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

```
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

6. An interpretation causing CFJ 3726 to be FALSE
=

Assuming I've not got things backwards somewhere else, I think you swapped
FALSE and TRUE at these points.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

### Re: DIS: How are Rule ID Numbers assigned?

```
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 gives em some power over conflict
resolution. However, as a matter of convention, e only assigns the next
number in line. The rule is left unspecified so that there isn’t a problem
if e assigns the wrong number by mistake and also because defining which
number e has to use would require the rule to write out the algorithm to be
used. The benefit gained by assigning the wrong number is small enough that
the Rulekeepor can be trusted not to annoy everyone by breaking the
convention. Make sense?

-Aris

On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 5:57 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:

Hello everyone,

I'm new, and I've just started reading the rules, so please forgive me if
this is has an obvious answer.

Can the Rulekeepor assign any ID numbers to rules that e wishes? I ask
because I noticed that the ID numbers of rules affect conflict resolution,
and there doesn't seem to be a way of assigning ID numbers specified in the
rules, thus giving the Rulekeepor some (small) amount of say in the
application of the rules.

Jason Cobb

```

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

```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 report.  I posted two public messages
announcing that I paid 2 coins to Agora.  If I had been wise I would have made
the second one conditional upon the first not succeeding.  I was not wise, so I
think I should only have 56 coins.

CFJ: Rance paid 2 Coins to Agora twice on 2019-05-20. Arguments to follow.

I respond to Rance's above CoE by citing the CFJ

Arguments:
I believe this is FALSE.

Rance's second email said "I apologize if this message comes through
as a duplicate.", which makes it clear that the first part of that
email is a retransmission of the same message, not a new, independent
message. I think CFJs 1451 [0] and 1452 [1] are relevant here: in each
of those cases, a player sent a single message across multiple emails.
The only difference here is that the emails are redundent (repeating
the same content) rather than splitting the content across multiple
messages.

Nothing in Rule 478 says that every email constitutes a message. The
fora are a way to send public messages, but I believe we should use
common sense (R217) in determining what messages the players sent.

[0] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1451
[1] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1452

```

### DIS: Re: BUS: Election

```
As on the previous occasion, I got the original message.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Sat, 11 May 2019, D. Margaux wrote:

Below is Murphy’s message from the website, which somehow hasn’t come through.

I declare candidacy for Assessor.

Can you have an election for imposed offices? I thought Comptrollor was
imposed, but not 100% sure.

BUS: Elections
Edward Murphy Wed, 08 May 2019 19:44:51 -0700

For each of these interim offices, as ADoP, I initiate an election for that
office (current holder if any in parentheses):
Arbitor (Aris)
Assessor (D. Margaux)
Astronomor (twg)
Clork (twg)
Comptroller
Herald
Prime Minister
Referee
Registrar (Falsifian)
Treasuror (Falsifian)

```

### DIS: Re: BUS: Email Weirdness Etc

```
I received it, so it at least got out of the server.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Sun, 28 Apr 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:

I haven't gotten this email yet [1]. It shows up in the archive, but
not in my inbox. Is anyone else having this problem?

Also, I don't believe the decision on who should be Prime Minister was
ever opened, and I CoE the finding of no quorum on that basis.

[1]

-Aris

```

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

```
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

```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 archives. When was that email sent, and to which list?

I don't think it has any bearing on the CFJs. I'm just trying to
figure out if I'm missing emails.

++-+
|AI  | 3.1 |
|Quorum  |  5  |
++-+
|Corona Z 7b.|  F  |
|D. MargauxPM| |
|G.  | FFF |
|Falsifian   | FFF |
|L. Z 1b.|+FFF |
|twg  4b.| FF  |
++-+
|FOR | 16  |
|AGAINST |  0  |
|Ballots |  6  |
++-+

Key:
#b. Possesses # blots [-floor(#/3) voting strength]
PM  Prime Minister [+1 voting strength]
Z   Zombie
+   Extricated conditional

On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 at 02:30, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

Attached as individual text files. Please have a look and let me know what you
think...

-twg

```

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

```
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 rigmarole.
Wonder what happened to that.)

Maybe let a CoE include a connected CFJ, in which case a response
might not be mandatory.

Without such an explicit connection, such a clause could make a report
accidentally not self-ratify because of a CFJ that wasn't even intended
(or stated) to be relevant to it, which seems to me like a bad idea.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

### DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to clean rules

```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 clean Rule 2422 by changing "theresult" to "the result",
without objection.
I intend to clean Rule 2532 by changing "Call fo Judgement" to "Call for
Judgement", without objection.

Oops, I let that expire.

I intend to clean Rule 2422 by changing "theresult" to "the result",
without objection.
I intend to clean Rule 2532 by changing "Call fo Judgement" to "Call
for Judgement", without objection.

```

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

```
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 you are not entirely clearly doing something that would
have succeeded if intent wasn't broken.

Better to outright lie in the action part itself, me thinks.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```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
Author: twg
Co-authors: D Margaux, Telnaior

Amend Rule 2591, "Spaceships", by replacing the following:

* Armour (an integer switch limited to values from 0 to 10
inclusive).

with:

* Armour (an integer switch limited to values from 0 to 10
inclusive, defaulting to 10).

Flip to 10 the Armour of each Spaceship that, at the time of the
submission of this proposal, was:

* in Sector 04 and owned by Baron von Vaderham, or;
* in Sector 05 and owned by twg [previously Lost & Found], or;
* in Sector 08 and owned by Falsifian, or;
* in Sector 09 and owned by Telnaior, or;
* in Sector 16 and owned by Telnaior [previously Lost & Found].

```

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

```
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 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
contains the text “Players can’t Declare Quanging.”
Power 1: Players can’t Declare Quanging.
}

{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
describes a circumstance in which players can not do so, and that circumstance
applies.
Power 1: Players can’t Declare Quanging unless hold at least 5 coins.
}

{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
contains text prohibiting doing so.
Power 1:  Players can’t Declare Quanging unless hold at least 5 coins.
}

{
Power 3: Players can Declare Quanging by announcement, unless another rule
prohibits doing so.
Power 1:  Players can’t Declare Quanging unless hold at least 5 coins.
}

Gaelan

On Feb 24, 2019, at 10:40 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

On 2/24/2019 10:11 AM, D. Margaux wrote:

The ultimate point is that the CFJ doesn’t consider the differencesbetween >
the situation where ONE rule claims priority/deference to the other and
the other is silent, versus when BOTH rules give INCONSISTENT
priority/deference answers, versus when both rules give CONSISTENT
priority/deference (in which case no conflict because the rules agree, and
therefore no R1030).

I wholly agree, and that's by design.  The first clause of R1030 makes it
clear that rules simply cannot defer or prefer to higher/lower powers - it's
very purposeful security.  This is why it's important to treat clauses like
"except as prohibited" as signaling conflicts to be resolved via R1030,
rather than as "lack of conflict".  Otherwise, we're permitting rules to
delegate things to lower-powered rules contrary to R1030.

There's an entirely-independent protection worth considering, in R2140 -
even if a higher-powered rule defers to a lower powered-one, if the lower-
powered one then makes use of that deference to "set or modify a substantive
aspect" of the higher-powered rule, which is further defined as "any"
aspect, it may be blocked.

```

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

```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 easily be vetoed to cancel the creation part.

Alternatively, voters could make votes conditional on whether there is a
veto or not.

On the other hand, I can imagine occasional useful vetoes to cancel bugs
and the like.

In sum, this proposal can't cause real trouble if proposal writers
or voters are really careful, but that may be a tall assumption.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Sun, 24 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote:

I submit the following proposal, line-item veto 2, AI-1:

Enact a Rule, "Line-item Veto", with the following text:

The Comptrollor is an imposed office.  When the office is vacant,
the ADoP CAN, by announcement, set the Comptroller to a player
chosen at random from the set of current Officers, excepting any
player who was most recently the Comptrollor.  The ADoP SHALL do
so in a timely fashion after the office becomes vacant.

When the Comptrollor office has been held for the same player for
30 days, it becomes vacant.

A Notice of Veto is a body of text, published by the Comptrollor,
clearly, directly, and without obfuscation labelled within the
publishing message as being a Notice of Veto.

When a Comptrollor publishes a Notice of Veto, the office of
Comptrollor becomes vacant.

If the text of a Notice of Veto clearly indicates certain
provisions within specified Proposals as being vetoed, and the
voting period for a decision to adopt the proposal is ongoing
when the Notice is published, then the provision is vetoed.
For the purposes of this Rule, each individual change specified
within a proposal's text is a "provision".

Vetoed provisions in a proposal CANNOT be applied when that
proposal takes effect.

```

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

```
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 consider your logic and reject it, finding
instead that the rules-languages of R1030 defines deference clauses
/conditionals like these as indicating "conflicts" for the purposes of
R1030.

I see nothing about conditionals in that judgement.

My opinion at this point is that although the rules seem to do so, it
doesn't really make much sense to treat deference as something special -
any rule naturally has the ability to limit its _own_ interpretation, so
why legislate it further at all?  It's completely different from
precedence, which attempts to limit a _different_ rule.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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 same power.  Power is
the first test applied (R1030).

I think the "Except as prohibited by other rules" is a condition, and
_possibly_ also a deference (it depends on exactly what deference means).

But because it's a condition rather than just something like "This Rule
defers to blah blah blah", it also naturally prevents a conflict from
arising, and therefore the fact that it's a deference shouldn't matter.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```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
inclusive).

with:

* Armour (an integer switch limited to values from 0 to 10
inclusive, defaulting to 10).

```

### DIS: Re: BUS: Victory by Apathy

```
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote:

5. Rule 2465 says: "Upon doing so, the specified players win the game."
When we talk about "Doing X" for any X, we almost always take X to refer
to the Action ("Declaring apathy") and not the method (without
objection). R2125 supports this in that it separates Action from
Method. Therefore, "Upon doing so" refers to the action but not the
method.

Although the CFJ seems to be judged false for other reasons, I'd like to
mention that I don't agree with this point - "so" naturally refers to the
entire scenario of the previous sentence, including the without objection
part.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

### Re: DIS: Relics

```
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 kind of omnipotence, if Relics even
"matter" anymore. You could just self-assign to yourself all of the Relics
you want anyways. Or wins, for that matter. It's weird. But so are scams!
So I'll add it anyways for the Fun of it, what is Agora without Fun anyways.

The Cincinnatus suggestion was because he was famous not just for getting
absolute dictator power (several republican Romans did that, as it was an
emergency war custom), but for _giving it up early_ the moment the war was
won.  I see your current proto does not really mention that aspect, so
perhaps Gluttony is a better name for it.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

PROTO:
---*---
- Wrath Relic: When a person performs a regulated action upon another
person without their Consent, while they are able to perform a different
regulated action that requires that person's Consent to perform the same
effect, you earn a Wrath Relic.
- Pride: I don't know how Instruments work lmao, I should read it up in
order to write this (yes I know Read the Ruleset Week was a while ago, I
- Gluttony: When a single person, without aid of the action of other
persons, can change the content of a Power-3 rule, they earn a Gluttony
Relic.
---*---

Also, ty G. for the alternative rulemasonry for the first parts of this.
I'll go with that. I'll call them Ribbons (not "Ordinary", just plain
Ribbons) and Relics and both are Decorations.

```

### Re: DIS: Relics

```
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) Getting a Win from (Ordinary) Ribbons is supposed to be a long-term,
hard challenge.  I think the Black Ribbon is supposed to be one of the
hardest to get, and so moving it away from Ordinary Ribbons will both
cheapen a Win from them _and_ make some of the work people have already
done to get closer to a Ribbon Win wasted.

(Admittedly I think there was a reasonably recent event when a _lot_ of
people earned Black Ribbons rather cheaply, so...)

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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 change the ruleset much, and proposal
results self-ratify.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to make cleanings self-ratifying for the
future.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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 With T Notice.
after bullet (3).

The changes since then are unrelated.

For the suggested retroactive "as if the rule had been all the time what
we're currently amending it to", any changes in between could be
problematic, even those unrelated to (4).

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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, because in particular if a Dictator uses a
Dictator Scam to remove the Dictator prohibition, we can have a nice long
philosophical argument about whether that's cool or not.

Cincinnatus Relic, check.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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 finagle their scam into a win. (Remember the
"skunk" rule? That was part of the cleanup from one of those events.)

Win by Lightning Rod?

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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 CFJ.

It may be a bit moot with all the other problems, but I distinctly recall
discussing that support cannot be done on behalf because of the "consent"
synonym (although was there ever a CFJ?)

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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 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 legislated that Agora would be destroyed?  I don't think
that works.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

-Aris

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:56 PM Madeline  wrote:

Obviously, I'm just talking in hypotheticals.

On 2019-02-16 09:55, Aris Merchant wrote:

No one is doing anything that has any meaningful chance of destroying
Agora. If there’s a bug in your mechanism, the stakes go from it being
broken to the game dying permanently.

-Aris

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:52 PM Madeline  wrote:

"If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other rules

notwithstanding,

Agora is destroyed."
(Would any other rule need to actually change for such a clause to

work

if an outside Power 3 rule is adjusting its power?)

On 2019-02-16 09:47, D. Margaux wrote:

Love it.

You could have a separate power 3 rule that (1) changes the power of

the

Ritual rule and (2) causes itself to be repealed when the Ritual rule

is

repealed.

And I’d love to see the power of the Ritual rule increase, too, if

the

Rule is left unappeased... and maybe increase at a higher rate than it

can

be decreased?

On Feb 15, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

Actually I've been pondering something even fancier, like every time
it's appeased it decreases in Power and the Power is linked to the
Consent required.  Or something.  (of course you can't increase

power

in the same way).

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:08 PM D. Margaux

wrote:

Any chance we can have it repeal with Agoran Consent or something

more

than notice? Or is that excessive? :-)

On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

Actually, one more time.  Empty sacrifices are meaningless.

I withdraw my proposal, The Ritual.

I submit the following proposal, Ritual Sacrifice, AI-1:

Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following
text:

Any player CAN perform The Ritual by paying a fee of 7

Coins,

thus appeasing
this Rule for a single instant.  This Rule MUST be appeased

at

least once

in every Agoran week.

If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5

successive

Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause

it

to

repeal itself) with Notice.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:12 PM Kerim Aydin

wrote:

I withdraw the proposal I recently submitted, quoted below.

I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1:

Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the

following

text:

Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement, thus

appeasing

this Rule for a single instant.  This Rule MUST be

appeased

at

least once

in every Agoran week.

If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5

successive

Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause

it to

repeal itself) with Notice.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:44 AM Kerim Aydin

wrote:

I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1:

Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the

following

text:

Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement.  In

order

to

appease this Rule, at least one player MUST perform The

Ritual in

every Agoran week.

If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5

successive

Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause

it

to

repeal itself) with Notice.

```

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

```
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 legislated that Agora would be destroyed?  I don't think
that works.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

-Aris

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:56 PM Madeline  wrote:

Obviously, I'm just talking in hypotheticals.

On 2019-02-16 09:55, Aris Merchant wrote:

No one is doing anything that has any meaningful chance of destroying
Agora. If there’s a bug in your mechanism, the stakes go from it being
broken to the game dying permanently.

-Aris

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:52 PM Madeline  wrote:

"If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other rules notwithstanding,
Agora is destroyed."
(Would any other rule need to actually change for such a clause to work
if an outside Power 3 rule is adjusting its power?)

On 2019-02-16 09:47, D. Margaux wrote:

Love it.

You could have a separate power 3 rule that (1) changes the power of

the

Ritual rule and (2) causes itself to be repealed when the Ritual rule is
repealed.

And I’d love to see the power of the Ritual rule increase, too, if the

Rule is left unappeased... and maybe increase at a higher rate than it

can

be decreased?

On Feb 15, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

Actually I've been pondering something even fancier, like every time
it's appeased it decreases in Power and the Power is linked to the
Consent required.  Or something.  (of course you can't increase power
in the same way).

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:08 PM D. Margaux

wrote:

Any chance we can have it repeal with Agoran Consent or something

more

than notice? Or is that excessive? :-)

On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

Actually, one more time.  Empty sacrifices are meaningless.

I withdraw my proposal, The Ritual.

I submit the following proposal, Ritual Sacrifice, AI-1:

Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following
text:

Any player CAN perform The Ritual by paying a fee of 7 Coins,
thus appeasing
this Rule for a single instant.  This Rule MUST be appeased

at

least once

in every Agoran week.

If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive
Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause it

to

repeal itself) with Notice.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:12 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

I withdraw the proposal I recently submitted, quoted below.

I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1:

Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following
text:

Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement, thus

appeasing

this Rule for a single instant.  This Rule MUST be appeased

at

least once

in every Agoran week.

If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5 successive
Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause

it to

repeal itself) with Notice.

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:44 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1:

Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the following
text:

Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement.  In

order

to

appease this Rule, at least one player MUST perform The

Ritual in

every Agoran week.

If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5

successive

Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule (cause

it

to

repeal itself) with Notice.

```

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

```
No, it's one where you promise not to act unless both are fulfilled.

Greetings,
Ørjan, who keeps seeing more and more evidence that humans are naturally
bad at this kind of distinction.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Madeline wrote:

How so? Does it need to have both enough support and a lack 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 response to D. Margaux:
"That breaks if intents are allowed to be both with objection and with
support."

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Madeline wrote:

Suggested wording:

Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only
if one or more of the following are true:

1. the action is to be performed Without N Objections and it
has fewer than N objectors;

2. the action is to be performed With N support and it has
N or more supporters

3. the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent and either
the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the
action has at least one supporter and no objectors.

4. the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice.

On 2019-02-15 11:54, James Cook wrote:

whether "if X then Y" is true. With classical logic, we may interpret
that as "not X or Y", which would work great, but it could also be
interpreted as the list entry only being present if X is there, so
we'd end up with "if all of the following are true: ", and
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
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 suggest staying with forward reasoning by keeping the
current
items, except for #4 and the "; and", and adding "if all of the
following

are true" that you suggested in an earlier message.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote:

Sorry for all the versions.

I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction,
Version 1.1.2) and submit a proposal as follows, and comment that I
removed the word "and" between #2 and #3 and turned the items into
sentences.

Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.3
Text:
Replace the following part of of Rule 2124:

Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if
and only if:

1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it
has fewer than N objectors;

2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has
N or more supporters; and

3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then
the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the
action has at least one supporter and no objectors.

4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice.

with this:

Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
unless at least one of the following is true:

1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has
at least N objectors.

2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has fewer
than N supporters.

3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and
the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and
the

action has no supporters or at least one objector.

```

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

```
Quoting myself from my response to D. Margaux:
"That breaks if intents are allowed to be both with objection and with
support."

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Madeline wrote:

Suggested wording:

Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if
one or more of the following are true:

1. the action is to be performed Without N Objections and it
has fewer than N objectors;

2. the action is to be performed With N support and it has
N or more supporters

3. the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent and either
the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the
action has at least one supporter and no objectors.

4. the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice.

On 2019-02-15 11:54, James Cook wrote:

whether "if X then Y" is true. With classical logic, we may interpret
that as "not X or Y", which would work great, but it could also be
interpreted as the list entry only being present if X is there, so
we'd end up with "if all of the following are true: ", and
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
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 suggest staying with forward reasoning by keeping the current
items, except for #4 and the "; and", and adding "if all of the following
are true" that you suggested in an earlier message.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote:

Sorry for all the versions.

I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction,
Version 1.1.2) and submit a proposal as follows, and comment that I
removed the word "and" between #2 and #3 and turned the items into
sentences.

Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.3
Text:
Replace the following part of of Rule 2124:

Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if
and only if:

1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it
has fewer than N objectors;

2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has
N or more supporters; and

3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then
the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the
action has at least one supporter and no objectors.

4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice.

with this:

Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
unless at least one of the following is true:

1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has
at least N objectors.

2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has fewer
than N supporters.

3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and
the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the
action has no supporters or at least one objector.

```

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

```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 suggest staying with forward reasoning by keeping the current
items, except for #4 and the "; and", and adding "if all of the following
are true" that you suggested in an earlier message.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote:

Sorry for all the versions.

I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction,
Version 1.1.2) and submit a proposal as follows, and comment that I
removed the word "and" between #2 and #3 and turned the items into
sentences.

Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.3
Text:
Replace the following part of of Rule 2124:

Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if
and only if:

1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it
has fewer than N objectors;

2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has
N or more supporters; and

3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then
the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the
action has at least one supporter and no objectors.

4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice.

with this:

Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
unless at least one of the following is true:

1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has
at least N objectors.

2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has fewer
than N supporters.

3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and
the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the
action has no supporters or at least one objector.

```

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

```
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 was with N support; OR
the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than or equal to N and
the action is to be taken with N Agoran Consent; etc.

That breaks if intents are allowed to be both with objection and with
support.  I think there was once a rule that allowed making intents with
stricter methods than necessary (I guess you still can add conditions).

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

### Re: DIS: Trouble subscribing

```
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 others are having trouble.

I don't know but it _could_ be because of spam blacklisting.  (Consider
this something halfway between suggestion and snark.)

I had trouble last year around the time of Agora's Birthday because the
Agora server kept getting on a public spam blacklist my mail server uses.
The honorable Distributor never responded (has he been seen since?) and I

If your university servers use the same kind of blacklist, that could be
swallowing your confirmation email.  (Hm I guess you could check if it's
ended up in a spam folder, too - I don't have one.)

No one else on the Agora lists ever reported having the same problem,
though.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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 succeeded by that of his brilliant son
Kim Kong Ill.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

### Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Quang Revived

```
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,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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

```
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 objection.

On Feb 4, 2019, at 6:22 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

It's not 100% guaranteed to work, but why not - I intend, without objection, to
Declare Apathy, specifying the set of players that is the union of
(a) {twg},
(b) if ais523 is a player at the time this action is performed, then {ais523},
otherwise the empty set, and
(c) the set of people who, at the time this action is performed, are players
and have privately sent me a broadly correct explanation of the scam.

I object.

```

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

```
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:

//
ID: 8162
Title: No Contract Reporting Rewards
Author: Telnaior
Co-authors: G.

Amend the phrase "Publishing a duty-fulfilling report" in Rule 2496
("Rewards") to the following:
"Publishing a report fulfilling the weekly or monthly duties of an office"

The "the" there makes it seem like the report must fulfil _all_ of the
duties, but e.g. the Promotor's main weekly duty (distribution) is not
part of eir report.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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 safeties in 105 and 1688.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

### DIS: Re: BUS: Red herrings and indigo ribbons

```
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 effect of the "consents" synonym.

For another thing ... I'm going to save that until it's completely agreed
that rule 869 kills the attempt anyway.

Greetings,
Ørjan, who is only 16% into the ruleset reading and may be extending the
week a bit.

```

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

```
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 seems bad form
not to include it.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

### Re: DIS: [Proto] Extend "amend"

```
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 specified for
reenactment. The rule's properites are to be set as follows:

"properties"

* its ID number will be the same as it was when the rule was
most recently repealed.

* its change identifier will be one more than its change
identifier when it was most recently repealed.

* If no text is specified for the rule, it is to have the same
text it had when it was most recently repealed. If the
reenacting instrument provides new text, it is to have that
text. The rule SHOULD have materially the same purpose as did
the repealed version.

* If a new power is not specified, it is to have power equal to
the power it had at the time of its most recent repeal, or
power 1, if power was not defined at the time of that rule's
repeal. If the reenacting instrument provides a new power, it
is to have that power.

* If a new title is not specified, it is to have the same title
as it had when it was most recently repealed. If the
reenacting instrument provides a new title, it is to have
that title.

Perhaps the last three can be consolidated like you did with amendment:

* Each of its text, power and title shall be as provided by the
reenacting instrument, or if not provided, the same as when it
was most recently repealed, with power defaulting to 1 if it had
none. The rule SHOULD have materially the same purpose as did
the repealed version.

If the re-enacting instrument is incapable of setting the
reenacted rule's power to that value, then the re-enactment is
INEFFECTIVE.

4. amend a rule. This may include changing the rule's text, name,
or power.

--
Trigon

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

### Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup

```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
suspect this proposal breaks that.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:

Below is a protoproposal that is meant to address the bug that Gaelan
identified.  I also noticed what might be another bug--I believe,
under the current first paragraph (1), an intent might fail if the
player ever announced that same intent more than 15 days prior.  So,
arguably, if Gaelan ever announced intent to declare apathy more than
14 days ago, then eir current declaration of apathy failed under the
first paragraph (1).  I also think the current dependent action rule
is very very difficult to parse, so I made some modifications to
improve readability.  I think part of the reason the bug was able to
slip through was that the formatting of the rule makes it hard to
parse.

Comments welcome.  I won't be offended if people say that they don't
want to reformat the rule, but I do think it's currently very hard to

Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act
Author: D Margaux
Co-author: Gaelan
AI: 3

Amend Rule 1728 to replace its entire text with the following:

{

(a) The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent
actions" (N is 1 unless otherwise specified):

1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater
than 8 ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with
N = 1);

2. With N Support, where N is a positive integer ("With
Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1);

3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1
with a minimum of 1;

4. With Notice; or

5. With T Notice, where T is a time period.

(b) A rule that purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform
an action by a set of one or more dependent actions defined above in
section (a) thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if
all of the following are true:

1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent to
perform the action within the 14 days preceding the action;

2. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform
the action between 4 and 14 days preceding the action, if
the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N
Agoran Consent, or With Notice;

3. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform
the action between T and 14 days preceding the action,
if the action is to be performed With T Notice;

4. Any announcement of intent relied upon to meet any
applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or
(b)(3) unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without
obfuscation specified the action intended to be taken
and method(s) to be used (including the value of
N and/or T for each method);

5. At least one of the following is true:

A. The performer is the initiator;

B. The initiator was authorized to perform the action
due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the
performer; or

C. The initiator is authorized to perform the action,
the action depends on support, the performer has
supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the
performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from
performing it,

6.  Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined
by other rules; and

7. The conditions are met, if any conditions were stated in
the announcement of intent relied upon to meet any
applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or
(b)(3).

(c) The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters if the action
depends on support, and a list of objectors if it depends on
objections.

}

```

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

```
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 case. While R1728(1) specifies merely (and somewhat
ungrammatically) that the initiator must have "announced intent",
R1728(2) discusses requirements for "the intent". The use of the definite
article in R1728(2) means that the intent used to satisfy it must be the
same one previously mentioned, i.e. the same one used to satisfy
R1728(1). Thus, Gaelan cannot use one intent to satisfy R1728(1) and a
different intent to satisfy R1728(2).

The obvious counterargument is that there was only one intent, just two
announcements of it.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

### DIS: Re: BUS: Quang Revived

```
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

```
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,
Ørjan.

```

### DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

```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 deputise for Promotor to distribute the proposal that I
submitted today and that was not withdrawn.

(This is merely meant to ensure that I can force my scam proposal to be
distributed this week, to reduce the chance that anyone could discover
it or launch a counter-scam. This isn’t meant to be any kind of
criticism of the commendable job done by our H. Promotor. If this
inadvertently violates game norms, then I won’t execute either intent.)

```

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

```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 this, though.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Niiice, Telnaior. c: It wasn't, in fact, what I was going for. I guess
contracts are just horribly broken, huh.

I consent to be bound by the terms of the following document, with the
intent for it to become a contract provided G. also so agrees. (Slightly
modified from the previous version to improve G.'s security.)

{
This is a contract between twg and G. Other persons CANNOT become parties.

twg CAN modify this contract by announcement, with the exception that
twg CANNOT (and SHALL NOT attempt to) modify this contract such that it
imposes any obligation on G. or otherwise significantly harms eir
standing in the game, or such that this paragraph is removed, altered or
otherwise rendered ineffective.

Beads are a currency defined by this contract. Ownership of beads is
restricted to any entity. twg CAN, by announcement, create a bead in the
possession of any entity.

Each bead has a colour, which is one of the following: red, green, blue,
cyan, magenta, yellow or white. The colour of a bead is set when it is
created and cannot thereafter be changed. An attempt to create a bead is
INEFFECTIVE if the colour of the bead is not specified.

}

*whistles innocently*

(I'm also quite happy to just explain the scam, incidentally, and will
on request from G. But it seems more fun to give a relatively-harmless
live demonstration.)

-twg

```

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

```
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 is supposed to work by the end of the week
(even if you haven't made the final moves yet).

This pretty much rules out pulling some scams - those which require more
than a week to pull off and can be prevented by someone who knows how it
works before it's finished.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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

```
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."

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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 send a message, only to perform specific actions that
might be taken within a message.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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

```
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 reenactment provision doesn't actually mention titles at all.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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

```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 _current_ ruleset.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Sun, 20 Jan 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

I understand and agree with your logic (and, incidentally, would find it
hilarious if this made me guilty of Masterminding Being a Bad Space
Captain), but I have a brief question that occurred to me yesterday

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

This seems to imply that it is possible for someone to act on behalf of
someone else to "publicly state" something, and explicitly excludes that
ability. This is almost the same as the language used in the Ribbons
rule ("publicly acknowledged the fact [that it is Agora's Birthday]").

Does this mean that the "acting as emself" clause in R2519 is simply
unnecessary? Or is "stating" something different from "sending a message
that states" something?

```

### Re: DIS: oh dear

```
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 system, initially completely broken.
2. Use a few weeks to correct the most ruinous bugs.
3. With the system now barely useable, some people find new bugs and use
them to get an insurmountable advantage.
4. Spend several months trying to weed out the most annoying bugs.
5. Just as the system looks like it's starting to work as intended, all
the players except for those from (3) vote to repeal it because it's
too much work and hasn't been fun to play.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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 this. You know you want to.

This discussion makes me even more doubtful about the recent usage of
"quang" BTW, except in those messages that also quote its definition.

Before all the mention of typical Agorans I thought it would probably be
OK as long as you were the relevant recordkeepor, but now I'm not so sure.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

### Re: DIS: Re: BUS: RIP

```
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 2576, it seems slightly unclear
but plausible that it was destroyed immediately upon entering the L
Department.

Which incidentally also provides a crude way of opting out of this game
while not currently in a battle, for those seeking it.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

Rule 2576/0 (Power=3)
Ownership

Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset's backing document
restricts its ownership to a class of entities, then that asset
CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity outside that
class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity outside that
class. The restrictions in the previous sentence are subject to
modification by its backing document. By default, ownership of an
asset is restricted to Agora, players, and contracts.

If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost
and Found Department. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the
Lost and Found Department can own assets of every type. Assets
owned by the Lost and Found Department can be transferred or
destroyed by any player without objection.

```

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

```
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 rewards for proposals...)

Doing this to personally gain an advantage may be controversial, but doing
it in a manner that ends up completely undoing the effect of proposal 8144
is just plain rude.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

-twg

SUMMARY

This section self-ratifies.

IDAuthor(s)  Title  Result

8143  Trigon Happy Birthday to You v3   ADOPTED
8144  Trigon Sharing the Wealth ADOPTED
8142  twg et al. Let Me Back In!ADOPTED

7 ballots were cast on Proposal 8142, so Quorum on Agoran Decisions is
now 5 except where otherwise stated.

This section does not self-ratify.

+-+-+-+-+
| 8143| 8144| 8145| 8142|
++-+-+-+-+
|AI  | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 2.0 |
|Quorum  |  7  |  7  |  7  |  7  |
++-+-+-+-+
|Aris| AAA | AAA | AAA | FFF |
|D. Margaux  | FFF | FFF | FFF | FFF |
|Gaelan  |+FFF |+ P  | FFF |+FFF |
|Murphy  | FFF | FFF | FFF | FFF |
|Tenhigitsune   Z|+FFF |+FFF |+FFF |+FFF |
|Trigon  | FFF |  P  |  P  | FFF |
|twg | FFF | FFF |+FFF | FFF |
++-+-+-+-+
|FOR | 18  | 15  | 18  | 21  |
|AGAINST |  3  |  3  |  3  |  0  |
|Ballots |  7  |  7  |  7  |  7  |
++-+-+-+-+

Key:
#b. Possesses # blots [-floor(#/3) voting strength]
PM  Prime Minister [+1 voting strength]
Z   Zombie
+   Extricated conditional
x   Inextricable conditional

RIBBONS EARNED IN THIS RESOLUTION

This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify.

PlayerRibbonProposal(s)
-------
twg   Orange8139
twg   Orange8141
twg   Orange8142

This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify.

//
ID: 8143
Title: Happy Birthday to You v3
Author: Trigon
Co-authors:

Enact a new rule entitled "Birthday Gifts", power=1, with the text:

It is considered to be a player's Agoran Birthday on the
anniversary of the day e most recently registered. Every time it
is a player's Agoran Birthday, each of the other players CAN
grant em 3 coins by announcement.

Players are ENCOURAGED to announce their Agoran Birthdays.

//
ID: 8144
Title: Sharing the Wealth
Author: Trigon
Co-authors:

Amend rule 2496 "Rewards" by replacing the list element beginning "Being

* The following apply to adopted proposals:

*  Being the author: a number of coins equal to ((the total
number of valid ballots cast FOR the decision - the total
number of valid ballots cast AGAINST) times its adoption
index) rounded up.
*  Being listed as a coauthor: the same amount, divided by 2 and
rounded up.

//
ID: 8145
Title: No Rebirth
Author: Gaelan
Co-authors:

IF THE PROPOSAL “Happy Birthday to You v3” HAS BEEN RESOLVED AND ENACTED:
Amend the rule entitled “Birthday Gifts” by replacing “anniversary of the
day e most recently registered” with “anniversary of the day e first
registered. If the day a player first registered is unknown, that player
CAN, with Agoran Consent, declare a day to be eir Agoran Birthday. As long
as the day a player first registered remains unknown, it is considered to be
eir Agoran Birthday on the anniversary of the day e most recently declared
as eir Agoran Birthday”

IF THE PROPOSAL “Happy Birthday to You v3” HAS NOT BEEN RESOLVED, BUT IF
RESOLVED WOULD BE ENACTED:
Create a power-1 rule entitled “ugh” with the text “Any player may, by
announcement cause this rule to amend the rule entitled “Birthday Gifts”
by replacing “anniversary of the day e most recently registered” with
“anniversary of the day e first registered. If the day a player first
```

### DIS: Re: BUS: Open call for politician names

```
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 Surreali
Ronald Ray-Gun
Genghis Khaan
Lex Luthor

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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

```
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 overrides the rule that says zombie
transferral is possible, somehow, as part of an auction. But I'm not
confident enough in that interpretation to judge the case.

The content of the Rules surely must be the exact _opposite_ of what
"physical reality" refers to in those judgements?

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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"? (your preference, but I'd go for "first" personally).

I suspect "most recently" is easier to verify.  For example, I'm pretty
sure my first registration isn't listed.  In fact I don't know the exact
date myself.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
On Sat, 15 Dec 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:

Amend rule 2496 "Rewards" by replacing the list element beginning "Being

I suspect you are missing "with text" or something in there.

* The following apply to adopted proposals:

* Being the author: a number of coins equal to ((the total
number of valid ballots cast FOR the decision - the total
number of valid ballots cast AGAINST) times its adoption
index) rounded up.
* Being listed as a coauthor: the same amount, divided by 2 and
rounded up.

Hm, I smell a tab character.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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 this satisfy? I believe it presently gives the order omd,
ATMunn, P.S.S., Gaelan, twg, nichdel, G., CuddleBeam, D. Margaux,
Aris, L., Trigon, Halian, Telnaior, Tarhalindur, Tenhigitsune,
Jacob Arduino, Corona, pokes, Murphy, V.J. Rada, which seems to me to
have sufficient entropy.]

You seem to have forgotten the action itself :P

Other than that, the potential for manipulation looks small, especially if
the proposal gets resolved before new year (in which case a new player
registering just before would get a late position, but would get that if
registering _afterward_ as well.)  And it's obviously harder to pull off
for people who are already players.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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 the initiation of a Space Battle to be EFFECTIVE, the initiator
must correctly specify the resolver.

(1) Shouldn't this be a player rather than a person? (2) What if the list
changes before the battle is resolved?

For each player, iterating over them in order of the values of the
MD5 hashes of the nicknames they are known by in the most recent
Registrar weekly report [i.e. in an arbitrary order]: Create a
Spaceship in the possession of that player.

I'm not sure initial sector placement matters that much, but if someone
disagrees, e might have time to change eir nickname to manipulate eir
position.

Also, a player may have registered after the last registrar's report.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
On Sun, 9 Dec 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. For each office,
this reward can only be claimed for the first weekly report
published in a week and the first monthly report published 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 Walshe-Grey wrote:

Unfortunately I believe this fails, because you have already claimed a
reward this week for publication of the SLR (even though the SLR you
claimed the reward for was published last week).

That sounds rather annoying - e basically cannot synchronize the rewards
back without missing a report.

* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. This reward can
only be claimed once per office per week for a weekly report and
once per office per month for a monthly report.

Rephrasing the rule so that it clearly applies the "once per *" to the
timing of the report rather than the claim is a bit awkward. The
following is ambiguous between the current reading and the more flexible
one:

* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. This reward can
only be claimed for one weekly report per office per week
and for one monthly report per office per month.

I think the following should work:

* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. This reward can
only be claimed for one weekly report per office published in a
week and for one monthly report per office published in a month.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

[Narrowly avoid quoting entire ruleset]

```

### DIS: Re: BUS: Weekly maintenance

```
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 disturbed that he made _three_ typos when first typing the
above.

```

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

```
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.

Resale value is a zombie switch, so while e is not a zombie eir resale
value simply does not exist.  (Or does it?  After writing the below I'm
wondering if rule 2240 might mess this up too because the provision that
says it doesn't exist is early in rule 2162.)

However, it occurs to me that rule 2162 is not obviously clear on what
happens when e again _does_ come to have an instance of that switch.
There are possibly competing provisions, and the later (which by rule 2240
would take precedence) _might_ imply it's set to the same value as the

At any given time, each instance of a switch has exactly one
possible value for that type of switch. If an instance of a switch
comes to have a value, it ceases to have any other value. If an
instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a possible
value, it comes to have its default value.

[...]

If an action or set of actions would cause the value of an
instance of a switch to become indeterminate, the instance instead
takes on its last determinate and possible value, if any,
otherwise it takes on its default value.

It depends on what it takes for a switch value to become indeterminate -
does the first provision trigger to prevent it from happening, before the
second one does?

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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 their ID numbers.
}

Suddenly I envision this should be "Astronomican".

Despite never having played the game...

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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, Persons with 'Registered' Citizenship, z=zombie)

Player   Contact Registered
--   --- --
omd  comexk at gmail.com [3] 03 Feb 11
Aris thoughtsoflifeandlight17 at gmail.com   13 Sep 16
P. Scholasticus [1]  pscriboniusscholasticus at gmail.com[2] 16 Apr 17
Gaelan   gbs at canishe.com  15 May 17
G.   kerim at u.washington.edu   25 Aug 17
Cuddle Beam  cuddlebeam at gmail.com 25 Aug 17
Trigon   reuben.staley at gmail.com  24 Sep 17
Corona   liliumalbum.agora at gmail.com  17 Nov 17
Murphy   emurphy42 at zoho.com   17 Dec 17
V.J. Radaedwardostrange at gmail.com[5]  29 Dec 17
ATMunn   iamingodsarmy at gmail.com  11 Mar 18
twg  me at timon.red 24 May 18
D. Margaux   dmargaux000 at gmail.com[4] 25 Aug 18
Lprmcd16 at yahoo.com20 Sep 18
Hālian   halian at safiria.net   20 Oct 18
Tarhalindur  ahzin23 at icstudents.org   31 Oct 18
Jacob Ardruino   jacobardruino at gmail.com  12 Nov 18
z  nichdel  nichdel at gmail.com29 Jun 17
z  pokespokes at botnoise.org   11 Dec 17
z  天火狐 draconicdarkness at gmail.com   06 Nov 16
z  Telnaior jdga at iinet.net.au20 Oct 17

[1] In full, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
[2] officially, but technically equivalent p.scribonius.scholasticus at
[3] officially, but technically equivalent c.ome.xk at gmail.com
[4] also known as D Margaux

Zombie Master and Resale switches (self-ratifying)

Zombie  Master   Resale   Agora was last eir Master on
TelnaiorAris 105-Sep-18 06:46:28
nichdel D. Margaux   109-Sep-18 17:17:16
pokes   G.   005-Nov-18 15:12:39

Fora (Rule 478, self-ratifying)

Type Location  Typical use
---
Public   agora-official at agoranomic.org  official reports
Discussion   agora-discussion at agoranomic.orgdiscussion
Discussion   irc://irc.freenode.net:6667/##nomic
discussion
Public   agora at listserver.tue.nlbackup

Subscribe or unsubscribe from main lists:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo

Subscribe or unsubscribe from tue.nl backup list:
http://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora

The IRC channel does not require subscription; set your IRC client to
server irc.freenode.net, port 6667, channel ##nomic, and whatever
nickname you like.

Writs of FAGE (Rule 1789)
PlayerDate
--
Kelly 17 Sep 95
Andre 13 Feb 99
BobTHJ16 Jan 08
P1 5 Nov 08
P2 5 Nov 08
P3 6 Nov 08
G.29 Jun 17

Watchers (4)

The list of Watchers is not governed by the rules, but is
traditionally maintained in the Registrar's Report.  If you'd like to
be listed as a Watcher or removed from the list, feel free to email
the fora or the Registrar directly.

Watchers confirmed as of May 2017:

Nickname  Contact
---
Ørjan oerjan at nvg.ntnu.no

Watchers confirmed as of May 2013:

Nickname  Contact
---
Dave  davidnicol at gmail.com
Phlogistique  noe.rubinstein at gmail.com
Steve zardoz37 at gmail.com

```

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

```
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 jeopardy provision only prevents _fining_ twice.  Although, I

think the levying is EFFECTIVE anyway.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

### DIS: Re: BUS: Vote

```
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 that proposal.

My interpretation of these actions is that the change entirely replaces
the AGAINST vote, whether or not the condition within happens.

The less plausible reading (which I think game custom would not prefer
unless you did it more unambiguously) is that it's a conditional action to
create a vote, not to create a conditional vote, in which case the change
is presumably ineffective because the condition is inextricable at this
time.

For what I suspect you want (unless you were trying to misguide), you need
to make a vote that contains the conditional branching inside it.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:

Yeah, exactly, looks like that would work.  I might make it "explicitly"
permitted it the first sentence but that might be me being overcautious.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Ah, I see now. So it should be something like:

A party to a contract CAN perform any of the following actions
as permitted by the contract's text:

* Act on behalf of another party to the contract.

* By announcement, destroy destructible assets in the
contract's possession.

* By announcement, transfer liquid assets in the contract's
possession.

?

(I'm not going to change my vote because I've _just_ managed to work out the
precarious tower of conditional votes and I don't want to confuse myself. But
it's nowhere near being adopted anyway.)

-twg

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 11:39 PM, Kerim Aydin
wrote:

No. Actions on behalf between persons are governed by R2466, which says
explicitly that the actor CAN use the same method the principal CAN. So
if the Rules say that Person A CAN transfer a currency "by announcement"
(which is covered in the Assets rules), and that Person B CAN act on
behalf of Person A (covered by act-on-behalf and current Contract rules),
then Person B CAN also do it "by announcement".

But that only works between persons, not between person and contract.

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:

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

On Sun, 25 Nov 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:

I vote AGAINST 8138 and act on behalf of pokes to vote AGAINST 8138.

There seems to be no methods as required by rule 2125.

I think "as permitted by a contract's text" may defer the method
specification to the contract (i.e. "by contract" is the specified
rules method, provided the contract says explicitly how to perform
However, this makes me realize what made me nervous: if that works,
the method specified in the contract could be private, which would
result in the contract being able to transfer currencies secretly
(not informing the recordkeepor) if the deference works. And if the
deference doesn't work, it's all broken anyway as Ørjan says.

```

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

```
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_
(or at least impractical to avoid) for the Assessor to resolve proposals
out of order because of voting period extensions.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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 has been resolved
AGAINST otherwise

ENDORSE twg if the  Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved
AGAINST otherwise

While I applaud the attempt to prevent the Assessor from gaining personal
advantage by reordering resolutions again, I don't think these work,
because conditionals are evaluated at the end of the _voting period_, not
when the proposals are later resolved.

Suggestion: Try something like "ENDORSE twg if e has pledged not to gain
personal advantage by reordering proposal resolutions for this batch."

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
On Sun, 25 Nov 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:

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.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
On Sat, 24 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:

In the most recent ruleset, I only replaced the "earn", not the "earns".

Someone can CoE it, but in a couple of weeks, Aris' proposal will pass and
converge the gamestate.

My options (1) and (4) would converge with this proposal, 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 words "earn" and "earns", and the
latter may be considered a form of the former (the lemma form).

Then the question is, did "earns" get replaced as well?  If (1) no, then
it is still in the rule (and the provision was buggy).  If yes, did it (2)
get substituted by the same text, or (3) by a version with a suitable -s
added for grammatical correctness?  Does this whole thing (4) make the
triggered provision ambiguous and thus the amendment fails completely?

And then for each option above, what happens with your uncorrection
proposal?  (1) It's fine since "earns" was never replaced.  (2) It will
turn what used to be "earns" into "earn".  (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 changes.
Did it get replaced by the original provision, and if so, does it get
uncorrected back correctly?

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:

Wait, you want the literal opposite of this right? You want to switch
it
back to “earn”. The problem is that the provision did trigger, and it
shouldn't have. I submit the following proposal:

//
Title: Uncorrecting Rewards
Author: Aris
Co-authors: twg, Trigon

[
This is A.I. 3.0 because I don't know what Rule 2496's power is.
Proposal 8127 "reenacted" it, meaning it acquires the power it had
when it was originally repealed, but I wasn't around when that
happened and it's not in the SLR yet.
]

Amend rule 2496 by replacing all instances of the text "create in eir
possession" with the word
"earn".

//

-Aris

On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 1:43 PM Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

You are, of course, correct.

I submit this proposal:

//
ID: 8127
Title: Rephrasing Rewards
Author: twg
Co-authors: Trigon

[
This is A.I. 3.0 because I don't know what Rule 2496's power is.
Proposal 8127 "reenacted" it, meaning it acquires the power it had
when it was originally repealed, but I wasn't around when that
happened and it's not in the SLR yet.
]

Amend rule 2496 by replacing all instances of the word "earn" with
"create in eir possession".

//

Notice of Honour:
-1 twg (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

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 3:19 AM, Ørjan Johansen <

oer...@nvg.ntnu.no>

wrote:

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 8127 before 8126 has another
unfortunate side effect, it causes the last paragraph of 8127 to

trigger:

If a proposal by Trigon has not passed in the same distribution as

this

proposal entitled "High-level asset verbs", amend rule 2496 by

replacing

all instances of the word "earn" with "create in eir possession".

Greetings,
Ørjan.

--
Trigon

```

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

```
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 words "earn" and "earns", and the
latter may be considered a form of the former (the lemma form).

Then the question is, did "earns" get replaced as well?  If (1) no, then
it is still in the rule (and the provision was buggy).  If yes, did it (2)
get substituted by the same text, or (3) by a version with a suitable -s
added for grammatical correctness?  Does this whole thing (4) make the
triggered provision ambiguous and thus the amendment fails completely?

And then for each option above, what happens with your uncorrection
proposal?  (1) It's fine since "earns" was never replaced.  (2) It will
turn what used to be "earns" into "earn".  (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 changes.
Did it get replaced by the original provision, and if so, does it get
uncorrected back correctly?

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:

Wait, you want the literal opposite of this right? You want to switch it
back to “earn”. The problem is that the provision did trigger, and it
shouldn't have. I submit the following proposal:

//
Title: Uncorrecting Rewards
Author: Aris
Co-authors: twg, Trigon

[
This is A.I. 3.0 because I don't know what Rule 2496's power is.
Proposal 8127 "reenacted" it, meaning it acquires the power it had
when it was originally repealed, but I wasn't around when that
happened and it's not in the SLR yet.
]

Amend rule 2496 by replacing all instances of the text "create in eir
possession" with the word
"earn".

//

-Aris

On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 1:43 PM Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

You are, of course, correct.

I submit this proposal:

//
ID: 8127
Title: Rephrasing Rewards
Author: twg
Co-authors: Trigon

[
This is A.I. 3.0 because I don't know what Rule 2496's power is.
Proposal 8127 "reenacted" it, meaning it acquires the power it had
when it was originally repealed, but I wasn't around when that
happened and it's not in the SLR yet.
]

Amend rule 2496 by replacing all instances of the word "earn" with
"create in eir possession".

//

Notice of Honour:
-1 twg (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

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 3:19 AM, Ørjan Johansen <

oer...@nvg.ntnu.no>

wrote:

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 8127 before 8126 has another
unfortunate side effect, it causes the last paragraph of 8127 to

trigger:

If a proposal by Trigon has not passed in the same distribution as

this

proposal entitled "High-level asset verbs", amend rule 2496 by

replacing

all instances of the word "earn" with "create in eir possession".

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```I'm wondering what happens to the word "earns" throughout these changes.
Did it get replaced by the original provision, and if so, does it get
uncorrected back correctly?

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:

Wait, you want the literal opposite of this right? You want to switch it
back to “earn”. The problem is that the provision did trigger, and it
shouldn't have. I submit the following proposal:

//
Title: Uncorrecting Rewards
Author: Aris
Co-authors: twg, Trigon

[
This is A.I. 3.0 because I don't know what Rule 2496's power is.
Proposal 8127 "reenacted" it, meaning it acquires the power it had
when it was originally repealed, but I wasn't around when that
happened and it's not in the SLR yet.
]

Amend rule 2496 by replacing all instances of the text "create in eir
possession" with the word
"earn".

//

-Aris

On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 1:43 PM Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

You are, of course, correct.

I submit this proposal:

//
ID: 8127
Title: Rephrasing Rewards
Author: twg
Co-authors: Trigon

[
This is A.I. 3.0 because I don't know what Rule 2496's power is.
Proposal 8127 "reenacted" it, meaning it acquires the power it had
when it was originally repealed, but I wasn't around when that
happened and it's not in the SLR yet.
]

Amend rule 2496 by replacing all instances of the word "earn" with
"create in eir possession".

//

Notice of Honour:
-1 twg (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

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 3:19 AM, Ørjan Johansen
wrote:

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 8127 before 8126 has another
unfortunate side effect, it causes the last paragraph of 8127 to trigger:

If a proposal by Trigon has not passed in the same distribution as this
proposal entitled "High-level asset verbs", amend rule 2496 by

replacing

all instances of the word "earn" with "create in eir possession".

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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 8127 before 8126 has another
unfortunate side effect, it causes the last paragraph of 8127 to trigger:

If a proposal by Trigon has not passed in the same distribution as this
proposal entitled "High-level asset verbs", amend rule 2496 by replacing
all instances of the word "earn" with "create in eir possession".

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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 weekly report: 2018-11-19
Date of last weekly report: 2018-11-15

ASSET INDEX

This section does not self-ratify.

Asset classRecordkeepor
------
Coins  Treasuror (twg)
Blots  Referee (twg)

COIN BALANCES

This section self-ratifies.

CoinsActive player
--
16ATMunn
30Aris
6Corona
14CuddleBeam
666D. Margaux
453G.
20Gaelan
15Hālian
10Jacob Arduino
15L.
52Murphy
16omd
13Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
15Tarhalindur
91Trigon
301twg

CoinsZombie
---
10nichdel
0pokes
5Telnaior
0天火狐

CoinsNon-player entity
--
1135Agora
12Lost and Found Department

RECENT HISTORY

This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify.

Entity Change  Time (UTC)Reason

twg+ 80c.  2018-11-19 22:24  Transferred from 天火狐

twg+ 78c.  2018-11-19 22:24  Reward for Proposal 8129
Trigon + 37c.  2018-11-19 22:22  Proposal 8127 ADOPTED

twg+ 78c.  2018-11-19 22:22  Proposal 8129 ADOPTED
Aris   +  5c.  2018-11-19 00:04  Judged CFJ 3674
Murphy +  5c.  2018-11-18 23:45  Judged CFJ 3689
G. +  5c.  2018-11-16 20:01  Judged CFJ 3688
-- time of last report --
Jacob Arduino  + 10c.  2018-11-12 16:02  Welcome Package
nichdel+ 10c.  2018-11-12 00:21  Welcome Package
Gaelan + 10c.  2018-11-12 00:21  Transferred from nichdel
nichdel- 10c.  2018-11-12 00:21  Transferred to Gaelan
nichdel+  5c.  2018-11-12 00:21  Transferred from Gaelan
Gaelan -  5c.  2018-11-12 00:21  Transferred to nichdel
Murphy + 18c.  2018-11-13 01:13  Proposal 8122 ADOPTED
G. + 15c.  2018-11-13 01:13  Proposal 8121 ADOPTED
D. Margaux +  8c.  2018-11-13 01:13  Proposal 8120 ADOPTED
D. Margaux + 16c.  2018-11-13 01:13  Proposal 8119 ADOPTED
G. -  1c.  2018-11-13 01:13  Proposal 8118 REJECTED
D. Margaux +  6c.  2018-11-13 01:13  Proposal 8117 ADOPTED
Trigon + 11c.  2018-11-13 01:13  Proposal 8116 ADOPTED
Aris   -  7c.  2018-11-13 01:13  Proposal 8115 REJECTED
Trigon +  3c.  2018-11-13 01:13  Proposal 8113 ADOPTED
G. +  8c.  2018-11-13 01:13  Proposal 8112 ADOPTED
Gaelan +  3c.  2018-11-12 00:21  Transferred from ATMunn
ATMunn -  3c.  2018-11-12 00:21  Transferred to Gaelan
ATMunn +  3c.  2018-11-12 00:21  Transferred from Gaelan
Gaelan -  3c.  2018-11-12 00:21  Transferred to ATMunn
Gaelan +  1c.  2018-11-11 23:44  Transferred from ATMunn
ATMunn -  1c.  2018-11-11 23:44  Transferred to Gaelan
Murphy +  5c.  2018-11-11 17:37  Judged CFJ 3687
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

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)

### DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3674

```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 planning to write up a
longer opinion later, and am sorry I've been so busy.

Summary verdict:
I judge DISCHARGE in CFJ 3674, because the caller hasn't outlined
whether there were in fact any intentions to perform actions without
objection at that time. However, I further rule that were there any
intents to perform actions without N objections, the intent would have
succeeded, because objections are counted at the time the action is
taken, not when the objection is made. Under the present
circumstances, it would not be excessively difficult to locate G.'s
categorical objection when someone attempted to take such an action.

```

### DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3688 judgement

```
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 being the judge of that case by
announcement

Here, "When a CFJ is ... assigned to a judge" is singular, which implies
that if a CFJ is assigned to 2 judges, then this condition isn't meant.

I really don't see how you can deduce that from this grammatical
construction unless you've _already_ decided "assigned to" is an n to 1
relationship.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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

```

### DIS: Re: BUS: Memes

```
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Rebecca wrote:

I create the following proposal
Title: I hate myself
AI: 3
Text: Rules or Instruments to the contrary notwithstanding, this proposal
shall act as though its text is the text submitted to a public forum and
clearly marked "Memes submission" by the last person to vote FOR it.

I don't think Proposals can take precedence over Rules, regardless of AI.

However, I am not sure that this actually _does_ conflict with any Rules,
if the Memes submission is written clearly enough. (The second last
paragraph of Rule 105 seems relevant.)

(Also I don't follow the memesphere so I might be being whooshed about
something.)

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

### Re: DIS: Interest Poll: Rulekeepor's Notes

```
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 I recall, the most interesting information in those were when the
Rulekeepor pointed out that a Proposal had not worked as intended.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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 Agora.

Although the following TTttPF was a reply to my sent-mail folder copy,
rather than to the one received from Agora.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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

```
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 previously deputized properly to resolve a Finger Pointing.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
Something didn't feel right about my last message...

I just realized that rule 2450 does _not_ define what a pledge is - it
cannot, because then it would need to provide a mechanism for making them,
which it clearly doesn't.  So it presumably defers to the common sense
definition, which means 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. 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 in there.

If you want me to change the /terminology/, sure, I will do that, but I'm
afraid I am rather hidebound in my decision.

I understand and I disagree.  "the pledge above is true" means that the
pledge above exists and is true.  It has a completely clear meaning, and if
it was made knowing/believing that the pledge doesn't exist, it could be a
lie for that reason.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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 in there.

If you want me to change the /terminology/, sure, I will do that, but I'm
afraid I am rather hidebound in my decision.

I understand and I disagree.  "the pledge above is true" means that the
pledge above exists and is true.  It has a completely clear meaning, and
if it was made knowing/believing that the pledge doesn't exist, it could
be a lie for that reason.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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 actions, not
statements.  And surely a statement that knowingly presumes something
to exist, implies that it does.  (BTW, have you stopped beating your
wife?)

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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 ACTIONS (new rule. Power?)

This seems a lot more verbose than the current phrasing, just to make it
use switches...

Opinion is an untracked [active?] player-intent pair switch, with
possible values Neutral (default), Supporting, and Objecting. A player
CAN flip any of eir opinion switches to any value by announcement,
except that they CANNOT flip it to Supporting or Objecting if it has
previously held that value.

"e CANNOT"

RESOLVING DEPENDENT ACTIONS (retitle 2124, Agoran Satisfaction)

A player (the performer) CAN, by announcement, perform a dependent
action for which an intent exists, subject to the following conditions:

This makes the authorizing Rule much less prominent in the mechanism (to
the point of not even mentioning it). Currently it's the authorizing Rule
which actually _allows_ the actions, with the dependent action rules only
providing definition.

I worry that this CAN may mess up precedence, e.g. by applying with the
full power of rule 2124, even if the authorizing rule has much lower
power.

This shouldn’t change any function—I just changed some things to take

Gaelan

You removed the provision from rule 1728 that the actor (um, I thought
that term was supposed to have been amended to "performer") SHOULD publish
a list of supporters and objectors.

You removed several provisions from rule 2124:
* The provision that allows the authorizing document to restrict who can
support or object to an intent. Not sure if that's used anywhere
currently, I suppose that was intended for contracts and the like.
* The provision that the action cannot be performed less than 24 hours
after an objection is withdrawn, which is an anti-scam measure.
* The Speaker's temporary veto (although with the recent CFJ that seems a
bit neutered).

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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 eir conduct in that office during that time,
each player earns 5 coins

Should probably be "that player earns".  Also I'd like a period at the
end.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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 of last weekly report: 2018-10-27

BLOT HOLDINGS

BlotsPerson
---
10Corona
7Kenyon
7Murphy
3CuddleBeam
3Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
1L

RECENT BLOT HISTORY

Person ChangeDate (UTC)Reason
----------
CuddleBeam + 1f  2018-11-01Faking
twg- 1   2018-10-23Expunged
Murphy + 2  D2018-10-20Late CFJ judge removal
twg+ 1   2018-10-20Late CFJ judgement
L  + 1   2018-10-20Late CFJ judgement
CuddleBeam + 2   2018-10-20Late CFJ judgement
ATMunn - 1   2018-10-11Expunged
Trigon - 1   2018-10-09Expunged
Trigon - 1   2018-10-04Expunged
Kenyon - 1   2018-09-28Expunged
Corona + 2 S 2018-09-28Late CFJ judgement
Aris   - 1   2018-09-24Expunged
Aris   - 1   2018-09-20Expunged
Kenyon - 1   2018-09-17Expunged
Kenyon - 1   2018-09-16Expunged
Corona + 1f  2018-09-16Late CFJ judgement
V.J. Rada  + 1f  2018-09-16Late CFJ judgement
P.S.S. + 2 SD2018-09-14Tardiness (Herald)
Murphy + 2 S 2018-09-09Late CFJ judgement
V.J. Rada  + 2 S 2018-09-09Late CFJ judgement
Aris   + 2 SD2018-09-09Tardiness (Promotor)
Trigon + 2 SD2018-09-01Tardiness (Cartographor)

Key:
f   Forgivable
S   Summary Judgement
D   Loses monthly salary for relevant office

--

```

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

```
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, ATMunn wrote:

I had wondered if that might be a problem. Don't know how exactly how to fix
it though.

You could move either the increment or the Section setting to the other
rule.

Incidentally, this would also imply that it now subtly matters in which
order Welcome 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 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.

A player who has just received a Welcome Package also has eir Energy
set to 15, eir Armour set to 20, and eir Sector set to the current
Imminent Sector.

Given that this all happens in infinitesimal time, I don't think it's
clear whether eir Sector is set before or after the increment.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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 intent was announced at
least 4 days earlier

3. If the action is to be performed With T Notice, if the intent
was announced at least T earlier.
with:
2. The intent was announced at least T earlier. If T is undefined,
it is instead considered to be 4 days.
and by renumbering the list accordingly.

Currently there is no delay for With N Support.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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 current Sector Count, it is instead set to 1.

A player who has just received a Welcome Package also has eir Energy
set to 15, eir Armour set to 20, and eir Sector set to the current
Imminent Sector.

Given that this all happens in infinitesimal time, I don't think it's
clear whether eir Sector is set before or after the increment.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```

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

```
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.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On 10/29/2018 12:58 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

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

```

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

```
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 while for me to convince him, so given the proposal
has no comments, I'm not surprised that some voters don't see why it's
needed.

Ratification _simulates_ retroactive modification of the gamestate, but
it's written to achieve this without _actual_ retroactivity, with a
two-level mechanism:

* Find a _minimal_ hypothetical modification to the gamestate that would
have made the document's claims true if they had been applied _at the
time it was published_.
* Then fast-forward from that hypothetical modification to the present,
and in the present change the gamestate to what it would have been if
the hypothetical modification had been done in the past.

This mechanism works well when applied to documents that describe
"concrete" gamestate _at the moment they are published_, because at that
moment the minimal change needed to make them true is generally obvious.

But not all documents happen to be of this kind.  Sometimes a CoE results
in a revision where the Officer publishes a new report, but with a note
that it does not include changes since the previous report.  And
sometimes, like the hypothetical that started this discussion, someone
attempts to correct an error in the past by publishing a _new_ document
speaking _about that past_, and then ratifying it.

However, with the current wording of ratification rule, this can have
strange effects, because there is now time for _changes_ in game state to
happen between the time the document speaks _about_, and the time it is
_published_:

Time A: G. has 50 coins
Time B: G. uses coins for scam (needs at least 40), massive follow-on game
changes
Time C: Report (or possibly anti-scam document) published, says G. had 10
coins at time A
Time D: Report ratified somehow

By the current Ratification rule, the "minimal change" is calculated at
time C, _after_ the massive game changes caused by the scam.

At that time, is a _smaller_ change to say that the scam _worked_, say by
having G. lose 40 coins at time A, but then regain 30 some time before
time B.  Therefore, by the wording of the Ratification Rule, it does _not_
cancel out the scam, as one would otherwise intuitively expect.

G.s proposal adjusts ratification so minimality is calculated at
time A, instead, where again the required change is obvious and has the
intuitive result of cancelling the scam.

Side note: The trouble would be even more severe if G.s scam involves rule
changes, because then the intuitive (but huge) modification at time C
would need to cancel those, _without_ the document saying so, which the
ratification rule _also_ explicitly forbids.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

```