Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-01 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019, James Cook wrote: I believe the answers are yes, and so at the end of this message I will judge CFJ 3726 TRUE. Before I say why, I'd like explain why there could be doubt about this. 6. An interpretation causing CFJ 3726 to be FALSE

Re: DIS: How are Rule ID Numbers assigned?

2019-06-01 Thread Ørjan Johansen
No method? There might be a Rule 2125 problem here. Greetings, Ørjan. On Sat, 1 Jun 2019, Aris Merchant wrote: Good question. Rule 2141 says that the Rulekeepor can assign a number, and doesn’t say in what way e must do so, so e could theoretically assign any number. You’re right that this

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

2019-06-01 Thread Ørjan Johansen
I vaguely seem to recall that there is precedent that payments for something fail entirely if it's impossible for them to achieve that something. Greetings, Ørjan. On Thu, 30 May 2019, James Cook wrote: On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 03:34, Rance Bedwell wrote: I make a COE for this Treasuror's

DIS: Re: BUS: Election

2019-05-11 Thread Ørjan Johansen
As on the previous occasion, I got the original message. Greetings, Ørjan. On Sat, 11 May 2019, D. Margaux wrote: Below is Murphy’s message from the website, which somehow hasn’t come through. I declare candidacy for Assessor. Can you have an election for imposed offices? I thought

DIS: Re: BUS: Email Weirdness Etc

2019-04-28 Thread Ørjan Johansen
I received it, so it at least got out of the server. Greetings, Ørjan. On Sun, 28 Apr 2019, Aris Merchant wrote: I haven't gotten this email yet [1]. It shows up in the archive, but not in my inbox. Is anyone else having this problem? Also, I don't believe the decision on who should be Prime

DIS: Re: OFF: Re: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora

2019-04-23 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Mon, 22 Apr 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: I intend to ratify the below Herald's list of Patent Titles and holders as being correct as of its publication date of 31-Mar-2019, Without Objection. [This would not ratify the informal categories of championship]. Are you sure? Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725

2019-03-08 Thread Ørjan Johansen
It was not published, twg is simply referring jokingly to emself, as e is the Assessor. Greetings, Ørjan. On Sat, 9 Mar 2019, James Cook wrote: twg's message says the H. Assessor publish the below tally, but I didn't receive any emails containing it, and I can't find it in the public

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

2019-03-05 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I respond to the CoE by citing the CFJ. (I swear I remember there being a proto floating around at some point to change it so that just the existence of a relevant open CFJ would block self-ratification, instead of having to go through this

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to clean rules

2019-03-04 Thread Ørjan Johansen
This needs to be done after the intent fixing proposal passes, anyway, since rule changes are explicitly _not_ fixed and this won't be in the ruleset that is being ratified. Greetings, Ørjan. On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, James Cook wrote: On Wed, 13 Feb 2019 at 00:59, James Cook wrote: I intend to

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: Contest wrap-up

2019-03-04 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Mon, 4 Mar 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: Having achieved Agoran Consent', I do so. Consent' is the type of Consent that fails now, but willan on-succeed forewhen Proposal 8164 retrotakes pre-effect. I am not entirely sure this way of disclaiming doesn't cause it to wioll haven broke, since

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8165-8173

2019-03-03 Thread Ørjan Johansen
This is broken. As I pointed out in a previous comment on this proposal, rule 2591 no longer contains this text. Greetings, Ørjan. On Sun, 3 Mar 2019, Aris Merchant wrote: // ID: 8169 Title: Spaceship Armour Defaults

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

2019-02-24 Thread Ørjan Johansen
Missing obvious kind of extreme case: { Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule contains the word “Walruses”. Power 1: Walruses are a currency tracked by the Zoologist. [...] } On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Gaelan Steele wrote: Some thought experiments: { Power

DIS: Re: BUS: let's proceed to the second line-item

2019-02-24 Thread Ørjan Johansen
It seems to me that this would cause a heap of complications in writing proposals, which would need to include safeguards against disastrous partial applications. For example, a proposal that splits an important rule into two parts, by amending the original and creating a new one, could

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

2019-02-24 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: Please look at the Caller's "two assumptions" arguments in CFJ 1104, I was on the fence when this conversation started, but reading those arguments is what convinced me: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1104 Those arguments explicitly

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

2019-02-22 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 12:57 AM Gaelan Steele wrote: The proposed rule is a prohibition on a certain type of change. Because 106 says “except as prohibited by other rules”, it defers to this rule. Deference clauses only work between rules of the

DIS: Re: BUS: (Proposal) Spaceship armour fix

2019-02-22 Thread Ørjan Johansen
That particular item of the Rule was just amended to change that text, although it still needs a default. Greetings, Ørjan. On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Amend Rule 2591, "Spaceships", by replacing the following: * Armour (an integer switch limited to values from 0 to 10

DIS: Re: BUS: Victory by Apathy

2019-02-22 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote: 5. Rule 2465 says: "Upon doing so, the specified players win the game." When we talk about "Doing X" for any X, we almost always take X to refer to the Action ("Declaring apathy") and not the method (without objection). R2125 supports this in that it

Re: DIS: Relics

2019-02-22 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote: Going to use Gluttony instead of Cincinnatus because it's just easier to remember and type off the top of my head and it's more on the theme of cardinal sins and having amassed all that power feels obese. There's also the issue that once you have that

Re: DIS: Relics

2019-02-22 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote: Add to the Ribbon Ownership of each player a {Black Relic} if immediately prior to this proposal enacting, they had a {Black Ribbon}. Two issues I see: (1) This would make all non-players lose their Black Ribbons. I don't have one but some do. (2)

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

2019-02-18 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: This probably isn't a problem, unless past cleanings were broken (in which case it still isn't really a problem but we might want to retry the cleanings in order to make sure all our typos are gone). Dependent actions otherwise tend not to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: This was the change that added it: Amended(19) by P7815 'Agencies' (Alexis, aranea), 28 Oct 2016 the clause that added it was straightforward: Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by adding: (4) if the action is to be performed With Notice or

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

2019-02-17 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: Well, I'd like to make it clear that some scams might not be. For example, I'd love it if it said "Dictator scams" SHOULD only be used to earn this Relic, the scammers should expect every other profit from a dictator scam to be taken back. I like that,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: it's time to care again

2019-02-17 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: I think it's helpful to have such rules in the ruleset, because history has shown that when we've been missing them, players with less-than- dictatorship scams have caused widespread damage to unrelated parts of the gamestate trying to

DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: 5. FORCE GAELAN AND ATMUNN TO SUPPORT GROUP-FILED RECONSIDERATION // only works if intents are not broken I intend with 2 support to move to reconsider the above-called CFJ. I cause ATMunn and Gaelan to support that intent. I move to reconsider that

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-16 Thread Ørjan Johansen
My reading justifies the Agoran invasion better. Greetings, Ørjan. On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote: I rather hoped the “mutatis mutandis” was implied. -Aris On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote: BlogNomic almost

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-16 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote: BlogNomic almost actually passed something like that once. We sent someone over to caution them that such an unfortunate plan would result in an Agoran invasion (okay, ais actually did it sua sponte, but my version sounds better). Wait, BlogNomic

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

2019-02-14 Thread Ørjan Johansen
of objectors? Do we even have anything right now that works that way? Do we *want* to have anything right now that works that way? If it's one where you choose which one to declare your intent with, I don't see how it causes a problem. On 2019-02-15 12:11, Ørjan Johansen wrote: Quoting myself from my

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

2019-02-14 Thread Ørjan Johansen
nd I'm not sure everyone would interpret that as true. Just seemed easier to phrase in the negative way. Will think more about it later, but suggestions welcome. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 00:39, Ørjan Johansen wrote: I don't like the essential double negation in this - if people were confus

DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-14 Thread Ørjan Johansen
I don't like the essential double negation in this - if people were confused about what the previous version means, then that's just going to make it worse. And I'm not convinced #3 means what you want if there are supporters and no objectors - undefined values mess up logic. Instead I'd

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

2019-02-14 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: The way it should work is for Agora to be satisfied if any of (1) through (4) are satisfied. That is, Agora is “satisfied” if there were fewer than N objections and the action was without N objections; OR if there are more than N supporters and the action

Re: DIS: Trouble subscribing

2019-02-13 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Wed, 13 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote: I was unable to subscribe jc...@cs.berkeley.edu to the Agora lists (except tue), but was able to subscribe falsifi...@gmail.com. Is this a common problem? It's not a problem for me (assuming you received this message) but thought I'd mention it in case

DIS: Re: OFF: [Clork] House of Snerds

2019-02-11 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: RETIREMENT ANNOUNCEMENT Kim Ping Pong has announced eir retirement. To secure the stability and continued prosperity of the people, we trust that his glorious tenure will be

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Quang Revived

2019-02-10 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019, Gaelan Steele wrote: I object, both to any intents this may create and to people taking this gibberish thing way too far. I don't think it could create any intents, even if the relevant rule did _not_ contain a clear disqualification of obfuscation. Greetings,

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2019-02-10 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 10 Feb 2019, Gaelan Steele wrote: CoE: the Astronomor weekly report was not published the day before the Unix epoch. Maybe the Astronomor found a wormhole. Greetings, Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: still need a currency for something

2019-02-10 Thread Ørjan Johansen
Ah I see you thought of the same bug as I. Greetings, Ørjan. On Sun, 10 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: Just in case... On Feb 4, 2019, at 5:11 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award myself the degree Associate of Nomic (A.N.). I object. I withdraw my

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8152-8163

2019-02-09 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote: // ID: 8162 Title: No Contract Reporting Rewards Adoption index: 2.0 Author: Telnaior Co-authors: G. Amend the phrase "Publishing a duty-fulfilling report" in Rule 2496 ("Rewards") to

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Agora itself is a contract

2019-02-09 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote: - You can change the rules if everyone agrees to it, without needing a proposal for it. R1742: "A contract may be modified, including by changing the set of parties, by agreement between all existing parties." That rule has too low power to trump the

DIS: Re: BUS: Red herrings and indigo ribbons

2019-02-09 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: I think I have found a bug in twg’s execution of the scheme! I also see some bugs, although the rule 869 issue makes them pretty moot. For one thing, it was argued in previous discussion that supporting cannot be done on behalf as an accidental side

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer something something

2019-02-09 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote: I editted it to point out the specific rule but is it really necessary? I thought it would be unambiguous where the edit was supposed to be. Just curious about if there's a formal reason for it. Hm, I think you're technically correct, although it's still

Re: DIS: [Proto] Extend "amend"

2019-02-08 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, Reuben Staley wrote: Title: Extend "amend" Amend Rule 105 (Power=3) 'Rule Changes' by removing items 3-6 in the ordered list and then adding to that list: 3. reenact a rule. A repealed rule not in the ruleset identified by its most recent rule number MUST be

Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup

2019-02-08 Thread Ørjan Johansen
I am reminded that a previous Rulekeepor (Gaelan perhaps?) made a number of formatting changes in order to make the Ruleset valid markdown, and I don't quite remember for sure, but that may be how this rule ended up with the confusion of two top-level lists with the same numbering scheme. I

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3705 and 3706 judged FALSE

2019-02-07 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote: Gaelan tried to win by Apathy, using one buried intent to satisfy R1728(2) and then another open intent to satisfy R1728(1). This relies on the assumption that the R1728(1) and R1728(2) intents can be separate from each other. However, this is not the

DIS: Re: BUS: Quang Revived

2019-02-07 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Thu, 7 Feb 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote: - "kuukie" as shorthand for "I intend to" - "dvba" as shorthand for "declare victory by apathy" kuukie dvba for myself. This part probably won't work, because intents are required to be unobfuscated. Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: The Duumvirate

2019-02-05 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: I guess if a person had power >3, then the R2125 limitation wouldn’t be a barrier anymore, though. I don't see why. I don't think there's any provision for anything other than a rule to take precedence over a rule, regardless of power. Greetings,

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2019-02-05 Thread Ørjan Johansen
I think you technically cannot force it until just after the Week, because you need to wait until the Promotor is late (rule 2160 §3). Greetings, Ørjan. On Tue, 5 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: I intend to deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposals in the proposal pool. I intend to

DIS: Re: BUS: still need a currency for something

2019-02-04 Thread Ørjan Johansen
I assume G. was hinting to the fact that these are fungible assets yet distinguishable. Not that the rules define what "fungible" means, anymore. Which might make them hard to track, so just as well that there's no recordkeepor defined. No idea how you intend to get any advantage out of

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] It's (nearly) Read the Ruleset Week!

2019-02-03 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 3 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: To enter, you have to publicly outline/ describe the full idea of the loophole during Read the Ruleset week. If you're actually pulling the trick as a scam, you need to make sure we (the "public") have the info we need to understand how the scam works or

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction

2019-02-02 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I transfer all Tenhigitsune's liquid assets to myself, flip eir master switch to Agora, and bid 1 coin in this auction. You forgot to act on behalf, so the first action fails. Greetings, Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer something something

2019-02-02 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote: When a player Becomes One With The Cosmos, if their Fame is either 10 or -10, their Fame is set to 0 and they win the game." Please use proper Agoran pronouns. Greetings, Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer becomes an automated victory dispensing machine

2019-02-01 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Fri, 1 Feb 2019, Cuddle Beam wrote: Note that I can have others send the attack Energy message on my behalf, and it's not obligatory for the sender of the attack Energy to _understand their own message_. [...]; in particular, a person CANNOT act on behalf of another person to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: bring back judicial protections

2019-01-31 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019, Gaelan Steele wrote: Not just that—at the time there was a rule that reenacted rules had to have “largely the same purpose” or something. Yeah, that was changed to a SHOULD in the current version. Greetings, Ørjan.

DIS: Re: BUS: bring back judicial protections

2019-01-31 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: Re-enact Rule 2246 (name at repeal: Submitting a CFJ to the Justiciar), at Power-2, with the title "Submitting a CFJ to the Referee", and the following text: I don't think you can change the title without a separate rule change, although the

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2019-01-27 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 27 Jan 2019, Edward Murphy wrote: I transfer a kudo from myself (for overlooking this) to twg (for pointing it out). That takes me back. But it's all about karma nowadays. Which is probably a bit more flexible. Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but

2019-01-24 Thread Ørjan Johansen
This provision is clearly intended to be a long-term protection against rule abuse. In such cases, it seems reasonable to interpret the meticulous wording as an added safety in case of new rule changes, without any implications following from whether or not the phrasing is redundant given the

Re: DIS: oh dear

2019-01-19 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Fri, 18 Jan 2019, Reuben Staley wrote: This is exactly what I said nearly a year ago when PAoaM passed. Minigames rarely work the way they are supposed to on their first revision. * * THE AGORAN MINIGAME CYCLE * * 1. Enact a minigame

DIS: Re: BUS: I realise this is extremely ridiculous, but

2019-01-15 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau Energy in Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which is a constructed language invented by me. (Other twgese words include "quang" and "spaaace".) Go ahead, CFJ

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RIP

2019-01-15 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: "And I'm joining you live from Agora's Lost and Found Department, where a large Spaceship has appeared in the central office, causing widespread damage. Projected casualties number in the dozens..." Spaceships are destructible. Reading rule

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8143-8145 and 8142

2019-01-15 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Tue, 15 Jan 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I resolve the Agoran Decisions to adopt each of Proposals 8143, 8144, 8145 and 8142, in that order, as follows. I'll do 8139-8141 after lunch. (I know this is a controversial use of Assessor powers, but if you will keep voting for proposals about

DIS: Re: BUS: Open call for politician names

2019-01-13 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 13 Jan 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I pledge that whenever I create a politician with a name someone else suggested to me, I will transfer 5 coins to that person (if it would be LEGAL and POSSIBLE to do so). *Looks up the previous list to avoid duplicates* Theresa Cannot Benjamin

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset: Second Week of 2019

2019-01-11 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Fri, 11 Jan 2019, Reuben Staley wrote: THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET I think that's a bit shorter than you intended. Greetings, Ørjan.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction

2019-01-10 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Thu, 10 Jan 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I think this argument doesn't work because, according to the FLR, CFJs 1911-1914 set the precedent that "Physical realities supersede the Rules by default" - in this case, the physical reality that no rule defines a process for zombie transferral

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Birthdays II

2018-12-18 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 16 Dec 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: Using the Registrar's monthly report, my Agoran birthdays would be: 4-Feb-01, 14-Jul-03, 23-Feb-07, 27-Oct-07, 19-Jun-08, 4-May-09, 29-Oct-09, 18-Oct-11 and 25-Aug-17. You may want to use "day e most recently registered" or "day e first registered"?

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Coauthors deserve something.

2018-12-18 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: Amend rule 2496 "Rewards" by replacing the list element beginning "Being the author" that reads: I suspect you are missing "with text" or something in there. * The following apply to adopted proposals: * Being the author: a number of

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Let's do some space

2018-12-14 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Fri, 14 Dec 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Perform the following action for each player, iterating over them in order of the days of the year (1 January to 31 December) on which they most recently registered, breaking ties in order of the times at which they most recently registered. [Does

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Let's do some space

2018-12-14 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Thu, 13 Dec 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: The resolver for a Space Battle is the person highest in the following list who is not a combatant in the Space Battle: 1) the Astronomor; 2) the Arbitor; 3) the Prime Minister; 4) the non-combatant who has least recently registered. For

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset -- December 7

2018-12-09 Thread Ørjan Johansen
in a month. That seems clear, although I have a nagging doubt about "what if there's something severely wrong with the first one?" Greetings, Ørjan. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Saturday, December 8, 2018 6:17 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Sat, 8 Dec 2018, Timon W

DIS: Re: BUS: Weekly maintenance

2018-12-03 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 2 Dec 2018, Edward Murphy wrote: I expunge one of my Blots. With the proposal to automatize this having failed, I can no longer resist pointing out that the way the rule works, you would generally want to do this at the _beginning_ of a week, not the end. Greetings, Ørjan, who is

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] The Agoran Directory

2018-12-02 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 2 Dec 2018, D. Margaux wrote: Does that actually work though? I don’t see any provision that resets the resale value to 2 after the master switch is set back to the player. So I think nichdel’s resale value is still 1, because eir master switch was previously transferred to me.

Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Agora can into space

2018-12-02 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 2 Dec 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Enact a new rule entitled "The Astronomor", with power 1.0 and the following text: { The Astronomor is an office. The Astronomor's weekly report includes, in addition to any information required by other rules, a list of all Sectors and

DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] The Agoran Directory

2018-12-01 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sat, 1 Dec 2018, ATMunn wrote: 12-Nov-18 15:54:54 Jacob Ardruino registers. Welcome, Jacob Ardruino! [let me know if I missed anything, but it seems like this is it] The spelling of eir name? Impressively, even in the email address. Greetings, Ørjan. Players (20) (by Rule 869,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [minority] Report

2018-12-01 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Fri, 30 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: So I believe I have two legal options: - declare this Finger Pointing Shenanigans now, or - wait until December (35 minutes) and then levy a fine on you. Third option would have been to get someone to repeat the Finger Pointing - the double

DIS: Re: BUS: Vote

2018-11-29 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Thu, 29 Nov 2018, D. Margaux wrote: I vote AGAINST the proposal referenced below. I change my vote on that proposal to ENDORSE the most recent player to join the Living Zombie contract, if and only if one or more new players have joined that contract before the end of the voting period on

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8133-8138

2018-11-27 Thread Ørjan Johansen
t. On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Well in that case it's similarly broken in the current rule as well, albeit only for actions on behalf, not for currency transfers. No? -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 2:35 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote

Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138

2018-11-27 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote: Is there any reason we’d want proposals resolved out of order? I don’t see any off hand, but it’s worth making sure we’re not losing the ability to easily clean up some mess. In addition to what G. listed, there may be cases where it is _required_

DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138

2018-11-27 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote: 8135 twg, D Margaux 2.0 Blot Decay (Reprise) ENDORSE twg if the Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved AGAINST otherwise 8137 Aris, twg, Trigon 3.0 Uncorrecting Rewards ENDORSE twg if the Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8133-8138

2018-11-27 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: 8138 twg 2.5 Access to contracts' assets No vote for now. I see an issue with this that I have to think about (i.e. read the rules a few times to see if it's actually an issue). There seems to be no methods as required by rule 2125.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8129, 8131, 8127, 8123-8126, 8128, 8130 and 8132

2018-11-25 Thread Ørjan Johansen
oposal, but the rest wouldn't. Greetings, Ørjan. On 11/24/18 11:05 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Fri, 23 Nov 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: Sorry, my mind isn’t getting the semantics of your comment. Could you break down what you mean? The original rule text contains both the wor

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8129, 8131, 8127, 8123-8126, 8128, 8130 and 8132

2018-11-24 Thread Ørjan Johansen
ot;. (3) It will leave what used to be "earns" as "creates in eir possession". (4) It's fine but redundant. Greetings, Ørjan. -Aris On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 11:40 PM Ørjan Johansen wrote: I'm wondering what happens to the word "earns" throughout these chang

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8129, 8131, 8127, 8123-8126, 8128, 8130 and 8132

2018-11-23 Thread Ørjan Johansen
wg (allowing eir own moneymaking activities to interfere with the rest of the game) +1 Trigon (suffering eir proposal being mangled by aforementioned activities) (I'm virtually certain my "rewards" _do_ work, but I'm astonished nobody's CFJed them on principle yet...) -twg ‐‐‐ Origi

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8129, 8131, 8127, 8123-8126, 8128, 8130 and 8132

2018-11-19 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I resolve the Agoran Decisions to adopt each of Proposals 8129, 8131, 8127, 8123-8126, 8128, 8130 and 8132, in that order, as follows. Fiendish. (Assuming this works. People might want to CFJ your double earnings.) However, I think resolving

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

2018-11-19 Thread Ørjan Johansen
NttPF. Greetings, Ørjan. On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote: Oh right. I create a nothing in my possession (in case I don’t have one) and pay it to nichdel for his auction. E automatically pays me 10 coins. Gaelan On Nov 19, 2018, at 2:35 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Date of this

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3674

2018-11-18 Thread Ørjan Johansen
My copy of the Ruleset contains no such judgement as DISCHARGE. You probably meant DISMISS? (Given that you still resolved the actual issue, INSUFFICIENT is probably inappropriate.) Greetings, Ørjan. On Sun, 18 Nov 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: I'm running out of time to judge CFJ 3674. I'm

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3688 judgement

2018-11-16 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Fri, 16 Nov 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: R591 contains: When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN assign a valid judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so in a timely fashion after this becomes possible. If e does not, the Arbitor CAN remove em from

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

2018-11-14 Thread Ørjan Johansen
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,

DIS: Re: BUS: Memes

2018-11-13 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Rebecca wrote: I create the following proposal Title: I hate myself AI: 3 Text: Rules or Instruments to the contrary notwithstanding, this proposal shall act as though its text is the text submitted to a public forum and clearly marked "Memes submission" by the last person

Re: DIS: Interest Poll: Rulekeepor's Notes

2018-11-11 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 11 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: Would anyone like me to start publishing Rulekeepor's notes? It's an old tradition but I'm not going to do it if people don't think it would be useful. If you *do* want me to publish them, tell me what information you would like me to include. As

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2018-11-04 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018, ATMunn wrote: For some reason, this showed up as a separate email for me. For a second I missed the "DIS: Re:" and thought you were trying to publish an ADoP report. Hm, I don't recall doing anything out of the ordinary for that message. I deleted the copy I got back from

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2018-11-04 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018, Edward Murphy wrote: [twg intended to deputise for Referee on Nov 1, though I don't think it was effective; see my recent CFJ] COE: E did, see my gratuitous argument. Greetings, Ørjan.

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

2018-11-04 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018, Edward Murphy wrote: CFJ, barring twg: twg is Referee. Caller's arguments: * Oct 30, D. Margaux resigned Referee * Nov 1, twg published the Referee's report but did not announce that e was deputising (as required by Rule 2160 item #5) Gratuitous argument: E had just

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

2018-11-03 Thread Ørjan Johansen
that there's nothing regulating pledges that are _not_ to perform or refrain from performing actions. And thus, the pledge does exist. Greetings, Ørjan. On Sat, 3 Nov 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Sat, 3 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: You clearly understand my point, though. Since V.J

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

2018-11-03 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sat, 3 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: You clearly understand my point, though. Since V.J. is referring to a pledge that doesn't exist, saying "the pledge above is true" just doesn't really mean anything. I wouldn't call them "lies", or "intending to mislead" because I don't see any of that

DIS: Re: BUS: 3679-80 judgements

2018-11-03 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sat, 3 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: == 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. I strongly dislike this argument. INEFFECTIVE applies to

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3679 and 3680 - judgements

2018-11-02 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote: - With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 with a minimum of 1. ("With Consent" is shorthand for this method with N = 1.) "With Agoran Consent". Consent has other meanings so not good to leave it out. OPINIONS ON DEPENDENT

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

2018-11-01 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote: Is this really what you want? Gaelan On Nov 1, 2018, at 3:37 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: 2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or more days in the previous month and no unforgivable fines were levied on em for

DIS: Murphy's Lawlessness (Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter (Weekly Report))

2018-11-01 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, Rebecca wrote: I expunge a blot from myself Looking at the recent blot history, someone should remind Murphy e might want to start doing this too. Greetings, Ørjan. On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 2:54 AM Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: Date of this weekly report: 2018-11-01 Date

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

2018-11-01 Thread Ørjan Johansen
Packages are received. (If I recall correctly, it's mattered less subtly before when Agora had limited funds.) On 10/31/2018 9:36 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote: Imminent Sector is an singleton switch, tracked by the Spacekeepor, defaulting to 1. Every

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Quick proposals

2018-10-31 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: Repeal Rule 2505 "Distributing Assets". That should be 2515. Amend Rule 1728 "Dependent Actions" by: replacing the following: 2. If the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N Agoran Consent, or With Notice, if the

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

2018-10-31 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote: 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

Re: DIS: Hypothetical: What if a player dies?

2018-10-29 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, ATMunn wrote: Kinda dark, but interesting. And since Agora has been going on for so long and doesn't seem like it will stop anytime soon, even thought it would be sad, it's not a complete impossibility. Even darker, it may already have happened without us knowing.

DIS: Proposal 8121 (Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8112-8122)

2018-10-29 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 28 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote: 8121 G. 3.0 Retroactive Documents PRESENT. There are arguments for and against doing this and I am not convinced which way to go. This was a result of a discussion between me and G. on a rather subtle point, where it took a

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >