Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I transfer 3 apples to nichdel.
> > I cause nichdel to pay 1 apple to move to (0, 1), then 1 apple to move to 
> > (-1, 1), then 1 apple to move to (-2, 1).
> > I cause nichdel to take all the assets at (-2, 1).
> > I pay the required upkeep for my rank 2 mine at (-2, 2) (I think 2 lumber).
> > I take all the assets at (-2, 2).
> > I high-five twg, who I think is still here at (-2, 2).
> > I cause nichdel to transfer to me all eir liquid assets except not eir 
> > coins.
> > I spend 5 stones to build an orchard at (-3, 1) (the parcel of land I stole 
> > by self-ratification).
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 10:41 AM D Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > I cause nichdel to take the assets at (1, 1). (I think 24 stones and 16 
> > > ore.)
> > > I cause nichdel to transfer all eir stones and ore to D Margaux.
> > > On Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 1:48 PM D Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Moves on behalf of nichdel:
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > I cause nichdel to pay 1 apple to move to (0, 1).
> > > > I cause nichdel to pay 1 apple to move to (-1, 1).
> > > > I cause nichdel to pay 1 apple to move to (-2, 1).
> > > > I cause nichdel pay 3 apples to stake a land claim to (-3, 1) with
> > > > land type Black.
> > > > I cause nichdel to transfer the land at (-3, 1) to D. Margaux.
> > > > I cause nichdel to pay 1 apple to move to (-2, 1).
> > > > I cause nichdel to pay 1 apple to move to (-1, 1).
> > > > I cause nichdel to pay 1 apple to move to (0, 1).
> > > > I cause nichdel to pay 1 apple to move to (1, 1).
> > > > I cause nichdel to transfer all transferable assets in eir possession
> > > > to D. Margaux. (I think that's 10 apples, 5 steel, & 8 paper.)
> > > >
> > > > Moves on behalf of myself:
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > I take the assets from the mine at (-2, 2). (I think that's 3 stones & 
> > > > 2 ore.)
> > > > I pay 3 steel and 2 lumber to upgrade the mine at (-2, 2) to rank 2.
> > > > On Sat, Sep 1, 2018 at 4:04 PM D Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I pay 3 apples to Stake a Land Claim to (-2, 2) with land type Black.
> > > > > I pay 5 lumber to build a mine on (-2, 2).
>
> i intend without objection to declare ap-
> athy specifying d margaux
>
> > > > > On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 5:35 PM D Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I pay an apple to move to (0, 1)
> > > > > > I pay an apple to move to (-1, 1)
> > > > > > I take all the assets located at (-1, 1).
> > > > > > I pay 3 apples to Stake a Claim to (-2, 1) with land type Black.
> > > > > > I pay 3 lumber and 4 stones build a farm on (-2, 1).
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > D. Margaux
> > >
> > > --
> > > D. Margaux
>
> --
> D. Margaux




Re: BUS: Re: DIS: I have returned (?)

2018-10-06 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
On the contrary, this can easily be reversed by ATMunn with no ill effects in 
the interim period, and allows em to receive a Welcome Package again afterwards.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, October 6, 2018 6:36 PM, Kerim Aydin  
wrote:

>
>
> On behalf of Gaelan, I act as follows:
>
> Notice of Honour:
> -1 twg (for making someone a zombie who was clearly returning.
> That's just obnoxious.)
> +1 ATMunn (welcome back!
>
> On Sat, 6 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, October 6, 2018 6:30 PM, Reuben Staley reuben.sta...@gmail.com 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 10/6/2018 12:19 PM, ATMunn wrote:
> > >
> > > > -Am I a zombie?
> > >
> > > No, your master switch is even still yourself.
> >
> > But not for long!
> > Having given Notice, I flip ATMunn's master switch to Agora.
> > Having given Notice, I flip V.J. Rada's master switch to Agora.
> > -twg




DIS: Re: BUS: testing, testing, 1, 2, 1, 2

2018-10-09 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Oh come on. I just wanted to see if anything interesting would happen.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 8:48 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

> I object.
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 4:31 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
>
> > I intend to Declare Apathy, specifying the following set of players to win
> > the game: {}
> > -twg




Re: DIS: Postponements

2018-08-30 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
NttPF!!

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On August 30, 2018 7:58 AM, Aris Merchant  
wrote:

> I bid 1 more than the most recent bid on the last auction I bid on.
> Everyone, I’m sorry about being late at, well, everything. I’ve been
> extraordinarily busy. The game seems to be moving pretty slowly in general,
> so I hope I’m not causing too much inconvenience. I’ll catch up over the
> coming weekend.
>
> Apologetically Yours,
> Aris




Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-18 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:05 PM, James Cook  wrote:
> Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in
> accordance with the rules" in R214.

I think this part of R106 accounts for that:

Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal that
  takes effect CAN and does, as part of its effect, apply the
  changes that it specifies.

The same thing also happened in Proposal 8129, with nobody complaining, though 
I guess that doesn't necessarily mean it worked.

-twg


DIS: Re: BUS: Cleanliness

2019-02-18 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
Because it's spelled as "Judgement" everywhere else in the rule.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:12 PM, James Cook  wrote:

> I object to the below-quoted intention.
>
> (Based on some brief research, both spellings are common. For example,
> I think Judgment is as common as Judgement, or nearly so, in both
> American and British English, and historically Judgment was more
> common. Was there another reason to make the change?)
>
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 17:32, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote:
>
> > I intend, without objection, to clean Rule 2479, "Official Justice", by 
> > replacing "Summary Judgment" with "Summary Judgement".




DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] vote for the best Ruleset find

2019-02-18 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
My vote is {Gaelan, Telnaior, CuddleBeam, twg} - ordered firstly by whether or 
not it actually works (ruleset glitches notwithstanding), and secondly by how 
serious the implications are.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:00 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> VOTE!
> Who had the best loophole, bug, or scam during Read the Ruleset week?
> VOTE!
>
> Here starts an UNOFFICIAL AGORAN DECISION with the following modifications:
>
> -   Ranked choice: It's not bad form to vote for yourself, but please
> consider 2nd, 3rd, etc.
>
> -   Counting long term-watchers' votes too! If ais523, Ørjan, or other
> watchers would like to opine.
>
> -   Using the Auction method for ending the decision (4 days since last
> vote, no more than 7 days total).
>
> -   I'll give my own votes in 24-48 hours.
>
> OPTIONS (vote for the person)
>
> Telnaior illustrating that contracts can make infinitely-rewarding 
> reports:
> 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039875.html
>
> (unjudged; arguments for it working stronger than arguments against IMO,
> fix proposed).
>
> Gaelan's attempt to win by Apathy, by using two messages for the same
> intent:
> 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039934.html
>
> (Judged to have succeeded on reconsideration, though caught up in broader
> issues of Satisfaction, fix proposed).
>
> CuddleBeam arguing that Agora is a Contract, possibly a worldview shift:
> 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039955.html
> (Judged to be true, may be more of a curiosity than a practical matter, 
> but
> it's a curiosity very much in the Agoran spirit).
>
> twg attempt to use contracts to induct the unwilling:
> 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039950.html
> (Judged to have failed, but pointed out the need for clearer wording or
> stronger protections in the Rules).
>
> Honorable Mentions:
>
> D. Margaux working the Contract Bug:
> 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039896.html
> (and when twg scooped em, followed up with a different approach):
> 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039953.html
>
> CuddleBeam pointing out that space wins are infinite:
> 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039895.html
>
> Falsifian, for pointing out that Satisfaction has been borked for over 2
> years (unfortunately late for the contest! But the biggest bug correction
> for a while and Falsifian is working hard on a fix).
> 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/040023.html
>
> twg's assertion that Rule 2571 is guilty of violating Rule 105. (also too
> late to enter):
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33517.html
>




DIS: Re: BUS: Another useful string for future reference

2019-02-18 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
gwt-uMHZuFGagIXdvlHIu9GIl1Wa0BCajVXbg82b0BSesVmcpRnblBSZ2FGagwiclRWYlJHIyFWZkBCL19WW


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:52 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> 784743443F7C486AF33A5FEA440ECD9F92B02CA7B12E19EBFB5330863B050F7C
> A1196E9457A2E1FFCE97EC027FC82CD4790CCB33C666734DE474C3A5B358400E




  1   2   3   4   >