Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents

2019-06-22 Thread D. Margaux



> On Jun 22, 2019, at 11:39 AM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
> 
> Or a proposal resolution, for that matter.
> 
> 

Hey, I'm not late yet! Planning to resolve the outstanding ones today if I 
can...

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-20 Thread D. Margaux
I offer this proto for comment. 

***

Judge Trigon recused emself believing that no valid judgement could be entered 
in this CFJ.[1] As the newly assigned judge, I am required by Rule 591 to 
assign to this CFJ a "valid" judgement. The law does not require me to assign 
an "appropriate" judgement, merely a "valid" one. 

For the reasons given by Trigon and others, I believe this case CANNOT be 
legally assigned a judgement of TRUE or FALSE.  In particular, I accept the 
reasons why those judgements are ILLEGAL in the email chain that led to Judge 
Trigon's recusal.[2]

There are four remaining valid options: IRRELEVANT, DISMISS, INSUFFICIENT, and 
PARADOXICAL. It is not appropriate to assign a judgement of IRRELEVANT because 
the CFJ addresses an important unsettled question about the nature of regulated 
actions; it is not appropriate to assign it a judgement of INSUFFICIENT because 
it comes with adequate evidence and arguement. 

That leaves DISMISS and PARADOXICAL as potentially appropriate judgements. 
PARADOXICAL is appropriate if the case is logically undecidable; DISMISS is 
appropriate if it is undecidable for another reason. 

In my view, this case is logically undecidable and PARADOXICAL is appropriate. 

First, we need to know what it means for a case to be "undecidable."  In my 
view, a case is undecidable if it is inappropriate, ILLEGAL, or IMPOSSIBLE for 
the judge to assign to it a verdict of TRUE or FALSE. If an undecidable case is 
appropriately judged IRRELEVANT, INSUFFICIENT, or DISMISS, then the judge 
SHOULD assign one of those judgements rather than PARADOXICAL. 

This case is undecidable because, for reasons given by others in footnote 2, it 
is ILLEGAL to assign it a judgement of TRUE and ILLEGAL to assign it a 
judgement of FALSE.

The next question is whether this case is "logically" undecidable (and 
therefore PARADOXICAL) or not "logically" undecidable (and therefore DISMISS).

In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts of the case 
create a legal paradox: the contract states that breathing is prohibited, but 
it's ILLEGAL to interpret it to say that it says what it says. That is a 
paradox that would logically apply to any CFJ of the same formal structure. The 
undecidability of the CFJ therefore inheres in the formal structure of the 
rules, as exploited by an ingenious contact, and is properly considered a 
logical undecidability. 

Judged PARADOXICAL. 

-
[1] Judge Trigon recused emself in this message. 
> On Jun 17, 2019, at 8:43 PM, Reubejn Staley  wrote:
> 
> I recuse myself from this case. I really don't think there's any LEGAL way to 
> resolve this.

[2] The email chain in question is reproduced here: 

> On Jun 17, 2019, at 2:29 PM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
> 
> Both can be easily proven factually incorrect.
> 
> Breathing is unregulated because the contract clearly does not allow, enable, 
> or permit its performance, and the "SHALL NOT" in the contract does not limit 
> its performance.
> 
> The contract does prohibit breathing; one only needs to look in a dictionary 
> to prove such things.
> 
> To deny either of these would be to publish a factual falsehood, which might 
> in itself constitute a violation of Rule 2471 "No Faking".
> 
>> On 6/17/19 12:20 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>> You have two options that I can see (without being guilty of a crime). Either
>> - Breathing is a regulated action, or
>> - The contract does not prohibit breathing.
>> Jason Cobb
>>> On 6/17/19 2:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>>> Ah, indeed! So we have our conflict.
>>> 
>>> I SHALL NOT interpret the rules so as to proscribe unregulated actions.
>>> 
>>> The contract mandates a proscription on breathing, which is an unregulated 
>>> action.
>>> 
>>> By these two facts, I cannot come to the obviously correct conclusion that 
>>> the contract proscribes an unregulated action without breaking rule 2152.
>>> 
>>> There really is no way out of this, is there?
>>> 
> On 6/17/19 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
 
 
> 
> On 6/17/2019 8:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Does a "SHALL NOT" really count as "proscription"? I reiterate that, 
> assuming a player has been given permission elsewhere, e still CAN 
> perform an action that the rules state e SHALL NOT perform.
 
  From the dictionary I get:
 
 Proscribe -
 forbid, especially by law.
 synonyms: forbid, prohibit, ban, bar, disallow, rule out, embargo, veto,
 make illegal, interdict, outlaw, taboo
 "gambling was proscribed"
 
 Since "make illegal" and "prohibit" are capitalized equivalents for SHALL
 NOT in R2152, that's the interpretation that makes the most sense to me.
> 
> -- 
> Trigon


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Rule 2479 Cleanup

2019-06-18 Thread D. Margaux
Instead of this:

> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
>Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by announcement.

I would recommend moving "by announcement" like so:

> The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, by announcement 
> impose Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game.

Under the original wording it is ambiguous. Could have been read to say that SJ 
could be imposed on a person-who-plays-by-announcement.

> On Jun 18, 2019, at 7:32 PM, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> 
> Probably a good idea.
> 
> I withdraw my most recently submitted proposal.
> 
> 
> I submit the following proposal:
> 
> Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup (v1.1)
> 
> Author: Jason Cobb
> 
> Adoption Index: 1.7
> 
> Text:
> 
> {
> 
> Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
> 
> Replace the text
> 
>>The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
>>Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
>>of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
>>Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
>>proceeding.
> 
> with the text
> 
>>The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
>>Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by announcement.
>>When e does so, e levies a fine of up to 2 Blots on em. If e
>>does not specify the number of Blots in the fine, the attempt to
>>impose Summary Judgment is INEFFECTIVE. Summary Judgement is
>>imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in response to
>>any official proceeding.
> 
> }
> 
> 
> Jason Cobb
> 
>> On 6/18/19 7:27 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
>> You might want to say that e must specify the number of Blots.
>> 
>> -Aris
>> 
 On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 4:25 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I submit the following proposal:
>>> 
>>> Title: Rule 2479 Cleanup
>>> 
>>> Author: Jason Cobb
>>> 
>>> Adoption Index: 1.7
>>> 
>>> Text:
>>> 
>>> {
>>> 
>>> Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") as follows:
>>> 
>>> Replace the text
>>> 
The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by levying a fine
of up to 2 blots on em. Summary Judgement is imposed on the
Referee's own initiative, and not in response to any official
proceeding.
>>> with the text
>>> 
The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose
Summary Judgment on a person who plays the game by announcement.
When e does so, e levies a fine of up to 2 Blots on em. Summary
Judgement is imposed on the Referee's own initiative, and not in
response to any official proceeding.
>>> }
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Jason Cobb
>>> 
>>> 


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-18 Thread D. Margaux



> On Jun 18, 2019, at 11:59 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> In eir first judgement,
> Judge Trigon opined that, in R2125, in this list:
> 
>> An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
>> permit its performance;
> 
> include synonyms for CAN, CANNOT, and MAY, but no synonyms for SHALL or
> SHALL NOT (e.g. "forbid" or "require").  Therefore, things that are
> governed solely by a SHALL or SHALL NOT (e.g. "SHALL act in accordance
> with that contract") are not regulated at all.  (I was trying to
> remember precedents but couldn't - though I'm guessing someone must have
> opined on it at some point?)

Is it clear what an "action" is?  Plausibly, there is no stable distinction 
between "action" and "inaction."  That is because every "inaction" can be 
rephrased as an "action" (i.e., the act of omitting from doing something).  If 
that's true, then a SHALL would "limit" the "action" of 
"omitting-from-doing-something" and a SHALL NOT would "limit" the "action" of 
"omitting-from-not-doing-something."

That would make SHALLs and SHALL NOTs regulated. Are the reasons why that logic 
does not hold?

DIS: Fwd: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3736 assigned to omd

2019-06-18 Thread D. Margaux
R. Lee-- Is this not the operative decision on Cfj 3736? Seems to hold that
CHOJ is broken.

-- Forwarded message -
From: omd 
Date: Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3736 assigned to omd
To: 


On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:31 PM omd  wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:24 PM Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > I intend with 2 support to group-file a motion to reconsider. This
> > ruling suggests that a person could potentially change a regulated
> > quantity by communicating with its recordkeepor even if that method
> > was not explicitly specified by a rule. This flatly contradicts Rule
> > 2125, which says in part "A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as
> > described by the Rules, and only using the methods explicitly
> > specified in the Rules for performing the given action." The opinion
> > cites CFJ 3425, but the "methods explicitly specified" provision did
> > not exist at the time of that CFJ,  and appears to abrogate the
> > precedent it set.
>
> Whoops.  I self-file a motion to reconsider.

Revised judgement:

I overlooked the "only using the methods" clause, which indeed
postdates CFJ 3425 (it dates to 2017, while CFJ 3425 was judged in
2014).

Levying a fine is certainly a regulated action, and Rule 2125 takes
precedence over all of the Cold Hand of Justice-related rules due to
higher power, so it seems that imposing the Cold Hand of Justice is
impossible after all.

I note in passing that there might be odd results if a similar
situation occurred (rule claiming to make something POSSIBLE without
specifying a method) with a rule that takes precedence over Rule 2125.

I re-judge CFJ 3736 FALSE, and earn another 5 coins for doing so.
-- 
D. Margaux


DIS: Re: BUS: Breaking an Oath

2019-06-18 Thread D. Margaux
As stated, this CFJ is trivially FALSE because no fine CAN be imposed for 
anything. Maybe there is a different way to pose the CFJ that would be 
PARADOXICAL though?

> On Jun 16, 2019, at 1:25 AM, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> 
> Oooh look, I broke my Oath. How unexpected!
> 
> I point my finger at Jason Cobb for the Class 0 Crime of Oathbreaking.
> 
> I fully admit that I am guilty of the above accusation.
> 
> 
> [Also, sorry for all of the CFJ's I have created lately. I really don't mean 
> to overload the people who have to deal with them.]
> 
> I initiate a Call for Judgment on the following statement: "The investigator 
> of the Finger-pointing done in this message CAN impose a fine on Jason Cobb 
> for the Crime of Oathbreaking."
> 
> Evidence:
> 
> {
> 
> Excerpt from Rule 2450 ("Pledges"):
> 
>  If a Player makes a clear public pledge (syn. Oath) to perform (or
>  refrain from performing) certain actions, then breaking the pledge
>  within the pledge's time window is the Class N crime of
>  Oathbreaking, where N is 2 unless the pledge explicitly states
>  otherwise.  The time window of a pledge is 60 days, unless the
>  pledge explicitly states otherwise.
> 
> 
> Excerpt from Rule 2557 ("Removing Blots"):
> 
>  When the rules authorize an investigator to impose the Cold Hand
>  of Justice for a violation, e CAN do so by levying a fine on the
>  perp with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 2x the base value of the
>  violation, within the following guidelines:
>- If the violation is described by the rules as a Class N crime,
>then N is the base value; otherwise the base value is 2.
> 
> }
> 
> Arguments:
> 
> {
> 
> Under Rule 2450, I have violated my Oath by sending the message in which I 
> called this CFJ. The Oath explicitly states that the Oath was under penalty 
> of a Class 0 Crime. Thus, under Rule 2450, I am guilty of the Class 0 Crime 
> of Oathbreaking. Thus, under Rule 2478 ("Vigilante Justice", not quoted 
> here), the investigator SHALL (and CAN, by CFJ precedent) impose the Cold 
> Hand of Justice on the perp (me).
> 
> I note that the Rules do not explicitly state that N in a Class N crime must 
> be positive, or even an integer. I thus argue that a Class 0 Crime is a thing 
> that can happen.
> 
> Since the crime committed was a Class 0 Crime, the base value for the crime 
> (in Rule 2557's parlance) is 0. Thus, under Rule 2557, the investigator CAN 
> do so by levying a fine on me with a minimum of 1 (Blot) and a maximum of 0 
> (Blots). This is a mathematical impossibility. There is no valid number of 
> blots that the investigator CAN fine me, yet the Rules assert that e CAN.
> 
> At this point, I will attempt to argue what I think the resolution should be.
> 
> I think this is clearly not IRRELEVANT. I don't believe it should be 
> INSUFFICIENT, as I have (hopefully) provided everything that supports my 
> argument. I don't think it should be DISMISS.
> 
> That leaves TRUE, FALSE, and PARADOXICAL.
> 
> The following is admittedly somewhat shaky, but here it goes:
> 
> I know of no rules or precedent that states what happens when the Rules 
> require a mathematical impossibility. The Rules also do not state whether or 
> not the rules of math take precedence over the Rules.
> 
> Regarding TRUE: The Rules define "CAN" as "Attempts to perform the described 
> action are successful." This does not describe applying a fine here, as there 
> is no valid number of Blots that I could be fined that would be permitted 
> under Rule 2557. Thus any attempts to do so would NOT be successful.
> 
> Regarding FALSE: I think this might be a valid outcome, but I also think that 
> the Rules explicitly state that the investigator CAN do so, and that should 
> be taken into account.
> 
> Regarding PARADOXICAL: I think this might be a valid outcome. The Rules state 
> that a person CAN do something that is mathematically impossible to do. That 
> sounds like a paradox to me :).
> 
> }
> 
> Jason Cobb
> 
>> On 6/16/19 12:46 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>> I pledge, on penalty of a Class 0 Crime, to not send messages to public fora 
>> for the next 24 hours.
>> 


DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Dollar Auction

2019-06-18 Thread D. Margaux



> On Jun 14, 2019, at 2:29 AM, David Seeber  wrote:
> 
> If this is accepted, {
> 
> { I cfj the following:
> 
> "Trigon is the winner of the auction"
> 
> Argument in favour :
> 
> Trigon bid two coins, which is more than CuddleBeam bid.
> The highest bidder wins the auction.
> Therefore Trigon wins the auction.
> }
> 
> AND
> 
> { I point my finger at the Auctioneer for failing in eir duty, which was 
> evidently to either dismiss or acknowledge the bid of two coins by Trigon, 
> instead of ignoring it.}
> 
> }

This attempted finger pointing is subject to an inextricable conditional. Does 
that mean that it is INEFFECTIVE per Rule 2517? That Rule defines certain 
conditions as extricable or inextricable, but doesn't seem to say that that 
distinction matters for purposes of EFFECTIVENESS. 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-18 Thread D. Margaux
The reasoning by R. Lee as described by G. below seems sound to me. I plan to 
adopt it as the reasons for judgement on 3737, unless someone gives me 
persuasive arguments to the contrary.  

> On Jun 17, 2019, at 3:45 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> I think V.J. Rada had it right - the Rules don't punish breathing, they
> punish breach-of-contract.  The fact that breach-of-contract comes from
> breathing doesn't make the rules "reach into the contract" to regulate
> breathing.
> 
> In particular this phrase in R1742 is interesting:
>  Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in
>  accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired
>  by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or
>  between the contract and the rules.
> 
> So we can have a contradiction (the contract prohibits breathing, while the
> rules don't regulate it) but this doesn't "impair" punishment for violating
> R1742.  That clause applies directly "if you sign a contract for something
> unregulated, it doesn't matter that the Rules say you can't be punished
> for the act directly, you can still be punished for violating this clause -
> it's your fault for signing up."
> 
>> On 6/17/2019 11:30 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>> Sorry, by the contract not prohibiting breathing, I meant that the contract 
>> can say it prohibits breathing all it wants, but the Rules will not 
>> _enforce_ criminal liability for violations of that, thus the Rules wouldn't 
>> proscribe breathing.
>> Jason Cobb
>>> On 6/17/19 2:29 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>>> Both can be easily proven factually incorrect.
>>> 
>>> Breathing is unregulated because the contract clearly does not allow, 
>>> enable, or permit its performance, and the "SHALL NOT" in the contract does 
>>> not limit its performance.
>>> 
>>> The contract does prohibit breathing; one only needs to look in a 
>>> dictionary to prove such things.
>>> 
>>> To deny either of these would be to publish a factual falsehood, which 
>>> might in itself constitute a violation of Rule 2471 "No Faking".
>>> 
 On 6/17/19 12:20 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
 You have two options that I can see (without being guilty of a crime). 
 Either
 
 - Breathing is a regulated action, or
 
 - The contract does not prohibit breathing.
 
 Jason Cobb
 
> On 6/17/19 2:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> Ah, indeed! So we have our conflict.
> 
> I SHALL NOT interpret the rules so as to proscribe unregulated actions.
> 
> The contract mandates a proscription on breathing, which is an 
> unregulated action.
> 
> By these two facts, I cannot come to the obviously correct conclusion 
> that the contract proscribes an unregulated action without breaking rule 
> 2152.
> 
> There really is no way out of this, is there?
> 
>> On 6/17/19 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6/17/2019 8:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>>> Does a "SHALL NOT" really count as "proscription"? I reiterate that, 
>>> assuming a player has been given permission elsewhere, e still CAN 
>>> perform an action that the rules state e SHALL NOT perform.
>> 
>>  From the dictionary I get:
>> 
>> Proscribe -
>> forbid, especially by law.
>> synonyms: forbid, prohibit, ban, bar, disallow, rule out, embargo, veto,
>> make illegal, interdict, outlaw, taboo
>> "gambling was proscribed"
>> 
>> Since "make illegal" and "prohibit" are capitalized equivalents for SHALL
>> NOT in R2152, that's the interpretation that makes the most sense to me.
> 
>>> 


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187

2019-06-13 Thread D. Margaux
What if we kept the existing language but changed SHALL NOT to CANNOT--"the 
rules CANNOT be interpreted..."? 

> On Jun 13, 2019, at 1:50 AM, Rebecca  wrote:
> 
> It wouldn't gut contracts because anything specified by a Contract _is_
> regulated under the rules. It's just designed  to prohibit _criminal_
> liability for "interpret[ing]" the rules.
> 
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 1:56 PM James Cook  wrote:
>> 
>> On Proposals 8180 through 8187 I vote as follows, where "AGAINST IF
>> VETO ELSE" means "conditional vote: AGAINST if a Notice of Veto has
>> been published specifying this proposal, otherwise"
>> 
>>> IDAuthor(s) AITitle
>>> 
>> -------
>>> 8180  Trigon, D Margaux 1.0   Paying our Assessor
>> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
>>> 8181  D Margaux, [1]1.7   Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1)
>> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
>>> 8182  Jason Cobb3.0   Add value to zombies
>> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
>>> 8183  V.J. Rada, Tiger  3.0   Regulated Actions Reform
>> AGAINST (per o, and also, I would like to see the context behind the
>> decision to use the current bizarre wording before changing it)
>>> 8184  G.3.0   power-limit precedence
>> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
>>> 8185  Trigon3.0   OUGHT we?
>> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE PRESENT ("ought" seems nicer than contractions,
>> but still seems unnecessary)
>>> 8186  Jason Cobb3.0   Minor currency fixes
>> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
>>> 8187  Jason Cobb3.0   Not so indestructible now, eh?
>> AGAINST IF VETO ELSE FOR
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> From V.J. Rada


DIS: Re: BUS: implausible denial

2019-06-12 Thread D. Margaux
It's still unclear what method a player can use to "deny" a claim (or even what 
a denial is).

What about this:. "publicly and clearly announce that the claim is denied" or 
"publicly and clearly deny the claim by announcement" 


> On Jun 12, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> I submit the following proposal, "Denial", AI-3:
> ---
> Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing:
> 1. Deny the claim
> with:
> 1. Publicly and clearly deny the claim
> 
> [Yeah, a denial should be public]
> ---


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report

2019-06-12 Thread D. Margaux
No, report won't self ratify unless the CFJ says players CAN expunge blots

> On Jun 12, 2019, at 4:40 PM, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> 
> So does this just mean that you will publish an updated report after the 
> resolution of the CFJ? Can this self-ratify before the CFJ gets a judgment?
> 
> Jason Cobb
> 
>> On 6/12/19 4:35 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> I resolve this by reference to CFJ 3734
>> 
>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:24 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Under Rule 2201, I issue a challenge to the above report: pending
>>> resolution of CFJ 3734, it is unknown whether players CAN or CANNOT
>>> expunge Blots. Thus the listed totals may be incorrect.
>>> 
>>> Jason Cobb
>>> 
>>>> On 6/12/19 4:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>>>> I publish the below report.  I claim a reward of 5 coins for publishing
>>> it.
>>>> ***
>>>> 
>>>> Referee’s Weekly Report
>>>> Date of This Report: 2019-06-12
>>>> Date of Last Report: 2019-06-03
>>>> 
>>>> BLOT HOLDINGS
>>>> ===
>>>> This section self-ratifies.
>>>> 
>>>> BlotsPlayer
>>>> ---
>>>>  5twg
>>>>  2V.J. Rada
>>>>  3Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>>>  1L.
>>>>  1Murphy
>>>>  1Aris
>>>> 
>>>> BlotsFugitive
>>>> -
>>>>  8Corona
>>>>  4Kenyon
>>>> 
>>>> RECENT CHANGES
>>>> ==
>>>> This section does not self-ratify.
>>>> 
>>>> 2019-06-03 twg expunges 1 blot
>>>> 2019-06-03 V.J. Rada expunges 1 blot
>>>> 2019-06-10 twg expunges 1 blot
>>>> 2019-06-12 Aris fined 1 blot
>>>> 
>>>> RECENT FINGER POINTS & INVESTIGATION RESULTS
>>>> =
>>>> This section does not self-ratify.
>>>> 
>>>> 2019-06-11 G. pointed eir finger at Aris for failure to publish a
>>>> Promotor's weekly report.  RESULT:  Finger pointing was well taken,
>>>> and Aris was fined 1 blot.
>>>> 
>>>> 2019-06-03 Falsifian pointed eir finger at omd, Aris, Gaelan, G.,
>>>> Cuddle Beam, Trigon, Murphy, ATMunn, twg, D. Margaux, Jacob Arduino,
>>>> Falsifian, Bernie, Rance, o, Jason Cobb, Walker, PSS, Corona, V.J.
>>>> Rada, L, Hālian, Tarhalindur, Telnaior, and Baron von Vaderham.
>>>> RESULT:  The finger pointing was declared Shenanigans and no fines
>>>> were assessed, for the reasons stated in the judgement of CFJ 3730
>>>> issued 12 June 2019.


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187

2019-06-12 Thread D. Margaux
To my ear, "ought" means something slightly different from "should." I would 
have thought that "ought" means that something is required from a moral 
perspectivd, while should doesn't. But maybe I'm wrong and they're synonymous..?

> On Jun 12, 2019, at 2:05 PM, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> 
> Why do people not like OUGHT? I get the issue with contractions, not really 
> OUGHT, though.
> 
> Jason Cobb
> 
>> On 6/12/19 2:03 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> I vote and cause L to vote as follows:
>> 
>> 
>> 8180  Trigon, D Margaux 1.0   Paying our Assessor
>> FOR
>> 
>> 8181  D Margaux, [1]1.7   Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1)
>> FOR
>> 
>> 8182  Jason Cobb3.0   Add value to zombies
>> FOR
>> 
>> 8183  V.J. Rada, Tiger  3.0   Regulated Actions Reform
>> FOR
>> 
>> 8184  G.3.0   power-limit precedence
>> FOR
>> 
>> 8185  Trigon3.0   OUGHT we?
>> AGAINST
>> 
>> 8186  Jason Cobb3.0   Minor currency fixes
>> FOR
>> 
>> 8187  Jason Cobb3.0   Not so indestructible now, eh?
>> FOR


Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3732 assigned to Murphy

2019-06-12 Thread D. Margaux



On Jun 12, 2019, at 12:28 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:40 AM D. Margaux  wrote:
>> Under R2154, “In a timely fashion after the nomination period ends, the ADoP 
>> CAN and SHALL” initiate an Agoran decision to resolve that PM “election.”
> 
> ...
> 
> Obviously the flipped form in R2154 is a grammatically
> strong case for (2).

Indeed. The "in a timely fashion" modifier immediately precedes "CAN," not 
"SHALL." So that phrase modifies either "CAN" or "CAN and SHALL"--but I don't 
see how it could be read grammatically to modify "SHALL" alone, and NOT "CAN."



Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3732 assigned to Murphy

2019-06-12 Thread D. Margaux
Oh wow. That’s funny.  I didn’t even notice that that was for a prior year 
election. Lol. 

This made me notice another big problem. There is an ongoing “election” under 
Rule 2154, and I don’t think there’s any way to terminate it!

Here’s why:

Several weeks ago, an “election” for PM was “initiated” under Rule 2154. The 
ADOP opened a nomination period, and i think G. and Aris both announced eir 
candidacies? 

Under R2154, “In a timely fashion after the nomination period ends, the ADoP 
CAN and SHALL” initiate an Agoran decision to resolve that PM “election.” The 
ADOP made two attempts to do that, but under R107 those attempts "invalid" 
because they failed to identify Aris as a valid option.

I then tried to distribute the Agoran decision as Deputy ADOP, but that didn’t 
work because more than 1 week has passed since the close of the nomination 
period!  R2154 clearly says that the ADOP “CAN” initiate the Agoran decision 
only “in a timely fashion after the nomination period ends.”  And my attempt 
was more than 1 week after the nomination period, so i could not initiate the 
decision as deputy ADOP at that time!

If that’s true, then there’s no way to initiate an Agoran decision on the PM 
election  and there’s no other way to terminate that election!

What a mess!


> On Jun 12, 2019, at 11:10 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> It's trivially TRUE in the context of the ~July 6 election (and based on
> how the CFJ is worded, that's enough for a trivial TRUE without addressing
> the current election, that twg was intending to address).
> 
> BUT, in terms of the matter twg was trying to get at, Corona gave consent in
> the context of a previous election.  Personally, if I consent to be
> installed into office during the course of a particular election, I wouldn't
> think I'd be consenting to every future election!  (and if it's construed
> that I did consent for all future elections, it sure wasn't with my
> informed wilful consent!)
> 
>> On 6/12/2019 7:23 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> Gratuitous arguement:  Seems to be TRUE to me.  Corona subsequently
>> became a zombie, but I see no rules that would retract a player's
>> consent to holding office upon becoming a zombie, nor are there any
>> prohibitions against zombies being elected to offices.  Not sure what
>> I'm missing, but seems straight forward to me.
>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:16 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The below CFJ is 3732, I assign it to Murphy.
>>> 
>>> ===  CFJ 3732  ===
>>> 
>>>In the message quoted below, Corona gave eir 'explicit or
>>>reasonably implied consent', as required by Rule 1006, to be made
>>>the holder of Prime Minister.
>>> 
>>> ==
>>> 
>>> Caller:twg
>>> 
>>> Judge: Murphy
>>> 
>>> ==
>>> 
>>> History:
>>> 
>>> Called by twg:02 Jun 2019 14:59:08
>>> Assigned to Murphy:   (as of this message)
>>> 
>>> ==
>>> 
>>> Caller's Evidence:
>>> 
>>> On Friday, July 6, 2018 10:58 AM, Corona wrote:
>>> 
>>>  > I become a candidate for Prime Minister.
>>>  >
>>>  > Platform: Not being the other guy, who currently supports unpopular and
>>>  > somewhat misguided reforms.
>>>  >
>>>  > ~Corona
>>> 
>>> ==
>>> 


DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3732 assigned to Murphy

2019-06-12 Thread D. Margaux
Gratuitous arguement:  Seems to be TRUE to me.  Corona subsequently
became a zombie, but I see no rules that would retract a player's
consent to holding office upon becoming a zombie, nor are there any
prohibitions against zombies being elected to offices.  Not sure what
I'm missing, but seems straight forward to me.


On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:16 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> The below CFJ is 3732, I assign it to Murphy.
>
> ===  CFJ 3732  ===
>
>In the message quoted below, Corona gave eir 'explicit or
>reasonably implied consent', as required by Rule 1006, to be made
>the holder of Prime Minister.
>
> ==
>
> Caller:twg
>
> Judge: Murphy
>
> ==
>
> History:
>
> Called by twg:02 Jun 2019 14:59:08
> Assigned to Murphy:   (as of this message)
>
> ==
>
> Caller's Evidence:
>
> On Friday, July 6, 2018 10:58 AM, Corona wrote:
>
>  > I become a candidate for Prime Minister.
>  >
>  > Platform: Not being the other guy, who currently supports unpopular and
>  > somewhat misguided reforms.
>  >
>  > ~Corona
>
> ==
>


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots

2019-06-10 Thread D. Margaux
I could see this coming out either way. It's the sort of hyper literalist 
interpretation that Agorans seem to adopt sometimes. 

It's really interesting to me, because within my discipline (law), those sorts 
of hyperliteralist interpretations simply wouldn't work. Lawyers would just 
intuitively know somehow that this kind of interpretive move would be out of 
bounds--I'm not really sure why. But it's not necessary out of bounds in Agora, 
and I'm not sure why that is either.   

> On Jun 10, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> Interesting catch.
> 
> It's the difference between "except by a proposal or rule" versus
> "except as described by a proposal or rule" which is the usual phrasing
> that would work fine - so the question is can we infer the "as described"
> part - which might be a hard sell given how picky we usually are on
> attributing causality.  No this hasn't been adjudicated before to my
> knowledge.
> 
>> On 6/10/2019 12:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
>> CFJ: "A Player with Blots CAN destroy a Blot in eir possession if e has 
>> neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from emself in the current 
>> Agoran week."
>> Caller's Evidence = Excerpt from Rule 2555/2 ("Blots") 
>> [Power=2]
>>   Blots are an indestructible fixed currency with ownership
>>   restricted to persons.
>>   [...]
>>   To expunge a blot is to destroy it.
>>   [...]
>>   If a player has neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from
>>   emself in the current Agoran week, e CAN expunge 1 blot from
>>   emself by announcement.
>> Excerpt from Rule 2577/1 ("Asset Actions") [Power=3]
>>   An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by announcement,
>>   subject to modification by its backing document. An indestructible
>>   asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and CANNOT be
>>   destroyed except by a proposal or rule, other than this one,
>>   specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible assets
>>   or that asset in particular; any other asset is destructible.
>> Caller's Arguments
>> ==
>> I argue that when a player announces that e expunges a Blot from emself, 
>> then e is the one destroying the Blot. Thus, under Rule 2577, the Blot 
>> CANNOT be destroyed, as it was not destroyed "by a proposal or rule, other 
>> than [Rule 2577], specifically addressing the destruction of indestructible 
>> assets or that asset in particular", but rather by the Player.
>> I argue that Rule 2240 ("No Cretans Need Apply") does not apply, as the 
>> definition of an asset being "indestructible" does not occur in Rule 2555, 
>> but Rule 2555 rather defers to Rule 2577 for the definition, and then later 
>> attempts to override the definition in Rule 2577. Thus the conflict is 
>> between two Rules, rather than within the text of a certain rule.
>> If the above two arguments are found valid, then Rule 1030 ("Precedence 
>> between Rules") states that the Rule with the higher Power takes precedence. 
>> In this case that is Rule 2577. This would mean that Blots CANNOT be 
>> destroyed.
>> I thus argue that the ruling on this CFJ should be FALSE.
>> [NB: if there is precedent that I am missing, please tell me and I will 
>> withdraw this. I didn't see any historical rulings on "indestructible" 
>> assets, and the ones that I found on Blots seemed not to be relevant. I was 
>> unable to find precedent on conflicts with definitions solely by searching 
>> the statements of CFJs.]


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Can The Ritual be banished?

2019-06-10 Thread D. Margaux
This is creative! But performing the ritual is a regulated action, and 
therefore it can be performed only using methods expressly specified in the 
rules (per Rule 2125).

> On Jun 9, 2019, at 9:22 PM, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> 
> There's no such thing as a Call for *Justice*.  :)
> 
> Jason Cobb
> 
>> On 6/9/19 7:49 PM, Rance Bedwell wrote:
>> I want to attempt to banish The Ritual, but I do not believe it is currently 
>> possible to do so. For this reason I Call For Justice for this statement:
>> 
>> "The value of N Agoran Consent currently required to banish The Ritual (Rule 
>> 2596) is indeterminate, because it is not possible to know if The Ritual was 
>> performed in the week that began on May 27."
>> 
>> 
>> Arguments in support of the CFJ
>> 
>> If it is not possible to know the number of weeks that the ruleset has been 
>> continuously appeased (value of B per Rule 2596) then it is not possible to 
>> determine the value of N Agoran Consent as defined in Rule 2596.  If it is 
>> not possible to know whether The Ritual was performed during the week of May 
>> 27, then it is not possible to determine the value of B.
>> 
>> I believe it is not possible to know if The Ritual was performed because the 
>> rules do not define or limit the scope of what The Ritual is.  No player 
>> paid a fee of 7 coins which is the only way to know that The Ritual was 
>> performed, but the failure to pay a fee of 7 coins is not necessarily proof 
>> that The Ritual was not performed since The Ritual is never defined 
>> specifically as "paying a fee of 7 coins".
>> 
>> Consider a possible rule named "Definition of The Ritual" that reads: "The 
>> Ritual is the posting of a message to a public forum."
>> 
>> If this were a rule in the current ruleset, it would not in any way conflict 
>> with or modify the meaning of Rule 2596.  The clause "Any player CAN perform 
>> The Ritual by paying a fee of 7 Coins." meets the requirements of the 
>> hypothetical "Definition of The Ritual" rule. The paying of 7 coins is a 
>> specific way to perform The Ritual but is not the The Ritual itself.  If the 
>> "Definition of The Ritual" rule is then removed that does not change 
>> anything in Rule 2596 so still The Ritual is not equal to or defined as 
>> "paying a fee of 7 coins".  The Ritual is something else which at this time 
>> is undefined.
>> 
>> Or, consider a possible rule named "Long Live Agora" that reads:  "Any 
>> player CAN perform The Ritual by announcing 'Long live Agora the glorious, 
>> long live Agora the beautiful, long live Agora the magnificent.'"
>> 
>> If this were a rule in the current ruleset, it also would not conflict with 
>> Rule 2596.  It would describe a different way that The Ritual CAN be 
>> performed, but since neither rule specifies how The Ritual MUST be performed 
>> they would not conflict.  They would describe two possible ways The Ritual 
>> CAN be performed, but they would not define The Ritual.
>> 
>> If Rule 2596 specified that The Ritual MUST be performed by paying a fee of 
>> 7 coins, that would then create a defined scope of what The Ritual is or is 
>> not.  The "Long Live Agora" rule would lie outside of that scope and would 
>> conflict with the definition.  This is another example that supports that 
>> The Ritual is currently undefined.
>> 
>> If Rule 2596 stated; "Any player CAN perform The Ritual by paying a fee of 7 
>> Coins. The Ritual MUST be performed by paying a fee of 7 coins at least once 
>> in every Agoran week..." then The Ritual would be defined and we would know 
>> it was not performed in the week of May 27.  Since it is not defined in the 
>> rule, it is not possible to know if The Ritual was performed in that week.  
>> This means the value of B and thus also N in Rule 2596 are currently 
>> indeterminate.
>> 
>> -Rance
>> 


Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8178-8179

2019-06-06 Thread D. Margaux
I may have miscounted; it does not appear to affect the result though. Apologies

> On Jun 5, 2019, at 10:08 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jun 3, 2019, at 5:38 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:
>> 
>> Proposal 8179
>> ===
>> AGAINST: Aris, Falsifian, omd, Rance, V.J. Rada*, twg+
>> Present: Rance, o, Trigon
> 
> On what grounds am I PRESENT and not AGAINST?
> 
> -o
> 


Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-04 Thread D Margaux
From the beginning, this issue was always going to become a CFJ.  I’m not an 
interested party in the outcome, in the sense that the decision doesn’t give me 
any particular benefit in the game.  And the caller of the CFJ isn’t appealing 
my reasoning, but instead agrees with it.  

I did give my tentative views on the subject, but I pledge to re-evaluate the 
issue in good faith in light of the arguments that have been raised if I am 
assigned this CFJ.  I don’t have any commitment to any particular result, 
except that I thought it was the correctly reasoned one, but I remain open to 
being persuaded otherwise.  (That’s partly why I labeled my prior email a 
proto, rather than an actual decision on the pointed finger.) 

> On Jun 4, 2019, at 12:56 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> I’m not sure how I feel about assigning you an appeal against your own
> reasoning. I generally intend to respect the favoring of cases, but I'm not
> sure that it's appropriate in this instance.
> 
> -Aris
> 
>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:45 AM D. Margaux  wrote:
>> 
>> I favour this CFJ
>> 
>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:49 AM Rebecca  wrote:
>>> 
>>> This is an interesting case. Although I believe that the best reading of
>>> the rule holds all players liable, I call for judgement on the following
>>> question, barring Aris
>>> {If no player activates Rule 2596 'The Ritual' in a certain week, all
>>> players playing the game that week have violated the rule, which provides
>>> that (1) "Any player CAN perform The Ritual" and (2) "The Ritual MUST be
>>> performed at least once in every Agoran week."} I suspect that the text
>> is
>>> not clear and therefore the four-part test must be applied. I believe it
>> is
>>> in the best interest of the game to impose criminal liability for the
>>> violation of the Rules as much as possible. I also believe that it is
>>> perfectly reasonable as a matter of text to impose criminal liability on
>>> "any player" who by failing to act in "performing the ritual" (despite
>>> being able to do so) leads to a violation of the command that "the ritual
>>> must be performed".
>>> 
>>> I note that we don't apply American law here, just like we don't apply
>>> Klingon law, unless it is specifically stated in the rules. Although
>>> American law principles may be applied as a part of the four part test,
>>> American law is of course occasionally atextual common law (or atextual
>>> statutory interpretation). Agora specifically provides that the text
>>> controls, precluding a test of "wrongness" in deciding whether something
>> is
>>> a criminal violation in the first place, appearing nowhere in the text..
>>> 
>>> I call this CFJ because whatever the final decision of the Referee, it
>> will
>>> be contested.
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 2:34 PM Aris Merchant <
>>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> This would be true if failing to perform The Ritual was itself harmful
>>>> (malum in se). However, it is wrong only because the rules say so
>> (malum
>>>> prohibitum), and I see no reason why we should extent their prohibition
>>>> farther than they explicitly do so. It is also a principle of American
>>>> criminal law that if the statue is ambiguous it may be void for
>>> vagueness,
>>>> so this law, which doesn’t make it clear who is responsible, should be
>>> too
>>>> vague to impose a criminal penalty.
>>>> 
>>>> -Aris
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:20 PM D. Margaux 
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jun 3, 2019, at 11:47 PM, Aris Merchant <
>>>>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Under the present conditions,
>>>>>> however, each player can quite reasonably claim that someone else
>>>> should
>>>>>> have performed The Ritual, and that it wasn’t *their* fault that it
>>>>> wasn’t
>>>>>> performed. Unless the rule explicitly states that the
>> responsibility
>>>>> falls
>>>>>> on each player jointly and severally (i.e. it’s each player’s
>>>>>> responsibility to see that The Ritual is performed), there is no
>> way
>>> to
>>>>>> prove from the text of the rules involved that this shoul

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-04 Thread D. Margaux
I favour this CFJ

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 1:49 AM Rebecca  wrote:

> This is an interesting case. Although I believe that the best reading of
> the rule holds all players liable, I call for judgement on the following
> question, barring Aris
> {If no player activates Rule 2596 'The Ritual' in a certain week, all
> players playing the game that week have violated the rule, which provides
> that (1) "Any player CAN perform The Ritual" and (2) "The Ritual MUST be
> performed at least once in every Agoran week."} I suspect that the text is
> not clear and therefore the four-part test must be applied. I believe it is
> in the best interest of the game to impose criminal liability for the
> violation of the Rules as much as possible. I also believe that it is
> perfectly reasonable as a matter of text to impose criminal liability on
> "any player" who by failing to act in "performing the ritual" (despite
> being able to do so) leads to a violation of the command that "the ritual
> must be performed".
>
> I note that we don't apply American law here, just like we don't apply
> Klingon law, unless it is specifically stated in the rules. Although
> American law principles may be applied as a part of the four part test,
> American law is of course occasionally atextual common law (or atextual
> statutory interpretation). Agora specifically provides that the text
> controls, precluding a test of "wrongness" in deciding whether something is
> a criminal violation in the first place, appearing nowhere in the text..
>
> I call this CFJ because whatever the final decision of the Referee, it will
> be contested.
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 2:34 PM Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This would be true if failing to perform The Ritual was itself harmful
> > (malum in se). However, it is wrong only because the rules say so (malum
> > prohibitum), and I see no reason why we should extent their prohibition
> > farther than they explicitly do so. It is also a principle of American
> > criminal law that if the statue is ambiguous it may be void for
> vagueness,
> > so this law, which doesn’t make it clear who is responsible, should be
> too
> > vague to impose a criminal penalty.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 9:20 PM D. Margaux  wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Jun 3, 2019, at 11:47 PM, Aris Merchant <
> > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Under the present conditions,
> > > > however, each player can quite reasonably claim that someone else
> > should
> > > > have performed The Ritual, and that it wasn’t *their* fault that it
> > > wasn’t
> > > > performed. Unless the rule explicitly states that the responsibility
> > > falls
> > > > on each player jointly and severally (i.e. it’s each player’s
> > > > responsibility to see that The Ritual is performed), there is no way
> to
> > > > prove from the text of the rules involved that this should be the
> case.
> > >
> > > I am delighted that you raised the idea of joint and several liability!
> > > That analogy occurred to me too; I didn’t mention it in my proto
> because
> > > it’s not a rules based concept. But it did perhaps influence my
> thinking
> > > somewhat.
> > >
> > > This Ritual stuff seems interestingly analogous to a specific situation
> > in
> > > which American law generally *does* recognize joint and several
> > liability:
> > > it is the situation where multiple careless or bad actors, each acting
> > > independently of one another, are each an independent legal cause of
> the
> > > entire harm that is suffered by the wronged party. For example, imagine
> > > that an elderly person walking on a sidewalk is carelessly bumped into
> > the
> > > road by a distracted pedestrian, and that the elderly person is then
> > struck
> > > by a speeding and reckless drunk driver, and e suffers very serious
> > > injuries. The distracted pedestrian and the drunk driver each were
> legal
> > > causes the entire harm—if either of them had been acting with due care,
> > > then the elderly person would not have been struck by the car.  And the
> > > harm to the elderly person cannot be apportioned in any principled way
> as
> > > between the two wrongful actors. So American tort law holds them both
> > > jointly and severally liable, even though each of them individually
> would
> >

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-03 Thread D. Margaux



> On Jun 3, 2019, at 11:47 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> Under the present conditions,
> however, each player can quite reasonably claim that someone else should
> have performed The Ritual, and that it wasn’t *their* fault that it wasn’t
> performed. Unless the rule explicitly states that the responsibility falls
> on each player jointly and severally (i.e. it’s each player’s
> responsibility to see that The Ritual is performed), there is no way to
> prove from the text of the rules involved that this should be the case.

I am delighted that you raised the idea of joint and several liability! That 
analogy occurred to me too; I didn’t mention it in my proto because it’s not a 
rules based concept. But it did perhaps influence my thinking somewhat.

This Ritual stuff seems interestingly analogous to a specific situation in 
which American law generally *does* recognize joint and several liability:  it 
is the situation where multiple careless or bad actors, each acting 
independently of one another, are each an independent legal cause of the entire 
harm that is suffered by the wronged party. For example, imagine that an 
elderly person walking on a sidewalk is carelessly bumped into the road by a 
distracted pedestrian, and that the elderly person is then struck by a speeding 
and reckless drunk driver, and e suffers very serious injuries. The distracted 
pedestrian and the drunk driver each were legal causes the entire harm—if 
either of them had been acting with due care, then the elderly person would not 
have been struck by the car.  And the harm to the elderly person cannot be 
apportioned in any principled way as between the two wrongful actors. So 
American tort law holds them both jointly and severally liable, even though 
each of them individually would have caused NO harm if the other had not ALSO 
independently been acting wrongfully!  See Restatement (2d) of Torts § 879 (“If 
the tortious conduct of each of two or more persons is a legal cause of harm 
that cannot be apportioned, each is subject to liability for the entire harm, 
irrespective of whether their conduct is concurring or consecutive.”). 

The Ritual strikes me as an analogous situation. Each player’s inaction is a 
cause of the harm, and the harm that was caused cannot be apportioned among the 
players in a principled way. As a result, it is not unjust that each player is 
considered liable for the entire harm (jointly and severally as it were), even 
though (as you said) “each player can quite reasonably claim that someone else 
should have performed The Ritual, and that it wasn’t *their* fault that it 
wasn’t performed.” Same with the distracted pedestrian and the drunk 
driver—each of them could say that the other should have done the prudent thing 
to avoid the accident, and that “it wasn’t their fault” the injury occurred. 

Here, each individual player should have done the prudent thing and performed 
the Ritual, and the fact that no other player performed it does not absolve the 
others of their moral responsibility. (I suppose that point goes to rebut the 
supposed injustice of holding people liable, rather than for whether they 
violated the Rules.)

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-03 Thread D. Margaux
That may make some intuitive sense, but I’m not sure which provision(s) of the 
rules you think I’ve either overlooked or misinterpreted, and what your 
interpretation of those provisions is. I think if we ground the analysis in the 
text of the Rules then there will be more clarity about why we may disagree.

> On Jun 3, 2019, at 9:57 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> The fact that any player CAN perform The Ritual and the fact that someone
> SHALL do so do not logically or by common sense entail the fact that the
> responsibility to do so falls on any player. Until we know exactly who
> SHALL do so, punishing anyone is premature. Even assuming that the action
> isn’t required to perform itself, that still doesn’t tell us who exactly
> SHALL do it.
> 
> -Aris
> 
>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 6:45 PM Rebecca  wrote:
>> 
>> I think that this decision is corrrect as a matter of text. The rules
>> should be amended to give one player the responsibility, and each player
>> the ability for the ritual. But as the rules stand, "failing to perform
>> [the ritual] violates" the rules and "any player CAN perform the ritual". I
>> think this decision provides the best reading of the text at issue. It also
>> accords with Agoran practice in that abstract actions are usually not
>> required to perform themselves.
>> 
>> On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 9:07 AM Aris Merchant <
>> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I object. The rule says that The Ritual SHALL be performed; it doesn't
>>> specify who shall do the performing. In the absence of such a
>>> specification, holding any individual player responsible is clearly
>>> unreasonable, since their individual responsibility to perform The Ritual
>>> was never explicitly stated.
>>> 
>>> -Aris
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 12:59 PM D Margaux  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Below is a proto-decision on the fingers pointed by Falsifian regarding
>>>> the Ritual; comments welcome.
>>>> 
>>>> * * *
>>>> 
>>>> The key question seems to be whether a fine for failure to perform the
>>>> Ritual CAN be imposed on players consistently with Rule 2531.  Under
>> Rule
>>>> 2531, among other things, a fine is INEFFECTIVE if
>>>> 
>>>>> (2) it attempts to levy a fine on a person for an action or inaction
>>>> which e (more likely than not) did not commit; [or]
>>>>> 
>>>>> (3) it attempts to levy a fine for an action or inaction which is not
>>>> prohibited by the rules . . . .
>>>> 
>>>> In this case, I think a fine MUST be imposed because those requirements
>>>> (and the other requirements) are satisfied by the players’ failure to
>>>> perform the Ritual.
>>>> 
>>>> Under Rule 2596 (the Ritual), “[a]ny player CAN perform the Ritual by
>>>> paying a fee of 7 coins,” and “[t]he Ritual MUST be performed at least
>>> once
>>>> in every Agoran week.”  Under Rule 2152 (Mother, May I?), “MUST” means
>>> that
>>>> “[f]ailing to perform the described action violates the rule in
>>> question.”
>>>> 
>>>> Last week, the “described action” (the Ritual) was not “performed.”
>> That
>>>> violation came to pass because each player declined to perform the
>> Ritual
>>>> last week.  In my view, because “failing to perform the [Ritual]” at
>>> least
>>>> once last week “violates the rule in question,” that means that any
>>> player
>>>> or entity capable of performing the Ritual violated the Rule through
>> eir
>>>> “inaction” when it turned out that the Ritual was not performed on
>> time.
>>>> Falsifian pointed eir finger at players each of whom could have
>> performed
>>>> the Ritual.  As a result, each such player violated the Rule.
>>>> 
>>>> Ais523 suggests that the Ritual itself may have violated the Rule.  I
>>>> think I disagree. In my view, the Ritual is the action required to be
>>>> performed; it is not an entity that violates the Rule when it is not
>>>> performed.  Imagine the Rule instead said, “any player CAN hop on one
>>> foot”
>>>> and “a hopping upon one foot MUST be performed at least once in every
>>>> Agoran week.”  We wouldn’t say that the rule is violated by the
>> “hopping
>>>> upon one foot,” because that’s an action not an entity.  Same with the
>>>> Ritual.

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

2019-06-03 Thread D. Margaux
I think the self ratification makes it retroactively  accurate though...

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:22 PM James Cook  wrote:

> Wasn't omd's finger-pointing about publishing inaccurate information in the
> reports?
>
> On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:18 Aris Merchant, <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Why would the legality of publishing the report matter?
> >
> > -Aris
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:16 PM James Cook  wrote:
> >
> > > In R1551's hypothetical timeline the gamete was minimally modified when
> > the
> > > report was published... it seems tricky to determine whether it was
> false
> > > at that exact time.
> > >
> > > Even if we assume the self-ratification made it retroactively legal to
> > > publish, I'm not sure CFJ 3726 is about the revised timeline. I think
> it
> > > was called before the report self-ratified, and CFJs are to be judged
> > > according to the legal situation at the time. I'm not completely sure,
> > but
> > > I lean toward saying it's TRUE.
> > >
> > > I'd be interested to hear about precedent or arguments about
> > > self-ratification of reports making them retroactively legal to
> publish,
> > or
> > > whether CFJs judgements should change after ratification events.
> > >
> > > On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:04 D. Margaux, 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hmm. If the intent didn’t work, the report self-ratification did. So
> I
> > > > think we are in the same place anyway.
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM James Cook 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D.
> > > > > Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir
> > document.
> > > > > E said:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I intend without objection to ratify the following document as
> true
> > > at
> > > > > the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
> > > > >
> > > > > But there is no mechanism for em to do that. Ratifying D. Margaux's
> > > > > document according to 1551 would make it true at the time it was
> > > > > published, not at "00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019". (R1551 has a
> provision
> > > > > for when "the document explicitly specifies a different past time
> as
> > > > > being the time the document was true" but the document itself,
> > clearly
> > > > > delineated with {...}, does not contain that past date.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, I'm currently of the opinion that the ratification didn't work
> > > > > after all, and so the fine was EFFECTIVE and D. Margaux still has
> > > > > blots. Or is there some reason to think the intent worked?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 03:59, James Cook 
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth
> on
> > > > > > 3726 a couple of times.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it
> out
> > > > > > the next couple of days.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> > > > > > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was
> > > > effective."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D.
> Margaux
> > > has
> > > > > > more than 0 blots."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Arguments
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting
> > around
> > > > > > when D.  Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread
> > > > "[Referee]
> > > > > > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> > > > > > everything here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> > > > > > =
> > > 

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

2019-06-03 Thread D. Margaux
Hmm. If the intent didn’t work, the report self-ratification did. So I
think we are in the same place anyway.

On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:03 PM James Cook  wrote:

> I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D.
> Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir document.
> E said:
>
> > I intend without objection to ratify the following document as true at
> the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
>
> But there is no mechanism for em to do that. Ratifying D. Margaux's
> document according to 1551 would make it true at the time it was
> published, not at "00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019". (R1551 has a provision
> for when "the document explicitly specifies a different past time as
> being the time the document was true" but the document itself, clearly
> delineated with {...}, does not contain that past date.
>
> So, I'm currently of the opinion that the ratification didn't work
> after all, and so the fine was EFFECTIVE and D. Margaux still has
> blots. Or is there some reason to think the intent worked?
>
> On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 03:59, James Cook  wrote:
> >
> > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on
> > 3726 a couple of times.
> >
> > I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out
> > the next couple of days.
> >
> > 
> >
> > This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727.
> >
> > CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The most recent
> > attempted imposition of the Cold Hand of Justice by Aris was effective."
> >
> > CFJ 3727 was called by D. Margaux, with the statement: "D. Margaux has
> > more than 0 blots."
> >
> > 1. Arguments
> > 
> >
> > There was a long conversation on the discussion list, starting around
> > when D.  Margaux called a CFJ (later withdrawn) on the thread "[Referee]
> > Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)" in May 2019. I will not try to repeat
> > everything here.
> >
> > 2. Sequence of events (all times UTC)
> > =
> >
> > 2019-05-20 01:25
> >
> >   The Referee publishes a weekly report specifying that D. Margaux has 0
> >   blots.
> >
> > 2019-05-20 20:32
> >
> >   D. Margaux publishes the below document and announces intent to ratify
> >   it "as true at the time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019":
> >
> >   { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules”
> >   have the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.
> >
> >   Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the
> >   Spaaace Rules has its default value.
> >
> >   There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the
> >   Clork pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to
> >   the Spaaace Rules. }
> >
> > 2019-05-21 10:20
> >
> >   D. Margaux deputises as Astronomor and Clork to publish the following
> >   weekly reports:
> >
> >   {there are no entities in existence for which the Astronomor is the
> >   recordkeepor other than those created directly by the Rules. All
> >   switches for which the Astronomor is recordkeepor have their default
> >   value.}
> >
> >   {there are no entities in existence for which the Clork is the
> >   recordkeepor other than those directly created by the Rules. All
> >   switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have their default value.}
> >
> > 2019-05-25 22:02
> >
> >   omd Points eir Finger at D. Margaux for publishing inaccurate
> >   information in the above reports.
> >
> > 2019-05-25 22:54
> >
> >   D. Margaux, the Referee, authorizes the Arbitor, Aris, to act on eir
> >   behalf to "investigate and conclude the investigation of the finger
> >   pointed".
> >
> > 2019-05-26 22:43
> >
> >   Aris attempts to act on D. Margaux's behalf to impose the Cold Hand of
> >   Justice on D. Margaux and fine em 2 blots, with the following message:
> >
> >   > Alright. There was a clear rule violation here, as the information
> in the
> >   > report was inaccurate. The violative conduct was undertaken for the
> good of
> >   > the game, but there were also other options available (proposal, or
> >   > ratification without objection, which would have been unlikely to
> cause any
> >   > problems done correctly). Ordinarily, a rule violation for the good
> of the
> >   > game would be a forgiveable one blot fine. Under the circumstances
> though,

DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-03 Thread D Margaux
Below is a proto-decision on the fingers pointed by Falsifian regarding the 
Ritual; comments welcome.

* * *

The key question seems to be whether a fine for failure to perform the Ritual 
CAN be imposed on players consistently with Rule 2531.  Under Rule 2531, among 
other things, a fine is INEFFECTIVE if

> (2) it attempts to levy a fine on a person for an action or inaction which e 
> (more likely than not) did not commit; [or]
> 
> (3) it attempts to levy a fine for an action or inaction which is not 
> prohibited by the rules . . . .

In this case, I think a fine MUST be imposed because those requirements (and 
the other requirements) are satisfied by the players’ failure to perform the 
Ritual.

Under Rule 2596 (the Ritual), “[a]ny player CAN perform the Ritual by paying a 
fee of 7 coins,” and “[t]he Ritual MUST be performed at least once in every 
Agoran week.”  Under Rule 2152 (Mother, May I?), “MUST” means that “[f]ailing 
to perform the described action violates the rule in question.”

Last week, the “described action” (the Ritual) was not “performed.”  That 
violation came to pass because each player declined to perform the Ritual last 
week.  In my view, because “failing to perform the [Ritual]” at least once last 
week “violates the rule in question,” that means that any player or entity 
capable of performing the Ritual violated the Rule through eir “inaction” when 
it turned out that the Ritual was not performed on time.  Falsifian pointed eir 
finger at players each of whom could have performed the Ritual.  As a result, 
each such player violated the Rule.

Ais523 suggests that the Ritual itself may have violated the Rule.  I think I 
disagree. In my view, the Ritual is the action required to be performed; it is 
not an entity that violates the Rule when it is not performed.  Imagine the 
Rule instead said, “any player CAN hop on one foot” and “a hopping upon one 
foot MUST be performed at least once in every Agoran week.”  We wouldn’t say 
that the rule is violated by the “hopping upon one foot,” because that’s an 
action not an entity.  Same with the Ritual.




>> On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 02:38 +, James Cook wrote:
>> I Point my Finger at every player, in the following order:
>> 
>>omd, Aris, Gaelan, G., Cuddle Beam, Trigon, Murphy, ATMunn, twg,
>> D. Margaux, Jacob Arduino, Falsifian, Bernie, Rance, o, Jason Cobb,
>> Walker, PSS, Corona, V.J. Rada, L, Hālian, Tarhalindur, Telnaior,
>> Baron von Vaderham
>> 
>> for failing to perform The Ritual in the previous Agoran week.
>> 
>> Explanation for how each player P violated the rules:
>> * Rule 2596 required The Ritual to be performed.
>> * P had a method available to perform The Ritual. Therefore P is
>> responsible if The Ritual was not performed.
>> 
>> (I had honestly intended to perform it at the last minute once again
>> this week, but forgot. I intended to do this because I try to follow
>> the rules. Though, honestly, I'm happy that we finally missed a week
>> so that we get to see what happens.)
> 


DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Prime Minister] there's no confidence in the economy, so...

2019-06-02 Thread D. Margaux
If e didn’t, then the election announcement did not have a clear list of
the valid options and is therefore invalid per CFJ No Number!

On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 10:59 AM Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

> I vote for Corona in the ongoing Prime Minister election.
>
> CFJ: "In the message quoted below, Corona gave eir 'explicit or reasonably
> implied consent', as required by Rule 1006, to be made the holder of Prime
> Minister."
>
> (Not that I actually expect enough votes for this to arise, but it would
> be hilarious if it did.)
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Friday, July 6, 2018 10:58 AM, Corona 
> wrote:
>
> > I become a candidate for Prime Minister.
> >
> > Platform: Not being the other guy, who currently supports unpopular and
> > somewhat misguided reforms.
> >
> > ~Corona
>
-- 
D. Margaux


DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] a minor fix I think is important

2019-06-02 Thread D Margaux
I think this could be ambiguous — it could provide a reward for the first 
decision resolved in a week, or for the first time that any particular decision 
is resolved in a week (so only one reward for a decision resolved FAILED QUORUM 
and then REJECTED within a single week).

What about:  “Resolving an Agoran Decision on whether to adopt a proposal, 
provided that no other Agoran Decision on whether to adopt that or any other 
proposal had been resolved earlier in that Agoran week.”

> On Jun 2, 2019, at 5:11 AM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
> 
> I submit the following proposal:
> 
> -
> Title: Paying our Assessor
> AI: 1
> Author: Trigon
> 
> [ Comment: This is something I didn't include from the version of
>  Rule 2496 that I didn't include for whatever reason. ]
> 
> To Rule 2496 "Rewards" add the following bullet point after the third one: 
> "Resolving an Agoran Decision on whether to adopt a proposal for the first 
> time this week: 5 coins."
> 
> -- 
> Trigon


Re: DIS: What authorizes the Referee to impose the Cold Hand of Justice?

2019-06-01 Thread D. Margaux
Interesting catch!  Is there any argument that, in this circumstance, MUST 
implies CAN?  I think probably that argument doesn’t work, but here’s what it 
might say:

There is no method for the Referee to discharge eir mandatory duties except by 
imposing the Cold Hand of Justice when warranted. If e CANNOT impose the Cold 
Hand of Justice when e MUST do so, then there is no LEGAL way for the Referee 
to perform eir duties. 

A *player*, of course, has in eir control a method to satisfy eir mandatory 
obligations—e can resign the office of Referee. But that result runs contrary 
to the implicit presuppositions that underlie the very creation of the Office 
of Referee—i.e., that a player could in theory assume that office and discharge 
its responsibilities. Unless the Referee CAN impose the Cold Hand when 
warranted, then there is no way for a player to assume the office of Referee 
and discharge its duties as required by rule. 

MUST would not imply CAN in all circumstances. For example, a player could 
pledge to deregister every other player; based on that pledge, e MUST do that 
but e probably CANNOT. What e *could* have done, however, is to not make the 
pledge in the first place. As a result, e had in eir control a method to 
satisfy eir mandatory obligations (not make the pledge in the first place). And 
that wouldn’t contradict any implicit presuppositions underlying the Rules, 
since the Rules presuppose that players may make pledges they can’t satisfy.  

The obvious problem with this whole interpretation is that imposing the Cold 
Hand is a regulated action under Rule 2125; regulated actions CAN be performed 
only by methods explicitly provided by rule; and there is no *explicit* 
mechanism for imposing the Cold Hand, only the implicit one described above.  
So I think, Kant notwithstanding, in this case MUST probably does not imply 
CAN...

> On May 31, 2019, at 9:46 PM, James Cook  wrote:
> 
> In preparing judgements for CFJs 3726 and 3727, I realized I don't
> know why the Referee CAN impose the Cold Hand of Justice.
> 
> R2478 says the investigator SHALL, but not that e CAN.
> 
> R2557 says that e CAN do so if the rules "authorize" em to, but I
> don't see any rules authorizing anyone to do so.
> 
> Am I missing something?


DIS: Let’s Get Serious

2019-05-31 Thread D Margaux
A proto-proposal offered to shake things up a little.  I’ve been curious about 
how Agora would operate under different rules of interpretation.


Title:  Let’s Get Serious
AI: 3
Author: D. Margaux
Co-Author(s):

A.  Amend Rule 217 as follows:

 1. Delete the following text from Rule 217: 

“Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied using 
direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that can be concluded 
from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined concepts is false does 
not constitute proof that it is true.”

 2. Insert the following text at the end of the first paragraph of 217:

“Because Agora is a Very Serious Game, Agorans MUST whenever reasonably 
possible interpret and apply each Rule in a manner that does not yield absurd 
results.  The previous sentence notwithstanding, when interpreting and applying 
any Rule that is Ridiculous, the definitions and prescriptions in that Rule are 
to be applied only using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, any 
absurdity that can be concluded from the assumption that a particular 
interpretation or application of a Ridiculous Rule is true does not constitute 
proof that that interpretation or application is false.”

3.  Insert the following text as a new paragraph at the end of Rule 217:

“A Rule is Ridiculous if it is designated Ridiculous by its own text or by a 
Rule of equal or higher power to that Rule.  This Rule is Ridiculous.”

B. Create a new power 3 Rule entitled “Absurdity Safety Valve” with the 
following text:

“No earlier than 1 July 2019, any player CAN on 7 days notice and without 2 
objections cause the text of Rule 217 to revert to what it was on 1 June 2019.  
No earlier than 1 August 2019, any player CAN with 7 days’ notice cause this 
Rule to repeal itself.  This Rule is Ridiculous.”


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal 8177

2019-05-29 Thread D. Margaux



> On May 28, 2019, at 8:01 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> One of the things that biases me towards omd's counterarguments (a
> bit, both are reasonable IMO) is that conditional votes work by
> defining when a voting value was clearly specified, which links to the
> requirement in R683.4.  In general, when we require clear
> specification, we don't allow a person who communicates ambiguously to
> go back and clarify with retroactive effect.  For example, we don't
> allow someone to say "now that ratification has clarified the game
> state 3 days ago, I hereby clarify that my announcement of 2 days ago

When a player tries to retroactively “clarify” a vote, I don’t think that’s 
analogous to changes induced by ratification. After the voting period ends the 
players’ votes are fixed, and there’s no rules-based mechanism allowing a 
player to retroactively “clarify” or otherwise change by announcement an 
ambiguous vote. 

On the other hand, it seems to me that there IS a rules-based mechanism to 
“clarify” an ambiguous vote without objection—just ratify without objection a 
document that says 

We know that ratification works to accomplish that because the Assessor’s 
message resolving an Agoran decision self-ratifies. So, if G. cast an ambiguous 
vote and the Assessor resolves it to be FOR, and if that were 
outcome-determinative, then that would in effect ratify that “clarification” of 
the ambiguous vote.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal 8177

2019-05-29 Thread D. Margaux
I’m finding this discussion so very confusing; I’m sure I’m missing something 
obvious. 

To me, the important point is that, by default, ratification changes the 
gamestate so that the ratified document is as true and accurate as possible on 
the day of PUBLISHING, not the day of RATIFICATION. 

That means that there can be retroactive changes to the PRACTICAL effect of 
certain actions taken in between publication and ratification. For example, an 
action might be EFFECTIVE under the pre-ratification gamestate, but the 
post-ratification gamestate might go forward AS IF that action had been 
INEFFECTIVE. 

We could ask, is that action “EFFECTIVE” or “INEFFECTIVE”?  I guess that 
question is ambiguous, and so should be DISMISSED as a CFJ.

Ultimately I think we maybe all agree on the practical consequences under most 
situations—though there may be special cases, e.g., how we interpret the 
restriction that CANNOT change the rule set (as omd pointed out).  

To test whether we agree in practice, let’s imagine this timeline:

Day 0 - 
All players have 0 blots. 
The Promotor distributes Proposal 1000, which has AI=10 and would change a 
Rule. 

Day 2 - 
Referee publishes a report stating .

Day 3 - 
Referee attempts to exile Fugitive.
Referee casts a contingent vote on Proposal 1000:  
Fugitive and Blotted attempt to cast ballots AGAINST Proposal 1000.

Day 7 - Close of the voting period for Proposal 1000. 

Day 9 - The Referee report self-ratifies without any CoE. 

Day 10 - The Assessor resolves Proposal 1000. 

***

Here are the hypotheticals and my answers:

1) Is Fugitive in exile on Day 10?  

 — Yes. Upon ratification of the Referee’s report on Day 9, the gamestate 
is changed to what it would have been if Fugitive has 100 blots on Day 2. Under 
that hypothetical gamestate, Referee’s attempted exile would be EFFECTIVE. 
Therefore, Fugitive is in exile on Day 10.

2) At the time of assessment on Day 10, does Hapless have any voting strength 
on Proposal 1000?  

— No. Upon ratification of the Referee’s report on Day 9, the gamestate is 
changed to what it would have been if Hapless had 100 blots on Day 2. Under 
that hypothetical gamestate, Hapless would have 100 blots at all times after on 
Day 2, and that means 0 voting strength when assessed on Day 10.  
(Incidentally, are the rules clear about when voting strength is determined? At 
the time of end of voting period or time of assessment?)

— The ratification still changes the voting strength even though that affects 
the outcome of Proposal 1000. Rule 1551 says that ratification generally CANNOT 
“include rule changes,” but the ratification here did not directly change any 
rule or “include any rule changes.” Instead, it changed a player’s voting 
strength on an Agoran decision. The Assessor’s resolution of Proposal 1000 is 
what does or doesn’t change the rule, not ratification itself. That has to be 
true, otherwise the Assessor wouldn’t be able to count on Referee reports as 
reflecting accurate blot totals, and there could be divergent blot counts for 
assessment purposes!

3) Should the Assessor count Referee’s vote as FOR or AGAINST? 

— FOR. Upon ratification of the Referee’s report on Day 9, the gamestate is 
changed to what it would have been if Hapless had 100 blots on Day 2.  Under 
that hypothetical gamestate, Referee’s ballot would have resolved to FOR. When 
the Assessor resolves Proposal 1000, e should use that hypothetical gamestate. 

4) What would happen if the Assessor resolved Proposal 1000 before ratification?

—If resolved prior to ratification, Proposal 1000 would be REJECTED, with 
Fugitive, Hapless, and Referee all casting votes AGAINST with 3 strength. BUT 
after Day 9, the Assessor should change the result to ADOPTED if there is a CoE.

>>> On May 28, 2019, at 8:01 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:26 PM omd  wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 7:05 AM D Margaux  wrote:
>>> Additionally, I do not think the conditional vote “required the report 
>>> ratification to go through before the voting period ended”; did it?  If the 
>>> empty reports self-ratify tomorrow, wouldn’t your vote still resolve to 
>>> FOR?  That is because, upon self-ratification, the Clork and Astronomor 
>>> switches would revert to their default values at the time of the report 
>>> publication, which would be before the end of the voting period.
>>> 
>>> So I could have waited until report self-ratification and assessed the 
>>> votes the same way on Wednesday (but didn’t have to because of my 
>>> ratification without objection).
>> 
>> That's another case that depends on whether ratification creates a
>> legal fiction about the past.  If it does, that would work.  If it
>> doesn't... well, it depends on whether you read R2127's "a condi

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)

2019-05-28 Thread D. Margaux



> On May 26, 2019, at 9:01 PM, omd  wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 5:49 PM D. Margaux  wrote:
>> and, therefore, any attempt to impose a fine was retroactively INEFFECTIVE.
> 
> ...wow, that's strange.  Why the heck is rule 2531 designed to make
> the gamestate (whether fines are EFFECTIVE, and thus indirectly
> people's voting power) depend on so many "soft" factors?  Including
> the legality of actions, whether someone "more likely than not"
> performed an action (according to whom?), and even whether or not a
> fine is "blatantly and obviously unsuited".

I think it’s important for there to be some strict conditions for the 
POSSIBILITY of the referee blotting someone, precisely because it affects 
voting power. We wouldn’t want it to be POSSIBLE for the Referee to ILLEGALLY 
issue 40 blots to each player and exile em or negate their voting power, and 
create a dictatorship that way. 

It might be a good idea to amend the rule so that failing some requirements 
make the fine IMPOSSIBLE, and failing other requirements enable a player to 
remove the blots by some process (like through a CFJ). I’m not sure which 
requirements should be in which category though. 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)

2019-05-26 Thread D. Margaux



> On May 26, 2019, at 8:51 PM, omd  wrote:
> 
> I searched the archives a bit, and the situation seems to be more
> complex than I remembered.
> 
> In CFJ 3337, G. ruled that statements about the past *could* be
> ratified, but that it wasn't in that particular case because the scope
> of what was actually ratified was limited by self-ratification:
> 
>> I agree with scshunt that history CAN be subject to ratification, but
>> *not* that it is subject to self-ratification.  That is, the self-
>> ratification of a report fact ("as of this date, scshunt was a player")
>> does not ratify the state of play the instant before that report was
>> made.  In particular, R2139 explicitly only governs the set of players
>> at a particular instant (the instant of the report), and R2138 only
>> governs the older of each office at a particular instant.  The strict
>> wording of *exactly* what is self-ratified (state) precludes any
>> ratification of when or how that state came to be, historically.
>> 
>> An explicit ratification process could do so, by (e.g. without
>> objection) ratifying that the statement in question was true at an
>> earlier date from the report.
> 
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3337
> 
> ...However, in retrospect, I'm not sure that judgement actually makes
> sense.  Rule 1551 states (and stated at the time):
> 
>  When a public document is ratified, rules to the contrary
>  notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified to what it would be if,
>  at the time the ratified document was published, the gamestate had
>  been minimally modified to make the ratified document as true and
>  accurate as possible; [...]
> 
> The self-ratifying statements were about the current state at the time
> they were published, but when they were ratified, the gamestate was
> set to "what it would be" if publishing them had changed things to
> make them true.  If the gamestate includes the past, "what it would
> be" necessarily includes the fact that they were true when they were
> published (or at least immediately afterward).
> 
> Not sure what to take away from that.  I don't see any more recent
> CFJs about the issue.

I think G.’s judgement in that CFJ is correct (if I understand it right). 

G.’s decision says that when a report self-ratifies, it does not change 
anything about the gamestate immediately prior to the publication of the 
report. That makes sense to me. However, self-ratification CAN retroactively 
change the EFFECTIVENESS of actions taken during the time between the report’s 
publication and its later self-ratification—I think that is consistent with 
G.’s decision. 

It is also demonstrated by the failure of my recent attempted PARADOX scam. 

I had a PARADOX scam that hinged on an ambiguity about who the Prime Minister 
was—me or ATMunn.  If intents remained broken then it was one of us; if intents 
were retroactively fixed then it was the other one of us. I tried to create a 
PARADOX by using the Manifesto power to distribute a proposal that would fix 
intents retroactively. Trying to resolve that Agoran decision would create an 
infinite loop where the identity of the PM would cycle around and the 
EFFECTIVENESS of the distribution-by-Manifesto cycled too. 

It was foiled by the retroactive effect of a self-ratified ADoP report. 

At the time I issued the attempted Manifesto, the ADoP report had been 
published but had NOT self-ratified. If I had CoE’d it before ratification, 
then the identity of the PM would be ambiguous and so the Manifesto attempt 
would have had ambiguous EFFECTIVENESS. But I missed the ADoP report and it 
later self ratified—causing the Manifesto attempt to be unambiguously 
INEFFECTIVE. Which was very, very frustrating. 

The facts are recounted in detail in CFJs 3722, 3723, 3724, and 3725.

I think that conclusively shows that the attempted blot levy was INEFFECTIVE. 

DIS: Re: BUS: Wait, what? How many of these clauses are there?

2019-05-26 Thread D. Margaux
I think the statement in the proposal is paradoxical, and therefore the CFJ
is perhaps FALSE (because the statement in the proposal is not necessarily
false?).

On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 9:30 PM omd  wrote:

> I pledge not to create any proposals containing false statements for
> the next week.
>
> I CFJ on the statement: "It would be LEGAL for me to create a proposal
> with text 'omd violated Rule 2450 by creating this proposal' and no
> optional attributes."
>
-- 
D. Margaux


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)

2019-05-26 Thread D. Margaux



> On May 26, 2019, at 7:41 PM, James Cook  wrote:
> 
> 
> Unsolicited thoughts:
> 
> I think you've convinced me that your ratification changed the
> gamestate so that you own zero blots, but I think your CFJ should be
> judged TRUE, i.e. Aris's attempt was EFFECTIVE.
> 

I respectfully disagree with this analysis.  

I think the EFFECTIVENESS of an action is a rule-created legal fact, not a 
statement about realities in the world. Aris attempted to do something; whether 
it was EFFECTIVE can be changed retroactively. That was what we all assumed 
when we retroactively fixed intents.  All of our intents were INEFFECTIVE for a 
long time. Then they were retroactively fixed by rule. 

And R591 says that the CFJ should be “based on the facts and legal situation 
*at the time the inquiry case was initiated*, not taking into account any 
events since that time.”   I called the CFJ after I ratified the documents, so 
that my reports were factually accurate retroactively and, therefore, any 
attempt to impose a fine was retroactively INEFFECTIVE. 

I think Falsifian’s analysis would mean that intents weren’t actually fixed 
after all, which would be a problem. 



 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)

2019-05-26 Thread D. Margaux



> On May 26, 2019, at 5:37 PM, omd  wrote:
> 
> Ratification changes the gamestate to what it would be if the report
> had been accurate... but it doesn't *literally* make it retroactively
> accurate, so it doesn't change whether there was a rule violation.

Why not?

Part of the gamestate is the fact that a violation was (or wasn’t) committed by 
publishing the report. After ratification, the gamestate is changed to what it 
would have been if the report were as true and accurate as possible. That means 
that the gamestate also changes whether a violation was committed—because 
that’s part of the gamestate itself.

To put it another way, blot holdings are part of the gamestate too. It would be 
INEFFECTIVE to punish me with any blots if the reports were true and accurate 
at the time they were published. Upon ratification the gamestate is changed to 
what it would be if the reports were as true and accurate as possible (which is 
100% true and accurate). That means that the game state is changed to make any 
blot levying INEFFECTIVE.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)

2019-05-26 Thread D. Margaux
I was concerned that ratification without objection might inadvertently
break something outside of those subgames. In contrast, issuing blank Clork
and Astronomor reports would not risk causing something to break outside
those games. It would be self-contained.

On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 5:12 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don’t know what the implication of that is for the sentencing, but I
> don’t think I’m going to wait. I’d prefer to resolve it now and avoid the
> ambiguity.
>
> Why did you use self-ratification, rather than something else like
> ratification without objection?
>
> -Aris
>
> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 2:09 PM D. Margaux  wrote:
>
> > It may be worthwhile to wait a couple days. If the reports self-ratify
> > without any claim of error, then the information therein will be
> > retroactively accurate... I think?
> >
> > > On May 25, 2019, at 9:31 PM, Aris Merchant <
> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > I accept. I'll have to read up on the relevant rules, and I don't have
> > > the time at the moment. That said, this case is pretty simple, so I'll
> > > probably have a verdict in the next day or two.
> > >
> > > -The Arbitor
> > >
> > >> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 3:54 PM D. Margaux 
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> If the H. Arbitor agrees, then I authorize the holder of the Office of
> > >> Arbitor to act on my behalf to investigate and conclude the
> > investigation
> > >> of the finger pointed against me in the message quoted below, and for
> no
> > >> other purpose.
> > >>
> > >>> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 6:02 PM omd  wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 3:20 AM D. Margaux 
> > wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The below reports are false. The reason for ratifying them is
> because
> > >>> the games are defunct and because it’s too hard to figure out what
> the
> > >>> gamestate of either of them is.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I deputise for Astronomor to publish this report: {there are no
> > entities
> > >>> in existence for which the Astronomor is the recordkeepor other than
> > those
> > >>> created directly by the Rules. All switches for which the Astronomor
> is
> > >>> recordkeepor have their default value.}
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I deputise for Clork to publish this report: {there are no entities
> in
> > >>> existence for which the Clork is the recordkeepor other than those
> > directly
> > >>> created by the Rules. All switches for which the Clork is
> recordkeepor
> > have
> > >>> their default value.}
> > >>>
> > >>> I Point my Finger at D. Margaux for violating rule 2143 by publishing
> > >>> information that is inaccurate within two documents purporting to be
> > >>> two offices' weekly reports.  (The documents don't explicitly purport
> > >>> to be *weekly* reports, but this can be reasonably inferred from the
> > >>> attempt to deputise to publish them.)
> > >>>
> > >> --
> > >> D. Margaux
> >
>
-- 
D. Margaux


DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)

2019-05-26 Thread D. Margaux
It may be worthwhile to wait a couple days. If the reports self-ratify without 
any claim of error, then the information therein will be retroactively 
accurate... I think?

> On May 25, 2019, at 9:31 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> I accept. I'll have to read up on the relevant rules, and I don't have
> the time at the moment. That said, this case is pretty simple, so I'll
> probably have a verdict in the next day or two.
> 
> -The Arbitor
> 
>> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 3:54 PM D. Margaux  wrote:
>> 
>> If the H. Arbitor agrees, then I authorize the holder of the Office of
>> Arbitor to act on my behalf to investigate and conclude the investigation
>> of the finger pointed against me in the message quoted below, and for no
>> other purpose.
>> 
>>> On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 6:02 PM omd  wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 3:20 AM D. Margaux  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The below reports are false. The reason for ratifying them is because
>>> the games are defunct and because it’s too hard to figure out what the
>>> gamestate of either of them is.
>>>> 
>>>> I deputise for Astronomor to publish this report: {there are no entities
>>> in existence for which the Astronomor is the recordkeepor other than those
>>> created directly by the Rules. All switches for which the Astronomor is
>>> recordkeepor have their default value.}
>>>> 
>>>> I deputise for Clork to publish this report: {there are no entities in
>>> existence for which the Clork is the recordkeepor other than those directly
>>> created by the Rules. All switches for which the Clork is recordkeepor have
>>> their default value.}
>>> 
>>> I Point my Finger at D. Margaux for violating rule 2143 by publishing
>>> information that is inaccurate within two documents purporting to be
>>> two offices' weekly reports.  (The documents don't explicitly purport
>>> to be *weekly* reports, but this can be reasonably inferred from the
>>> attempt to deputise to publish them.)
>>> 
>> --
>> D. Margaux


DIS: Re: BUS: Quanging

2019-05-21 Thread D. Margaux
On reflection, I believe G. is probably right. I thought that it might be 
required by “no news is some news,” but it looks like there is no duty for the 
Assessor to report any information weekly or monthly.

> On May 21, 2019, at 10:19 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> Additional comment for judge:  If there's an actual proposal decision
> to resolve, there's a duty in R208.  It would be interesting to know
> if this duty is a "report" of votes for these rewards, or do only
> things explicitly defined as "part of a person's report" (R2143) count?
> 
> I don't think this counts, because the reward can only be claimed for
> the "first weekly" or "first monthly" reports and a given proposal
> resolution is neither weekly nor monthly.
> 
> I think the "unpaid Assessor" problem was discussed back when this
> version of Rewards was written, but I don't think we ever solved that
> unless there's some rule text I'm missing?
> 
>> On 5/21/2019 6:56 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> CFJ, barring D. Margaux:  The publication cited in evidence is
>> a duty-fulfilling report for the Assessor for the purposes of
>> R2496.
>> Arguments
>> I believe this is FALSE, as I can find no duty in the rules
>> associated with this "report".
>> Evidence:
>> On 5/21/2019 6:19 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> > I resolve the below listed proposal(s) as follows:
>> >
>> > { NULL* }
>> >
>> > 
>> > * published in case it is required by R2379 (No News is Some News).
>> >
>>> On 5/21/2019 6:20 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>>> I earn 5 coins each for publishing the most recent weekly reports for 
>>> Astronomor, Clork, Assessor, and Referee.
>>> 
>>>> On May 21, 2019, at 6:20 AM, D. Margaux  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The below reports are false. The reason for ratifying them is because the 
>>>> games are defunct and because it’s too hard to figure out what the 
>>>> gamestate of either of them is.
>>>> 
>>>> I deputise for Astronomor to publish this report: {there are no entities 
>>>> in existence for which the Astronomor is the recordkeepor other than those 
>>>> created directly by the Rules. All switches for which the Astronomor is 
>>>> recordkeepor have their default value.}
>>>> 
>>>> I deputise for Clork to publish this report: {there are no entities in 
>>>> existence for which the Clork is the recordkeepor other than those 
>>>> directly created by the Rules. All switches for which the Clork is 
>>>> recordkeepor have their default value.}
>>>> 
>>>> I resign Clork and I resign Astronomor.


DIS: Re: BUS: Accusation

2019-05-21 Thread D. Margaux


> On May 19, 2019, at 11:06 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> I point my finger at Murphy, the Honorable ADoP, for committing a
> violation of the provision of Rule 2143, "Official Reports and
> Duties", stating that "A person SHALL NOT publish information that is
> inaccurate or misleading while performing an official duty"; to wit, e
> misstated the persons that are candidates in the PM election,
> excluding my candidacy in the same.

   MESSAGE FROM THE
OFFICE OF THE REFEREE
==

To assist it in resolving this Pointed Finger, the Office of Referee hereby 
requests that Aris please (1) quote the text of any particular statement(s) 
that e believes violated the rule and (2) identify whether e believes that 
specific text was “inaccurate,” “misleading,” or both, and why.






DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8177

2019-05-20 Thread D. Margaux



> On May 20, 2019, at 4:31 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:
> 
> I intend without objection to ratify the following document as true at the 
> time 00:00 GMT on 20 May 2019:
> 
> { For purposes of this document, “Politics Rules” and “Spaaace Rules” have 
> the meaning ascribed to those terms in Proposal 8177.  
> 
> Any switch created directly by any of the Politics Rules or the Spaaace Rules 
> has its default value. 
> 
> There are no currently existing entities or switches created by the Clork 
> pursuant to the Politics Rules or by the Astronomor pursuant to the Spaaace 
> Rules. }
> 
> The document is false; the reason for ratifying it is that the subgames are 
> defunct.

Actually, I have a better way to accomplish this. Any reason why the following 
wouldn’t work if I published it on BUS?

/

The below reports are false. The reason for ratifying them is because the games 
are defunct and because it’s too hard to figure out what the game state of 
either of them is. 


I deputise for Astronomor to publish this report: {there are no entities in 
existence for which the Astronomor is the recordkeepor other than those created 
directly by the Rules. All switches have their default value for which the 
Astronomor is recordkeepor.}

I deputise for Clork to publish this report: {there are no entities in 
existence for which the Clork is the recordkeepor other than those directly 
created by the Rules. All switches have their default value for which the Clork 
is recordkeepor.}

I resign Clork and  I resign Astronomor. 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 8177

2019-05-20 Thread D. Margaux
What if, by ratification, we reset all Spaaace and Politics switches to
their default values before suspending?

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 8:08 AM Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
> I vote AGAINST 8177.
> I act on behalf of Telnaior to vote AGAINST 8177.
>
> As commented earlier, I was knocked out of space early on, as have
> others.  Willing to sit out of a subgame this long, but not through
> a whole revival.
>
> On 5/19/2019 6:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> > quorum is 3, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
> > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
> > conditional votes).
> >
> > IDAuthor(s)   AITitle
> >
> ---
> > 8177  Aris, [1]   3.0   Side-Game Suspension Act (v3)
> >
> > The proposal pool is currently empty.
> >
> > [1] D Margaux, G.
> >
> > The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
> >
> > //////
> > ID: 8177
> > Title: Side-Game Suspension Act (v3)
> > Adoption index: 3.0
> > Author: Aris
> > Co-authors: D Margaux, G.
> >
> > Enact a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Side-Game Suspension", with the
> > following text:
> >
> >
> >1. The Spaaace Rules are defined to be Rules 2588, 2589, 2590, 2591,
> 2592,
> >   2593 and 2594.
> >
> >2. The Politics Rules are defined to be Rules 2533, 2534, 2535, 2536,
> 2537,
> >   2538, 2539, 2540, 2586, 2542, and 2543.
> >
> >3. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Spaaace Rules are
> suspended and
> >   have no force or effect until Spaaace is Revived.
> >
> >4. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Politics Rules are
> >   suspended and have no force or effect until Politics is Revived.
> >
> >5. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Spaaace (unless Spaaace has
> already
> >   been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office
> > of Astronomor.
> >
> >6. A player CAN with 2 support Revive Politics (unless Politics has
> already
> >   been Revived); that player is thereby installed into the office of
> Clork.
> >
> >7. If Politics and Spaaace have both been Revived, then any player
> CAN cause
> >   this Rule to repeal itself with Notice.
> >
> >8. Any player CAN with Agoran Consent trigger this Rule.  When this
> Rule is
> >   triggered, the following events happen in order: (a) the Politics
> Rules are
> >   automatically repealed in ascending numerical order (unless
> > Politics has been
> >   Revived), (b) the Spaaace Rules are automatically repealed in
> ascending
> >   numerical order (unless Spaaace has been Revived), and (c) this
> Rule is
> >   automatically repealed.
> >
>
-- 
D. Margaux


Re: DIS: ~still alive~

2019-05-17 Thread D. Margaux
Space went over well, but twg has been busy so there hasn’t been an astronomor 
for a while.  

The Ritual proposal also passed, but it hasn’t really been the source of much 
activity yet. 

Overall, not much new has happened recently because a lot of people have 
stopped actively playing.

But maybe you can shake things up a little!

> On May 17, 2019, at 9:54 AM, ATMunn  wrote:
> 
> I just recently finished school, so I thought I'd come back to Agora. Dunno 
> how active I'll be, but we'll see. It seems like my space idea has gone over 
> fairly well though. Anything else noteworthy since I was last playing? 
> (There's no way I'm going to go read through the 1000+ messages lol)


DIS: Re: BAK: Test

2019-05-16 Thread D Margaux
It could be worth addressing this legislatively.  I think it should usually be 
sufficient if the message is sent to and received by a reasonably large subset 
of players; but I don’t think it should be a public message if the sender 
_knows_ that a reasonably large subset will _not_ receive the message due to 
reasons specific to the manner in which the sender is sending the message.

My suggestion would be to amend Rule 478 to add the language in capital letters 
below:

> A public message is a message sent via a public forum THAT IS PROMPTLY 
> CONVEYED TO AND RECEIVED BY A REASONABLY LARGE SUBSET OF THE PERSONS 
> SUBSCRIBED TO THAT FORUM, or sent to all players and containing a clear 
> designation of intent to be public.  THE PRIOR SENTENCE NOTWITHSTANDING, A 
> MESSAGE IS NOT A PUBLIC MESSAGE IF THE SENDER KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW 
> THAT, BECAUSE OF CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIFIC TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THAT MESSAGE 
> IS SENT, THE MESSAGE WILL NOT BE PROMPTLY RECEIVED BY A REASONABLY LARGE 
> SUBSET OF THE PERSONS SUBSCRIBED TO THE FORUM (IF IT IS SENT VIA A PUBLIC 
> FORUM) OR OF THE PLAYERS TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED (IF IT IS SENT TO ALL 
> PLAYERS CONTAINING A CLEAR DESIGNATION OF INTENT TO BE PUBLIC).




> On May 16, 2019, at 2:19 AM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> CFJ 1905 specified that a "reasonably large subset" of the people
> subscribed to the forum must receive the message. Recent practice
> appears to have been more along the lines of "most, but not
> necessarily all", based on my personal recollection. I'm not going to
> call a CFJ at the moment, but if someone else wants to they should
> feel free.
> 
> -Aris
> 
>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:59 PM Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>> 
>> Seems we forgot to filter this list.
>> 
>> Assuming the rules regarding public fora haven't changed, there is precedent 
>> going back at least a decade that messages to public fora are public, even 
>> if only some subset of players receive them. The solution is to make an 
>> unreliable forum non-Public.
>> 
>>> On Wed., May 15, 2019, 23:41 Aris Merchant, 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> I think we have to consider any of the non-compliant messages as failing 
>>> the standards necessary for a published message, since many players appear 
>>> to be unable to receive them. The fact that the blame lies with the 
>>> policies of the sender’s server is especially relevant. There’s a CFJ 
>>> somewhere that supports this interpretation (specifically, it stated that a 
>>> message could not be considered published unless enough of those signed up 
>>> for the forum received it), although I don’t have time to find it at the 
>>> moment.
>>> 
>>> -Aris
>>> 
>>>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 8:07 PM James Cook  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I didn't receive it either. Also, GMail shows a big warning above this
>>>> reply from D. Margaux, saying:
>>>> 
>>>> "Be careful with this message
>>>> 
>>>> Gmail could not verify that it actually came from
>>>> dmargaux...@gmail.com. Avoid clicking links, downloading attachments
>>>> or replying with personal information."
>>>> 
>>>> It may have something to do with DMARC as AIS523 suggests. I remember
>>>> seeing this on at least one other email from D. Margaux, and I think
>>>> it was also a reply to something from Murphy, but it could be a
>>>> coincidence.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 20:13, D. Margaux  wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Didn’t get it in inbox or junk folder...
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On May 15, 2019, at 4:00 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" 
>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wed, 2019-05-15 at 07:43 -0700, Edward Murphy wrote:
>>>>>>> Test
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This went straight to my junk email folder. It did get through, though.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> ais523
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ___
>>>>>> Agora mailing list
>>>>>> ag...@listserver.tue.nl
>>>>>> https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
>>>>> ___
>>>>> Agora mailing list
>>>>> ag...@listserver.tue.nl
>>>>> https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
>>>> ___
>>>> Agora mailing list
>>>> ag...@listserver.tue.nl
>>>> https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora
> ___
> Agora mailing list
> ag...@listserver.tue.nl
> https://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Side-Game Suspension Act

2019-05-09 Thread D. Margaux



> On May 9, 2019, at 11:14 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> But overall, I'm not sure that this is an improvement over a straight up
> repeal, followed by a simple "re-enact Rules XXX, YYY" if someone wants to
> bring it back?

I agree it’s probably not an improvement. I mostly wrote it up this way because 
I’m curious to know whether this Rube Goldberg repeal mechanism would actually 
work as intended. 

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

2019-03-07 Thread D. Margaux
Well that is a very, very annoying oversight on my part. Nice catch.

> On Mar 7, 2019, at 9:50 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> I was just writing a note to say I'd spotted the Feb 24th ADoP report's
> ratification of D. Margaux as Prime Minister as well!
> 
> You don't have to worry about the Disclaimer in the ADoP's report -
> disclaimers are used all the time to ratify false things, under the guidance
> of R2202 you're *supposed* to use disclaimers when reporting false things
> for the purpose of ratification, and this explicitly does not stop
> ratification.
> 
> Proposal 8164 will not undo the self-ratification.  It will retroactively
> determine that the ADoP's Report was wrong in a different way, but the
> report will have still have self-ratified as it was written.
> 
> 
>> On 3/7/2019 6:30 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>> Attached as individual text files. Please have a look and let me know what 
>> you think...
>> -twg


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [SPOOKY Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8164

2019-03-07 Thread D. Margaux



> On Mar 7, 2019, at 7:28 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> Well, it's trivial unless the judge holds onto it until the retroactive 
> effects go into effect :).

ಠ_ಠ

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [SPOOKY Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8164

2019-03-07 Thread D. Margaux



On Mar 7, 2019, at 7:18 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

>> On Mar 7, 2019, at 7:15 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
>> 
>> You've missed an important point which will be elaborated on in my judgement 
>> of CFJ 3723. ATMunn did SPOOKILY distribute Proposal 8164, but it was 
>> nevertheless in the proposal pool when Aris redistributed it just now. I 
>> know this seems bizarre but please bear with me.
> 
> I would be grateful for the chance to comment on a proto judgement before it 
> is finalized, since I am afraid i don’t yet see how this could be true.

To elaborate:

Under Rule 1607/44, “Initiating such a decision [whether to adopt a proposal] 
is known as distribution, and removes the proposal from the Proposal Pool.” And 
under Rule 2451, by issuing a Manifesto “The Prime Minister distributes a 
specified proposal in the Proposal Pool.”

“Distributing” a proposal by Manifesto necessarily removes it from the proposal 
pool under the definition of “distribution” set forth in Rule 1607. 

So if ATMunn distributed it, it’s not in the pool. 

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [SPOOKY Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8164

2019-03-07 Thread D. Margaux



> On Mar 7, 2019, at 7:15 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> You've missed an important point which will be elaborated on in my judgement 
> of CFJ 3723. ATMunn did SPOOKILY distribute Proposal 8164, but it was 
> nevertheless in the proposal pool when Aris redistributed it just now. I know 
> this seems bizarre but please bear with me.

I would be grateful for the chance to comment on a proto judgement before it is 
finalized, since I am afraid i don’t yet see how this could be true. 

> 
> I also don't think you can CoE distributions, they're just EFFECTIVE or 
> INEFFECTIVE.

The Promotor’s report would ratify. So my CoE is just in case this distribution 
is somehow deemed a part of the report. If not, then the CoE can be denied. 

Re: DIS: Attn H. Promotor (Re: BUS: Attn H. Referee: Proposal 8164 CFJs)

2019-03-07 Thread D. Margaux



> On Mar 7, 2019, at 11:36 AM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" 
>  wrote:
> 
> Ratification doesn't create paradoxes, though. The "compute what a
> retroactive change would do, then apply it" method of handling the
> change means that even if the cause of the ratification ends up being
> ratified away, the ratification still happened.

Ratification doesn’t create paradoxes, but no ratification has occurred here. 

Instead, the situation here is:

1) The Assessor CAN and MUST resolve the proposal ADOPTED; and

2) As soon as the proposal is resolved ADOPTED, it takes effect (if it CAN take 
effect) and it retroactively eliminates a necessary condition for its own 
ADOPTION, thereby making it retroactively IMPOSSIBLE to resolve it ADOPTED.

The paradox exists until ratification, when the proposal is deemed distributed 
without paradox. 

Re: DIS: Attn H. Promotor (Re: BUS: Attn H. Referee: Proposal 8164 CFJs)

2019-03-07 Thread D. Margaux



> On Mar 7, 2019, at 12:28 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" 
>  wrote:
> 
> The proposal /was/ distributed, though. It's just that its adoption
> changed the gamestate as though it wasn't.
> 
> Denying the CoE constitutes a claim that the proposal was distributed.
> Well, it /was/ distributed! A change to the gamestate as though the
> distribution were IMPOSSIBLE doesn't change the fact that it actually
> happened.

Before this proposal, it was IMPOSSIBLE for Gaelan to declare victory by apathy 
and therefore the “fact” is that e didn’t do so. The proposal, if ADOPTED, 
would change the “fact” of whether that happened—that’s the whole point of 
retroactivity. 

By the very same reasoning, the ADOPTION of the proposal should also change the 
POSSIBILITY of its distribution and also the “fact” of its distribution. 

> Think about it this way: suppose a proposal is puportedly distributed
> in an impossible way, nobody notices, the Assessment remains unCOEd for
> a week, so the fact that the Agoran decision on whether to adopt it
> existed ends up self-ratifying. Creating the Agoran decision on whether
> to adopt a proposal is distribution, so in the resulting gamestate,
> either the proposal was distributed, or else a decision about whether
> to adopt it existed without ever having been created. If we take the
> former condition, we now have a gamestate in which the proposal was
> distributed, despite it having been IMPOSSIBLE to do so. 

In this example, ratification of the assessment changes the “fact” of whether 
the proposal was distributed. The distribution was IMPOSSIBLE and originally it 
didn’t happen, but upon ratification it is retroactively deemed to have 
EFFECTIVELY happened. The ratification changes the “fact” of the distribution 
from false to true. 

> 
> After the proposal retroactively makes its own distribution impossible,
> we end up with exactly the same sort of gamestate; there's no way that
> the proposal could have been distributed, but it's nonetheless a
> historical fact that it was distributed.

That would be true if Proposal 8164 had been resolved ADOPTED and that 
resolution had self-ratified. If that had happened, the paradox would be 
ratified out of existence and the fact of distribution would be established by 
ratification. 

But that hasn’t happened. 

The paradox then arises because Proposal 8164 changes the gamestate to what it 
would have been if intents worked in the past.  That changes the “fact” of 
whether Gaelan won by apathy. It also changes the “fact” of whether the 
proposal was EFFECTIVELY distributed. 

So after that “fact” changes, a CoE needs to be granted because there was no 
distribution, except that granting the CoE is also wrong, because it would undo 
itself. 

> The adoption of the proposal
> destroys the decision about whether to adopt it (because the decision
> existed beforehand, and the proposal attempted to change the gamestate
> to a state where it wouldn't have), but it's too late; the decision's
> already been resolved by that point.

It has been resolved, but it is not final because it can be CoE’d. And the 
result of the CoE is paradoxical I think. 

> Meanwhile, the gamestate
> recalculation isn't recursive; the proposal doesn't attempt to undo its
> own adoption process, because we're recalculating based on the
> gamestate immediately before the adoption of the proposal, and then
> applying all the changes atomically in a single batch.

I’m not sure why that would be true. The adoption of the proposal changes the 
“fact” of its distribution and thereby destroys a condition precedent to its 
own adoption. And until ratification, a player can raise a CoE that says one of 
the conditions precedent to ADOPTION is lacking. 

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

2019-03-05 Thread D. Margaux



> On Mar 5, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> Yes, I don't see how this is any different from "stating it to yourself". 
> Your publication of the hash (if it even is a hash - I see no evidence that 
> it's not just a random string of hexadecimal digits) didn't meaningfully 
> communicate anything to anyone else.

Now, the truly interesting question is what happens if G. does give us the 
ability to decrypt and it contains the required information. I think that would 
not be a retroactive announcement (but maybe it would...).  I do think it meets 
the lower bar for a “statement” under CFJ 3714, and therefore would work. 

We should probably come up with a legislative fix, because this seems like a 
bug that can be scammed somehow. 

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

2019-03-05 Thread D. Margaux
In that message, you didn’t state a number of coins; you stated a hash. Stating 
a hash is different from stating that-which-was-hashed, I think, at least when 
the hash cannot readily be decrypted by those to whom the statement is 
directed.  

If you said the hash out loud to yourself, or “stated” the underlying text to 
the computer performing the hashing algorithm, then I think that yields a 
DISMISS for the same reasons as 3714, at least until you give us information 
sufficient to decrypt. 

> On Mar 5, 2019, at 12:41 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> CoE on coin balances:  As per the CFJ 3714 judgement, proof that I stated
> the number of coins earned for my last-but-one Herald's Report (in a timely
> manner for the reward) is found here:
> 
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/040091.html
> 
> [Note:  I'm not trying to be annoying about the quanging thing here -
> I've been trying to write a general action-by-hash rule for a bit and want
> to know if rules need changing wrt standards of evidence and revealing
> info and whatnot].
> 
> 
>> On 3/5/2019 6:50 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>> COIN BALANCES
>> 
>> This section self-ratifies.


Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [SPOOKY Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8164

2019-02-28 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 27, 2019, at 11:28 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> It definitely does, to my reading. Can you reread?
> 
> -Aris
> 
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 8:27 PM Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
> 
>> I hate to point this out after the distribution, but if I'm correct in my
>> reading, this does not actually amend the rule. After this passes, won't
>> intents still be broken?

I agree with Aris. As I read it, it has two provisions: (1) it changes the 
gamestate to what it would have been if the amendment had been in effect and 
then (2) it amends the rule. 

So I think it works and does amend the rule. 



DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Championships

2019-02-27 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 27, 2019, at 7:01 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> I award D. Margaux the patent title Champion for cheating in politics.

No collusion! WITCH HUNT!


> I award D. Margaux the patent title Champion for succeeding in politics.
> 
> Congratulations!


Re: DIS: who actually won recently?

2019-02-27 Thread D. Margaux
That and also my cheating win.
If you don’t timely-fashion award the other championships and someone pointed a 
finger at you, it would be interesting to see whether that conduct can be 
retroactively made criminal.

> On Feb 27, 2019, at 11:33 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> Due to the dependent action bug, I think the only win that is currently owed
> "champion" is D. Margaux's most recent Politics win - are there others that
> actually succeeded?  (the dependent action ones may be fixed retroactively,
> but they haven't been yet).


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

2019-02-24 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 24, 2019, at 1:40 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> There's an entirely-independent protection worth considering, in R2140 -
> even if a higher-powered rule defers to a lower powered-one, if the lower-
> powered one then makes use of that deference to "set or modify a substantive
> aspect" of the higher-powered rule, which is further defined as "any"
> aspect, it may be blocked.

Yes, this changes everything, actually. When {XX}, for X with power 
greater than Y, then the conflict isn’t between X and Y; it’s between X and Y 
on the one side, and R2140 on the other. 

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

2019-02-24 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 24, 2019, at 1:16 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> What's missing from this analysis, in my view, is that it's not purely A>B,
> it's actually "A>B about fact P".  So if two rules say different things
> about P, the two rules can wholly agree, via an explicit
> precedence/deference handshake, on whether A or B wins the conflict, but
> "fact P" is still the "conflict".

Apologies, I’m not sure I understand how this changes the analysis. If 
{X(p)>Y(p) & Y(p) So I would characterize the {X > Y on P & Y< X on P} situation as "both
> rules agree on how the conflict about P is to be resolved".  I think that
> interpretation is foreseen and supported under this R1030 clause:
>  - If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of
>itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or takes
>precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such
>provisions shall be used to resolve the conflict, unless they
>lead to contradictions between each other;

I think this clause comes into play when there are 2 rules of the _same_ power, 
where one  has a deference/priority clause and one does not. In that case, you 
give effect to the deference/priority clause. 

And you can broaden this to a situation of 2+ equal power rules, where fewer 
than all of them have deference/priority clauses. 

> That clause foresees that there may be 2+ clauses that form a handshake ("at
> least one of the Rules"), and still define that handshake as "provisions
> used to resolve the conflict [over P]", saying that if the 2+ clauses agree
> with each other, you've resolved the conflict over P (rather than defining
> away the conflict over P as being "not a conflict"), and additionally
> stating that if those conflict-resolution clauses themselves conflict, you
> don't apply this step.


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

2019-02-24 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:51 AM, D. Margaux  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> 
>> Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference from
>> a high power to a low power from working?  The problem I'm having is that
>> your reading prevents R1030 from working at all by defining R1030
>> "deference" as something that never happens.
> 
> None come to mind. But I also can’t think of a meaning of “conflict” that 
> would apply to two rules that expressly accommodate one another.

Also, on my reading, I think that the deference relationship provision of R1030 
is to coordinate between rules of the SAME power, not rules of differing power. 
So that’s not surplusage. There’s just no example to point to for rules of 
differing power. 

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

2019-02-24 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 24, 2019, at 12:47 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:
> 
> 
> The mirror image assumption is partly wrong, in my opinion, and I don't think 
> that CFJ adequately considers why. 
> 
> For rules A and B, let:
> 
> “A > B” mean A claims precedence to B;
> “A < B” mean that A defers to B; and
> “A = B” mean that A is silent about its deference or priority relationship to 
> B.
> 
> The mirror image rule posits that {X > Y & Y = X} is logically equal to {Y < 
> X & X = Y}, and that both situations represent conflicts in the rules. I 
> agree with that.
> 
> BUT in my view, {X > Y & Y< X} is different. *That* example is *not* a 
> conflict. In that example, both rules agree about the outcome. I just don’t 
> see how that can be characterized as a conflict. 

And to draw out the conclusions of my view—let X be higher powered than Y.  

In that case:

{X = Y & Y = X} — conflict; give precedence to X by R1030 step 1 (give effect 
to higher powered rule)

{X > Y & Y = X} — conflict; give precedence to X by step 1

{Y < X & X = Y} — conflict; give precedence to X by step 1

{X > Y & Y > X} — conflict; give precedence to X by step 1

{X < Y & Y > X} — no conflict; give precedence to Y by agreement of both rules 
and do not apply R1030

{X > Y & Y < X} — no conflict; give precedence to X by agreement of both rules 
and do not apply R1030

{X < Y & Y < X} — conflict; give precedence to Y by step 1 (because X tells us 
to do that?); or give precedence to X because of step 1

{X < Y & Y = X} — conflict; give precedence to Y by step 1 (because X tells us 
to do that?); or give precedence to X because of step 1

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



>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 12:17 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/24/2019 8:51 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>>>> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference
>>>> from a high power to a low power from working?  The problem I'm having is
>>>> that your reading prevents R1030 from working at all by defining R1030
>>>> "deference" as something that never happens.
>>> 
>>> None come to mind. But I also can’t think of a meaning of “conflict” that
>>> would apply to two rules that expressly accommodate one another.
>> 
>> Please look at the Caller's "two assumptions" arguments in CFJ 1104, I was
>> on the fence when this conversation started, but reading those arguments is
>> what convinced me:  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1104
>> 
>> Those arguments explicitly consider your logic and reject it, finding
>> instead that the rules-languages of R1030 defines deference clauses
>> /conditionals like these as indicating "conflicts" for the purposes of
>> R1030.
>> 


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

2019-02-24 Thread D. Margaux


The mirror image assumption is partly wrong, in my opinion, and I don't think 
that CFJ adequately considers why. 

For rules A and B, let:

“A > B” mean A claims precedence to B;
“A < B” mean that A defers to B; and
“A = B” mean that A is silent about its deference or priority relationship to B.

The mirror image rule posits that {X > Y & Y = X} is logically equal to {Y < X 
& X = Y}, and that both situations represent conflicts in the rules. I agree 
with that.

BUT in my view, {X > Y & Y< X} is different. *That* example is *not* a 
conflict. In that example, both rules agree about the outcome. I just don’t see 
how that can be characterized as a conflict. 


> On Feb 24, 2019, at 12:17 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/24/2019 8:51 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
> >> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >>
> >> Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference
> >> from a high power to a low power from working?  The problem I'm having is
> >> that your reading prevents R1030 from working at all by defining R1030
> >> "deference" as something that never happens.
> >
> > None come to mind. But I also can’t think of a meaning of “conflict” that
> > would apply to two rules that expressly accommodate one another.
> 
> Please look at the Caller's "two assumptions" arguments in CFJ 1104, I was
> on the fence when this conversation started, but reading those arguments is
> what convinced me:  https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1104
> 
> Those arguments explicitly consider your logic and reject it, finding
> instead that the rules-languages of R1030 defines deference clauses
> /conditionals like these as indicating "conflicts" for the purposes of
> R1030.
> 


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

2019-02-24 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 24, 2019, at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> Can you give me any example of a pair where R1030 would block deference from
> a high power to a low power from working?  The problem I'm having is that
> your reading prevents R1030 from working at all by defining R1030
> "deference" as something that never happens.

None come to mind. But I also can’t think of a meaning of “conflict” that would 
apply to two rules that expressly accommodate one another. 

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

2019-02-24 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 23, 2019, at 9:06 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 2/22/2019 8:06 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>> I think the "Except as prohibited by other rules" is a condition, and 
>> _possibly_ also a deference (it depends on exactly what deference means).
> 
> I don't think there should be a substantive difference in interpretation
> between "Except as prohibited by other rules" and, in R2466, "except that it
> defers to any rule that imposes limitations" (given that "imposing
> limitations" is more or less the same as "prohibiting" in this context).

I think Ø has the more straightforward reading here. The first test applied in 
R1030 is not power; it first asks whether there is a conflict _at all_. And it 
seems to me that there is no conflict when the higher powered rule expressly 
conditions its effect on a lower powered rule. 

To put more starkly, what about the two pairs of rules below:


***
Pair 1

Rule A1 (power 2): “A player who violates a Rule is guilty of a crime except 
when a power 1 or higher rule excuses eir conduct.”
Rule B1 (power 1): “A player’s conduct is excused if e says e is really, very 
sorry.”

***
Pair 2

Rule A2 (power 2): “A player who violates a Rule is guilty of a crime except as 
provided by other Rules of power 1 or higher.”
Rule B2 (power 1): “Rule A2 notwithstanding, a player is not guilty of a crime 
if e says e is really, very sorry.”

***

Shouldn’t both pairs lead to the same outcomes? And shouldn’t Rule A1/A2 
withhold its effect if Rule B1/B2 is satisfied?

I think under G’s reading, Rule A1/A2 would always trump Rule B1/B2, and Rule B 
would be ineffective. But that strikes me as very very weird, and inconsistent 
with R1030, because there’s no conflict within either of these pairs of rules. 

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

2019-02-22 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 22, 2019, at 1:45 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> Given that, unlike countries, Agora is an
> entirely voluntary organization, my personal worry about Agora is not
> a "full ossification that almost everyone agrees happened" nor "1 or 2
> people saying we were playing wrong" but a situation where two
> similarly-sized camps disagree with an aspect, and end up trying to
> run two entirely separate games (separate reports, etc.) on the same
> list while arguing that theirs is the One True Way.

Wow! This actually sounds kind of fun. It’s like a nomic civil war!

Not saying that we should actually try to have that happen though...

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

2019-02-22 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 22, 2019, at 12:39 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> Every so often, someone decides "we're not really playing Agora
> anymore" because (in their perception) we improperly papered over some
> platonic truth that made everything freeze.

That point of view makes me think of the “sovereign citizens” who believe that 
their view of the law is somehow platonically right, and that it means they 
don’t have to pay taxes or whatever. It’s based on a fundamental 
misunderstanding of what law means; it’s a fundamentally social institution, 
and so the law really /is/ what the relevant legal actors believe it to be. 
That doesn’t mean pure logic is unimportant; but it does mean that logic 
“works” only to the extent it can persuade the relevant legal actors. 

Seems similar to nomic in that respect. The actual game “rules” are, in a 
sense, what the players believe them to be, using whatever interpretive tools 
are more or less convincing to them, within a certain overall structure of 
decisionmaking (e.g. proposals, CFJs, etc.). 

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

2019-02-21 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 21, 2019, at 1:16 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:03 AM D. Margaux  wrote:
> 
>> Rule A (power 2): “Except as provided by other rules, a player MUST hop on 
>> one foot.”
>> 
>> Rule B (power 1): “Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a player MAY elect 
>> to skip or gallop instead of hopping on one foot.”

> 
> It's a
> conflict between Rule A and Rule 1030, which says that Power overrides
> the deference clause in Rule A (and R1030, at power 3,2, would win of
> course).

It seems to me that R1030 has a very idiosyncratic idea of what a “conflict” 
is, if my hypothetical Rules A and B “conflict.” But I agree that’s the best 
reading of the rule. Which makes me wonder whether this creates any unexpected 
buggy effects when rules of different power interact with one another, and 
don’t “directly” conflict but do perhaps conflict in the R1030 sense. But it 
makes my head hurt to try to figure out what the specific bugs would be...

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

2019-02-21 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 21, 2019, at 12:26 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> Deference clauses only work between rules of the same power.  Power is
> the first test applied (R1030).

That is so interesting. It’s counterintuitive to me that it would work that 
way. To take an example, here are two hypothetical rules:

Rule A (power 2): “Except as provided by other rules, a player MUST hop on one 
foot.”

Rule B (power 1): “Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a player MAY elect to 
skip or gallop instead of hopping on one foot.” 

Under your reading, Rule A overpowers Rule B, so that players must hop on one 
foot; right?

Rule 1030 governs precedence in case of “conflicts,” but there is no conflict 
here. Rule A expressly allows itself to be overruled by other rules, and Rule B 
is such a rule. So giving full effect to Rule A requires that we also give 
effect to Rule A, because Rule A tells us to. 

That would not render the rule powers meaningless, because, e.g., a power 1 
non-rule instrument still could not overrule Rule A. 



DIS: Re: CFJ 3719

2019-02-20 Thread D. Margaux
 On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 7:33 AM D Margaux  wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: D Margaux 
> Date: February 20, 2019 at 7:28:31 AM EST
> To: Agora Business 
> Subject: Re: BUS: Victory by Apathy
>
>
>
> On Feb 19, 2019, at 10:56 PM, James Cook  wrote:
>
> I initiate a Call for Judgement, specifying the statement: "Falsifian
> and G won the game."
>
>
> CFJ 3719. I assign it to myself.
>
> It reminds me of another, similar attempted declaration: 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EuZeff2y32M :-)

Here are my initial proto-judgement, but I am definitely open to being
persuaded otherwise:

* * *

Caller's arguement depends on the idea that to "Declare Apathy" means
the same thing as to "announce" or "publish apathy."  I don't
necessarily agree with that, and so I would judge FALSE.

The word declaration has several meanings.  In the context of Rule
2465, I think "to Declare Apathy" is  a kind of a speech-act: it is a
statement that causes a particular social fact to come into existence
(in this case, it creates a victory by Apathy).  It has a similar form
as when a wedding officiant says "I declare you man and wife," or when
a monarch says "I declare war on [country]," or when the chair of a
legislative body says "I declare that the legislative session is
adjourned."

In each of these examples, the declaration works only if certain
preconditions are met.  The wedding officiant must be vested with some
legal, religious, or other kind of authority to perform the marriage,
and the bride and groom need to express consent and have a valid
marriage license--otherwise the declaration is void.  The monarch must
be vested with the power to declare war, and may lack authority to do
so in a constitutional monarchy.  The chair must actually be
recognized as legitimately presiding over the legislative body, and
certain rules typically must be followed before an adjournment can be
declared.

If authority is lacking, the declaration is void.  So if I were to say
(or announce or publish), "I declare Donald Trump and Hillary Rodham
Clinton to be married," or "I declare war on BlogNomic on behalf of
Agora," or "I declare the U.S. Congress to be adjourned," we would all
immediately understand why the declarations are void.

So too here.  Under certain circumstances, Rule 2465 vests a player
with authority to declare a particular social fact to come into
existence--a victory by Apathy.  The key question is under what
circumstances does that Rule create authority to Declare Apathy?  The
Rule says that "[a] player CAN Declare Apathy without objection,
specifying a set of players."  In my view, "without objection" must be
read as a precondition that must be satisfied before a player is
vested with authority to Declare Apathy.

So what does "without objection" mean?  Well, Rule 1728 says that "a
rule that purports to allow a person to perform an action [without
objection] thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement"
provided certain conditions are met.  Here, those conditions are
plainly not met (and not merely because dependent intents are
currently temporarily broken). So, I think the declaration sadly must
fail (which is regrettable because a TRUE judgement would also give me
a win by Apathy from December 2018).


DIS: Re: BUS: Victory by Apathy

2019-02-20 Thread D. Margaux



On Feb 20, 2019, at 2:10 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>> If a scam along these lines worked, the required declaration would have
>> to express apathy the concept, not "apathy" the word. Something like "I
>> am apathetic." might potentially work, but it's a bit of a stretch.

This reminds me of an email that someone sent a few months ago... :-)

> On Dec 6, 2018, at 10:13 AM, D. Margaux  wrote:
> 
> Things have been pretty quiet this week. Some might say apathetic. 
> 
> I intend without objection to declare apathy specifying all players who, 
> between now and the time of declaration, have sent a public message that 
> includes the phrase, “I’m apathetic.”
> 
> I’m apathetic.


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deputisation for PM CFJs

2019-02-19 Thread D. Margaux
In that case, you have a few options—

1) judge them FALSE/FALSE (which is their current truth values)

2) wait to see if the intent fixing proposal passes (if you think any intent 
will be fixed retroactively and want the judgement to reflect that)

> On Feb 19, 2019, at 2:49 AM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the timeline, but all of this is still giving me a headache. I
> believe that the intent wasn’t specific enough and that all of the interns
> are broken. How should I judge these?
> 
> -Aris
> 
>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 12:28 PM D. Margaux  wrote:
>> 
>> I CFJ: D. Margaux is the Prime Minister.
>> 
>> I CFJ: twg is the Speaker.
>> 
>> Arguements:
>> 
>> 1) I won by cheating a while back (sorry!), and I think that triggered
>> ATMunn’s obligation to reappoint me as a new speaker (even though I was
>> already speaker).
>> 
>> 2) Subsequently, Gaelan won by apathy, and that victory was upheld as
>> valid in a CFJ. (But maybe intents are broken? So is it really clear that e
>> actually did win by apathy?)
>> 
>> 3) Then I declared a intent to deputise for PM “to appoint a new speaker”
>> (or similarly generic language), which G. challenged as perhaps not
>> specific enough to be a proper intent.
>> 
>> 4) Then twg and I declared victory by apathy (probably?—but again, that
>> doesn’t work if intents are broken; and if intents _are_ broken, then how
>> did Gaelan win?).
>> 
>> 5) I then declared an intent to deputise for PM to appoint twg
>> specifically to be speaker.
>> 
>> and then 6) I executed those intents by deputising as PM to appoint twg to
>> be speaker (if laureled); otherwise Gaelan (if laureled); otherwise D.
>> Margaux.
>> 
>> So, the questions are—did twg and I win by apathy (or are intents broken)?
>> If we did win, then both CFJs are TRUE (I think).
>> 
>> If we didn’t win by apathy, the other question is whether my “general”
>> intent was enough to deputise for PM? If so, then I am PM but twg isn’t
>> Speaker. And in that case, is Gaelan the Speaker or am I?


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

2019-02-18 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 18, 2019, at 8:15 PM, "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" 
>  wrote:
> 
> Just to make sure you're aware: this can't change the Rules
> (penultimate paragraph of R105), just the rest of the gamestate.
> 
> This probably isn't a problem, unless past cleanings were broken (in
> which case it still isn't really a problem but we might want to retry
> the cleanings in order to make sure all our typos are gone). Dependent
> actions otherwise tend not to change the ruleset much, and proposal
> results self-ratify.

Maybe we can just ratify the Ruleset with the cleanings in them? This is such a 
mess lol. 

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

2019-02-18 Thread D. Margaux
Potato gridiron Sasquatch alphabetical tangelo arthropod 

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 7:26 PM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
> 
> d8dcc8184c9160ce7f09a369127580b4
> 
> --
> Trigon
> 
>> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 17:22 Madeline > 
>> 347e6994e340b1887cb464eed0a980f5dd708170f25dd5eda31d318fdc
>> 
>> 1aeb71e07bab1ed854b51a9303d574f3bf086044146fcdfb8f8f4e82951d37eec0aa5939e458c490617
>> 614c2970d08d161190fe0a50
>> 2012c8d6da48df899382751889975ece9c334fc1b3222
>> 1f7042dc25ecce54d6a5aed39f4024a95fa8e4f68e42c8
>> b2b4564793ce6ca10fd8323df9ec9239c6dbbf79a1abe82e4
>> 398489f18ba9c37d18a233fe3427d4c5e528f94
>> 5699c069ff45c208c735dd373ebbd402346f6b5c2e4
>> 6750f3e4af341b76db7fe7b60c57e759dd74
>> 
>>> On 2019-02-19 10:55, D. Margaux wrote:
>>> Just in case too:
>>> 
>>> 
>> 29B9A02A56E8A3E15EC1E0E5ABE816C27686A7B1A6A7E6C7D6A1F7059E48A688C96855481739012E592A8D65EAC7AD95F6D30E0EFFC6B27A2745B2A63BBF72E6
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:47 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>> gwt-uMHZuFGagIXdvlHIu9GIl1Wa0BCajVXbg82b0BSesVmcpRnblBSZ2FGagwiclRWYlJHIyFWZkBCL19WW
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>>>>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:52 PM, Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 784743443F7C486AF33A5FEA440ECD9F92B02CA7B12E19EBFB5330863B050F7C
>>>>> A1196E9457A2E1FFCE97EC027FC82CD4790CCB33C666734DE474C3A5B358400E
>>>> 
>> 
>> 


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

2019-02-18 Thread D. Margaux
Just in case too:

29B9A02A56E8A3E15EC1E0E5ABE816C27686A7B1A6A7E6C7D6A1F7059E48A688C96855481739012E592A8D65EAC7AD95F6D30E0EFFC6B27A2745B2A63BBF72E6

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:47 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> gwt-uMHZuFGagIXdvlHIu9GIl1Wa0BCajVXbg82b0BSesVmcpRnblBSZ2FGagwiclRWYlJHIyFWZkBCL19WW
> 
> 
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:52 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 784743443F7C486AF33A5FEA440ECD9F92B02CA7B12E19EBFB5330863B050F7C
>> A1196E9457A2E1FFCE97EC027FC82CD4790CCB33C666734DE474C3A5B358400E
> 
> 


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

2019-02-18 Thread D. Margaux
!!!

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:47 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> gwt-uMHZuFGagIXdvlHIu9GIl1Wa0BCajVXbg82b0BSesVmcpRnblBSZ2FGagwiclRWYlJHIyFWZkBCL19WW
> 
> 
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:52 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 784743443F7C486AF33A5FEA440ECD9F92B02CA7B12E19EBFB5330863B050F7C
>> A1196E9457A2E1FFCE97EC027FC82CD4790CCB33C666734DE474C3A5B358400E
> 
> 


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

2019-02-18 Thread D. Margaux
I am tempted to suggest that we insert something that says: “notwithstanding 
the foregoing, Agora is never satisfied with an intent to activate the 
Protocol, which is of no force or effect whatsoever.”

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:05 PM, James Cook  wrote:
> 
> Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in
> accordance with the rules" in R214.
> 
> Is there anything wrong with D. Margaux's latest suggestion? I like
> the fact that it doesn't try to retroactively change the rule's
> history. (Though the retroactive rule change might be harmless, based
> on G's research and my hope that nothing requires the Rulekeepor to
> change the history or amendment number in the FLR.)
> 
> Current draft, based on D. Margaux's latest + a note about convergence:
> 
> 
> 
> The gamestate is changed to what it would have been if the text of the
> following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined whether Agora was
> Satisfied with any dependent action attempted after Proposal 7815,
> rather than the text of what Rule 2124 was at that time. To the extent
> allowed by the rules, this change is designated as a convergence.
> 
> Rule 2124 is amended by replacing its text with the following:
> 
>  A Supporter of an intent to perform an action is an eligible
>  entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn.
>  "consent") for an announcement of that intent. An Objector to an
>  intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly
>  posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of
>  that intent.
> 
>  The entities eligible to support or object to an intent to perform
>  an action are, by default, all players, subject to modification by
>  the document authorizing the dependent action. However, the
>  previous sentence notwithstanding, the initiator of the intent is
>  not eligible to support it.
> 
>  Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
>  unless at least one of the following is true:
> 
>  1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and there
> are at least N Objectors to that intent.
> 
>  2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are
> fewer than than N Supporters of that intent.
> 
>  3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the
> number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N
> times the number of Objectors to the intent.
> 
>  The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and
>  an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within
>  the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent.
> 
>  The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent
>  if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours.
> 
>  A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent
>  before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same
>  type of response.


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

2019-02-18 Thread D. Margaux
I vote {Gaelan, Telnaior, twg, CB}, and cause L to vote the same if we are 
counting zombie votes which probably we shouldn’t. 

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 2:00 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> VOTE!
> Who had the best loophole, bug, or scam during Read the Ruleset week?
> VOTE!
> 
> Here starts an UNOFFICIAL AGORAN DECISION with the following modifications:
> -  Ranked choice:  It's not bad form to vote for yourself, but please
>   consider 2nd, 3rd, etc.
> -  Counting long term-watchers' votes too!  If ais523, Ørjan, or other
>   watchers would like to opine.
> -  Using the Auction method for ending the decision (4 days since last
>   vote, no more than 7 days total).
> -  I'll give my own votes in 24-48 hours.
> 
> OPTIONS (vote for the person)
> 
> Telnaior illustrating that contracts can make infinitely-rewarding reports:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039875.html
>  
> (unjudged; arguments for it working stronger than arguments against IMO,
> fix proposed).
> 
> 
> Gaelan's attempt to win by Apathy, by using two messages for the same
> intent:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039934.html
>  
> (Judged to have succeeded on reconsideration, though caught up in broader
> issues of Satisfaction, fix proposed).
> 
> 
> CuddleBeam arguing that Agora is a Contract, possibly a worldview shift:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039955.html
> (Judged to be true, may be more of a curiosity than a practical matter, but 
> it's a curiosity very much in the Agoran spirit).
> 
> 
> twg attempt to use contracts to induct the unwilling:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039950.html
> (Judged to have failed, but pointed out the need for clearer wording or
> stronger protections in the Rules).
> 
> 
> Honorable Mentions:
> 
> D. Margaux working the Contract Bug:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039896.html
> (and when twg scooped em, followed up with a different approach):
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039953.html
> 
> CuddleBeam pointing out that space wins are infinite:
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/039895.html
> 
> Falsifian, for pointing out that Satisfaction has been borked for over 2
> years (unfortunately late for the contest!  But the biggest bug correction
> for a while and Falsifian is working hard on a fix).
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/040023.html
> 
> twg's assertion that Rule 2571 is guilty of violating Rule 105.  (also too
> late to enter):
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33517.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 


Re: DIS: Re: More Politicking

2019-02-18 Thread D. Margaux
That’s fine. Honestly better for me for it to be INEFFECTIVE, because part of 
the idea was to invest some more influence before e became host, which ended up 
not happening.



> On Feb 18, 2019, at 1:41 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> Yes, I think it does make it INEFFECTIVE, per 2579's "must state the correct 
> set of assets for the fee". But feel free to CFJ.
> 
> -twg
> 
> 
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 12:39 AM, D. Margaux  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:04 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I pay 2 COS favours to gain 3 influence over Ronald Ray Gun.
>> 
>> Oops; that was supposed to be 2:2, not 2:3... I think?
>> 
>> Don’t know if that makes it INEFFECTIVE, or what. But wanted to point it out 
>> for H. Clork’s benefit.
> 
> 


Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Space Battle 003

2019-02-18 Thread D. Margaux
I was afraid you’d say that. I think this reduces twg’s armor from 10 to 0 and 
Gaelan’s stays at 10? I confess I haven’t paid much attention to the space 
rules though recently. 
If this is accurate I’ll resend to official
> On Feb 18, 2019, at 12:37 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> (Pssst! For this to be EFFECTIVE I think you also have to say by how much 
> each of our Armour was reduced by.)
> 
> -twg
> 
> 
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 5:34 PM, D. Margaux  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Resolved battle 003:
>> 
>> Gaelan spent 11 energy.
>> 
>> Twg spent 0 energy.
>> 
>> I think that means Gaelan wins.
> 
> 


Re: DIS: Impossible. Perhaps the archives are incomplete.

2019-02-18 Thread D. Margaux
Apologies—will send now. Thanks for alerting me. 

Also if anyone else is waiting for me, please feel free to let me know.  

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 12:22 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> D. Margaux,
> 
> Did you ever get around to resolving Space Battle 3 (Gaelan vs. me)? I have 
> an Energy value privately sent by me to you in my outbox, and I think I 
> recall Gaelan saying e'd sent you one as well, but I can't find any 
> resolution message from you.
> 
> Furthermore, going forward, can I request that Space Battle resolutions be 
> sent to OFF like Assessor resolutions? It would make them much easier to 
> find. (I haven't been doing this either but I will start.) I have an idea for 
> a R2593 amendment which will remove obligations on the Prime Minister and omd 
> to help resolve tricky Space Battles, which I'm sure will please G., so 
> nobody except us should need to remember to do it.
> 
> -twg


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

2019-02-18 Thread D. Margaux
To address G’s concern, what if the proposal were to say something like this:

The gamestate is changed to what it would have been if the text of the 
following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined whether Agora was Satisfied 
with any dependent action attempted after Proposal 7815, rather than the text 
of what Rule 2124 was at that time.

Rule 2124 is amended as follows: [amended text]

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 11:21 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 2/18/2019 7:07 AM, James Cook wrote:
>> The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken effect
>> immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had been
>> made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of Rule 2124 is now
>> as described in the amendment, since the Rules are changed by this
>> proposal as part of the gamestate.)
> 
> Can the Rulekeepor (or anyone) comment how this will be recorded in the FLR?
> Will we lose amendment numbers?  I wouldn't want to lose any historical
> annotations if we "set the gamestate" so that they didn't happen.  (given
> that they were important to figuring this out just now!)
> 
> And are there any side issues like this unclear enough to run against the
> "any ambiguity" standards of R105?


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2019-02-18 Thread D. Margaux
What if we approach this from the other direction—i.e., what kind of a thing 
could this “Protocol” action possibly be?

If this Protocol action isn’t somehow authorized (directly or indirectly) by 
the Rules, then it cannot be used to perform regulated actions and so there’s 
no reason for us to care. 

No Rule creates a Protocol action that can be invoked in this way. 

A proposal cannot continue to have effect after it is adopted, so a proposal 
can’t have created this Protocol action. 

Maybe this Protocol is defined in a contract, but it’s not clear why anyone who 
isn’t a party to that contract should care. As per a recent judgement, 
contracts can’t bind non-parties.

Where does that leave us?

What kind of a thing could this Protocol even be?

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 4:18 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> The closest thing I could find is this:
> 
> 
> 
> which relates to UNDEAD, but to the best of my knowledge Aris registered well 
> after UNDEAD was a major thing.
> 
> My default assumption whenever something like this happens is that whoever's 
> responsible is just trolling, although I concede that isn't very 
> characteristic for Aris.
> 
> ais523 mentioned something about the original definition being NttPF - we've 
> already checked the a-d archives, but maybe there was once something in the 
> IRC channel? Or does anyone know of any other discussion forums that have 
> been active since Aris registered? (Don't have time to look back through old 
> Registrar reports right now.)
> 
> If Aris remembers it but Gaelan doesn't, then the thing that needs 
> remembering must presumably have happened in late 2016 or early 2017, 
> assuming neither of them is being misleading.
> 
> -twg
> 
> 
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:41 AM, Cuddle Beam  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> The Protocol seems like something that could be interacted with but it’s
>> too obscure for uninformed people to properly react to (“if you remember”
>> and whatnot, implying it requires some kind of past knowledge, and there’s
>> nothing on the archives so I have no idea), I did the same lol.
>> 
>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 09:32, Gaelan Steele g...@canishe.com wrote:
>>> 
>>> This is incredibly frustrating. That being said:
>>> I object to any intents announced in the quoted message.
>>> If the quoted message initiates any Agoran Decisions, I vote for the first
>>> of {AGAINST, AFFIRM, G.} which is a valid option.
>>> If the quoted message contains an attempt to Ratify Without Objection an
>>> incorrect document, I point my finger at Aris for the class-8 crime of
>>> Endorsing Forgery.
>>> (Honestly, I doubt that any of that did anything. But it was fun to think
>>> through)
>>> Notice of honor:
>>> An extremely begrudging +1 to Aris for this frustrating puzzle
>>> -1 to CuddleBeam for taking the “slang” thing way past when it was funny
>>> Gaelan
>>> 
 On Feb 17, 2019, at 10:31 PM, Aris Merchant <
 thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
 I give notice that I intend to activate The Protocol, according to the
 timetable specified for activations thereof. (If anyone remembers what
 this
 means, please contact me rather than trying to block it; we may be able
 to
 work something out.)
 -Aris
> 
> 


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent

2019-02-18 Thread D. Margaux


> On Feb 18, 2019, at 4:18 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> ais523 mentioned something about the original definition being NttPF - we've 
> already checked the a-d archives, but maybe there was once something in the 
> IRC channel? Or does anyone know of any other discussion forums that have 
> been active since Aris registered? (Don't have time to look back through old 
> Registrar reports right now.)

Maybe e meant that the original definition wasn’t even sent to a discussion 
forum, which would be consistent with some sort of UNDEAD-like scam. That would 
be NttPF too.  

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3712 judgement

2019-02-17 Thread D Margaux



> On Feb 17, 2019, at 9:00 PM, Reuben Staley  wrote:
> 
> And y'all wonder why I've been falling behind on cases.

I was just being silly—I didn’t really plan to go forward with that motion :-)

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

2019-02-17 Thread D Margaux



> On Feb 17, 2019, at 5:11 PM, James Cook  wrote:
> 
> Is it easy to make that a separate proposal from my amendment
> proposal? Or is that complicated to do?

I think it would make the most sense to do it in one proposal if we could, 
right? 

I’m not sure what the right language would be. Maybe: “The gamestate is changed 
as if the Rule amendments in this proposal had taken effect immediately after 
the addition of the first paragraph in that Rule that has the number 4, and as 
if no further changes had been made to that Rule since.”

Could we add that to the fix proposal?

Not sure if that could break something else though...?

DIS: Re: More Politicking

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:04 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:
> 
> I pay 2 COS favours to gain 3 influence over Ronald Ray Gun.

Oops; that was supposed to be 2:2, not 2:3... I think?

Don’t know if that makes it INEFFECTIVE, or what. But wanted to point it out 
for H. Clork’s benefit. 

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

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:31 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> I'm not clear how your win attempt relies on it though. I understand that 
> you've arranged matters so that you only win* if intents are broken (because 
> otherwise the CFJ is eventually judged DISMISS), but not _why_ you've done 
> that. If you judged it PARADOXICAL again instead of DISMISS it would be 
> protected from motions to reconsider (either because these can only be done 
> once per CFJ, or because intents were broken) and from Moots (either via 
> Arbitor delays, or because intents were broken), leaving you with an 
> unpreventable win*. Also, since that works whether or not intents are broken, 
> you could have done this any time you liked, surely? As that would make the 
> mousetrap contract the only truly necessary component.

I think you’re right about this, but it relies on my abusing the office of 
Arbitor, and I’ve learned my lesson in that respect. My scam (would have) 
worked even if I act faithfully as Arbitor. But I messed it up. 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More Politicking

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:15 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> Forgive me, but I can't seem to find the rule(s) where the action of "causing 
>  to vote for  for " (presumably == "setting 
> 's Vote for  switch to ") is defined or 
> regulated.

Lol bugged

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

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux
Greed relic— taking all of the coins of an active player against eir will (e.g. 
through a contract scam)

> On Feb 17, 2019, at 6:02 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> The same applies to Ribbons. Raising a Banner (which just gives you a win)
> is harder than just winning (because it has as a prerequisite to win in the
> first place lol, to get the win-dependent ribbons).
> 
> Relics would be in the same spirit as Ribbons.
> 
> Anyways, proto:
> 
> [Ribbon-like function stuff here or just editting the Ribbon rules somehow,
> whatever is more wordcount economic to the Ruleset]
> 
> - Apathy Relic: yadda yadda apathy mechanic here.
> - Black Relic: There is no specified method for obtaining a Black Relic.
> - Pride Relic: [Escalation Scam stuff here. I don't know what an Escalation
> Scam is, please let me know lol]
> - Wrath Relic: When a person has an action cancelled via Rule 1698, that
> person earns a Wrath Relic.
> 
> Rule 1698 is the anti-ossification rule by the way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 11:06 PM Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>> 
>> Seems a little too difficult for me. Right now, generally the going rate
>> is “1 scam = 1 win”—asking that someone finds multiple scams, all of which
>> are fairly rare, just to get one win seems like it’s asking quite a lot.
>> 
>> Gaelan
>> 
>>> On Feb 17, 2019, at 1:19 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I heartily endorse this expansion.  It could soak up some other common
>> types
>>> of scams (e.g. one for a "scam of power 3" provides an outlet for
>> escalation
>>> scams).
>>> 
> On 2/17/2019 1:10 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 22:05 +0100, Cuddle Beam wrote:
> Probably we could have something like this:
> 
> "Relics are a Fixed Asset, limited to Persons, tracked by the Tailor.
>> Once
> a player has a Relic of all kinds, they can destroy all of their
>> Relics and
> declare victory. The following are the kinds of Relics:
> - Apathy Relic: yadda yadda apathy mechanic here.
> - Gluttony Relic: some other common scam outlet here"
> 
> Like that, people would like to still get a victory by Apathy but it's
>> no
> longer as toxic as it could be. Once you have one, you simply can't get
> more until you cash them all in, which takes a while.
 Like Ribbons but for scams?
 We could move the scam half of the Black Ribbon over there, which might
 make it less controversial, and replace the existing Black Ribbon with
 something that was purchasable, or obtainable by proposal (so that
 you'd bribe people to get one).
>> 
>> 


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

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 17, 2019, at 4:54 PM, Madeline  wrote:
> 
> Yo, this doesn't get you a win regardless of what follows because the Win by 
> Paradox rule only works for "a CFJ about the legality or possibility of a 
> game action", which this is not.


Arg. Well played, Ruleset, well played. 

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

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 17, 2019, at 3:37 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> Gaelan had to specifically ask me to remove my
> standard intent boilerplate, otherwise eir scam would have been trivially
> stopped

But Gaelan’s scam did identify a dangerous flaw in the intent rules. Would you 
have noticed it and objected in time if, instead, e had intended without 
objection to ratify a document that, e.g., gave everyone 50 blots?

DIS: Call for Judges

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux
To the People of Agora:

Your humble Arbitor beseeches you to consider signing up as a Day or Weekend 
judge. We’ve had a glut of CFJs recently, and I think it may be worthwhile to 
spread the caseload out more in hopes of getting more diversity in judicial 
opinions and alleviating a little bit the per-judge caseload.

-H. Arbitor

Re: DIS: no penalty for inappropriate judgments?

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 17, 2019, at 3:03 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> We used to have a "the judge SHALL NOT knowingly assign an inappropriate
> judgement" (which is one reason "appropriate" is in all the judgement
> choices).  Looks like we lost that somewhere along the line?  Or am I missing 
> it.

I didn’t see anything like that either. If I did break a rule, I won’t declare 
a paradox victory. I regret my last cheating victory, and don’t want to reprise 
it.

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

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:58 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On 2/17/2019 11:48 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
>> Anyhow, I don’t really expect this PARADOXICAL win (if it becomes a win) to 
>> be permanent. 
> 
> Why wouldn't it be permanent?  Nothing takes away the win once the judgement
> has been in place for 7 days, even if the judgement is overturned or
> overruled later.

Here’s why: if intents are broken, we really need to fix them. And I _think_ we 
should fix them in a way that makes them _retroactively_ fixed—i.e., also 
change the gamestate by proposal so that it conforms to what it _would have 
been_ if intents had been fixed all along.

If we do that, then the paradox win disappears, because the attempt I already 
made to change the judgement to DISMISS will be made EFFECTIVE retroactively.  

This idea occurred to me based on what you did, G., years ago when you 
deregistered everyone and then retroactively patched it. (Spent some time 
randomly going through the archives a few days ago.)

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

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux
I think maybe there is some confusion about how this scheme is meant to 
operate. Hopefully this clarifies it:

The idea here isn’t to abuse the Arbitor’s power to call or assess votes in 
moots. The idea is to take advantage of the fact that intents might be broken, 
so it might be _impossible_ to seek group-filed reconsideration or call a moot 
until intents are fixed by proposal. 

Indeed, the easy way to counter the scam (if intents _aren’t_ broken) is simply 
to file a group motion for reconsideration on Saturday, which would break up 
the 7 days, while also pursuing a moot. Which I’m happy to facilitate as best I 
can. 

But that’s basically unnecessary because (1) if it’s possible, then I already 
achieved that outcome in the original scam message by group-filing 
reconsideration and assigning the CFJ a judgement of DISMISS; and (2) if it’s 
impossible, then the scam can’t be countered except by proposal and the 
judgement will stay PARADOXICAL until a proposal passes to fix intents. 

Anyhow, I don’t really expect this PARADOXICAL win (if it becomes a win) to be 
permanent. Either Trigon will decide that intents aren’t broken (in which case, 
the PARADOXICAL verdict was already changed to DISMISS), or we will need to fix 
it by proposal, which I think _should_ include a provision to change the 
gamestate to what it would have been if intents had been fixed all along (so 
that the PARADOXICAL judgement would go away too).

Hope that all makes sense. 


On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:34 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:

>> If my attempt to announce intent for a Moot was successful - there seems to 
>> be some question about this? - you would also have needed to use (3) the 
>> power to delay a Moot for up to a week (and/or its resolution for a further 
>> week).
> 
> 
> Yes, the moot may or may not succeed—regardless of how quickly it is 
> distributed. The whole idea behind this scheme is that intents (other than 
> with Notice) might be completely broken. That’s the question in CFJ 3712, 
> assigned to Trigon. 
> 
> If intents _are_ broken, then the moot simply can’t be called by anyone until 
> it’s fixed (because it requires Agoran Consent).
> 
> If intents _aren’t_ broken, then the last stage of the scam, where I used 
> reconsideration with 2 support, already changed the verdict to DISMISS—so 
> there’s no need to moot. 
> 
> But as I said, I’m happy to facilitate (and provide support for) any moot 
> that people want to try.


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

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:17 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> 
> Yes you did: (1) the power to assign a judge to a CFJ in the same message 
> it's initiated; and (2) the power to personally select who judges a CFJ.

Nope. I didn’t use any Arbitor power. I used the Prime Minister’s cabinet order 
of certiorari, which I obtained by getting ATMunn to fall through the trap door 
in our contract, or, alternatively, by deputising this week. 

If someone else were Arbitor, I could still use certiorari in the same message 
and the scheme would succeed or fail just the same.

> If my attempt to announce intent for a Moot was successful - there seems to 
> be some question about this? - you would also have needed to use (3) the 
> power to delay a Moot for up to a week (and/or its resolution for a further 
> week).


Yes, the moot may or may not succeed—regardless of how quickly it is 
distributed. The whole idea behind this scheme is that intents (other than with 
Notice) might be completely broken. That’s the question in CFJ 3712, assigned 
to Trigon. 

If intents _are_ broken, then the moot simply can’t be called by anyone until 
it’s fixed (because it requires Agoran Consent).

If intents _aren’t_ broken, then the last stage of the scam, where I used 
reconsideration with 2 support, already changed the verdict to DISMISS—so 
there’s no need to moot. 

But as I said, I’m happy to facilitate (and provide support for) any moot that 
people want to try. 

DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux
Also... if intents are truly broken, that could lead to a lot of havoc in the 
gamestate. It would be potentially impossible to sort out. 

Maybe the fix legislation could say something like, “upon enactment of this 
proposal, the gamestate is changed to be what it would have been if the list 
had always been written the correct way.”  Not sure how to make that language 
work, but that would be the general idea. 

If it worked right, that would eliminate the below scam and also make sure 
nothing else is broken because of this intent issue. 


> On Feb 17, 2019, at 8:08 AM, D. Margaux  wrote:
> 
> Intents may be completely broken, and if they are, then that will
> eliminate the apathy win I've been angling to get for a while.  So, I
> think it's only fair to try to run a new scam based on the broken
> intents to get a win by paradox...
> 
> The CFJ called below will have the judgement PARADOXICAL if intents
> (and therefore moots) are broken.  If intents aren't broken, then it
> will have the judgement DISMISS.
> 
> 1. AMEND THE LIVING ZOMBIE CONTRACT TO MOUSETRAP GAELAN AND ATMUNN.
> 
> The parties to the Living Zombie contract are me, Gaelan and ATMunn.
> I can mousetrap them without violating my pledge, because my pledge
> has expired.
> 
> Pursuant to the Living Zombie contract and CFJ 3689, I amend the text
> of the Living Zombie contract by deleting the text enclosed in
> parentheses below:
> 
> //
> 
> The title of this contract is "Living Zombie."
> 
> This contract is EFFECTIVE only if D. Margaux and at least one other
> player gave consent to it on 31 October 2018; otherwise it is
> INEFFECTIVE.
> 
> Any party to this contract CAN use this contract to perform one or
> more of the actions enclosed in brackets below:
> 
> {
> 
> (Any party to this contract CAN act on behalf of )D. Margaux( to take any
> action on behalf of eir zombie permitted by the Rules,
> 
> Any party to this contract) CAN act on behalf of (D. Margaux to support
> or object to a dependent action,
> 
> )Any party to this contract( CAN act on behalf of D. Margaux to withdraw
> or change or cast a vote on an Agoran decision, which D. Margaux SHALL
> NOT change).
> 
> }
> 
> Any party to this contract who attempts to publish a message that
> exercises any power granted under this contract SHALL include in the
> subject line of the message the word "SPOOKY," or else the attempt is
> INEFFECTIVE.
> 
> On or after 7 November 2018, D. Margaux CAN terminate this contract by
> announcement and CAN amend it by deleting any text enclosed within
> brackets above, but not by the addition, substitution, or movement of
> any text.
> 
> Any player CAN become a party to this contract by announcement.
> 
> //
> 
> 
> 
> As a result, the contract now reads:
> 
> 
> //
> 
> The title of this contract is "Living Zombie."
> 
> This contract is EFFECTIVE only if D. Margaux and at least one other
> player gave consent to it on 31 October 2018; otherwise it is
> INEFFECTIVE.
> 
> Any party to this contract CAN use this contract to perform one or
> more of the actions enclosed in brackets below:
> 
> {
> 
> D. Margaux CAN act on behalf of Any party to this contract.
> 
> }
> 
> Any party to this contract who attempts to publish a message that
> exercises any power granted under this contract SHALL include in the
> subject line of the message the word "SPOOKY," or else the attempt is
> INEFFECTIVE.
> 
> On or after 7 November 2018, D. Margaux CAN terminate this contract by
> announcement and CAN amend it by deleting any text enclosed within
> brackets above, but not by the addition, substitution, or movement of
> any text.
> 
> Any player CAN become a party to this contract by announcement.
> 
> //
> 
> 2. CALL A CFJ
> 
> I call the following CFJ:  "This CFJ is FALSE."
> 
> 3. USE CERTIORARI TO ASSIGN IT TO THE PRIME MINISTER
> 
> If I am Prime Minister, I issue the cabinet order of certiorari to
> assign this CFJ to myself.
> 
> If ATMunn is Prime Minister, I use the Living Zombie contract to cause
> em to issue the cabinet order of certiorari to assign this CFJ to
> emself.
> 
> 4. JUDGE IT PARADOXICAL
> 
> Clearly the above-called CFJ is a paradox.
> 
> If I am the judge, I judge it PARADOXICAL, then self-file a motion for
> reconsideration, then judge it PARADOXICAL again.
> 
> If ATMunn is the judge, I use the Living Zombie contract to cause em
> to judge it PARADOXICAL, then cause em to self-file a motion for
> reconsideration of that CFJ, then cause em to judge it PARADOXICAL
> again.
> 
> 5. FORCE

Re: DIS: Re: Church of Ritual

2019-02-16 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 16, 2019, at 6:59 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> Or it could just be the Priest, really

Yes except that as currently worded, if there is a heretic, then the priesthood 
remains vacant. We could say that, when/if a player becomes a heretic, then the 
most recent priest becomes the inquisitor. 

> 
> Also, I suggest to be able to waive a Collect by submitting a sufficiently
> impressive work of venerative literature or art (it would also be a way to
> add more made-up creed and fun roleplay to this)

Lol sure haha

Re: DIS: Re: Church of Ritual

2019-02-16 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 16, 2019, at 6:54 PM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> 
> Maybe an Inquisitor to coordinate the consensus-shunning process and
> otherwise suggest appropriately religious punishments.

I like it!!!

Maybe if there is a heretic in a given week, then the Inquisitor can be an 
office imposed on the first faithful who performs the Ritual during that week. 
Basically, the inquisitor would be the faithful who _would have_ been the 
priest that week, except for the heretic’s prior performance of the ritual...

Re: DIS: Re: Church of Ritual

2019-02-16 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 16, 2019, at 5:25 PM, D. Margaux  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Feb 16, 2019, at 2:58 PM, Aris Merchant 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> I don’t much like the idea of enforcing minor violations against someone
>> who hasn’t agreed to it. It doesn’t quite seem fair.
> 
> Well, the heretic can point eir finger at all of the faithful for abetting 
> heresy...

But more seriously, if the people interested in joining preferred, we could use 
other language. But I’m still amused by the idea of having some sort of 
retaliation against a “heretic,” unless people are definitely opposed. 

 Maybe:

“The heretic MUST be shunned. The faithful SHOULD determine by consensus among 
themselves what an appropriate shunning would entail for any given heretic.”

Re: DIS: Re: Church of Ritual

2019-02-16 Thread D. Margaux



> On Feb 16, 2019, at 2:58 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> 
> I don’t much like the idea of enforcing minor violations against someone
> who hasn’t agreed to it. It doesn’t quite seem fair.

Well, the heretic can point eir finger at all of the faithful for abetting 
heresy...

  1   2   3   4   >