DIS: Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) heheheheheheh

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 3:52 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-business
 wrote:
>
> I withdraw my consent from all rice plans.
> If the Reimann hypothesis is true, I consent to all rice plans that will
> not be harvested.
> (I humbly request that I get to call the CFJ upon harvest-time, so that I
> may call a CFJ that results in PARADOXICAL.)
>
> Also, I intend to, without objection, clean rule 591 "Delivering
> Judgements" by replacing "irresovable" with "irresolvable".

I don't think this works? I mean, first off, there are all the reasons
why trying to make something conditional on the Reimann hypothesis
would just fail. You know, Rule 2518, and the precedents it is based
on, and all of that. But even if that part worked, this isn't
"logically undecidable as a result of a paradox or or other
irresovable logical situation". It's just something we don't know the
answer to, which would be DISMISS. (Incidentally, I'm not entirely
sure all of the past paradox wins have met this standard; though
they've definitely worked platonically in any case.)

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Awards Month (@Promotor, @Arbitor, @Tailor, @ADoP)

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:38 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:28 AM nix via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
> >
> > On 4/30/23 17:47, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:
> > > I intend to award Employee of the Year to either Janet or snail,
> > > subject to discussion.
> > I'm not convinced this works as an official intent (I'm not even sure if
> > it was meant to be one vs just a statement of what you plan to do). But
> > I also would support giving this to either person. I can make the intent
> > when/if you decide on a particular one.
> >
> > Very hard to choose between the two. Maybe other factors shouldn't
> > count, but since neither has ever won any yearly award, and snail
> > already looks like a lock for the Golden Glove, I'd personally lean
> > towards Janet for this one.
>
> one other note is that (going from Murphy's list) some of snail's
> offices are basically "contestmaster" in that e proposed a subgame e
> wanted to run, and ran it.  Nothing wrong with that (and it's great)
> but it's more like thanking people for running tournaments.  So
> factoring that in, and seeing similar (excellent in both cases) effort
> in the core offices, I'd also lean towards Janet.

I'm also supporting Janet. In addition to the reasoning provided by
nix and G., both of whom I find myself in agreement with, I've been
impressed with eir devotion to understanding the actual state of the
rules. Even if I sometimes disagree with em about which cases succeed
and which fail and about the underlying standards, it is truly
impressive how often e catches potential problems that others have
missed. Without Janet, I doubt we would have noticed how restrictive
our current precedent is on what constitutes an unambiguous rule
change and how often the standard appears not to be met in practice.
This is relatively minor compared to the rationales others have
provided, but it is something I want to note.

-Aspen

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Loophole attempt - Poor man's Radiance

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 1:22 PM nix via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 20 2023 at 10:32:39 AM -07:00:00, Yachay Wayllukuq via
> agora-business  wrote:
> > I do the action stated in Rule 2659 that is in its third paragraph
> > ("Any
> > player  CAN
> > , once per week
> > , pay X Stamps, where each
> > specified Stamp is a different type, to gain (X^2)-X radiance.")
> > paying 0
> > Stamps to gain 1 Radiance.
> >
> > 0^0 - 0 = 1
> >
> > I need to be able to destroy the asset in order to do the fee-based
> > action
> > (Rule 2579), and all attempts to destroy no assets, so zero assets,
> > are
> > successful (Rule 2577).
>
> Besides the issue snail mentioned, I've been wondering if it's possible
> to pay zero "different" stamps, since there's nothing for it to be
> "different" from.

It should be? I'd think Agora would translate "each" as universal
quantification in this context, which trivially evaluates to true if
applied to an empty set of stamps.

-Aspen

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Trade offer ad - Stamps for Stamps

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

Rule 478/41, "Allowing actions performed by sending a message to take
place simultaneously must be done explicitly and is secured at power
2." No rule explicitly enables you to take these actions
simultaneously, and the rule would need to be at least power 2. Both
actions are performed by announcement, which means they are performed
by sending a message.

-Aspen


On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:47 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> I was rude but, this is the second time that this happens to me with you
> Janet. It's hard for me to take your feedback seriously when you don't
> justify your claims. It feels dogmatic.
>
> Please explain or give at least some clue to back yourself up. I'd love to
> understand where you're coming from.

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Trade offer ad - Stamps for Stamps

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

Incidentally, I'd also give that promise to the library rather than Juan.
That allows you to take it back if e doesn't use it in a reasonable time.
No one other than you or em would be able to interfere with it, since only
e is allowed to cash it.

-Aspen

On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:44 AM Aspen 
wrote:

> Y'all, we shouldn't really be asking brand new players to draft promises
> anyway. They're not as bad as proposals, but still. Yachay, here's an
> example I think would work, and is potentially a bit clearer. It also
> includes some safeguards that probably aren't helpful in this situation,
> but are good general practice. Someone else can check me on this, it's been
> a while since I've written a transaction promise.
>
> {
> Cashing conditions: The bearer is Juan. The bearer has, in the same
> message in which e cashes this promise, given me, for the sole purpose of
> fulfilling this condition, 1 stamp of a type which no more than 2 players,
> excluding em and me, own instances of.
>
> I give one Yachay stamp to Juan.
> }
>
> -Aspen
>
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:28 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
>> On 3/20/23 13:14, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:
>> > I create the following Promise called "Stamp Trade":
>> >
>> > {
>> > Cashing Condition: The person using this Promise is Juan. Also, Juan is
>> > currently transferring to Yachay 1 Stamp such that only up to 2 other
>> > active players own a Stamp of that Stamp's Type
>> >
>> > Effect: Yachay gives 1 Yachay Type Stamp to Juan
>> > }
>> >
>> > I give this to the Library
>> >
>> > On Monday, March 20, 2023, Juan F. Meleiro via agora-discussion <
>> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'll offer one of mine. Draft a promise and I'll take it.
>> >>
>> >> On March 19, 2023 7:18:09 PM GMT-03:00, Yachay Wayllukuq via
>> >> agora-discussion  wrote:
>> >>> Hello, I would like to trade Stamps. The super-exclusive Yupay Stamp
>> is a
>> >>> gorgeous, deluxe ware; which I believe a number of you may find
>> attractive
>> >>> to own. I offer the following:
>> >>>
>> >>> - I offer 1 Yupay Stamp for 1 Stamp that only up to 2 active Players
>> >>> currently own.
>> >>> - I offer 1 Yupay Stamp for 3 Stamps of any kind of your choice.
>> >>>
>> >>> My email is open for you.
>> >> --
>> >> Juan
>> >>
>>
>> It is impossible to cash a promise in the middle of transferring an asset.
>>
>> --
>> Janet Cobb
>>
>> Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
>>
>>

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Trade offer ad - Stamps for Stamps

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

Y'all, we shouldn't really be asking brand new players to draft promises
anyway. They're not as bad as proposals, but still. Yachay, here's an
example I think would work, and is potentially a bit clearer. It also
includes some safeguards that probably aren't helpful in this situation,
but are good general practice. Someone else can check me on this, it's been
a while since I've written a transaction promise.

{
Cashing conditions: The bearer is Juan. The bearer has, in the same message
in which e cashes this promise, given me, for the sole purpose of
fulfilling this condition, 1 stamp of a type which no more than 2 players,
excluding em and me, own instances of.

I give one Yachay stamp to Juan.
}

-Aspen

On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 10:28 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 3/20/23 13:14, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote:
> > I create the following Promise called "Stamp Trade":
> >
> > {
> > Cashing Condition: The person using this Promise is Juan. Also, Juan is
> > currently transferring to Yachay 1 Stamp such that only up to 2 other
> > active players own a Stamp of that Stamp's Type
> >
> > Effect: Yachay gives 1 Yachay Type Stamp to Juan
> > }
> >
> > I give this to the Library
> >
> > On Monday, March 20, 2023, Juan F. Meleiro via agora-discussion <
> > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I'll offer one of mine. Draft a promise and I'll take it.
> >>
> >> On March 19, 2023 7:18:09 PM GMT-03:00, Yachay Wayllukuq via
> >> agora-discussion  wrote:
> >>> Hello, I would like to trade Stamps. The super-exclusive Yupay Stamp
> is a
> >>> gorgeous, deluxe ware; which I believe a number of you may find
> attractive
> >>> to own. I offer the following:
> >>>
> >>> - I offer 1 Yupay Stamp for 1 Stamp that only up to 2 active Players
> >>> currently own.
> >>> - I offer 1 Yupay Stamp for 3 Stamps of any kind of your choice.
> >>>
> >>> My email is open for you.
> >> --
> >> Juan
> >>
>
> It is impossible to cash a promise in the middle of transferring an asset.
>
> --
> Janet Cobb
>
> Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Thesis Review: 4st's Submission (@4st, Aspen, Janet)

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 11:50 PM Aspen via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 1:07 PM nix via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > Here is the current list of interested thesis reviewers.
> >
> > ReviewerLast Reviewed Thesis
> > 
> > 4st
> > Aspen
> > Janet
> > juan
> > nix
> >
> > If you would like your name added or removed from this list, simply
> > notify me.
> >
> >
> > 4st has submitted a thesis, which is below. I assign the following
> > people to review it: myself, Janet, Aspen. I request the reviewers give
> > their verdicts within 1 week of this notice. If you are unable to do so,
> > let me know if you need an extension or would like someone else to be
> > assigned instead.
>
>
> I expect to respond to this within the next 48 hours. I hope to do it soon,
> but there's a chance I might not have the energy tonight.
>
> -Aspen

I have now reviewed the thesis.

There are three requirements in Rule 1367, "Degrees" for awarding an
arts degree.

The first standard applies generally to all degrees: "publication of
an original thesis of scholarly worth (including responses to
peer-review), published with explicit intent to qualify for a degree".
This standard is indisputably met, except perhaps for the "of
scholarly worth"; however, I will take this as being a reference to
the other standards of the rule, and defer consideration to them.

There is also the specific standard for art degrees, "Theses for Art
degrees SHOULD demonstrate substantial creativity and need not be in
written form." Notably, this does not require that the work be  art,
which is probably a good thing [1]. This could be a bit more specific,
since just about every work is creative in some way, including such
things as essays. Perhaps we should take the rule as meaning only the
form of creativity that is artistic in some way. In any case, the
question that would actually be relevant in this case is whether to
consider the creativity substantial.

The final standard is more subtle. It is the standard that determines
what grade of degree to award. "Degrees SHOULD be awarded according to
the extent to which the thesis contributes to Nomic culture or
thought: Associate degrees for an appreciable contribution,
Baccalaureate degrees for a substantial contribution, Magisteriate
degrees for a remarkable contribution, and Doctorate degrees for an
exceptional contribution." Thus, to be awarded a degree, the thesis
must meet at least the associate standard (at least half of you can
already guess where I'm going with this).

Simply put, I do not think the work, regardless of how creative it is,
constitutes even an appreciable contribution to Agoran culture. I do
not think there is anything in the creative nature of the work itself
that would prompt me to cite it in the future, or otherwise change my
approach to Agora. By contrast, there are many other Agoran artistic
works that I believe might have reason to refer people to, including
both theses and non-theses. This case is a nonsensical proposal, but
those have been done before, in contexts that have had a substantial
cultural impact (such as the proposals written by an AI a few years
back). This proposal does not seem distinct as a creative
contribution, apart from the fact that it was submitted for a thesis.

On this front, I can appreciate my colleague [2] nix's interpretation,
that the work has had a substantial impact on our thesis process, such
as by prompting the Herald to update the archives. Nevertheless, I do
not personally believe that the impact of a work on the thesis process
is enough to meet the Agoran culture or thought criterion on its own.
Taken to the extreme, this would suggest that random text submitted as
a thesis had an impact on culture simply by virtue of the comments
provided on it and the way it reminded others of the existence of
theses. Even without argument from absurdity, I think theses should
demonstrate a contribution *independent of their status as theses.*
(This is not meant to discount parody theses; but these would be
interesting artistically even if not submitted for a degree.)

Having concluded this thesis does not meet one of the requisite
standards for awarding a degree, I vote UNSUITABLE FOR DEGREE.

[1] I'm honestly not sure whether this thesis is art.

For me, art is defined by its aesthetic impact. That could be beauty,
but it could also be the subtle yet clear conveyance of a message, or
a manifested exploration of an ideal. Art can take the form of a good
work, or a comically bad one, and at times art is created which
critiques the concept itself.

Thus, given that the work does not arouse any particular emotion in
me, beyond a faint and wearied bewilderment, and doe

DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Thesis Review: 4st's Submission (@4st, Aspen, Janet)

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Sat, Feb 11, 2023 at 1:07 PM nix via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Here is the current list of interested thesis reviewers.
>
> ReviewerLast Reviewed Thesis
> 
> 4st
> Aspen
> Janet
> juan
> nix
>
> If you would like your name added or removed from this list, simply
> notify me.
>
>
> 4st has submitted a thesis, which is below. I assign the following
> people to review it: myself, Janet, Aspen. I request the reviewers give
> their verdicts within 1 week of this notice. If you are unable to do so,
> let me know if you need an extension or would like someone else to be
> assigned instead.


I expect to respond to this within the next 48 hours. I hope to do it soon,
but there's a chance I might not have the energy tonight.

-Aspen

>

DIS: Parting Gifts, Part 2 of 2: Silver Quill Nominations

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

As I held Promotor for all of last year, I feel that it might be
helpful for me to provide nominations for the Silver Quill.
Right now, this just has the nominations, honorable mentions, and
proposal bodies. I may post more detailed thoughts in the next few
days if I can find the energy.

As always, but especially given that I am no longer Promotor, this
is not intended to be a complete list of candidates, but merely some
suggestions. I didn't have a lot of spare energy to look over proposals,
so the chances I missed something are even greater than in previous
years.

Also as always, the proposal archives [1] have been updated.

[1] https://github.com/AgoraNomic/proposal-archives/

Nominees:

IDAuthor(s)AITitle
---
8535  Aris, nix, G., Gaelan3.0   We the People
8561  G., nix  2.0   Election Cycle
8576  Jason, Aris, Murphy  3.0   "By announcement" loosening
8599  G., Murphy   1.0   The Device (mark 2)
8629  G., Telna, nix, [2]  3.0   Independence Day

Honorable mentions:

IDAuthor(s)AITitle
---
8532  G.   3.0   Turn Undead v2
8613  Jason, Trigon3.0   The Name of the Win Cards v2
8626  Trigon, Jason, ais5233.0   pledge(2)(2)

[2] CuddleBeam, cuddlybanana, Jason

The full text of all nominees and honorable mentions is below.

//
ID: 8535
Title: We the People
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: Trigon, nix, G., Gaelan


Amend Rule 869, "How to Join and Leave Agora", by replacing:

  Any entity that is or ever was an organism generally capable of
  freely originating and communicating independent thoughts and
  ideas is a person. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no other
  entities are persons.

with:

  Any entity (including a group of confederated entities) that is or
  ever was able to willingly communicate original ideas is a person.
  Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons.

  Questions about personhood are to be resolved equitably,
  with regard for the good-faith of those involved and the customs of
  honorable play.

and then, immediately after:

  An Unregistered person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or
  prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that
  indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e
  intends to become a player at that time.

inserting the new text:

  No person can be a player if e is part of another player or
  another player is part of em.

and inserting a paragraph break immediately thereafter.


Amend Rule 2499, "Welcome Packages", by replacing:

  When a player receives a Welcome Package, if e has not received
  one in the past 30 days, then e gains 10 boatloads of coins and
  one of each type of Card defined in the rules.

with:

  When a player receives a Welcome Package, e gains 10 boatloads of coins and
  one of each type of Card defined in the rules, unless e, or any person
  of whom e was a part or who was a part of em has received a welcome
  package in the last 30 days.


# CLEANUP

Ben and Claire of the BC System are hereby declared to be separate persons;
each patent title they collectively bore is revoked and granted to
each of them individually.

[Interpretive notes may be found in the message "BUS: Interpretive Notes
for We the People".]

//
ID: 8561
Title: Election Cycle
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: G.
Co-author(s): nix


Create a power=2 rule, "The Election Cycle", with the following text:

  A holder of an elected office who did not become its holder by
  winning an election, and has not won an election for that office
  since, is an interim holder. An elected office that is either
  vacant or has an interim holder is an interim office.

  An office is term-limited if the most recent election for that
  office was resolved more than the length of that office's term
  prior. The term for the office of Prime Minister is 90 days. The
  term for all other elected offices is 180 days.

  A player CAN initiate an election for a specified elected office:

  a) with 2 support, if either the office is interim or term-
 limited, and provided that the initiator becomes a candidate
 in the same message.

  b) By announcement, if e is the ADoP (or, if the office is the
 ADoP, if e is the Assessor) and the office is interim, or if
 e is the holder of that office.

  Once per quarter, the ADoP CAN and SHALL publish a Notice of
  Election specifying between 2-4 term-limited offices (if there
  fewer than 2 term-limited offices, the ADoP MUST instead list
  all of them).  Such a notice initiates elections for the
  specified offices.  The ADoP SHOULD prioritize offices that
  have gone 

DIS: Parting Gifts, Part 1 of 2: Protos

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

Do what you will with these protos!

-Aspen

---
Title: Sometimes I Have Bad Ideas
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Aspen
Co-authors:

Amend Rule 2463, "Motion of No Confidence", by removing the text:

  Motions of confidence SHOULD used whenever Agorans want to shake things
  up, rather than as a personal judgement of the Prime Minister.

[
Note 1:
People should feel free to do a motion of no confidence whenever they deem
it necessary, including to start or stop scams or to express a judgement
of the Prime Minister's performance or to shake things up. PM is the people's
office, the only one that's truly popularly elected!

Note 2:
Apparently there's a typo? That should definitely be "motions of no
confidence".

Note 3:
There were going to be two "Sometimes I Have Bad Ideas" proposals, but G.
repealed Dark Arts before I got to it. Thanks G.!
]

---

Title: Maybe We Shouldn't Forget Things
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Aspen
Co-author(s): nix, G.


Enact a new power 1.0 rule, entitled "Calendar", with
the following text:

  The following are Noteworthy Events:

1. Holidays
2. Read the Ruleset Week
3. Awards Month
4. The Agoran Birthdays of current players
5. The beginnings of Agoran quarters

  The Herald's monthly report includes the dates or date ranges for all
  Noteworthy Events that are scheduled to take place before the end of
  the subsequent Agoran month.

  The Herald is ENCOURAGED to publish a reminder shortly before a
  Noteworthy Event takes place.

[I can't come up with a rule title I'm happy with, TBH.}

--
Title: SLR Ratification
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aspen
Co-authors:


Ratify the Short Logical Ruleset published on the 8th of February, 2022,
available here [1].

[1] 
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2022-February/015653.html

[Maybe this needs a period for people to catch errors, but we should do
this soon IMO. The RtRW ruleset is the most checked recent ruleset.]

DIS: Re: BUS: Hopefully you disagree

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 7:20 PM juan via agora-business
 wrote:
>
> I create the following proposal:
>
> {
> Title: Don't Vote For Me
> AI: 9.9
> Author: juan
>
> Ossify Agora.
> }

I would greatly appreciate it if you flagged your proposals, by
putting "[Proposal]" or "Proposal:" or similar in the title line. I
find proposals by searching through messages whose titles contain the
word "Proposal". Since people have been pretty good about it, even
though it's not codified, it saves me a lot of time.

-Aspen

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8657-8664

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 11:10 PM Aspen via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:47 PM ais523 via agora-official
>  wrote:
>
>
> > > 8658*   Aspen   3.0   SLR Ratification
> > Conditional: If G. and Murphy both vote FOR, then FOR, otherwise
> > AGAINST. (I haven't checked it in sufficient detail to make sure that
> > it's correct / nothing is broken.)
>
> I'm a bit frustrated by the fact this is failing (I am *not*
> frustrated at any specific voters). To the best of my knowledge, there
> is no recent version of the ruleset that anyone has completely checked
> and signed off on. This is the read the ruleset week version from this
> year, presumably the most checked of the year. I'm fairly sure there
> have been erata to the ruleset since last year's RtRW version, so we
> can't ratify that either. However, we haven't ratified a ruleset for
> two years now, which is a pretty long time. I'm not sure what needs to
> be done to get people to read and approve a version of the ruleset. I
> believe that this is the best version to ratify. I would appreciate it
> if someone could give me suggestions on how to get this or another
> recent version of the ruleset ratified.
>
> There was a recent scare where it seemed possible that reenacting
> rules was broken (this discussion happened entirely on Discord). It
> was determined that the last ratification had happened days after the
> most recent reenactment. I would really like to get a version of the
> ruleset ratified soon, so we don't have to worry about problems like
> that.

I feel like the solution might involve leaving a version up for a
while to check it. I think I've done that in the past maybe,

I'm sorry for getting frustrated. I'm pretty tired and frustrated in
general these days. Maybe I need to take a break for a bit.


-Aspen

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8657-8664

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 10:47 PM ais523 via agora-official
 wrote:


> > 8658*   Aspen   3.0   SLR Ratification
> Conditional: If G. and Murphy both vote FOR, then FOR, otherwise
> AGAINST. (I haven't checked it in sufficient detail to make sure that
> it's correct / nothing is broken.)

I'm a bit frustrated by the fact this is failing (I am *not*
frustrated at any specific voters). To the best of my knowledge, there
is no recent version of the ruleset that anyone has completely checked
and signed off on. This is the read the ruleset week version from this
year, presumably the most checked of the year. I'm fairly sure there
have been erata to the ruleset since last year's RtRW version, so we
can't ratify that either. However, we haven't ratified a ruleset for
two years now, which is a pretty long time. I'm not sure what needs to
be done to get people to read and approve a version of the ruleset. I
believe that this is the best version to ratify. I would appreciate it
if someone could give me suggestions on how to get this or another
recent version of the ruleset ratified.

There was a recent scare where it seemed possible that reenacting
rules was broken (this discussion happened entirely on Discord). It
was determined that the last ratification had happened days after the
most recent reenactment. I would really like to get a version of the
ruleset ratified soon, so we don't have to worry about problems like
that.



-Aspen

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Referee) A sad Finger Point

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 7:47 AM nix via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 3/26/22 02:31, Aspen via agora-discussion wrote:
> > The bigger problem I have is just... what's the point of this sort of
> > finger point? When I asked the referring party, e said that e wanted to
> > create more work for our Honorable Referee,
>
> E clearly stated this part was a joke, I'm not a fan of taking players'
> words out of context to change their meaning.


I apologize for this. When I was going to sleep last night, I was like,
"gee, I'm glad I cut that bit, it wasn't contributing much." Apparently I
did not in fact cut that bit. So, uhh, whoops. secretsnail, I apologize and
retract this portion of my message.

A couple weeks ago snail was given 2 blots by G. for no real reason
> except possibly to prevent em from legitimately winning. Nobody
> complained about that. So it doesn't seem to me people care about the
> blots particularly.


To me, the blots by blot-B-gone mechanism is different in that it is
*intentionally* arbitrary. I don't know how I would feel if someone tried
it on me - that would be an interesting experiment to run, actually.

Perversely, I'm rapidly coming around to something like the Blot Wars
system G. posted, despite G. being the person I've disagreed with most
about how to navigate the current system. I'd really like a comprehensive
legislative solution. It feels like all of the solutions that everyone
drafts are just trying to reduce the pain of blots by granting more
leniency. If we could somehow make the system more humorous (either by
gamifying it or making it explicitly non-punitive somehow), maybe we could
change the approach people have to blots and finger-points. It feels like
it would take something like that to change my personal approach, at any
rate.


> If the issue is what is and isn't a punishable offense then secretsnail
> followed the letter of the law. I don't think e intentionally violated
> Agoran custom. If someone breaks social custom e's not familiar with, e
> should be told about it, not chastised. And if the letter of the law
> allows apparently egregious breakages of customs, then change the law.


It's been a matter of public record for a while that I don't like the
increase in finger points lately. I've expressed this to secretsnail
publicly in the past, in my strongly disapprove message wrt. some of eir
previous finger points. It seems like we have a problem here in terms of
the rules saying one thing, and the social custom being another thing.
Social change is bound to make some people, like me, grouchy. I am not
going to apologize for being grouchy or for publicly expressing that I am
grouchy. (I know you haven't specifically asked me to apologize for this,
it's more of a general comment.)

I'm endeavoring not to coke across as personally angry towards secretsnail,
as e is following the rules as written. I'm also endeavoring to specify
that I am frustrated at the moment and my words should be taken in that
light, rather than as an expression of enmity towards anyone. However, I am
truly frustrated by the way the ongoing realignment is taking place, and I
think that I needed to express that.

-Aspen

>

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Referee) A sad Finger Point

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

I was grouchy when I saw this finger point. The error that elicited it is a
very minor error, practically to the point of insignificance. While I know
that publishing a draft doesn't absolve me of responsibility for the
accuracy of the report, I do make substantial efforts to publish accurate
reports. Overall, it just doesn't feel like a finger point makes sense here.

Part of the problem is the purpose of the SHALL. It seems like what it's
really trying to prevent is the Promotor *deliberately* distributing
non-pending proposals. It serves as a "don't do that" which is stronger
than a SHOULD - there's an actual penalty for a breach. But it doesn't seem
like it was really put there for situations like this.

The bigger problem I have is just... what's the point of this sort of
finger point? When I asked the referring party, e said that e wanted to
create more work for our Honorable Referee, draw attention to the fact that
the proposal shouldn't have been distributed, and encourage me to keep
doing my best work. Applying my perhaps antiquated views of when finger
points make sense, none of these seem to render a finger point the
appropriate solution.

Right now, I'm frustrated, and I apologize if I put things in a bad or
aggressive way way. I also know there has been talk of moving from a
paradigm where there is restraint in finger pointing to one where finger
pointing to one where there judgement applied by the Referee. However, I
wish to express, in a generalized sense and without intending personal
disparagement of the finger pointer, that I am frustrated, I am grouchy,
and I don't like it.

Sincerely and temperamentally yours in possibly-excessive and
hopefully-short-lived frustration,
Aspen
On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 11:52 PM Trigon via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> El 26/03/2022 a las 06:00, secretsnail9 via agora-business escribió:
> > I point my finger at Aspen for breaking Rule 1607 (Distribution) by
> > distributing the non-pending proposal, "The Hexeract" (Proposal 8663) on
> or
> > around Saturday, March 26th, 2022, 3:39:27.
> >
> > This crime should be VERY forgivable as I probably should have caught it
> > before the distribution.
> >
> > The message in which the crime took place:
> > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg12106.html
> >
> > Relevant rule text:
> >
> > The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal
> >Pool at any time, but SHALL NOT do so unless it is pending.
> >
> >
> > --
> > secretsnail
>
> I opine that this action is bad form.
>
> For one thing, a draft was published. Aspen is very thorough with
> publishing drafts but if no one looks at them that defeats the point.
> This mistake should have been caught before the distribution and since
> it wasn't, that in no way reflects poorly on the Promotor.
>
> For another thing, if this were any other report this would not have
> been a pointable offense; instead it would have been a harmless CoE.
> Officers make mistakes, and there are mechanisms in the rules to account
> for human error. This is a double standard that does not do us any good
> to uphold.
>
> Finally, this literally does no harm whatsoever to Agora. In my opinion
> crimes exist to chastise someone if something they do harms Agora or
> makes it unreasonable to play. I get that this is probably all for the
> most-fingers-pointed reward. That is a mechanic of which I have never
> been a fan because it goes against that philosophy.
>
> I don't know if this changes anyone's mind or if I'm whinging at this
> point. I just don't think that a finger point like this is at all
> justified.
>
> --
> Trigon
>
> Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
>
>   ¸¸.•*¨*• Play AGORA QUEST
>
> 
> 
> 
>
> I’m always happy to become a party to contracts.
> I LOVE SPAGHETTI
> transfer Jason one coin
> nch was here
> I hereby
> don't... trust... the dragon...
> don't... trust... the dragon...
> Do not Construe Jason's message with subject TRIGON as extending this
>

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8657-8664

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 8:40 PM Aspen via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> PROMOTOR'S REPORT AS OF RIGHT NOW
>
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it,
> and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote
collector
> is the Assessor, the quorum is 5, 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
>
---
> 8657*   Murphy  3.0   Schrodinger's report
> 8658*   Aspen   3.0   SLR Ratification
> 8659*   nix, G., snail  3.0   Speak Like People
> 8660*   nix, G., Jason, snail   3.0   The End of Sets
> 8661&   nix, G., Jason, Trigon  1.0   Stamps v1.2
> 8662&   snail, Jason, Telna 1.0   Birds! v2
> 8663&   snail   1.0   The Hexeract
> 8664&   snail   1.0   Away with the massive points
>
> The proposal pool is currently empty.
>
> Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
> & : Ordinary proposal.
> ~ : Unsponsored proposal.
>
> The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where
> the information shown below differs from the information shown above,
> the information shown above shall control.
>
> //
> ID: 8657
> Title: Schrodinger's report
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Murphy
> Co-author(s):
>
>
> Amend Rule 2480 (Festivals) by replacing this text:
>
>   While Agora's Festivity is 0, Festivity is tracked in the
>   Tailor's monthly report. Otherwise, it is tracked in the
>   Tailor's weekly report.
>
> with this text:
>
>   Festivity is tracked in the Tailor's monthly report. In addition,
>   while Festivity is non-zero, the Tailor SHALL announce its value each
>   week; a public document purporting to be such an announcement is
>   self-ratifying.
>
> [Now that Glitter has been repealed, the existence of the Tailor's
> weekly report depends solely on whether a Festival is in progress. I
> would rather give up the occasional extra salary than have to deal with
> the extra complexity in the ADoP's report.]
>
> //
> ID: 8658
> Title: SLR Ratification
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aspen
> Co-author(s):
>
>
> Ratify the Short Logical Ruleset published on the 8th of February, 2022,
> available here [1].
>
> [1]
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2022-February/015653.html
>
> //
> ID: 8659
> Title: Speak Like People
> Adoption index:
> Author: nix
> Co-author(s): G., snail
>

For the record, the AI of this proposal is 3.0. The distribution is still
valid.

-Aspen

DIS: [Promotor] Draft

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

My draft report follows. Also, if proposals keep coming in this
quickly, I'm likely to just backdate the report to right now, so I can
at least get something out.

-Aspen
---
PROMOTOR'S REPORT AS OF RIGHT NOW

I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it,
and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote collector
is the Assessor, the quorum is 5, 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
---
8657*   Murphy  3.0   Schrodinger's report
8658*   Aspen   3.0   SLR Ratification
8659*   nix, G., snail  3.0   Speak Like People
8660*   nix, G., Jason, snail   3.0   The End of Sets
8661&   nix, G., Jason, Trigon  1.0   Stamps v1.2
8662&   snail, Jason, Telna 1.0   Birds! v2
8663&   snail   1.0   The Hexeract
8664&   snail   1.0   Away with the massive points

The proposal pool is currently empty.

Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
& : Ordinary proposal.
~ : Unsponsored proposal.

The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where
the information shown below differs from the information shown above,
the information shown above shall control.

//
ID: 8657
Title: Schrodinger's report
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Murphy
Co-author(s):


Amend Rule 2480 (Festivals) by replacing this text:

  While Agora's Festivity is 0, Festivity is tracked in the
  Tailor's monthly report. Otherwise, it is tracked in the
  Tailor's weekly report.

with this text:

  Festivity is tracked in the Tailor's monthly report. In addition,
  while Festivity is non-zero, the Tailor SHALL announce its value each
  week; a public document purporting to be such an announcement is
  self-ratifying.

[Now that Glitter has been repealed, the existence of the Tailor's
weekly report depends solely on whether a Festival is in progress. I
would rather give up the occasional extra salary than have to deal with
the extra complexity in the ADoP's report.]

//
ID: 8658
Title: SLR Ratification
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aspen
Co-author(s):


Ratify the Short Logical Ruleset published on the 8th of February, 2022,
available here [1].

[1] 
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2022-February/015653.html

//
ID: 8659
Title: Speak Like People
Adoption index:
Author: nix
Co-author(s): G., snail


[Reword welcome packages to unambiguously make "grant" work and also add
a keyword for "cashing in" sets, to fix some clunky language.]

Amend R2577 "Asset Actions" by replacing:

  To grant an entity an asset is to create it in eir possession.

with:

  To grant an entity an asset is to create it in eir possession. To
  grant an entity a set of assets is to create each asset in the set
  in eir possession.

Amend R2499 "Welcome Packages" to read in full:

  A Welcome Package is a set of assets containing:

 * 10 boatloads of coins, AND
 * 1 of each type of card defined in the rules.

  Any player CAN grant a Welcome Package to any player if the grantee
  has neither received one since e last registered nor in the last 30
  days.

Ratify that all current players have received a Welcome Package since
they last registered.

Amend R2620 "Cards & Sets" by replacing:

  A player CAN pay a 'set' of X Cards of the same type

with:

  A player CAN pay a 'set' of (syn: "cash in") X Cards of the same
  type

//
ID: 8660
Title: The End of Sets
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: nix
Co-author(s): G., Jason, snail


Amend R2621 "VP Wins" by replacing:

  Then, the winds change, following which each active player gains 1
  card of each type and eir grant (if any).

with:

  Then, the winds die down.

Add a new Power=3 rule titled "The Winds Die Down" with the following
text:

  When the wind dies down, the following happen in order:

  * The following rules are repealed in order: R2620 "Cards & Sets",
R2623 "Popular Proposal Proposer Privilege", R2629 "Victory
Auctions", R2624 "Card Administration", R2622 "Pending Proposals",
R2651 "Proposal Recycling", and R2653 "Buying Strength".

  * All rules including the text "~>" and "<~" are amended in
ascending numerical order by removing all text between and
including each "~>" and the first following "<~".

  * This rule is repealed.

Amend R2478 "Vigilante Justice" to replace:

  The player who initiated the most Finger Pointings that resulted in
  a Warning, Indictment, or Cold Hand of Justice in the previous
  Agoran Week CAN once grant emself a Justice Card 

DIS: [Promotor] Second Draft

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

Given how many corrections and additions there have been since my
first draft, and also given that I've been a bit of a mess lately, I
have decided to publish a new draft. I apologize for the delay. I hope
to publish a final report soon.

-Aspen

---
PROMOTOR'S REPORT AS OF RIGHT NOW

I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on 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
---
8645*   ATMunn, nix 3.0   Some RTRW Clean-Ups
8646*   Jason, G., ais523   3.0   Deputisation rewrite
8647&   snail, Jason, Telna 2.0   Birds!
8648&   snail   1.0   Scoring Integer Points
8649&   Murphy  1.0   The Devices v1.1
8650&   Jason   1.0   It's an even grayer world.
8651*   Jason, Aspen, Ørjan 3.0   TIME Act [1]
8652&   snail, Jason1.0   Geometry v3
8653&   ais523  1.0   Device Reconstruction
8654&   G.  1.7   Cheaters shouldn't prosper

The proposal pool is currently empty.

[1] Temporal Incursion Modification and Exclusion Act

Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
& : Ordinary proposal.
~ : Unsponsored proposal.

The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where
the information shown below differs from the information shown above,
the information shown above shall control.

//
ID: 8645
Title: Some RTRW Clean-Ups
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: ATMunn
Co-author(s): nix


Amend R2464 by replacing "set of regulations," with "a set of
regulations,".

Amend R2493 by:

  * replacing "an textual entity" with "a textual entity"; and
  * replacing "an person" with "a person".

Amend R2495 by replacing "This title" with "These regulations".

Amend R2471 by replacing "be not to be true" with "be not true".

Amend R2602 by removing any quotation marks and replacing "or e
corresponding" with "or the corresponding".

//
ID: 8646
Title: Deputisation rewrite
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason
Co-author(s): G., ais523


Amend Rule 2160 ("Deputisation") by replacing the sole list with the
following:
{
  1. the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of holding
  that office, to perform the action (this requirement is fulfilled by the
  deputy performing the action); and, it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy
  to perform the action, other than by deputisation, if e held the office;
  and, the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e is doing
  so by deputisation or by temporary deputisation; and, the deputy has not
  held the office in the past 7 days; and,

  2. any of the following are true:
 (A) the office is vacant;
 (B) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be
 performed has expired, the office's holder has not changed
 in the past 7 days, and any of the following are true:

   (i) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier
   that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes
   of the particular action;
  (ii) the time limit expired between 14 days ago and 28 days ago;
 (iii) the time limit expired more than 28 days ago and the
   deputisation is temporary;
}

[This simplifies the list significantly, hopefully making it clearer. It
also makes the following substantive changes: allows only temporarily
deputisation (or deputisation with notice) for old duties, prohibits
deputies who have held the office in the past 7 days, and prohibits
deputising for an office whose holder has changed in the past 7 days, to
allow a holder time to catch up when they assume a new office, and to
prevent rapid-fire changes resulting from deputisation fights.]

//
ID: 8647
Title: Birds!
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: snail
Co-author(s): Jason, Telna


Create a rule with title "Birds", power 2.0, and the following text:
{
  A bird is a unique indestructible liquid asset defined by the
  rules. To define a bird, the definition must include:
(i) A name unique among birds;
   (ii) A scroll, which is a document specifying the effects of the
bird.

  Ownership of birds is entirely restricted to Agora and active
  players. If a bird is owned by the Lost and Found Department or
  in abeyance, it is immediately transferred to Agora.

  The Avicultor is an office, and the recordkeepor of birds.

  A player that is not Beast Permitted SHALL NOT transfer a bird e
  owns to another player; doing so is the Class 3 Crime of

DIS: [Promotor] Draft

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

My draft report follows.

-Aspen
---
PROMOTOR'S REPORT AS OF RIGHT NOW

I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on 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
---
8645*   ATMunn, nix 3.0   Some RTRW Clean-Ups
8646*   Jason, G., ais523   3.0   Deputisation rewrite
8647&   secretsnail, [1]2.0   Birds!
8648&   secretsnail 1.0   Scoring Integer Points
8649&   Murphy  1.0   The Devices v1.1
8650&   Jason   1.0   It's an even grayer world.

The proposal pool contains the following proposals:

Author(s)   AITitle
---
Jason, Aspen, Ørjan 3.0   TIME Act [2]

[1] Jason, Telna
[2] Temporal Incursion Modification and Exclusion Act

Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
& : Ordinary proposal.
~ : Unsponsored proposal.

The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where
the information shown below differs from the information shown above,
the information shown above shall control.

//
ID: 8645
Title: Some RTRW Clean-Ups
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: ATMunn
Co-author(s): nix


Amend R2464 by replacing "set of regulations," with "a set of
regulations,".

Amend R2493 by:

  * replacing "an textual entity" with "a textual entity"; and
  * replacing "an person" with "a person".

Amend R2495 by replacing "This title" with "These regulations".

Amend R2471 by replacing "be not to be true" with "be not true".

Amend R2602 by removing any quotation marks and replacing "or e
corresponding" with "or the corresponding".

//
ID: 8646
Title: Deputisation rewrite
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason
Co-author(s): G., ais523


Amend Rule 2160 ("Deputisation") by replacing the sole list with the
following:
{
  1. the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of holding
  that office, to perform the action (this requirement is fulfilled by the
  deputy performing the action); and, it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy
  to perform the action, other than by deputisation, if e held the office;
  and, the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e is doing
  so by deputisation or by temporary deputisation; and, the deputy has not
  held the office in the past 7 days; and,

  2. any of the following are true:
 (A) the office is vacant;
 (B) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be
 performed has expired, the office's holder has not changed
 in the past 7 days, and any of the following are true:

   (i) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier
   that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes
   of the particular action;
  (ii) the time limit expired between 14 days ago and 28 days ago;
 (iii) the time limit expired more than 28 days ago and the
   deputisation is temporary;
}

[This simplifies the list significantly, hopefully making it clearer. It
also makes the following substantive changes: allows only temporarily
deputisation (or deputisation with notice) for old duties, prohibits
deputies who have held the office in the past 7 days, and prohibits
deputising for an office whose holder has changed in the past 7 days, to
allow a holder time to catch up when they assume a new office, and to
prevent rapid-fire changes resulting from deputisation fights.]

//
ID: 8647
Title: Birds!
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: secretsnail
Co-author(s): Jason, Telna


Create a rule with title "Birds", power 2.0, and the following text:
{
  A bird is a unique indestructible liquid asset defined by the
  rules. To define a bird, the definition must include:
(i) A name unique among birds;
   (ii) A scroll, which is a document specifying the effects of the
bird.

  Ownership of birds is entirely restricted to Agora and active
  players. If a bird is owned by the Lost and Found Department or
  in abeyance, it is immediately transferred to Agora.

  The Avicultor is an office, and the recordkeepor of birds.

  A player that is not Beast Permitted SHALL NOT transfer a bird e
  owns to another player; doing so is the Class 3 Crime of
  Unpermitted Beast Transit.
}

Create a rule with title "Permits", power 2.0, and the following text:
{
  Beast Permitted is a secured negative boolean person switch,
  tracked by the Avicultor in eir weekly report. A player with a
  Beast 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Scoring Integer Points

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

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

DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] jc fix and referee policy

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 6:56 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business
 wrote:
>
>
> I submit the following Proposal, "Cheaters shouldn't prosper", AI-1.7:
> -
> [
> - clarifies timing of JC grant paragraph
> - the default penalty is 2 blots.  a set-complete JC removes 2.5
>   blots.  A perp shouldn't profit from their crime by pointing
>   at themselves and getting a JC for it.  So this removes self-points
>   from the counting.
> ]

Before this gets pended, I wanted to mention that I disagree with this
policy direction. For one thing, as I've mentioned before, I'm not
enthusiastic about encouraging more finger-pointing at others. Also,
if someone is committing violations to earn JCs, the violation is
profitable and the penalty can be increased.

Of course, you may disagree, and if you want to go ahead with this,
that's fine. I wasn't even sure whether to bring my concern up at all
at this stage, but people tend to prefer feedback earlier rather than
later, so I did.

-Aspen

DIS: [Promotor] Draft

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

My draft report follows.

-Aspen
---
The proposal pool contains the following proposals:

Author(s)   AITitle
---
nix 3.0   Some RTRW Clean-Ups
G.  1.7   Cheaters shouldn't prosper


Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
& : Ordinary proposal.
~ : Unsponsored proposal.

The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where
the information shown below differs from the information shown above,
the information shown above shall control.

//
Title: Some RTRW Clean-Ups
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: nix
Co-author(s):


Amend R2464 by replacing "set of regulations," with "a set of
regulations,".

Amend R2493 by:

 * replacing "an textual entity" with "a textual entity"; and
 * replacing "an person" with "a person".

Amend R2495 by replacing "This title" with "These regulations".

Amend R2471 by replacing "be not to be true" with "be not true".

Amend R2602 by removing any quotation marks and replacing "or e
corresponding" with "or the corresponding".

//
Title: Cheaters shouldn't prosper
Adoption index: 1.7
Author: G.
Co-author(s):


[
- clarifies timing of JC grant paragraph
- the default penalty is 2 blots.  a set-complete JC removes 2.5
  blots.  A perp shouldn't profit from their crime by pointing
  at themselves and getting a JC for it.  So this removes self-points
  from the counting.
]

Amend Rule 2478 (Vigilante Justice) by replacing:
  The player who initiated the most Finger Pointings that resulted
  in a Warning, Indictment, or Cold Hand of Justice in the previous
  Agoran Week CAN once grant emself a Justice Card by announcement.
with:
  The player who initiated the most Finger Pointings at other
  players that, in the previous Agoran Week, resulted
  in a Warning, Indictment, or Cold Hand of Justice, CAN once
  grant emself a Justice Card by announcement.

//

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Referee) Two fingers pointed, cuddlybanana, Murphy

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 12:52 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
>
> On 2/10/2022 9:23 PM, Aspen via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 8:24 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business
> >  wrote:
> >> I point a finger at Murphy for failure to judge CFJ 3940 in a timely
> >> fashion,
> >> in violation of Rule 591.
> >> I note that this offense is minor (about two hours late) and likely
> >> forgivable.
> >> I also note that Murphy attempted to award emself blue glitter for their
> >> judgement,
> >> which failed because of this violation.
> >> (This is how I intend to handle all violations except for extreme
> >> circumstances.
> >> Remember that a judge can file a motion to extend their case by
> >> announcement.)
> >
> >
> > I wish to register my strong personal disapproval for this action. I'm
> > generally opposed to aggressive enforcement of deadlines to begin
> > with. I am all the more opposed to enforcement against tardiness that
> > has already been rectified. If no one noticed at the time, then I do
> > not believe that it makes any sense to impose a penalty after the
> > fact.
>
> I first instinctively agreed with Aspen, but on further reflection I'd
> like to try being strict about rules breaches, including even minor tardiness.
>
> A few times in the past few years, I've come up with an scheme/idea, but
> it depends on officers being on time (getting a proposal adopted before
> the end of the month, posting a tournament update, or something).  The
> officer is late.  I lose my scheme and any time investment.  Overall it's
> less fun for everyone because it was interesting gameplay.  But the
> officer is very sorry.  And I (and we collectively) truly do understand,
> Agora isn't anyone's #1 priority, and I'm late often too.  It happens.  No
> biggie.
>
> But still, I've lost my invested effort due to the breach.  Since our
> current culture treats a finger-point as a "true" rebuke, I'd feel bad for
> pointing or not accepting an officer's informal apology.  So I don't
> penalize them, but I feel annoyed.  As a result, I might get a bit
> passive-aggressive.  Maybe snipe at something e says or vote against eir
> unrelated proposal, whatever.  It's petty and the lateness is truly nbd -
> but the feeling's there for a few days and need to watch myself, or step
> away from the game for a little.  Not fun.  And I'm less likely to try the
> next scheme (which is the point of the game after all).
>
> I would VERY MUCH RATHER just be able to say "no worries, it happens, but
> here's a Blot - that's not a rebuke, that's just a technical
> nearly-automatic penalty the game applies, no one has to feel bad about
> it."  Then we can move on.

I don't think I have an argument against your main point here. My gut
reaction is to disagree with it, but that isn't an argument.

> Any forgiveness can/should be dealt with on the sentencing side - we've
> got mechanisms for forgiveness, reduction in penalties, or just asking for
> a BBG.  And if that's still to onerous, the obvious approach is to change
> the rules - reduce penalties for weekly reports, make the first missed
> officer's duty in a quarter a Warning, or any of a dozen other things.

If we go this route, I think we should ease penalties fairly aggressively.

> Other side effects of our current policy:
>
> - Challenging for new players.  It's written in the rules that fingers are
> to be pointed at breaches, and we even *reward* for doing so.  Then the
> first time a newb points a finger, thinking to pick up a JC (a great way
> for a new player to gain when auctions are out of reach), we say "we don't
> do that around here - goodfaithhonor and all that".  They then need to
> navigate a hidden, against-the-text-of-the-rules social pressure while
> older players are comfortable knowing which fingers they can and can't
> safely point, with the difference being relatively-arbitrary social
> pressure.  Also not fun.

I agree that our current system is objectively terrible in this
regard. I've never been a huge fan of the "rewards for pointing
fingers" thing. I think it sends a message that's out of alignment
with the way that I was hoping we'd approach this. There are ways of
fixing that dissonance, including removing the reward, setting
guidelines for when to point a finger, or penalty easing (even in the
absence of harsher enforcement). I agree something needs to be change,
but there are options for what to change.

> - The economy.  We've taken a general strong stand against pending
> proposals for free, to support the pendant economy.  Following that logic,
> why would we depress/downright destroy the BBG economy?

*continues to think that "it makes the economy work" is a bad reason
to make things more difficult*

-Aspen

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Referee) Two fingers pointed, cuddlybanana, Murphy

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 9:24 PM Aspen via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 8:24 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business
>  wrote:
> > I point a finger at Murphy for failure to judge CFJ 3940 in a timely
> > fashion,
> > in violation of Rule 591.
> > I note that this offense is minor (about two hours late) and likely
> > forgivable.
> > I also note that Murphy attempted to award emself blue glitter for their
> > judgement,
> > which failed because of this violation.
> > (This is how I intend to handle all violations except for extreme
> > circumstances.
> > Remember that a judge can file a motion to extend their case by
> > announcement.)
>
>
> I wish to register my strong personal disapproval for this action. I'm
> generally opposed to aggressive enforcement of deadlines to begin
> with. I am all the more opposed to enforcement against tardiness that
> has already been rectified. If no one noticed at the time, then I do
> not believe that it makes any sense to impose a penalty after the
> fact.


> -Aspen
>
I apologize. While I do feel strongly about this issue, that was
unnecessarily strongly worded. I'll mull over my response to this and the
issues involved, and try to respond when I've cooled off if I think I have
something worthwhile to say.

-Aspen

DIS: Re: BUS: (@Referee) Two fingers pointed, cuddlybanana, Murphy

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 8:24 PM secretsnail9 via agora-business
 wrote:
> I point a finger at Murphy for failure to judge CFJ 3940 in a timely
> fashion,
> in violation of Rule 591.
> I note that this offense is minor (about two hours late) and likely
> forgivable.
> I also note that Murphy attempted to award emself blue glitter for their
> judgement,
> which failed because of this violation.
> (This is how I intend to handle all violations except for extreme
> circumstances.
> Remember that a judge can file a motion to extend their case by
> announcement.)


I wish to register my strong personal disapproval for this action. I'm
generally opposed to aggressive enforcement of deadlines to begin
with. I am all the more opposed to enforcement against tardiness that
has already been rectified. If no one noticed at the time, then I do
not believe that it makes any sense to impose a penalty after the
fact.

-Aspen

DIS: [Promotor] Draft

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

My draft report follows.

-Aspen

---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it,
and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote collector
is the Assessor, the quorum is 5, 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
---
8638*   secretsnail, Madrid 3.0   Cyan Ribbon Patch
8639*   G.  3.0   sole quorum
8640&   R. Lee  2.0   Minor ruleset edits
8641&   Jason, G.   2.0   Degrees are for persons
8642&   Jason, Ørjan2.0   Hot Potato patch v2
8643&   G.  1.7   Firing Judge Dredd
8644&   Jason, ais523   1.0   Device repeal patch


The proposal pool contains the following proposals:

Author(s)AITitle
---
Murphy   3.0   No audience, no action


Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
& : Ordinary proposal.
~ : Unsponsored proposal.

The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where
the information shown below differs from the information shown above,
the information shown above shall control.

//
ID: 8638
Title: Cyan Ribbon Patch
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: secretsnail
Co-author(s): Madrid


Amend Rule 2438 (Ribbons) by replacing "Cyan (C): When a person
deputises for an office, that person earns a Cyan Ribbon" with
"Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an office, and that person has not
held or deputized for that office within the past 7 days, that person earns
a Cyan Ribbon".

[Fixes an issue which lets a player repeatedly deputize for an office and
award emself up to 5 cyan glitter.]

//
ID: 8639
Title: sole quorum
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: G.
Co-author(s):


Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by changing its power to 3.

[the basic definition of quorum should be power-3 along with the rest of
voting, right?]


Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by replacing:
  As an exception to the previous paragraph, the quorum of an
  Agoran decision can never be less than 2. If the rules would
  attempt to set the quorum of an Agoran decision to less than 2,
  it is set to 2 instead.
with:
  As an exception to the previous paragraph, the minimum quorum of
  an Agoran decision is 2, or 1 if there are fewer than 2 players in
  the game. If the rules would attempt to set the quorum of an Agoran
  decision to less than the minimum quorum, it is set to the minimum
  instead.

[If 1 person is the only player, that should be quorum.  Less than 1 is
game-breaking trouble, so minimum=1 protects extra against the final
deregistration]

//
ID: 8640
Title: Minor ruleset edits
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: R. Lee
Co-author(s):


Amend rule 1023, "Agoran Time" by removing the text "Eastman
weeks begin at midnight UTC on the 1st, 8th, 15th, 22nd,
and 29th of each Gregorian month; the fifth one of the
month (if any) lasts till the end of the month."

and by removing the text

"(e.g. Eastman weeks)"


Amend rule 2531, "Defendant's Rights" by removing the last semicolon
and the last "or" after section (9) and by inserting the text " or"
between the word "Finger" and the semicolon at the end of section (8).

Retitle rule 2531, "Defendant's Rights" to "Defendants' Rights"

//
ID: 8641
Title: Degrees are for persons
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Jason
Co-author(s): G.


Amend Rule 1367 ("Degrees") by replacing "A specified degree CAN be
awarded" with "A specified degree CAN be awarded to a person".

[Require that degrees are given to persons for their hard work, rather
than arbitrary entities.]

//
ID: 8642
Title: Hot Potato patch v2
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Jason
Co-author(s): Ørjan


Amend Rule 2645 (The Stones) by replacing "This stone cannot otherwise
be transferred" with "If this stone is not owned by Agora, it cannot
otherwise be transferred".

[Allows transferring the Hot Potato stone from Agora in order to allow
it to actually be auctioned off.]

//
ID: 8643
Title: Firing Judge Dredd
Adoption index: 1.7
Author: G.
Co-author(s):


Amend Rule 2478 (Vigilante Justice) by replacing:
  The above notwithstanding, the investigator CANNOT resolve a
  Finger Pointing for which e is the perp.
with:
  The above notwithstanding, the investigator CANNOT resolve a
  Finger Pointing for which e is the perp or the finger-pointer.


[if referee is vacant, someone could point a finger and 

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] RTRW Recording

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

Also the following rules:

478

869

1367

2350


And if one of those is already taken, 2140 instead.


-Aspen
On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 4:11 PM Aspen 
wrote:

> Still working on my full dibs list, but since somehow no one has done
> so yet, I call dibs on Rule 2029, the town fountain.
>
> -Aspen
>
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 2:23 PM Aspen via agora-discussion
>  wrote:
> >
> > I wish to join the list. I'll choose a few when I get a chance.
> >
> > -Aspen
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 12:16 PM Jason Cobb via agora-official <
> > agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Well it looks like we're going with recording people reading the
> ruleset.
> > >
> > > Reading will be done using the Short Logical Ruleset published on 8 Feb
> > > 2022, which has 146 rules.
> > >
> > > The following persons have stated on Discord that they wish to
> participate:
> > >
> > > * ATMunn
> > >
> > > * nix
> > >
> > > * Jason
> > >
> > > * Gaelan
> > >
> > > * Trigon
> > >
> > > * cuddlybanana
> > >
> > >
> > > If you are not on the above list, please respond to this email if you
> > > wish to participate.
> > >
> > > As for how to assign rules, I will accept up to 5
> first-come-first-serve
> > > claims per person in replies to this email. Any remaining rules will be
> > > assigned as I see fit (probably randomly).
> > >
> > > I will accept opt-ins and dibs for the next 24 hours before assigning
> > > the remaining rules.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jason Cobb
> > >
> > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
> > >
> > >
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] RTRW Recording

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

Still working on my full dibs list, but since somehow no one has done
so yet, I call dibs on Rule 2029, the town fountain.

-Aspen

On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 2:23 PM Aspen via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> I wish to join the list. I'll choose a few when I get a chance.
>
> -Aspen
>
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 12:16 PM Jason Cobb via agora-official <
> agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > Well it looks like we're going with recording people reading the ruleset.
> >
> > Reading will be done using the Short Logical Ruleset published on 8 Feb
> > 2022, which has 146 rules.
> >
> > The following persons have stated on Discord that they wish to participate:
> >
> > * ATMunn
> >
> > * nix
> >
> > * Jason
> >
> > * Gaelan
> >
> > * Trigon
> >
> > * cuddlybanana
> >
> >
> > If you are not on the above list, please respond to this email if you
> > wish to participate.
> >
> > As for how to assign rules, I will accept up to 5 first-come-first-serve
> > claims per person in replies to this email. Any remaining rules will be
> > assigned as I see fit (probably randomly).
> >
> > I will accept opt-ins and dibs for the next 24 hours before assigning
> > the remaining rules.
> >
> > --
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
> >
> >

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] RTRW Recording

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

I wish to join the list. I'll choose a few when I get a chance.

-Aspen

On Tue, Feb 8, 2022 at 12:16 PM Jason Cobb via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> Well it looks like we're going with recording people reading the ruleset.
>
> Reading will be done using the Short Logical Ruleset published on 8 Feb
> 2022, which has 146 rules.
>
> The following persons have stated on Discord that they wish to participate:
>
> * ATMunn
>
> * nix
>
> * Jason
>
> * Gaelan
>
> * Trigon
>
> * cuddlybanana
>
>
> If you are not on the above list, please respond to this email if you
> wish to participate.
>
> As for how to assign rules, I will accept up to 5 first-come-first-serve
> claims per person in replies to this email. Any remaining rules will be
> assigned as I see fit (probably randomly).
>
> I will accept opt-ins and dibs for the next 24 hours before assigning
> the remaining rules.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>
> Assessor, Rulekeepor, S​tonemason
>
>

DIS: [Promotor] Apologies for Delay

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

I'm afraid this week's Promotor report will be delayed, probably by a few
days, as real life is being uncooperative. I'm sorry about the delay. Feel
free to point a finger.

-Aspen

DIS: [Promotor] Draft

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

My draft report follows.

-Aspen
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it,
and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote collector
is the Assessor, the quorum is 5, 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
---
8635*   Murphy  4.0   Outside assistance
8636&   G.  1.5   Points
8637&   G., Jason   1.0   Basic Scoring v0.2


The proposal pool is currently empty.

Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
& : Ordinary proposal.
~ : Unsponsored proposal.

The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where
the information shown below differs from the information shown above,
the information shown above shall control.

//
ID: 8635
Title: Outside assistance
Adoption index: 4.0
Author: Murphy
Co-author(s):


Amend Rule 1698 (Agora Is A Nomic) by replacing "players" with
"persons".

[Explicitly avoids the interpretation suggested on CFJ 8591 that
  the "players making arbitrary changes" clause requires a current
  player, even if registration remains unblocked.]

//
ID: 8636
Title: Points
Adoption index: 1.5
Author: G.
Co-author(s):


Create the following power=1.5 rule, Points:

  A player's Score, indicated in Points, is an integer player switch
  defaulting to 0, tracked by the Herald.

  Upon a correct announcement from a player that one or more players
  have a score of 100+ points, all players meeting this condition
  win the game.  If a least one player wins the game via such an
  announcement, all players' scores are set to their default.

//
ID: 8637
Title: Basic Scoring v0.2
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: G.
Co-author(s): Jason


Create the following rule, "Scoring":

  Each time a player fulfills a scoring condition, the officer
  associated with the condition CAN once by announcement, and SHALL
  in an officially timely fashion, add to that player's score the
  associated amount of points.

  Below is a list of scoring conditions and their associated points
  and officers.

* Being the author of a sponsored proposal that takes effect:
  1 + the power of the proposal when it takes effect (Assessor).

* Being the coauthor of a sponsored proposal that takes effect:
  1 (Assessor).

* Having submitted an unconditional ballot AGAINST a referendum on
  a sponsored proposal, provided that the ballot is valid at
  the time the referendum is assessed, and provided that the outcome
  of that assessment is ADOPTED:  points equal to the voting
  player's voting strength on the referendum (Assessor).

[note: using "1 + the power of the proposal when it takes effect" instead
of "the AI of the proposal" because the AI is unlimited while power
iscapped at 4 by R106].

[v0.2 - specified "add" instead of "change".
  - change in referendum wording suggested by Jason.
]

//

DIS: [Promotor] Draft

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

My draft report follows.

-Aspen

---

The proposal pool is currently empty.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Mad Engineer weekly random rule selection

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 8:55 PM Ørjan Johansen via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
I like both this and ais523's suggestion, but think I like this more. It's
time we set things up for the devices to *do* something. Plus, and don't
tell Jason I said this, I trust em.

-Aspen

DIS: Re: OFF: [Mad Engineer] Intent to Invent

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 8:31 PM ais523 via agora-official <
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> 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 on:" list:
> {{{
>   The voting Device is that specified by the authorizing
>   authority, or first-past-the-post by default.
> }}}
> [Nobody suggested anything, even though I'm doing this later in the
> weak than normal. So here's me suggesting something of my own.]
>
> --
> ais523
> Mad Engineer
>

Okay, I'm very sorry I'm late, but here's an alternate suggestion:

"Each Agoran decision has a voting device, which must be AI-majority,
instant runoff, or first-past-the-post. The voting device is that specified
by the authorizing authority, or first-past-the-post by default."

That would allow us to move beyond only having one device.

-Aspen

DIS: [Promotor] Draft

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

My draft report is finally done!

-Aspen
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it,
and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote collector
is the Assessor, the quorum is 5, 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
---
8634*   Jason   3.0   Laudability

The proposal pool is currently empty.

Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
& : Ordinary proposal.
~ : Unsponsored proposal.

The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where
the information shown below differs from the information shown above,
the information shown above shall control.

//
ID: 8634
Title: Laudability
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason
Co-author(s):


Amend Rule 2438 by appending the following to the paragraph
beginning "For each type of Ribbon":
{

  Laudability is a secured 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.

}

Amend Rule 2480 by replacing:
{
  A player who owns at least N types of Ribbon CAN Start a Rank N
  Festival, where N is an integer greater than Agora's Festivity,
  with 4 support from players who own at least N types of Ribbon.
  Upon doing so, Agora's Festivity is flipped to N. Exception: A
  player CANNOT do so if Agora's Festivity has had a value greater
  than or equal to N within the past 21 days.

  A person who owns a number of types of Ribbon equal to or greater
  than Agora's Festivity is known as Festive. Other persons are not
  Festive.
}
with:
{

  A person whose Laudability is greater than or equal to Agora's
  Festivity is Festive. Any other person is not Festive.

  A player who would be Festive if the Festivity was N CAN Start a
  Rank N Festival, where N is an integer greater than Agora's
  Festivity, with 4 support from other players who would be Festive
  if the Festivity was N, except that a Rank N Festival CANNOT be
  started if Agora's Festivity has had a value grater than or equal
  to N in the past 21 days. Upon a Rank N Festival starting, Agora's
  Festivity is flipped to N.

}

The Laudability of each of the following persons is hereby flipped
to the number of existing types of ribbon:
  * ais523
  * Alexis
  * G.
  * Jason
  * Murphy
  * twg

[These are the people who have won by Renaissance.]

//

DIS: [Promotor] Quick Update

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

This is my finals week, so it may be a bit before I have time for my
Promotor's report. I'm sorry my report is so late.

I believe that I have no overdue proposal distributions, and that the
only proposal currently in the pool is the untitled proposal regarding
Laudability, recently submitted by Jason. I would appreciate it if
anyone could inform me if my understanding is incorrect.

With apologies for the delay,
Aspen
Promotor

DIS: [Promotor] Draft

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

My draft report follows. I sincerely apologize if I missed something again.

-Aspen
---
PROMOTOR'S REPORT, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY

The proposal pool is currently empty.

DIS: [Promotor] Draft Revision and New Distribution

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

Here's a draft of a new distribution and revision to my last report. I
apologize again for my error.

-Aspen

---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it,
and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote collector
is the Assessor, the quorum is 8, 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
---
8633*   Falsifian   3.0   Disbanded distribution

Revision to the last Promotor's report, effective immediately:

The proposal pool is currently empty.

Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
& : Ordinary proposal.
~ : Unsponsored proposal.

The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where
the information shown below differs from the information shown above,
the information shown above shall control.

//
ID: 8633
Title: Disbanded distribution
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Falsifian
Co-author(s):


In Rule 1607 "Distribution", delete the sentence:

  E SHALL then distribute those undistributed proposals the next
  Agoran week.

//

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8631-8632

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 6:30 PM Falsifian via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 07, 2021 at 04:15:57PM -0800, Aspen via agora-official wrote:
> > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it,
> > and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote
> collector
> > is the Assessor, the quorum is 8, 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
> >
> ---
> > 8631&   G.  1.0   another device defect
> > 8632&   G., nix 1.0   Forgiveness is a process
> >
> > The proposal pool is currently empty.
>
> CoE: The proposal pool is not empty. You missed my proposal "Disbanded
> distribution", proposed here:
>
>
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2021-October/047838.html
>
> and pended here:
>
>
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2021-October/047876.html
>
> Sorry for not catching it in the draft.


No, it's entirely my fault. It's not like the draft was up for long, what
with the mailing list trouble (I don't think it's been mentioned on list
yet, but the lists weren't delivering for a while).

I'm very surprised I didn't catch this. I run searches through the archives
for all messages with "Proposal" in their title, which should definitely
have caught this. Sometimes things get buried just by volume of traffic,
but there wasn't that much traffic last month. I guess I must just have
skipped over it? In any case, I apologize.

I'll try to have a new draft out this evening and a revised report sometime
tomorrow.

-Aspen

>

DIS: [Promotor] Draft

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

My draft report follows.

-Aspen
---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it,
and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote collector
is the Assessor, the quorum is 8, 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
---
8631&   G.  1.0   another device defect
8632&   G., nix 1.0   Forgiveness is a process

The proposal pool is currently empty.

Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
& : Ordinary proposal.
~ : Unsponsored proposal.

The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where
the information shown below differs from the information shown above,
the information shown above shall control.

//
ID: 8631
Title: another device defect
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: G.
Co-author(s):


Amend Rule 2655 by replacing:
  responsible for building and maintaining the Device.
with:
  responsible for building, tracking, and maintaining the Device.

and by deleting:
  This intent announcement counts as the Mad Engineers's
  weekly report.

[with the reporting duty for the device status added, by default a weekly
switch value report, we no longer need this intent to count as a report to
get the weekly report reward.  The intent is still part of "weekly duties"
but not the report.]

//
ID: 8632
Title: Forgiveness is a process
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: G.
Co-author(s): nix


The patent title Fugitive is hereby revoked from every person who
holds it.

Henceforth, the Herald SHOULD NOT list people as being "fugitives" in eir
reporting.  [covers any "unofficial" listees who didn't have patent titles].

[note: this may be slightly more controversial than last time, given that
we've uncovered some of those listed actually hold patent titles, and we
generally don't revoke those in order to preserve history. For full
disclosure, who actually holds that title could be reconstructed in a
fairly straightforward manner (I think I found the requisite proposal
records), if the consensus is to keep the patent title holders in the
Scroll].

//

DIS: [Promotor] Draft

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

My draft report follows. I'm sorry this is so late. I'm sure it
contains a substantially greater number of errors than usual, so
please check it out. I would also appreciate it if people could avoid
doing things that would change the report's contents until I submit
it, which will be soon, though possibly past the end of the week
target.

-Aspen

---
PROMOTOR'S REPORT AS OF RIGHT NOW.

I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it,
and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote collector
is the Assessor, the quorum is 5, 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
---
8607*   Telna, ais523, Alexis   3.0   Asset Self-Ratification Fix
8608*   Telna, Jason, G., [1]   3.0   Powering Up
8609&   Jason   1.0   Axiom of Limitations
8610&   Jason   1.7   No Immediate Shenanigans
8611&   Jason, Trigon   1.0   Reasonably Responsive Reactivation
8612&   Jason, G., Ørjan1.0   Tournament Conclusion Fixes v2
8613*   Jason, Trigon   3.0   The Name of the Win Cards v2
8614*   Jason   3.0   Simultaneity Security
8615*   Jason   3.0   Supporter/Objector clarification v2
8616&   nix, Telna, Trigon  1.0   Narrowing Margins
8617&   nix, G. 1.0   Forgiveness
8618&   nix, Jason  1.0   Solo Acitivity
8619&   ATMunn  1.0   The Bottomless Pit
8620&   R. Lee  1.0   Im cool
8621*   R. Lee  3.0   Proposal spreading
8622*   R. Lee  3.0   [2]
8623&   Trigon  1.0   No prizeless victory auctions
8624&   Trigon  1.0   I'd like to thank the academy
8625&   Trigon  1.0   giving the gift of an amendment
8626*   Trigon, Jason, ais523   3.0   pledge(2)(2)
8627&   G.  1.0   INSANITY CLAUSES
8628&   G.  2.0   tacking into the win
8629*   G., Telna, nix, [3] 3.0   Independence Day

The proposal pool is currently empty.

[1] R. Lee, Trigon, ATMunn
[1] Allow acting on behalf to support or object
[2] CuddleBeam, cuddlybanana, Jason


Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
& : Ordinary proposal.
~ : Unsponsored proposal.

The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where
the information shown below differs from the information shown above,
the information shown above shall control.

//
ID: 8607
Title: Asset Self-Ratification Fix
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Telna
Co-author(s): ais523, Alexis


In Rule 2166 "Assets", replace the text "This portion of that entity's
report is self-ratifying." with the following:

  A public document purporting to be this portion of that entity's report
  is self-ratifying.

//
ID: 8608
Title: Powering Up
Adoption index:
Author: Telna
Co-author(s): Jason, G., R. Lee, Trigon, ATMunn


Enact a Power-5 Rule titled "High Five" with the following text:

This Power-5 Rule (the first ever) commemorates the Agoran Spirit To
Break The Game.
Agora is no stranger to love. You know the Rules, and so do I.
This is the highest-powered Rule, no matter what. Even if it wouldn't
be, it is.
What is logic? Agora, don't hurt me.
Agora hereby apologises to the Rulekeepor for making em track this mess.

//
ID: 8609
Title: Axiom of Limitations
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Jason
Co-author(s):


Amend Rule 2553 by, as a single amendment, replacing "CAN, by
announcement, Transcend Logic," with "CAN, by announcement, Transcend
Logic, specifying that CFJ," and replacing "for at least 7 days" with
"for between 7 and 90 days".

[Requires that people Transcending Logic specify which case they are
claiming the win for, ensuring that the "with respect to that CFJ"
clause actually functions. Also adds a time limit to claim to prevent
shenanigans and limit the scope of any bugs.]

//
ID: 8610
Title: No Immediate Shenanigans
Adoption index: 1.7
Author: Jason
Co-author(s):


Amend Rule 2478 by appending the following to the paragraph beginning
"Initiating a Finger pointing found to be Shenanigans is ILLEGAL": "The
investigator of a finger pointing SHALL NOT point eir finger for the
Crime of Unjustified Gesticulation with respect to that finger pointing.".

[Prohibits the Referee from ruling Shenanigans, then immediately
pointing eir finger at the first pointer in order to get ahead on the
finger pointing contest.]

//
ID: 8611
Title: Reasonably Responsive Reactivation

DIS: [Promotor] Public Notice of Possible Delays

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

I am currently going through significant life changes, include moving for
the first time in my life. Normally, this might produce a small delay in
the next distribution, but hopefully nothing too significant. However,
given that the impending reset will likely prompt a lot of proposals,
delays may be increased in proportion to the volume of proposals. I
apologize in advance.

-Aspen

Re: DIS: [Promotor] Draft

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Sat, Sep 11, 2021 at 6:04 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
>
> On 9/11/2021 1:52 AM, Aspen via agora-discussion wrote:
> > 8603&   Jason, Bucky2.0   Buying Strength Eligibility
> > 8604&   R. Lee, G.  2.0   Stony Silence
> > 8605&   G., Ørjan   1.0   Covered under warranty
>
>
> Missing the proposal made by the adoption of proposal 8598?

Yep! Thanks for the catch. I forgot about it, and my standard method
of finding proposals doesn't get that one.

-Aspen

DIS: [Promotor] Draft

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

My draft report follows. The publishing at the beginning of the week
thing doesn't seem to be working out very well so far, *slight sigh*

-Aspen
---
PROMOTOR'S REPORT AS OF RIGHT NOW.

I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it,
and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote collector
is the Assessor, the quorum is 5, 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
---
8603&   Jason, Bucky2.0   Buying Strength Eligibility
8604&   R. Lee, G.  2.0   Stony Silence
8605&   G., Ørjan   1.0   Covered under warranty

The proposal pool currently contains the following proposal(s):

Author(s)   AITitle
---
G.  1.0   another device defect

[1] This proposal has no title. Furthermore, it may not exist.

Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
& : Ordinary proposal.
~ : Unsponsored proposal.

The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where
the information shown below differs from the information shown above,
the information shown above shall control.

//
ID: 8603
Title: Buying Strength Eligibility
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Jason
Co-author(s): Bucky


Amend Rule 2653 by replacing "A player's Voting Strength on referendum"
with "A person's Voting Strength on a referendum".

[There's no reason that buying strength should stop applying on
deregistration, since a non-player can still be eligible to vote.]

//
ID: 8604
Title: Stony Silence
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: R. Lee
Co-author(s): G.


Amend rule 2642, 'Distributing Stones' by replacing its second paragraph
with 'The Stonemason SHALL if possible initiate such an auction monthly and
only once a month, in a timely fashion after a collection notice has been
issued. The Stonemason SHALL auction exactly 2 stones in a month if
possible'

Retitle rule 2644 'The Gauntlet' to 'Zen Gardening' [cosmetic change to
remove the annoying movie reference that I discussed once on discord]

Amend rule 2644 by replacing any instances of the word 'Gauntlet' with
'Rock Garden'

Amend rule 2644 by replacing '5 or more' with '8 or more'

Amend rule 2645 'The Stones' by adding the following text on the end.
"
- Recursion Stone (Monthly, 80%): The recursion stone can be wielded once
  per month as if it had the power of any other stone of your choice.

- 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. This stone is immune if 3 or
  more players have wielded it since the most recent collection notice.

- Blank Stone (Monthly, 5%): This stone has no effect.

- Alchemy Stone (weekly, 70%): Destroy four cards you own. If four cards were
  destroyed this way, gain 7 products of your choice.
"

//
ID: 8605
Title: Covered under warranty
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: G.
Co-author(s): Ørjan


Amend Rule 2655 (The Mad Engineer) by replacing:
  skip directly to proposal submission.
with:
  skip directly to announcing intent, below.

and by replacing:
  with Agoran Consent, cause this rule to amend the rule "The Device"
  as indicated,
with:
  with Agoran Consent, cause this rule to amend the rule "The Device"
  as indicated (or, if 007 has been spotted, cause this rule to repeal
  both that rule and this one),

//
Title: another device defect
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: G.
Co-author(s):


Amend Rule 2655 by replacing:
  responsible for building and maintaining the Device.
with:
  responsible for building, tracking, and maintaining the Device.

and by deleting:
  This intent announcement counts as the Mad Engineers's weekly report.

[with the reporting duty for the device status added, by default a weekly
switch value report, we no longer need this intent to count as a report to
get the weekly report reward.  The intent is still part of "weekly duties"
but not the report.]

//

DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Re: OFF: [Stonemason] September Collection Notice

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 10:43 PM ais523 via agora-business
 wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2021-09-04 at 01:23 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-official wrote:
> > I hereby publish the following collection notice (NOT a self-
> > ratifying stone report):
> >
> > All stones are owned by Agora, and are thus immune. No escape choices
> > are necessary.
>
> CFJ: If the above-quoted message had explicitly listed the types of
> stones that exist (and otherwise contained the same information), then
> despite the disclaimer, it would have been self-ratifying.
>
> Evidence: The above-quoted message.
>
> Arguments: Most triggers for self-ratification in the rules require the
> thing that self-ratifies to purport to be something, e.g. a Ribbons
> report self-ratifies only if it's purporting to be a Ribbons report.
> However, assets are a separate case; rule 2166 states that the
> recordkeepor's report lists all instances of the class of assets and
> their owners, and that portion of the report is self-ratifying. In
> other words, the trigger is whether something *is* an asset report, not
> whether it *purports to be* one.
>
> The Stonemason's only weekly duty, as far as I can tell, is to be "the
> recordkeepor of stones". As such, I think any listing, published by the
> Stonemason, of what stones exist and who their owners are is a
> Stonemason weekly report by definition, even if it claims not to be.
> (Specifically, I think the hypothetical collection notice posited by
> the CFJ would be sufficient to satisfy the requirement in rule 2143 to
> perform the officekeepor's weekly duties.)
>
> As a side note: the actual message did not list what stones existed,
> which I think is sufficient to make it not count as a weekly report; I
> can't find anything in the rules that requires all the defined stones
> to exist (they're indestructible but nothing forces them to have been
> created in the first place). So this means, sadly, that I have to put a
> hypothetical in the statement to prevent the CFJ ending up with an
> obvious result on a technicality.


CFJ 3798 contains a recent [1] and fairly comprehensive summary of what a
document needs to do to be a report, but at a glance I don't think it
unambiguously resolves this question.

[1] January 2020, so recent by Agoran standards.


-Aspen

DIS: Re: BUS: Trading with Trigon [attn. Treasuror, Referee]

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 8:57 PM Trigon via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> On 01/09/2021 03:55, Trigon wrote:
> > On 01/09/2021 02:46, Trigon wrote:
> >> On 01/09/2021 02:43, Aspen via agora-business wrote:
> >>> I grant the Library the following promise:
> >>>
> >>> {
> >>> Cashing condition: if this promise is cached, by the end of the
> >>> message in
> >>> which this promise is cashed, the bearer will have transferred 5
> >>> blot-b-gones to me.
> >>>
> >>> I transfer two justice cards to the bearer.
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> -Aspen
> >>>
> >>
> >> I cash this promise.
> >>
> >> I pay a set of four Justice Cards to create in my possession a set of
> >> ten Blot-B-Gones.
> >>
> >> I transfer five Blot-B-Gones to Aspen and thank em for doing business
> >> with me.
> >>
> >
> > Ineffective. I did not have the promise, the library did.
> >
> > I transfer the quoted promise from the library to myself, then I cash
> > that promise, pay a set of 4jc to get 10bg, and transfer 5bg to Aspen.
> >
>
> And while I'm here, I expunge one blot from myself by destroying a
> blot-b-gone.


>
> --
> Trigon


Flagging for the Referee.

Also, I expunge two blots from myself, destroying a blot-b-gone for each.

-Aspen

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8596-8601

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 12:06 AM Sarah S. via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 5:03 PM D. Wet via agora-discussion <
> agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > 31 aug. 2021 01:29:32 Falsifian via agora-discussion
> > :
> >
> > >> //
> > >> ID: 8598
> > >> Title:
> > >> Adoption index: 1.0
> > >> Author: G.
> > >> Co-authors:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I create a proposal with this sentence as its text, and make it
> > >> pending.
> > >
> > > I feel sympathy for our brave Promotor.
> > >
> > It seems like my newbie action has inspired a new direction to explore?
> > Or is this unrelated?
> >
> > That action itself was inspired by trying to play a reverse Gödel's
> > statement 'This statement is unproveable in this system of axioms'.
> > Probably aided by the fact that my English is not proficient enough (yet)
> > to play a language-game.
> >
> > Unfortunately it does not qualify as PARADOXICAL ... only as ambiguous.
> >
> > I like the reflection of Aspen on the matter.
> >
> > Should and could I do something to make progress on the CFJ besides my
> > vote?
> > --
> > D. Wet
> > www.nomica.nl
> >
> I think the CFJ called on your proposal is the longest and most
> controversial CFJ I at least have ever seen. Sorry for all the bother about
> that.

It's definitely in my top five, probably my top three. I'd be curious
to hear from G. and ais523, who have been here longer than I have.

-Aspen

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8596-8601

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 12:03 AM D. Wet via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
>
> 31 aug. 2021 01:29:32 Falsifian via agora-discussion
> :
>
> >> //
> >> ID: 8598
> >> Title:
> >> Adoption index: 1.0
> >> Author: G.
> >> Co-authors:
> >>
> >>
> >> I create a proposal with this sentence as its text, and make it
> >> pending.
> >
> > I feel sympathy for our brave Promotor.
> >
> It seems like my newbie action has inspired a new direction to explore?
> Or is this unrelated?

It was indeed your action!



> That action itself was inspired by trying to play a reverse Gödel's
> statement 'This statement is unproveable in this system of axioms'.
> Probably aided by the fact that my English is not proficient enough (yet)
> to play a language-game.
>
> Unfortunately it does not qualify as PARADOXICAL ... only as ambiguous.

Truly PARADOXICAL cases are a rarity at present. I think I've seen...
maybe four, since we reenacted wins by paradox in 2017.

> I like the reflection of Aspen on the matter.

Thank you! That means a lot to me.

> Should and could I do something to make progress on the CFJ besides my
> vote?

Not really. If the result of the decision is REMAND, you can submit
arguments for the judge to consider.

-Aspen

DIS: Re: BUS: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8596-8601

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 8:53 PM Sarah S. via agora-business
 wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 9:21 AM ais523 via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 16:03 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> > > An election for Mad Engineer is initiated.
> >
> > I become a candidate in this election.
> >
> > Campaign speech: I did this last time a similar rule existed, and
> > managed to avoid breaking the nomic horribly that time.
> >
> > --
> > ais523
> >
> > I become a candidate too. Pitch: Who embodies a mad scientist more than I
> do?

*glances at CuddleBeam*

-Aspen

DIS: [Promotor] Draft

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

My draft report follows. I'm having a bit of a rough night, so the
chances I've missed something are greater than normal. I apologize in
advance for any mistakes.

-Aspen

PROMOTOR'S REPORT AS OF RIGHT NOW.

I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it,
and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote collector
is the Assessor, the quorum is 6, the voting method is AI-majority, and the
valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
conditional votes).

ID  Author(s)   AITitle
---
8602&   R. Lee  2.0   ROCKS ROCKS ROCKS

The proposal pool currently contains the following proposal(s):

Author(s)   AITitle
---
Jason, Bucky2.0   Buying Strength Eligibility
G.  1.0   [1]

[1] This proposal has no title. Furthermore, it may not exist.

Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
& : Ordinary proposal.
~ : Unsponsored proposal.

The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where
the information shown below differs from the information shown above,
the information shown above shall control.

//
ID: 8602
Title: ROCKS ROCKS ROCKS
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: R. Lee
Co-author(s):


Amend rule 2642, 'Distributing Stones' by replacing its second paragraph
with 'The Stonemason SHALL if possible initiate such an auction monthly and
only once a month, in a timely fashion after a collection notice has been
issued. The Stonemason SHALL auction exactly 2 stones in a month if
possible'

Retitle rule 2644 'The Gauntlet' to 'Zen Gardening' [cosmetic change to
remove the annoying movie reference that I discussed once on discord]

Amend rule 2644 by replacing any instances of the word 'Gauntlet' with
'Rock Garden' [sorry for the bad way of putting this, but this rule might
get amended soon so I have to do it for safety]

Amend rule 2644 by replacing '5 or more' with '8 or more' [If there are 10
stones you should need more to win obviously'

Amend rule 2645 'The Stones' by adding the following text on the end.
"-  Recursion Stone (Monthly, 80%): The recursion stone can be wielded once
per
month as if it had the power of any other stone of your choice.

- Hot Potato Stone (Weekly, 100%): You must transfer this stone to a player
of your choice
who has never owned this stone since the last time agora has owned it. Then
the original wielder gains 8 boatloads of coins.
SPECIAL RULE: Other rules notwithstanding, this stone never escapes as long
as at least three players have owned it in the last Agoran month

Blank Stone (Monthly, 5%): This stone has no effect.

Alchemy Stone (weekly, 70%): Destroy four cards you own. If four cards were
destroyed this way, gain 7 products of your choice"

//
Title: Buying Strength Eligibility
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: Jason
Co-author(s): Bucky


Amend Rule 2653 by replacing "A player's Voting Strength on referendum"
with "A person's Voting Strength on a referendum".

[There's no reason that buying strength should stop applying on
deregistration, since a non-player can still be eligible to vote.]

//
Title:
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: G.
Co-author(s):


submit this statement as a CFJ

//

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8596-8601

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 7:09 PM Sarah S. via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I vote as follows
>
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 8:54 AM Aspen via agora-official <
> agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > ID  Author(s)   AITitle
> >
> ---
> > 8596&   R. Lee  1.0   decimation times 9
> >
> AGAINST (also I'm quite sure I retracted this, but maybe you can't do it
> after pending or maybe i didnt, idk)


You did. My apologies. I missed it because it was in a Re: DIS: thread and
I didn't check adequately. I'll CoE and submit a revision in a bit.

-Aspen

DIS: [Promotor] Draft

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

Here's my draft report. I apologize for its extreme tardiness.

-Aspen
---
PROMOTOR'S REPORT AS OF RIGHT NOW.

I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it,
and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote collector
is the Assessor, the quorum is 6, the voting method is AI-majority, and the
valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
conditional votes).

ID  Author(s)   AITitle
---
8596&   R. Lee  1.0   decimation times 9
8597&   R. Lee  1.0   [1]
8598&   G.  1.0   [1]
8599&   G., Murphy  1.0   The Device (mark 2)
8600&   G.  2.0   fix win lockouts

The proposal pool currently contains the following proposal(s):

Author(s)   AITitle
---
Jason, Bucky2.0   Buying Strength Eligibility

[1] This proposal has no title.

Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
& : Ordinary proposal.
~ : Unsponsored proposal.

The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where
the information shown below differs from the information shown above,
the information shown above shall control.

//
ID: 8596
Title: decimation times 9
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: R. Lee
Co-author(s):


Create a power 1 rule called "temporary inflation reduction" with the text
"At the end of the month this rule was adopted, each entity's coin balance
is divided by 10, rounded to the nearest whole number. This rule then
automatically repeals itself."

//
ID: 8597
Title:
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: R. Lee
Co-author(s):


[this proposal does nothing]

//
ID: 8598
Title:
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: G.
Co-author(s):


I create a proposal with this sentence as its text, and make it pending.

//
ID: 8599
Title: The Device (mark 2)
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: G.
Co-author(s): 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.


G. becomes the holder of the office of Mad Engineer.

An election for Mad Engineer is initiated.

//
ID: 8600
Title: fix win lockouts
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: G.
Co-author(s):


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.

  When the Gauntlet is Noticed, the specified player wins the game.
  If a player won the game in this manner 4 days ago, then all
  existing stones are transferred to Agora.


Amend Rule 2621 (VP Wins) to read in full:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: [cfj] simultaneous again

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

While this is theoretically possible, it isn't doable in practice. To make
all the timestamps completely identical, you'd have to control not just
your mailserver, but all of the intermediate mail servers. If you didn't,
we could non-arbitrarily pick a message to come first.

-Aspen
On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 6:50 PM Ned Strange via agora-discussion <
agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> I think we allow people to make multiple actions in one message because
> it's often a useful and necessary shortcut. I think it's possible to make
> two simultaneous actions by sending 2 emails with the same timestamp, to
> the second. So there isn't a good reason not to allow simultaneous actions
> in one message.
>
> This wouldn't mean G has two ministry foci of course, because that rule
> uses the singular 'the', meaning that if there is no most recently
> specified focus, it is not flipped.
>
> Actually because the two possible options are either that he took
> sequential actions (flipping to participation) or simultaneous actions (no
> flip) there is no circumstance this CFJ is anything but FALSE. So the judge
> doesn't have to resolve the underlying issue.
>
> On Sat, Aug 7, 2021, 11:06 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > [lol sigh.  one more err want to get this exact.]
> >
> > I withdraw the most recent CFJ I called.
> >
> >
> > I simultaneously plan to flip my focus to Legacy and plan to flip my
> focus
> > to Compliance.
> >
> >
> > I CFJ:  Assuming G. announces no further focus plans, eir focus will flip
> > to Legacy at the beginning of the next month.
> >
> >
> > Evidence:
> >
> > Rule 2638/0[extract]
> >   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. If a player did not Plan to Flip eir Ministry
> >   Focus switch in the last month, it is not flipped.
> >
> > Arguments:
> >
> > Rule 478/39 reads in part:
> > Any action performed by sending a message is
> >performed at the time date-stamped on that message. Actions in
> >messages (including sub-messages) are performed in the order they
> >appear in the message, unless otherwise specified.
> >
> > The "unless otherwise specified" seems like a bit of a security hole,
> > given that several mechanisms in the rules would break if people could
> > perform multiple actions simultaneously.  But I can't find a prohibition
> > against that - the "in the order they appear" is written not as a limit,
> > but as a default that can be overridden - can it go so far to specify "at
> > exactly the same moment (simultaneous)"?
> >
> >
>

DIS: [Promotor] Draft

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

My draft report follows. Again, I apologize for the delay.

-Aspen

PROMOTOR'S REPORT AS OF RIGHT NOW.

The proposal pool is currently empty. [1]

[1] It is possible that D. Wet may have submitted a proposal, but unclear
if e did or what its properties would be. As such, this report
takes the position that no proposal was submitted. The relevant
message is here:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2021-July/047104.html

DIS: [Promotor] Quick Update and Apologies

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

Hi all!

I've had a very busy few days, culminating in the internet deciding to stop
working right when I was trying to assemble a report yesterday. That being
said, I expect to have a draft report out within the next ~16 hours, and a
full report not too long after that. I apologize for the inconvenience.

-Aspen

Re: DIS: proto on datestamps

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2021 at 8:35 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
>
> On 7/26/2021 11:09 PM, Aspen via agora-discussion wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 2:56 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
> >  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Proto: dating standards
> >>
> >> Amend Rule 478 (Fora) by replacing:
> >>performed at the time date-stamped on that message
> >> with:
> >>performed at the earliest credible time date-stamped on that message
> >>
> >> ["earliest" because that's closest to hitting the send key, "credible" to
> >> make it clear that it's a matter of evidence not logic.  In practice, this
> >> means go with the Date: field unless there's evidence that it's not
> >> credible in some way, in which case go with the next earliest - likely the
> >> first forum stamp].
> >>
> >
> > I'd prefer to leave this more open. I do agree that "the time
> > date-stamped on that message" is actively confusing, and should be
> > changed. However, I don't think the right solution is to legislate a
> > standard for something that game custom can (IMO) just do a better
> > chance of handling.
> >
> > Here are a few alternatives that preserve our current way of handling this:
> >
> > "performed at exactly one of the times date-stamped on that message"
> >
> > "performed at exactly one of the times date-stamped on that message;
> > selecting which one is a matter of game custom"
> >
> > The first one may prompt questions from new players, but is perhaps
> > stylistically cleaner. The later one is a nearly verbatim copy of the
> > current rule annotation.
>
> I'm really not keen on this approach.  It doesn't clarify, instead it
> suggests there's an arbitrary menu of options, which is worse than now.  I
> think, fairly strongly, we should suggest in the text of a rule that we're
> actually trying to get close to the time of sending (time the 'send' key
> is hit).
>
> If my options were leaving it as now, and making it "one of the
> timestamps", I'd leave it as now, because the 100% natural reading of the
> current language is that the "date" is the time of send, and it's only due
> to our over-technical knowledge (that it can be forged, potentially) that
> we worry about other readings.
>

I'm okay with leaving it the way it is too. I just don't like trying
to clarify, because if you clarify meaningfully you're also limiting
the range of possible judicial interpretations, and I don't think
that's a good thing here.

-Aspen

Re: DIS: proto on datestamps

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 2:56 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
>
> Proto: dating standards
>
> Amend Rule 478 (Fora) by replacing:
>performed at the time date-stamped on that message
> with:
>performed at the earliest credible time date-stamped on that message
>
> ["earliest" because that's closest to hitting the send key, "credible" to
> make it clear that it's a matter of evidence not logic.  In practice, this
> means go with the Date: field unless there's evidence that it's not
> credible in some way, in which case go with the next earliest - likely the
> first forum stamp].
>

I'd prefer to leave this more open. I do agree that "the time
date-stamped on that message" is actively confusing, and should be
changed. However, I don't think the right solution is to legislate a
standard for something that game custom can (IMO) just do a better
chance of handling.

Here are a few alternatives that preserve our current way of handling this:

"performed at exactly one of the times date-stamped on that message"

"performed at exactly one of the times date-stamped on that message;
selecting which one is a matter of game custom"

The first one may prompt questions from new players, but is perhaps
stylistically cleaner. The later one is a nearly verbatim copy of the
current rule annotation.

-Aspen

DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer creates a Big Opportunity

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 6:06 AM Cuddle Beam via agora-business
 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."

Someone can say that the ruleset means whatever they like. It doesn't
magically become true, even if they're a judge. A judgement has to be
a plausible interpretation to have any precedential value.

-Aspen

Re: DIS: [Proposal] Draft

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

This should say "[Promotor]", of course. Whoops.

-Aspen

On Sun, Jul 18, 2021 at 4:23 PM Aspen via agora-discussion
 wrote:
>
> Here's a draft report.
>
> -Aspen
>
> ---
> PROMOTOR'S REPORT AS OF RIGHT NOW.
>
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it,
> and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote collector
> is the Assessor, the quorum is 4, 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
> ---
> 8595*   R. Lee, Jason   3.0   It's a gray, gray world.
>
> The proposal pool is currently empty.
>
> Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
> & : Ordinary proposal.
> ~ : Unsponsored proposal.
>
> The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where
> the information shown below differs from the information shown above,
> the information shown above shall control.
>
> //
> ID: 8595
> Title: It's a gray, gray world.
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: R. Lee
> Co-author(s): Jason
>
>
> Amend rule 2438, "Ribbons", by deleting the last list item.
> [Comment: Awarding coins can be done at power 1, piggybacking off of the
> Ribbon rule. No reason to have Glitter here at power 3]
>
> Amend rule 2602, "Glitter" to read, in full:
>
>   "Each type of Ribbon has a corresponding type of Glitter
>   with the same name. A player qualifies for a type of Glitter
>   when e qualifies for the same type of Ribbon while already
>   owning such a 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. When a player gains
>   a type of Glitter, the Tailor SHALL in an officially
>   timely fashion and CAN once by announcement award em
>   N/2 boatloads of coins rounded up, where N is the number
>   of players that did not own the corresponding type of
>   Ribbon at the time of the award. The amount payable for
>   each type of Glitter is tracked in the Tailor's weekly
>   report.
>
> [comment: Nonplayer persons can currently get Glitter, they don't need to
> be able to though because it does nothing. N+1 becomes N/2 because Glitter
> is currently the most powerful way to get coins, by far. ]
>
> //

DIS: [Proposal] Draft

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

Here's a draft report.

-Aspen

---
PROMOTOR'S REPORT AS OF RIGHT NOW.

I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating a referendum on it,
and removing it from the proposal pool. For this decision, the vote collector
is the Assessor, the quorum is 4, 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
---
8595*   R. Lee, Jason   3.0   It's a gray, gray world.

The proposal pool is currently empty.

Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
& : Ordinary proposal.
~ : Unsponsored proposal.

The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where
the information shown below differs from the information shown above,
the information shown above shall control.

//
ID: 8595
Title: It's a gray, gray world.
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: R. Lee
Co-author(s): Jason


Amend rule 2438, "Ribbons", by deleting the last list item.
[Comment: Awarding coins can be done at power 1, piggybacking off of the
Ribbon rule. No reason to have Glitter here at power 3]

Amend rule 2602, "Glitter" to read, in full:

  "Each type of Ribbon has a corresponding type of Glitter
  with the same name. A player qualifies for a type of Glitter
  when e qualifies for the same type of Ribbon while already
  owning such a 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. When a player gains
  a type of Glitter, the Tailor SHALL in an officially
  timely fashion and CAN once by announcement award em
  N/2 boatloads of coins rounded up, where N is the number
  of players that did not own the corresponding type of
  Ribbon at the time of the award. The amount payable for
  each type of Glitter is tracked in the Tailor's weekly
  report.

[comment: Nonplayer persons can currently get Glitter, they don't need to
be able to though because it does nothing. N+1 becomes N/2 because Glitter
is currently the most powerful way to get coins, by far. ]

//

DIS: [Promotor] Let's Try This Again (Draft Report)

[Aspen via agora-discussion]

[I'm sorry this has taken so long. I don't know why I'm so very out of it
this week, but I hope to improve my performance going forward. I honestly
thought I'd sent this already, which goes to show you how very confused
I am. I'll bet there's an error in this version too, given my luck,
even though I've checked "It's a gray, gray world." more times than
I can count. Ahh well, that's what drafts are for. *deep sigh*]

The proposal pool currently contains the following proposal(s):

Author(s)   AITitle
---
Mask1.0   Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
R. Lee, Jason   3.0   It's a gray, gray world.

Legend: * : Democratic proposal.
& : Ordinary proposal.
~ : Unsponsored proposal.

The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. Where
the information shown below differs from the information shown above,
the information shown above shall control.

//
Title: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Mask
Co-author(s):


On successful repeal of a rule, the player who proposed the repeal gains
2 Pendants.

//
Title: It's a gray, gray world.
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: R. Lee
Co-author(s): Jason


Amend rule 2438, "Ribbons", by deleting the last list item.
[Comment: Awarding coins can be done at power 1, piggybacking off of the
Ribbon rule. No reason to have Glitter here at power 3]

Amend rule 2602, "Glitter" to read, in full:

  "Each type of Ribbon has a corresponding type of Glitter
  with the same name. A player qualifies for a type of Glitter
  when e qualifies for the same type of Ribbon while already
  owning such a 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. When a player gains
  a type of Glitter, the Tailor SHALL in an officially
  timely fashion and CAN once by announcement award em
  N/2 boatloads of coins rounded up, where N is the number
  of players that did not own the corresponding type of
  Ribbon at the time of the award. The amount payable for
  each type of Glitter is tracked in the Tailor's weekly
  report.

[comment: Nonplayer persons can currently get Glitter, they don't need to
be able to though because it does nothing. N+1 becomes N/2 because Glitter
is currently the most powerful way to get coins, by far. ]

//