Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [DoV?] Apathy resolution
On Sun, 6 Mar 2022, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: On 3/6/2022 5:31 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On 3/6/22 20:28, secretsnail9 via agora-discussion wrote: [snip] There's nothing in the text to suggest that an ephemeral or editable message can't be a message. And iirc ais523 previously said that an IRC channel was previously accepted as a public forum. I also don't buy the argument that the medium itself determines conspicuousness. Nobody has suggested that sending an apathy intent to BAK invalidates it on conspicuousness grounds, even though the entire point of doing that is that some players might not be paying attention to it. For me it isn't about conspicuousness but about the definition of "sent to all players". "send to" is not explicitly rules-defined and I think its very reasonable to use sensible metadata clues specific to forum/media type in the definition - e.g. the To: header in an email (BAK included), the @mention ping in discord, in real in-person life a witness to the fact that the recipient was in earshot and reasonably capable of paying attention, etc. Is this an appropriate moment to mention that one time in the 90s when I phoned in my vote to (then Assessor-or-equivalent) Steve's answering machine? Good times. -G. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] TIME Act
On Wed, 2 Mar 2022, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: On 3/2/22 15:45, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: If the minimal modification would include past or present rule changes, they are instead excluded unless the ratified document explicitly and unambiguously recites either the changes of the resulting properties of or the rule(s). Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: [proto] TIME Act
On Tue, 1 Mar 2022, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On 3/1/22 00:41, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote: I would strongly suggest that this only restrict rule changes in the minimal modification, and not any later changes following logically from it. Otherwise the discrepancies between the intuitive interpretation of retroactively fixing an old error and the platonic result could be mind-wrecking. Greetings, Ørjan. I don't understand. If rule changes would follow from the minimal modification, they must be part of the minimal modification, right? For example, if the ratification changes whether a proposal is successfully enacted, changing the present and past rules must necessarily be part of the minimal modification in order to be as accurate as possible, right? I am thinking here of cases where something _long_ in the past is ratified, to fix an old serious error that has unwittingly been missed for years, and which as an indirect result has caused certain _other_ rule changes not to happen in the way everyone had been assuming - and everything's so complicated that no one's quite sure they've caught all of them. And now I've put it into words it sounds like something that probably doesn't happen much given that proposals self-ratify. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're not understanding. Yeah, in the specific case of proposals being enacted, that's probably fine. But there are other ways to cause rule changes, and those matter, too. I understand the problem. I don't understand your proposed solution. Are you suggesting that non-explicit rule changes should just be excluded from the minimal modification, but that the ratification should otherwise proceed normally? Exactly. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: [proto] TIME Act
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On 2/28/22 22:11, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote: I am not sure that the above definition corresponds _either_ to what a retroactive change intuitively is or to what ratification platonically does. It might correspond to a pragmatic view, which is close to saying that Agora's gamestate _is_ its records. We granted Falsifian a law degree for a thesis arguing otherwise [0]. [0]: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-June/040456.html Argh. I'm getting too old to understand Agora... I would strongly suggest that this only restrict rule changes in the minimal modification, and not any later changes following logically from it. Otherwise the discrepancies between the intuitive interpretation of retroactively fixing an old error and the platonic result could be mind-wrecking. Greetings, Ørjan. I don't understand. If rule changes would follow from the minimal modification, they must be part of the minimal modification, right? For example, if the ratification changes whether a proposal is successfully enacted, changing the present and past rules must necessarily be part of the minimal modification in order to be as accurate as possible, right? I am thinking here of cases where something _long_ in the past is ratified, to fix an old serious error that has unwittingly been missed for years, and which as an indirect result has caused certain _other_ rule changes not to happen in the way everyone had been assuming - and everything's so complicated that no one's quite sure they've caught all of them. And now I've put it into words it sounds like something that probably doesn't happen much given that proposals self-ratify. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're not understanding. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason My mind is going, I can feel it. Ørjan.
Re: DIS: [proto] TIME Act
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
I present the following draft to clean up the ratification rule.
The only intended semantic change is securing all retroactive
modification, everything else is just mean to make the existing text
much more clear.
Title: Temporal Incursion Modification and Exclusion Act
Author: Jason
Coauthors: Aspen
Adoption index: 3.0
Amend Rule 1551 (Ratification) to read, in whole:
{
A retroactive change is one that changes the game's record of
past events. Retroactive changes are secured with power
threshold 3.
Ratification is purposefully defined so as _not_ to do any retroactive
changes in the intuitive sense, but only simulate their effects by
changing the gamestate in the present.
I see it as the continuation of a long tradition of keeping Agora in a
style where platonic and pragmatic interpretations of the rules lead to
the same result.
I am not sure that the above definition corresponds _either_ to what a
retroactive change intuitively is or to what ratification platonically
does. It might correspond to a pragmatic view, which is close to saying
that Agora's gamestate _is_ its records.
When a document or statement (hereafter "document") is to be ratified,
the following definitions apply:
* The publication time is the instant at which the document to be
ratified was published.
* The truth time is the instant at which the document specifies
that it was true, or the publication time if such an instant
is not specified.
* The application time is the instant at which the document to be
ratified is ratified.
Ratification CANNOT occur if the truth time would be after the application
time, or if the publication time would be after the application time.
Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, when a document is ratified,
the gamestate is modified to what it would be if, at the truth time,
the gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified
document as true and accurate as possible.
Ratification CANNOT occur if it would add inconsistencies between
the gamestate and the rules.
Ratification CANNOT occur if it would cause past or present rule changes,
unless the ratified document explicitly and unambiguously recites either
the changes or the resulting properties of the rule(s).
I would strongly suggest that this only restrict rule changes in the
minimal modification, and not any later changes following logically from
it. Otherwise the discrepancies between the intuitive interpretation of
retroactively fixing an old error and the platonic result could be
mind-wrecking.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
Ratification CANNOT occur if the required modification to the gamestate
is not possible or if multiple substantially distinct possible
modifications would be equally appropriate.
An internally inconsistent document generally CANNOT be ratified;
however, if such a document can be divided into a summary section
and a main section, where the only purpose of the summary section
is to summarize information in the main section, and the main
section is internally consistent, ratification of the document
proceeds as if it contained only the main section.
Text purportedly about previous instances of ratification (e.g. a
report's date of last ratification) is excluded from ratification.
The rules may define additional information that is considered to
be part of the document for the purposes of ratification; such
definitions are secured with power threshold 3.
Ratification is secured with power threshold 3.
}
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
For reference:
{{{
Each of the following Ministries has a Grant, listed below.
Ministry of Compliance: 1 Justice Card
Ministry of Legislation: 1 Legislative Card
Ministry of Participation: 1 Voting Card
Ministry of Legacy: 1 Winsome
A player CAN once a month grant eir Ministry Focus' Grant to a
specified player by announcement.
The Ministor CAN, once a month and by announcement, and SHALL, in
a timely manner from the beginning of the month, grant 1 Win Card
to a random player whose Ministry Focus is Legacy .
}}}
Any suggestions?
"Ministor" in the last paragraph would have the feature of clearly doing
something, although not something very new.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Scoring Integer Points
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022, Sarah S. via agora-discussion wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 9:45 PM Aspen via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 1:41 AM Sarah S. via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 6:47 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
I submit the below proposal, and then pay a pendant to pend it:
Title: Scoring Integer Points
Author: secretsnail
Coauthors:
AI : 1.0
{
Amend Rule 2657 (Scoring) by replacing "add to that player's score the
associated amount of points" with "add to that player's score the floor
of
the associated amount of points".
(This would let players score points for proposals with non-integer
AIs.)
}
--
secretsnail
im telling on myself here but idk what 'the floor' means in this
context. i
assume it's mathematical?
"The floor of X" means "X rounded down to the nearest integer". Ceiling is
the same, but rounded up. They pop up in math and computer programming.
-Aspen
i'd prefer it written out like that because i wouldn't really understand
its meaning if i read it in the ruleset. but it has been pended already so
no big deal, it's just me being a word person instead of a numbers person.
obviously its a very necessary bugfix anyway.
I knew the meaning from both math and programming, but I still think it
would look and flow better to express it as "rounded down".
--
R. Lee
Greetings,
Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Auction Ratification
On Mon, 24 Jan 2022, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
I create the following proposal, then pay a fee of one pendant to cause
it to become pending.
Title: Auction Self-Ratification
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason
Coauthors:
Set the power of Rule 2545 to 3.
Amend Rule 2545 by appending the following paragraphs:
{
An public document purporting to state the final results of an action in
A auction
Greetings,
Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: [DoV] Dawn of a New Day
On Sun, 2 Jan 2022, Aspen via agora-business wrote: Last year, there were a few days that held great personal significance for me. As of the 13th of September, I had been a player for five years. Just over a month later, on the 21st of October, I had been your Promotor for five years as well. Now, as I watch the winter holiday end and a new year begin in Agora for the fifth time, I feel something coming over me. I have accomplished a lot in Agora. I like it here. My fellow players are pretty cool. The moment these happy thoughts cross my mind, I feel the inexorable power of my spirit lifting me upward. I award myself a white ribbon. I Raise a Banner. Huzzah! Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent
On Sun, 2 Jan 2022, ais523 via agora-official wrote:
The Device is on.
I intend, with Agoran Consent, to cause rule 2655 to amend the rule
"The Device" by appending the following as a list item to the "When the
device is off:" list:
{{{
The Rulekeepor SHOULD also include any other information which e
feels may be helpful in the use of the Device in the FLR.
}}}
[I was all set to go with Ørjan's selection – it was very popular and
seemed likely to lead to some interesting CFJs – when I realised it was
illegal; e replaced the word "category" with "Device", but "category"
doesn't appear anywhere in the text to be replaced, which is one of the
requirements of the rule (only "categories" appears, and replacing that
with "Device" leads to some really bad wording). As such, it'd a) cause
me to fail to fulfil my office duties and b) not actually amend the
rule. So I'm going with my, rather more boring, suggestion instead.
We should probably fix rule 2655 to require the replacement of one noun
selected from the selected *rule*, rather than the selected *text*.]
I am not entirely convinced you couldn't have used "Devices" for
"categories" even if "category" does not occur. Maybe rule 2655 should
use "lemma" in the way they do on Wiktionary.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On Tue, 28 Dec 2021, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: On Tue, 2021-12-28 at 11:21 +0100, nethack4.org dicebot via agora- business wrote: The dice roll was: 27 This is R1681, The Logical Rulesets. Any suggestions? Rules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between devices, and devices are added, changed, or empty devices removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] December Collection Notice
On Fri, 3 Dec 2021, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: All choices are made using AgoraBot in a public channel on the unofficial Discord. I affirm under penalty of No Faking that, to the best of my knowledge, the choices listed below had the probabilities listed below. That's all very well with the No Faking, but the related digest that was just posted clearly indicates that AgoraBot is not trustworthy. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
El 29/11/2021 a las 07:19, ais523 via agora-discussion escribió: Each Agoran decision has a set of valid options (the choices that the voters are being asked to select from) and valid votes (the ways in which the voters can express their opinion or lack thereof. For AI-majority decisions, the valid options are FOR and AGAINST; for other decisions, the valid options are defined by other rules. Any suggestions? Someone might want to clean that missing right parenthesis. Although, now that I'm reading it, rule 2221 seems not to mention "punctuation" anywhere, and I'm not sure that it's implied by anything else. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On Mon, 22 Nov 2021, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
On Mon, 2021-11-22 at 04:23 +0100, nethack4.org dicebot via agora-
business wrote:
The dice roll was: 90
This is R2518, Determinacy.
For reference:
{{{
If a value CANNOT be reasonably determined (without circularity or
paradox) from information reasonably available, or if it
alternates indefinitely between values, then the value is
considered to be indeterminate, otherwise it is determinate.
}}}
There's only one sentence here, so which word should get replaced? I'm
tempted to do "value" → "device", but maybe there are better
suggestions?
As interesting as they look, I suspect all the other options
("circularity", "paradox", "information") are in pretty direct conflict
with R2518 itself.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] November Stone Auction Distribution Attempt 2
On Tue, 16 Nov 2021, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote:
On 11/16/2021 6:38 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:
I perform the following actions if and only if they all succeed:
{
I destroy 150 of Jason's coins.
I cause the Hot Potato Stone to be transferred to Jason.
I wield the Hot Potato Stone, transferring it to ais523.
}
Informal CFJ Addendum: I think that the above trick might (arguably) work
if reading R2645 in isolation, but only works if the winner of the auction
is the auctioneer. Therefore, if this was relied upon to say "look, a
transfer is possible, so the auction happened" the problem is that it
isn't a "fair and equitable" method for conducting the auction as required
by R2545, since the winner can only collect if e is the auctioneer. So it
would still mean the auction was never initiated, though maybe for
slightly different reasons.
Actually, looking at R2545, it also authorizes the _winners_ to perform
the transfers.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] November Stone Auction Distribution
On Mon, 15 Nov 2021, ais523 via agora-business wrote:
On Mon, 2021-11-15 at 15:38 -0500, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
On 11/15/21 15:36, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:
I perform the following actions if and only if they all succeed:
{
I destroy 150 of Jason's coins.
I cause the Hot Potato Stone to be transferred to Jason.
}
I wield the Hot Potato stone, transferring it to ais523 (since I
prevented eir wealth stone from being protected).
CFJ: Jason has wielded the Hot Potato stone.
Evidence:
Excerpt from rule 2545 (power 2):
{{{
The rule that authorizes the auction further authorizes the
auctioneer or auction winners to transfer said items as necessary
to conduct the auction in a manner consistent with the auction
method.
}}}
Excerpt from rule 2642 (power 2):
{{{
The Stonemason CAN initiate an auction for any set of stones
belonging to Agora for which an auction is not ongoing, with each
individual stone being an auction lot. The Stonemason is the
auctioneer, and the currency is coins.
}}}
Excerpt from rule 2645 (power 2):
{{{
- Hot Potato Stone (Weekly, 100%): When this stone is wielded,
the wielder gains 8 boatloads of coins if the wielder, in the
same message as the wielding, transfers this stone to a player
who has not owned this stone since Agora last owned it. This
stone cannot otherwise be transferred, other rules
notwithstanding.
}}}
Arguments: The transfer of the Hot Potato stone to Jason during the
auction resolution was impossible. There's a contradiction between
rules about whether the transfer is possible; rules 2545 and 2642
attempt to make it possible, but rule 2645 attempts to make it
impossible. Rule 2645 contains an "other rules notwithstanding", so by
rule 1030, it wins the contradiction and prevents the transfer taking
place.
This is probably a bug (and I only just noticed it, or I'd have
mentioned it earlier).
I think this bug has a loophole which allows Jason an even better way out,
if e can see it :)
Greetings,
Ørjan.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora, Nov 2021
On Sat, 13 Nov 2021, nix via agora-official wrote: === THE SCROLL OF AGORA === [snip] --- NEWS --- Name for tris' titles updated. Assuming I'm interpreting correctly, you missed one. [snip] Badge of the Great Agoran Revival [May 2017] (awarded to Agoran persons from May 2017) tmanthe2nd, G., CuddleBeam, Ienpw III, nix, Alexis, o, Ørjan, Aris, Murphy, Quazie, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Sprocklem, Veggiekeks, Roujo, ais523, Gaelan, 天火狐, grok [snip] Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On Tue, 9 Nov 2021, Sarah S. via agora-discussion wrote: "Device is secured with Power Threshold 3." Conflicts with Rule 1688, which only allows Thresholds lower than the Power of the securing Rule. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Stonemason] Billboard Rock Chart - 3 Nov 2021
On Wed, 3 Nov 2021, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: THE BILLBOARD ROCK CHART (STONEMASON'S WEEKLY REPORT) Summary of stone functions: This summary seems to miss the new stones. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report
On Fri, 22 Oct 2021, Shy Owl via agora-discussion wrote: Fora The publicity switch values (Rule 478) are self-ratifying. PublicityLocation or description Typical use ---- --- Public agora-official at agoranomic.orgofficial reports Public agora-business at agoranomic.orgother business Discussion agora-discussion at agoranomic.org discussion Discussion https://discord.gg/JCC6YGc discussion Foreign* irc://irc.libera.chat:6667/##nomic discussion Public agora at listserver.tue.nl backup Public agoranomic at groups.io ** backup *This is the current IRC forum. We may replace it with another, but in the long run one IRC channel or another will be made a discussion forum. **The forum is specifically just that email list. From the message that made it public: "Note that although groups.io provides many features besides email, the forum I am referring to is specifically the email list: if something doesn't get to Gio's subscribers by email, it wasn't sent via Gio. 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. This is missing the server name correction from the previous Registrar's report. Also, it's still (correctly) foreign after the move. I seem to recall people waiting for it to be properly registrered at liberachat (possibly with a different name), and having asked liberachat's chanserv, it seems that hasn't happened yet? Sorry I must have missed the server name correction. What is the correct name? irc.libera.chat. It is listed correctly in the publicity list, but as irc.freenode.net in the connection how-to. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Follow-up to P8621 "Proposal spreading"
On Thu, 21 Oct 2021, ais523 via agora-business wrote: On Thu, 2021-10-21 at 17:54 +, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: The new last sentence of R1607 seems to require the Promotor to distribute proposals even if they've been withdrawn: E SHALL then distribute those undistributed proposals the next Agoran week. Is the sentence needed at all? Is there any situation where the Promotor wouldn't already be required to distribute those five? If there were a huge glut of proposals two weeks in a row, the Promotor could, after the sentence is removed, choose to postpone the same proposals twice. The sentence in question requires the Promotor to choose a different five the second time. It already requires em to choose the five most recently added. Quibbly greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly Report
On Fri, 15 Oct 2021, Shy Owl via agora-official wrote: Below is the registrar's weekly report. Fora The publicity switch values (Rule 478) are self-ratifying. PublicityLocation or description Typical use ---- --- Public agora-official at agoranomic.orgofficial reports Public agora-business at agoranomic.orgother business Discussion agora-discussion at agoranomic.org discussion Discussion https://discord.gg/JCC6YGc discussion Foreign* irc://irc.libera.chat:6667/##nomic discussion Public agora at listserver.tue.nl backup Public agoranomic at groups.io ** backup *This is the current IRC forum. We may replace it with another, but in the long run one IRC channel or another will be made a discussion forum. **The forum is specifically just that email list. From the message that made it public: "Note that although groups.io provides many features besides email, the forum I am referring to is specifically the email list: if something doesn't get to Gio's subscribers by email, it wasn't sent via Gio. 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. This is missing the server name correction from the previous Registrar's report. Also, it's still (correctly) foreign after the move. I seem to recall people waiting for it to be properly registrered at liberachat (possibly with a different name), and having asked liberachat's chanserv, it seems that hasn't happened yet? Watchers Thanks for bringing back this section. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: White Glitter (thanks nix)
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: I'm really confused... Questions (for Ørjan, I guess?) inline. I'm quoting Ørjan out of order since my questions make a bit more sense in that order. The last and only time I came to qualify for a White Ribbon when I became a player: White (W): A player qualifies for a White Ribbon if e has never previously owned a White Ribbon (including under previous rulesets). ... I have not been awarded a White Ribbon or White Glitter since that time. Isn't the time period in question? Your original quote left out the previous sentence of 2602: A player qualifies for a type of Glitter when e qualifies for the same type of Ribbon while already owning such a Ribbon. Clearly the next sentence is _intended_ to apply only when that happens, but does not actually say so. Are you saying that sentence I left out is relevant to this case? I can't think of any interpretation where it is, if we're going to stay faithful to "the text of the rules takes precedence". I agree about the intention, but that doesn't matter here, does it? Indeed. I'm just saying it would be a good idea to fix the rule to say what was intended. I suppose this case (at least for non-White Ribbons) hinges on which of those interpretations is the correct one for this sentence. It looks grammatically ambiguous to me, with its negation having ambiguous scope as negations do. If a player has not (been awarded that type of Ribbon or e corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or came to qualify for that type of Ribbon) vs. If a player has (not been awarded that type of Ribbon or e corresponding type of Glitter) since e last earned or came to qualify for that type of Ribbon I don't really dispute Murphy's interpretation but think judgements should point out (or dispute) that there is an ambiguity before they resolve it. I don't understand how this is relevant to the case either. If my claim about the time period is true, then under both interpretations I successfully awarded myself White Glitter. Do you agree with that? Yes. I wasn't commenting on that part. Are you saying my claim about the time period is false? I think I'm missing something... I guess I made it unclear that I _wasn't_ disputing your new argument. -- Falsifian Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote: On Mon, 11 Oct 2021, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: Taking suggestions, as usual; it'll probably take many eyes to find the best sentence or group of sentences from here to add to the Device. (One thing worth noting: Ribbon Ownership is secured, so a Power-1 Device definition won't be able to change it, or change what it applies to; and the rule itself doesn't explicitly allow lower-powered rules to redefine "qualifies" so they probably can't. That rather limits what possibilities might actually do something, e.g. "The Device qualifies for a Platinum Ribbon" is a legal text replacement but probably doesn't do anything.) There is one possible exception, since the Device Rule is an Instrument: When this occurs, this Device awards that person a Black Ribbon. And I think the current rule looks just right for it to work. Alas, Jason pointed out in chat that "awards" is not "earns". :( Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection
On Mon, 11 Oct 2021, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: Taking suggestions, as usual; it'll probably take many eyes to find the best sentence or group of sentences from here to add to the Device. (One thing worth noting: Ribbon Ownership is secured, so a Power-1 Device definition won't be able to change it, or change what it applies to; and the rule itself doesn't explicitly allow lower-powered rules to redefine "qualifies" so they probably can't. That rather limits what possibilities might actually do something, e.g. "The Device qualifies for a Platinum Ribbon" is a legal text replacement but probably doesn't do anything.) There is one possible exception, since the Device Rule is an Instrument: When this occurs, this Device awards that person a Black Ribbon. And I think the current rule looks just right for it to work. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: White Glitter (thanks nix)
On Sun, 10 Oct 2021, Falsifian via agora-discussion wrote: On Sun, Oct 10, 2021 at 03:42:14PM -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: Falsifian wrote: I award myself White Glitter. Note: I do not own a White Ribbon, but R2602 might not actually require me to own the ribbon: If a player has not been awarded that type of Ribbon or e corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or came to qualify for that type of Ribbon, and has not been so awarded five or more times within the past 24 hours, any player CAN award em that type of Glitter by announcement. I currently interpret "there is no such time period" as separate from "there is such a time period and X didn't happen during it", in which case this award was ineffective. (See cuddlybanana's CFJ.) I suppose this case (at least for non-White Ribbons) hinges on which of those interpretations is the correct one for this sentence. It looks grammatically ambiguous to me, with its negation having ambiguous scope as negations do. If a player has not (been awarded that type of Ribbon or e corresponding type of Glitter since e last earned or came to qualify for that type of Ribbon) vs. If a player has (not been awarded that type of Ribbon or e corresponding type of Glitter) since e last earned or came to qualify for that type of Ribbon I don't really dispute Murphy's interpretation but think judgements should point out (or dispute) that there is an ambiguity before they resolve it. The last and only time I came to qualify for a White Ribbon when I became a player: White (W): A player qualifies for a White Ribbon if e has never previously owned a White Ribbon (including under previous rulesets). ... I have not been awarded a White Ribbon or White Glitter since that time. Isn't the time period in question? Your original quote left out the previous sentence of 2602: A player qualifies for a type of Glitter when e qualifies for the same type of Ribbon while already owning such a Ribbon. Clearly the next sentence is _intended_ to apply only when that happens, but does not actually say so. Clarifying fix: Change If a player has not been awarded that type of Ribbon or e to (including another typo correction) If such a player has not been awarded that type of Ribbon or the Falsifian Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: [proto] Laudability
On Thu, 7 Oct 2021, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
Here's a proto to not erase player's festivity when they win by ribbons:
Amend Rule 2438 by appending the following to the paragraph beginning "For each type
of Ribbon":
{
Laudability is a person switch with non-negative integer possible values,
defaulting to 0, tracked by the Tailor as part of eir monthly report.
When a person owns more types of ribbons than eir Laudability, eir
Laudability is set to the number of types of ribbons e owns.
"secured"
Greetings,
Ørjan.
DIS: Re: OFF: I claim the stuff from the contract
On Thu, 7 Oct 2021, BenjaminFrancis Rodriguez via agora-official wrote: I join this contract. I transfer 2 boatloads of coins from the contract to myself. I transfer 1 victory point from the contract to myself. transfer 1 Pendant from the contract to myself. I think the Pendant transfer failed, as you're only allowed one product per month. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: Unsuspicious Apathy Intent
On Tue, 5 Oct 2021, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: I object Hm. If I am right about how the scam works, and Jason understands it the same way, then the actions of you two suggest to me that you are colluding. Greetings, Ørjan. On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 3:44 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: On 10/4/21 20:11, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: I intend, without objection, to declare Apathy. Whoops. I intend, without objection, to declare Apathy, specifying myself. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Unsuspicious Apathy Intent
On Tue, 5 Oct 2021, Sarah S. via agora-discussion wrote: On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 11:58 AM Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: On Mon, 4 Oct 2021, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: I intend, without objection, to declare Apathy. Ouch. I pity the judge that gets to sort this out. Greetings, Ørjan. what's different about this intent compared to the usual? It's happening at a time when three different proposals modifying the definition of objectors and/or objections are being voted on simultaneously, any of which might have a relevant bug, individually or in combination. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: Unsuspicious Apathy Intent
On Mon, 4 Oct 2021, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: I intend, without objection, to declare Apathy. Ouch. I pity the judge that gets to sort this out. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8607-8629
On Sun, 3 Oct 2021, Aspen via agora-official wrote: // ID: 8625 Title: giving the gift of an amendment Adoption index: 1.0 Author: Trigon Co-author(s): [ COMMENT: Introduces a new term of art so that we don't have to worry about messing up the wording for giving a birthday gift again. ] Amend Rule 2585 "Birthday Gifts" by replacing: During a player's Agoran Birthday and the 7 days following, each other player CAN once grant em X boatloads of coins by announcement, where X is 3 if it is actually the day of the player's birthday, and 2 otherwise. with: During a player's Agoran Birthday and the 7 days following, each other player CAN once give that player a birthday gift, granting em 3 boatloads of coins if it is actually the day of the player's birthday, or 2 otherwise. This seems to have dropped an essential "by announcement". Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [cfj] on continuity of planning
On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote: On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Sarah S. via agora-business wrote: On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 9:14 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: CFJ: If R. Lee registers in October and doesn't publish a plan to flip eir focus, eir focus would be flipped to Legislation on Nov 1. Arguments: R. Lee planned to flip eir focus on 18-Sept[1], while eir focus was Compliance[2]. E later deregistered[3], so e currently doesn't have a focus. I assume that if e re-registers, eir focus would be default (unfocused), though that could be in question[4]. Rule 2638/0 reads in part: An active player CAN Plan to Flip eir own Ministry Focus, specifying any valid value for eir Ministry Focus, by announcement. At the beginning of a month, every active player's Ministry Focus is set to the value e mostly recently specified by Planning to Flip. The way that reads, it looks like an interim deregistration would not interrupt this plan? But not sure. A counterargument is that e plans to flip eir focus, but eir focus is then gone (and reset to default when e comes back), so if e has no focus, eir "plan" is set to the "default" of "no plan". [1] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2021-September/047564.html [2] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2021-September/015270.html [3] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2021-September/047577.html [4] Rule 2162/14 reads in part: if an action or set of actions would cause the value of an instance of that type of switch to become indeterminate, that instance instead takes on its last determinate and possible value, if any, otherwise it takes on its default value. If an instance of a player switch is in a non-default value and the player deregisters (losing the switch instance) and re-registers (gaining a switch instance), it depends on whether that is considered the "same" instance as the old one - which would put it back to its previous pre-deregistration value - or a new instance, which would be created at default. I think custom/precedent is "new" but not sure about that. Fun. I register and claim a welcome package (I can do this within 30 days of my deregistration because of the way I deregistered, although only once). -- R. Lee Clever. I think you've proved that the CFJ can only be judged DISMISS, because you still have the ability to make it flip on Nov 1 or not, dependent on what you do until then, but in both cases without Planning. D'oh, I forgot to include that you also have time for another deregistration and registration in October, to fulfil all the CFJ assumptions. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: [cfj] on continuity of planning
On Thu, 30 Sep 2021, Sarah S. via agora-business wrote: On Thu, Sep 30, 2021 at 9:14 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: CFJ: If R. Lee registers in October and doesn't publish a plan to flip eir focus, eir focus would be flipped to Legislation on Nov 1. Arguments: R. Lee planned to flip eir focus on 18-Sept[1], while eir focus was Compliance[2]. E later deregistered[3], so e currently doesn't have a focus. I assume that if e re-registers, eir focus would be default (unfocused), though that could be in question[4]. Rule 2638/0 reads in part: An active player CAN Plan to Flip eir own Ministry Focus, specifying any valid value for eir Ministry Focus, by announcement. At the beginning of a month, every active player's Ministry Focus is set to the value e mostly recently specified by Planning to Flip. The way that reads, it looks like an interim deregistration would not interrupt this plan? But not sure. A counterargument is that e plans to flip eir focus, but eir focus is then gone (and reset to default when e comes back), so if e has no focus, eir "plan" is set to the "default" of "no plan". [1] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2021-September/047564.html [2] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2021-September/015270.html [3] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2021-September/047577.html [4] Rule 2162/14 reads in part: if an action or set of actions would cause the value of an instance of that type of switch to become indeterminate, that instance instead takes on its last determinate and possible value, if any, otherwise it takes on its default value. If an instance of a player switch is in a non-default value and the player deregisters (losing the switch instance) and re-registers (gaining a switch instance), it depends on whether that is considered the "same" instance as the old one - which would put it back to its previous pre-deregistration value - or a new instance, which would be created at default. I think custom/precedent is "new" but not sure about that. Fun. I register and claim a welcome package (I can do this within 30 days of my deregistration because of the way I deregistered, although only once). -- R. Lee Clever. I think you've proved that the CFJ can only be judged DISMISS, because you still have the ability to make it flip on Nov 1 or not, dependent on what you do until then, but in both cases without Planning. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] The Notes (contracts)
On Thu, 23 Sep 2021, Sarah S. via agora-discussion wrote: I intend to shred without 2 objections each contract which I am a member of It seems to me y'all should object to this on principle, as it has obvious scam potential. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Tournament Conclusion Fixes
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
I submit the following proposal, and pay a fee of one pendant to cause
it to become pending.
Title: Tournament Conclusion Fixes
[snip]
{
Each time that one or more winners of a tournament are determined before
it concludes, that person or those persons win the game. A tournament
concludes 3 months after its initiation, or when its regulations state
that it concludes.
}
Based on the comment I suspect you forgot to change a number here.
Also, this seems to me to be ambiguous about whether the 3 months are a
default or an unprolongable limit.
All ongoing tournaments hereby conclude with no (further) winner, except
for the tournament initiated on or about 2 July 2021 (if it is still
ongoing).
[First, extends the deadline for automatic tournament conclusion (6
months should be enough for anybody). Then, ensures that any previous
ongoing tournaments that found a winner are concluded (which the rule
did not explicitly state).]
}
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Greetings,
Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Narrowing Margins, Forgiveness
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021, nix via agora-business wrote: I submit and pay one pendant to pend the following proposal: [snip] Amend R2621, VP Wins, to read in full: The Victory Threshold is 20-5x, where x is the number of months since the last time someone Took Over The Economy. If it would be less, the Victory Threshold is instead 1. If a player has at least the Victory Threshold more Victory Points than any other player, e CAN Take Over the Economy by announcement, provided no person has won the game by doing so in the past 30 days. When a player takes over the economy, e wins the game. Four days after such a win occurs, all Cards and all Products are destroyed. Then, each active player gains 1 card of each type and eir grant (if any). This needs to be resolved before Trigon's recent proto, if both pass. (Which would have been unnecessary if it was written as replacing only the paragraph it affects.) Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Proto: Fix asset self-ratification
On Tue, 7 Sep 2021, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: Proto-Proposal: Fix asset self-ratification (AI = 3, co-authors = ais523, Telna) Amend Rule 2166 (Assets) by replacing this text: This portion of that entity's report is self-ratifying. with this text: A list purported to be this portion of that entity's report is self-ratifying. "purported" instead of the similar Rule 2162's "purporting" would seem to suggest that the actual purporting could be done anywhere and at a different time, even in a message by a different person. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Resolution of August 2021 VA 2
On Wed, 1 Sep 2021, Trigon via agora-business wrote: All I was going to say is that I grant myself a victory point pursuant to my focus. Well then, why don't you? Whistles innocently, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8596-8601
On Mon, 30 Aug 2021, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: [snip] // ID: 8599 Title: The Device (mark 2) Adoption index: 1.0 Author: G. Co-authors: Murphy [inspired by Rules 2192-2193, "The Monster", by Murphy] Enact a Rule "The Device" with the following text: When the device is on: * click - hummm When the device is off: * whirr - THUNK Enact a Rule "The Mad Engineer" with the following text: The Mad Engineer is an office; its holder is responsible for building and maintaining the Device. The device is a singleton switch with values off (default) and on. The Mad Engineer CAN flip the device to either on or off with Agoran Consent; any other player CAN do so with 2 Agoran Consent. The Mad Engineer CAN act on behalf of the device to take any action that the device may take, and SHALL act on behalf of the device to ensure that the device fulfills all of its duties. The Mad Engineer's weekly duties include the performance of the following tasks, in order: a) Randomly select exactly one rule. If the selected rule is either this rule or the rule "The Device", then 007 has been spotted near the self-destruct button; skip directly to proposal submission. b) Select one or more contiguous sentences from the selected rule. c) Select exactly one noun from the selected text, and replace each instance of that noun with "Device" (including grammatical variations, e.g. replacing "'s" with "Device's"). d) Announce intent to, with Agoran Consent, cause this rule to amend the rule "The Device" by inserting the modified text as the last list item in either the "device on" or "device off" lists in that rule (or, if 007 has been spotted, to repeal both that rule and this one). This intent announcement counts as the Mad Engineers's weekly report. If the announcement of intent above is made with the procedure described above, the Mad Engineer CAN, with Agoran Consent, cause this rule to amend the rule "The Device" as indicated, and SHALL do so if the intent receives sufficient support. [snip] The parts about self-destruction seem broken to me. They switch ambiguously between whether it shall happen by proposal or with intent, neither clearly requiring either nor enabling the latter. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] win fix
On Mon, 16 Aug 2021, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: -- Amend Rule 2644 (The Gauntlet) to read in full: A player CAN, by announcement, Notice the Gauntlet, specifying a single player that owns 5 or more stones, provided that no person has won the game by doing so in the past 30 days. I believe the last part doesn't work properly if specifying and specified player are different. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: Stone Ideas (proto-ish)
On Fri, 13 Aug 2021, Sarah S. via agora-business wrote: Robin Hood Stone (weekly, 100%): Transfer this stone to a player with less coins than you, then the original wielder gains 8 boatloads of coins. SPECIAL RULE: This stone never escapes as long as at least three players have owned it in the last Agoran month. The "less coins" restriction is way too easy to bypass. Also, three players could easily conspire to keep control of it. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Registrar] Weekly Report
On Mon, 9 Aug 2021, Ned Strange via agora-official wrote: Fora The publicity switch values (Rule 478) are self-ratifying. PublicityLocation or description Typical use ---- --- Public agora-official at agoranomic.orgofficial reports Public agora-business at agoranomic.orgother business Discussion agora-discussion at agoranomic.org discussion Discussion https://discord.gg/JCC6YGc discussion Foreign* irc://irc.libera.chat:6667/##nomic discussion Public agora at listserver.tue.nl backup Public agoranomic at groups.io ** backup 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. This server name is out of date. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Tailor] Ribbon Bar
On Sun, 1 Aug 2021, Edward Murphy via agora-official wrote: The Ribbon Bar (Tailor's Monthly Report) as of Monday 2021-07-26 --- EX-PLAYERS ROGECBMUVIPLWKAT --- Ørjan M V A Just realized something about the title of this section. There's no reason why everyone who has ribbons needs to have been a player. I understand Agora has had persistent watchers who never registered, and I'm not sure whether any of them could still have ribbons. Although I _am_ an ex-player, I was a watcher at the time I earned all of my ribbons. I don't recall Ribbons having been introduced yet the last time I actually _was_ an active player. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer captures Now We Nomic
On Sun, 25 Jul 2021, Cuddle Beam via agora-business wrote: For the purposes of Now We Nomic AND Agora, and for the purposes of creating a new Rule and Agoran Contract respectively, I create the following NWN Rule / Agoran Contract: ---+--- All other Now We Nomic rules besides this one are repealed upon this rule becoming a Now We Nomic rule. This rule is known as the Sole Rule. Now We Nomic is an Agoran Contract by the same name, but is also a nomic. Cuddlebeam is the sole player of this nomic, and they can amend Now We Nomic via an Agoran announcement. For the purposes of interpreting Now We Nomic as a nomic, Cuddlebeam is the sole player who can deliver such interpretation via any means they deem convenient. which of course in NWN just means “All of the Rules mean, and only mean: Cuddlebeam is the sole player of the game, and they can create any Rule they want by publicly posting the new Rule to Agora nomic's public Fora.” Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer creates a Big Opportunity
On Sun, 25 Jul 2021, Rebecca Lee via agora-discussion wrote: On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 11:06 PM Cuddle Beam via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: I CFJ the following: "Be X the first Judge assigned to this CFJ, the entirety of the Ruleset means the following: This is the Ruleset for the game of Agora nomic, and X is the sole player of this game. X can change the Ruleset in any manner they desire by publishing a sufficiently clear message detailing such changes to an Agoran mailing list." The reason this doesn't work is because CFJs have no legal force whatsoever under the ruleset - CFJs are just persuasive interpretations that are de facto but not de jure binding. I had retained the vague impression that Lindrum World, which Cuddle Beam is evoking here, is one/the main inspiration for _why_ we do it that way. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora
On Thu, 17 Jun 2021, Rebecca Lee via agora-discussion wrote: [snip a _whole_ lot] === END OF REPORT === -- nix Webmastor, Ministor, Herald Important COE: Jason was awarded a doctorate of nomic science -- From R. Lee In fact, you awarded it to em. -- From R. Lee Hi all, I may be slowly working my way up to reading Agora mail again... or not. Yesterday I saw you apologize for not bottom posting, and then I deleted that post before I realized that I wanted to complain :P I think the true spirit of us old-timers' admonition to bottom post is not just about bottom posting, but about wanting the old style of email where people actually edit away unnecessary cruft from messages they reply to, keeping just enough context to make their own part look like intertwined responses to particular points, and saving the readers from having to page through all the rest. And that apology of yours made me realize: when you absolutely won't remove unnecessary parts from a long replied-to message, then bottom posting is actually slightly _more_ annoying than top posting, although in a "the greater sin has already been committed anyway" sense. Greetings, Ørjan, who now wonders how much of this is only because he's still using a terminal mail reader.
Re: DIS: [draft] procedural ratification
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: By including "purposeful", it covers scams; e.g. with Jason Cobb's 18,000 coins - the scammer would have at least the 4 day objection period to enjoy eir earnings or convert it to a win[*] or whatever. [*]since winning and patent titles aren't self-ratifying, they would get to keep those as rewards for scams. Winning and patent titles can still be lost as a side effect of ratifying a document published before they happen, when that removes a prerequisite for their award. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: [Draft] Contract Patency v2
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion wrote: 1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated, and not subsequently publicly withdrawn eir statement, that e agrees to the action; That last comma looks out of place. Looks right to me, based on my intuitive comma placement rules. I don't think it's strictly wrong, but it would be easier to read if you moved the wedged subpart to the end. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: BAK: [RWO] List Patch
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020, James Cook wrote: I object to both intents. Sorry to prolong this, but I'm not convinced this gets around Ørjan's objection. Here are two modifications to the gamestate that could be made at 00:15:01 on Dec 14 that would make the first document true: a) Insert two events into the historical record: a-o and a-b become discussion fora. Flip both publicity switches to Discussion. b) Insert four events into the historical record: a-o and a-b became discussion fora, then immediately after, became Public fora again. Both of these involve four changes (either two additions to history plus two changes to Publicity switches, or four additions to history). The first one is what we intend, but I'm not confident that it is the unique minimal modification. *Sigh* I seriously think considering history to be a part of game state may have been a mistake, but apparently there's now precedence for it... Is there anything wrong with passing a proposals that says "Change the gamestate to what it would be if a-b and a-o's publicity had been switched to Discussion at time X and then switched back to Public at time Y, so that none of the intervening messages on either list were sent via a public forum"? Generally, the main problem that I recall (but might not be the only one) is the following provision in Rule 105 (Rule Changes, Power 3): A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise take effect. This means that if any Rule changes need to be made to correct the game state, then no mere proposal can emulate ratification in a succinct way unless it is enabled by an even higher-Power/Precedence rule such as Rule 1551 (Ratification, Power 3.1). Alternatively, I wouldn't be averse to just fixing the uncertainties one by one. I don't think there are that many. A few Master switches, some income earned, the state of the PM election, and whether a proposal was distributed. Anything else? Maybe you're right. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset - December
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote: THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET You forgot to strip trailing spaces, so these again have that format=flowed problem. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8277-8279
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, AIS523--- via agora-discussion wrote: Ørjan's issue is that e believes a single ratification can't make retroactive changes at two different points in past time. I suppose that's a simple way of putting it, except I'd use "simulate" instead of "make". Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8277-8279
On Sun, 29 Dec 2019, AIS523--- via agora-discussion wrote: On Sun, 2019-12-29 at 03:32 +0100, Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion wrote: The simplest way I can see to fix this is to pair each dubious email with its own ratifying document, specifying the date stamp of the message as the time it was true. What about ratifying a-b and a-o as not having been public fora? (To BAK, obviously.) That seems to make all the potential knock-on effects clear in an easily understandable way. Huh, that should work, as long as all relevant messages go to BAK. Greetings, Ørjan.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8277-8279
Rule 1551 states: the gamestate is modified to what it would be if, at the time the ratified document was published, the gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified document as true and accurate as possible; however, if the document explicitly specifies a different past time as being the time the document was true, the specified time is used to determine the minimal modifications. Back when we introduced the "different past time" possibility, my reasoning was essentially that the "minimally modified" specification for ratification is only sensibly calculable if the intuitive time for "retroactively" changing the game state is the same as or very close to the time for which the ratification is calculated - in particular, there should be no in-between follow-on effects, since it might be _more minimal_ for the ratification to ignore these rather than include them. I claim that both the below ratification attempts, as well as the one Murphy has proposed later, fail horribly in this respect, as there are a plethora of possible follow-on effects between the time of the large number of possibly failed emails and the time of the ratified document. As a result, the true "minimal modification" may differ greatly from the intuitive result we're trying to achieve. The simplest way I can see to fix this is to pair each dubious email with its own ratifying document, specifying the date stamp of the message as the time it was true. Greetings, Ørjan. On Sat, 28 Dec 2019, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the quorum is 3, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are conditional votes). ID Author(s)AITitle --- 8277& G. 1.0 Minor Giveaway 8278 Murphy 3.0 Resolve the troubles 8279 Aris, Murphy 3.0 Equitable Detroubling The proposal pool is currently empty. Legend: & : Proposal may or may not already have been distributed. The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. // ID: 8277 Title: Minor Giveaway Adoption index: 1.0 Author: G. Co-authors: I transfer 5 coins to each active player, in the order that they are listed in the most recent Registrar's Weekly Report. // ID: 8278 Title: Resolve the troubles Adoption index: 3.0 Author: Murphy Co-authors: [The normal standard set by CFJ 1905 is "a message has not been sent via a forum until most persons who have arranged to receive messages via the forum receive it". This is a sensible place to draw the line, but verifying that for a whole set of messages is arguably more trouble than it's worth. AFAIK no scams were attempted, apart from a Win by Apathy that was already objected to; and even once we verify that a message was received by enough people, we still have to keep track of which of those messages have or haven't already been verified. H. Distributor omd advises that the problems started on Dec 14, so this includes all messages from the a-o and a-b archives from Dec 13 onward.] Ratify the following ~~~-delimited document: ~~~ Each of the following messages was effectively sent to the Public Forum on or about the Date: stamp shown in the archives. Claims within these messages (in particular, claims to perform actions) may still be ineffective for other reasons. Relevant messages from https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2019-December/date.html BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 James Cook OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset Jason Cobb BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 James Cook OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8277 Aris Merchant OFF: [Registrar] Agoran Directory James Cook OFF: [Registrar] Forbes 500 James Cook OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: October 2019 James Cook OFF: Round 2, fight! Edward Murphy OFF: Fwd: [dicelog] Selection of Comptrollor Edward Murphy OFF: [ADoP] Metareport Edward Murphy OFF: [Distributor] list status omd OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3783 Assigned to omd Kerim Aydin OFF: [Registrar] Agoran Directory James Cook OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 James Cook OFF: [Distributor] list status omd Fwd: OFF: [Distributor] list status omd OFF: [ADoP] Metareport Edward Murphy Relevant messages from https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-December/date.html BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 James Cook BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror]
DIS: Re: OFF: [Distributor] list status
As I mentioned in my previous message, there's no reverse DNS on vps.qoid.us, which I could imagine some servers caring about. Greetings, Ørjan. On Fri, 27 Dec 2019, omd via agora-official wrote: On Sun, Dec 22, 2019 at 11:00 PM omd wrote: I think at this point there's nothing I can do but wait, and hope Gmail starts trusting the new server more. Hopefully that doesn't take long, or I'll have to do something silly like turn on from-address rewriting. Well, that didn't work so well. A lot of hosts have continued to reject or at least throttle mail from the new server: Dec 27 19:49:15 ec2 postfix/smtp[9751]: C6D7260DAC: host mx3.mail.icloud.com[17.142.163.12] refused to talk to me: 550 5.7.0 Blocked - see https://support.proofpoint.com/dnsbl-lookup.cgi?ip=52.73.134.173 Dec 27 19:49:19 ec2 postfix/smtp[9753]: 324C160DF5: host in1-smtp.messagingengine.com[66.111.4.70] refused to talk to me: 451 4.7.1 : Client host rejected: Host 52.73.134.173/ec2-52-73-134-173.compute-1.amazonaws.com has exceeded the per-day email limit of 40, try again later - helo= - RLR001 Dec 27 19:49:30 ec2 postfix/smtp[9749]: 55A7C60E4F: to=, relay=alt1.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[64.233.186.27]:25, delay=420346, delays=420331/0.01/9.9/5.6, dsn=4.7.28, status=deferred (host alt1.gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com[64.233.186.27] said: 421-4.7.28 [52.73.134.173 15] Our system has detected an unusual rate of 421-4.7.28 unsolicited mail originating from your IP address. To protect our 421-4.7.28 users from spam, mail sent from your IP address has been temporarily 421-4.7.28 rate limited. Please visit 421-4.7.28 https://support.google.com/mail/?p=UnsolicitedRateLimitError to 421 4.7.28 review our Bulk Email Senders Guidelines. x15si32376191pgk.593 - gsmtp (in reply to end of DATA command)) New plan: - Go back to sending mail from the original server, which at least didn't get throttled so much. - *Temporarily* turn on from-address rewriting for all users, so relayed list messages have headers like From: So-and-so via agora-business Note that several months ago, I enabled an option that performs the same rewriting only when the original From domain has a strict DMARC policy, instructing recipients to reject all mail from those domains unless properly signed – which relayed list messages won't be, because the list rewrites the subject line. In practice, this only affected messages from Murphy. But now it's temporarily on for everyone. - Configure DKIM signing and SPF so that recipients know that the owner of agoranomic.org authorizes the outgoing messages. This should avoid the errors that Gmail was returning for the original server. When I tested by sending a message from an agoranomic.org address to my Gmail account, it was accepted but sent to spam... *hopefully* the list is treated no worse. - Now that the mail server configuration has been fixed to prevent backscatter, the original server's IP (71.19.146.223) should get off the Backscatterer.org list in a few weeks, and Gmail's IP semi-block (which is probably separate from Backscatterer.org, though who knows) will hopefully expire in a similar time period. - At that point, hopefully I'll be able turn from-address rewriting back off and have things go back to normal. Sorry, I still haven't explained things properly, but I'm a bit stressed out at the moment. :/
