DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction
I pay Agora 2 coins to flip nichdel's Master Switch to myself. I act on their behalf to transfer all their assets to myself. On Fri, Feb 8, 2019, 19:38 Reuben Staley I pay Agora 5 coins to transfer PSS to me and then I act on behalf of em > to transfer all eir assets to me. > > On 2/7/19 8:24 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > > Thanks for the reminder. > > > > This auction is over. The winning bids are: > > > > G. bid 10 coins and won Hālian. > > Trigon bid 5 coins and won PSS. > > Jacob Arduino bid 2 coins and won nichdel. > > twg bid 1 coin and won Corona. > > > >> On Feb 7, 2019, at 10:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >> > >> I pay Agora 10 coins to flip Halian's master switch to G. > >> > >> On behalf of Halian, I transfer all of Halian's liquid assets to G. > >> > >> On 1/29/2019 10:14 AM, D. Margaux wrote: > >>> I initiate a zombie auction, with the following lots (each zombie a > separate lot) ordered as follows (highest-bid first): > >>> 1. Halian > >>> 2. PSS[1] > >>> 3. nichdel > >>> 4. Corona > >>> Agora is the Auctioneer, and the Registrar is the Announcer. The > >>> currency is Coins with a minimum bid of 1. > >>> > >>> [1] PSS = Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > -- > Trigon >
DIS: Re: BUS: Quang Revived
I jow D. Margaux's dnfficlxsmemx
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019, 10:02 Cuddle Beam I’d yum to your dnfficlxsmemx if I could.
>
> I define “tulky” and “maah” as “the following means nothing at all, don’t
> take it seriously:”
>
> tulky dvba for D. Margaux
>
> maah I declare a Dictatorship with 8008135 Power.
>
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 15:50, D. Margaux wrote:
>
> > I define dnfficlxsmemx to mean “object to the below intent.”
> >
> > I dnfficlxsmemx
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 9:42 AM Cuddle Beam wrote:
> >
> > > In light of this development, I define the following:
> > >
> > > - "I swoopie A swoopie X and B, swoppie Y" as shorthand for "This is a
> > > notice of honor. +1 Karma to A for X, and -1 Karma to B for Y", where A
> > and
> > > B are players, and X and Y are reasons.
> > > - "I hngah X for Y" as shorthand for "I make the following Proposal
> > > with title X, and content: Y", where X is a title and Y is proposal
> > > content.
> > > - "yum", "han" and "yip" as shorthand for "I object."
> > > - "yuck", "jow" and "hiff" as shorthand for "I support."
> > > - "kuukie" as shorthand for "I intend to"
> > > - "dvba" as shorthand for "declare victory by apathy"
> > > - "za" as shorthand for "vote FOR"
> > > - "az" as shorthand for "vote AGAINST"
> > >
> > > I swoopie Trigon swoopie for this new development and Agora swoopie I
> > don't
> > > know who really merits less Karma currently.
> > >
> > > If there are any proposals I can currently za for, I za them.
> > >
> > > kuukie dvba for myself.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2019 at 3:21 PM D. Margaux
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I withdraw this. After re-reading Trigon’s judgement, I think it’s
> not
> > > > necessary
> > > >
> > > > > On Feb 6, 2019, at 12:42 PM, D. Margaux
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I submit and pend this proposal:
> > > > >
> > > > > Title: Quang Revived
> > > > > AI: 1
> > > > > Coauthors: twg
> > > > >
> > > > > Amend Rule 2496 to replace the first paragraph with the following:
> > > > >
> > > > > { A player CAN earn the set of assets associated with a reward
> > > condition
> > > > exactly once in a timely fashion each time e fulfills it by stating
> how
> > > > many assets e earns as a result of this action or, in the case where
> > the
> > > > reward condition is satisfied for publishing a duty-fulfilling
> report,
> > by
> > > > stating that e quangs the office whose holder is duty bound to
> publish
> > > said
> > > > report. }
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
DIS: Ceasing to exist
Hello, By which mechanism have I ceased to exist? Thanks, - Jacob Arduino
DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy
I'm apathetic On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 10:33 AM Gaelan Steele wrote: > I’m apathetic, at least for now. > > Gaelan > > > On Dec 6, 2018, at 7:13 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: Fwd: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138
I see potential impeachment as an additional rather than an alternative disincentive On Nov 27, 2018 12:16, "Kerim Aydin" wrote: If I were the assessor, I wouldn't make this pledge personally. It's far too constraining for a few votes, and as I mentioned there's some good and valid reasons to resolve out-of-order, and 5 is a high bar. Your original intent was just to make sure 8133 was resolved before the others in this batch. There are no prior batches in the pipeline or any reason in the current batch to go out-of-order. You could just say "unless e pledges to resolve 8133 before e resolves any other decision". On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote: > Let me try to fix this again. > I change my votes on Proposals 8135, 8137, and 8138 to: > ENDORSE twg if e has made a public oath, specifying a time window lasting > until 60 days after eir time acting as Assessor has ended, to always > resolve proposals in numerical order, unless e recieves 5 consent to do > otherwise, and to never deputize anyone who has not made a pledge identical > to eirs, the breaking of which is a Class N crime, for some N greater than > or equal to 6 > AGAINST otherwise > -- Forwarded message -- > From: "ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk" > Date: Nov 27, 2018 11:27 > Subject: Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138 > To: "Agora Nomic discussions (DF)" > Cc: > > On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 08:20 -0800, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > Is there any reason we’d want proposals resolved out of order? I > > don’t see any off hand, but it’s worth making sure we’re not losing > > the ability to easily clean up some mess. > > It could potentially work as a counterscam, but if we need to do this > in an emergency, we could just have the Assessor resign and then have > someone deputise to resolve them in the required order. > > Come to think of it, the pledge being requested here could be worked > around via resigning Assessor (ending the pledge) then immediately > deputising yourself to resolve the proposals out of order. > > > -- > ais523 >
Re: BUS: Fwd: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138
Sorry, missed a stipulation: I change my votes on Proposals 8135, 8137, and 8138 to: ENDORSE twg if e has made a public oath, specifying a time window of the remainder of eir time as Assessor, to always resolve proposals in numerical order, the breaking of which is a Class 6 crime AGAINST otherwise On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 10:29 AM Jacob Arduino wrote: > Good catch > I change my votes on Proposals 8135, 8137, and 8138 to: > ENDORSE twg if e has made a public oath, specifying a time window of the > remainder of eir time as Assessor, to always resolve proposals in numerical > order > AGAINST otherwise > > -- Forwarded message - > From: Ørjan Johansen > Date: Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 04:42 > Subject: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138 > To: > > > On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote: > > > 8135 twg, D Margaux 2.0 Blot Decay (Reprise) > > ENDORSE twg if the Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved > > AGAINST otherwise > > > 8137 Aris, twg, Trigon 3.0 Uncorrecting Rewards > > ENDORSE twg if the Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved > > AGAINST otherwise > > > 8138 twg 2.5 Access to contracts' assets > > ENDORSE twg if the Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved > > AGAINST otherwise > > While I applaud the attempt to prevent the Assessor from gaining personal > advantage by reordering resolutions again, I don't think these work, > because conditionals are evaluated at the end of the _voting period_, not > when the proposals are later resolved. > > Suggestion: Try something like "ENDORSE twg if e has pledged not to gain > personal advantage by reordering proposal resolutions for this batch." > > Greetings, > Ørjan. >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting CFJs
Indeed I retract On Nov 27, 2018 09:48, "Kerim Aydin" wrote: You may wish to retract these CFJs: if everyone agrees you were right (well-spotted, btw) and Gaelan has changed eir votes so the issue is moot, no need to litigate. On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote: > CFJ: Gaelan's second ballot on Proposal 8136 is invalid. > Supporting statement: Rule 683/25 requires that "6. The voter has no other > valid ballots on the same decision." This condition is not met, since > Gaelan already submitted a ballot for Proposal 8136. > > CFJ: Gaelan's ballot on Proposal 8138 is invalid. > Supporting statement: Rule 683/25 requires that "4. The ballot clearly > identifies a *valid* vote, as determined by the voting method" (emphasis > mine). However, Gaelan has endorsed "two" on Proposal 8138, and there was > no player named "two" at the beginning of the voting period. > > By Rule 991/29, I bar Gaelan from judging both/either of these CFJs, for > obvious reasons. > > - Jacob Arduino >
DIS: Re: BUS: Voting CFJs
My second CFJ states re: 8138, not 8136. These might be too nitpicky, but I'd rather deal with it now than see you disenfranchised for something silly. On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:26 AM Gaelan Steele wrote: > Bah, do we need to explicitly retract votes? For clarity: I retract any > previous votes on 8136, then I ENDORSE whoever would otherwise be the last > person to vote FOR on 8136. > > And not sure what you mean by endorsing “two”—my record of the original > message I sent contains “ENDORSE V.J. Rada”. > > Gaelan > > > On Nov 26, 2018, at 8:34 PM, Jacob Arduino > wrote: > > > > CFJ: Gaelan's second ballot on Proposal 8136 is invalid. > > Supporting statement: Rule 683/25 requires that "6. The voter has no > other > > valid ballots on the same decision." This condition is not met, since > > Gaelan already submitted a ballot for Proposal 8136. > > > > CFJ: Gaelan's ballot on Proposal 8138 is invalid. > > Supporting statement: Rule 683/25 requires that "4. The ballot clearly > > identifies a *valid* vote, as determined by the voting method" (emphasis > > mine). However, Gaelan has endorsed "two" on Proposal 8138, and there was > > no player named "two" at the beginning of the voting period. > > > > By Rule 991/29, I bar Gaelan from judging both/either of these CFJs, for > > obvious reasons. > > > > - Jacob Arduino > >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Ballot for Proposals 8133-8138
Oh, okay. A couple quick questions: should I repost in Business, or just be careful in the future? Also, CFJs go in Business, right? Thanks, - Jacob Arudino <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=icon> Virus-free. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 7:01 PM ATMunn wrote: > FYI, things such as voting and the like are usually sent to the > agora-business list, not agora-official. Official is really only used > for reports, and maybe some other office-related duties. > > On 11/26/2018 6:17 PM, Jacob Arduino wrote: > > Votes inline - Jacob Arduino > > > > IDAuthor(s) AITitle > > > --- > > 8133 Trigon 1.0 Proposals aren't worth *that* much > > ENDORSE Trigon > > > > 8134 G. 2.0 The judge switch > > ENDORSE G > > > > 8135 twg, D Margaux 2.0 Blot Decay (Reprise) > > ENDORSE twg if the Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved > > AGAINST otherwise > > > > 8136 V.J. Rada 3.0 I hate myself > > ENDORSE whoever would otherwise be the last person to vote FOR. > > > > 8137 Aris, twg, Trigon 3.0 Uncorrecting Rewards > > ENDORSE twg if the Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved > > AGAINST otherwise > > > > 8138 twg 2.5 Access to contracts' assets > > ENDORSE twg if the Agoran Decision of Proposal 8133 has been resolved > > AGAINST otherwise > > > > < > https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=icon > > > > Virus-free. > > www.avast.com > > < > https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=webmail_term=link > > > > <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> > > >
Re: DIS: [Meta] Linguistic Experimentation
The Loglan and the Snerds both seem like useful constructions, and not at all mutually exclusive. I'll be sure to try my hand at both. - Jacob Arduino On Nov 22, 2018 20:16, "Aris Merchant" wrote: Indeed. Or perhaps "All Agorans are snerds". -Aris On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 5:04 PM Reuben Staley wrote: > > Instead, how about we adopt the following term: > > snerd > > * American English /snɚd/ > * British English /snəd/ > > (noun) 1. short for "super nerd"; i.e. "People who know Lojban are snerds" > > -- > Trigon > > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018, 17:41 Aris Merchant < > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote: > > > I propose to conduct an experiment into the nature of the Agoran > > dialect, and specifically how easy it is to change it. I'm planning to > > start occasionally sprinkling some Lojban indicators [1] into my > > emails. They represent expressions like "yay!", ";)", or "IMO", but > > Lojban has many more of them than English. I will gloss most of them, > > and guarantee that I will gloss anything that substantially changes > > the meaning of a sentence. This isn't an attempt to do an experiment > > from the perspective of rules or formal actions (I don't expect to do > > anything that causes a CFJ). Instead, I'm just going to start using > > some useful expressions and see if any of them become part of standard > > Agoran. Of course, I would encourage other interested parties to try > > doing the same thing. Does anyone have any objections to this > > proposal? > > > > [1] > > https://lojban.org/publications/cll/cll_v1.1_xhtml-chapter-chunks/chapter-attitudinals.html > > > > -Aris > >
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8123-8132
I vote as follows: IDAuthor(s) AITitle --- 8123 Gaelan 3.0 Independence FOR 8124 Trigon 1.0 Only proposals should be distributed AGAINST 8125 Trigon 3.0 Time periods are confusing AGAINST 8126 Trigon 3.0 High-level asset verbs FOR 8127 Trigon 2.0 Reinstituting Rewards FOR 8128 twg 2.0 [1] FOR 8129 twg, Trigon, G. 3.0 Bugfix: Treasuror doesn't self-ratify v2 PRESENT 8130 Gaelan 2.0 Law is Ambiguous Word Act FOR 8131 天火狐, twg 2.0 V.J. Rada Protection Act PRESENT 8132 Aris1.0 Website Ruleset Update Petition AGAINST - Jacob Arduino On Sun, Nov 11, 2018, 22:35 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com 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 5, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are > conditional votes). > > IDAuthor(s) AITitle > --- > 8123 Gaelan 3.0 Independence > 8124 Trigon 1.0 Only proposals should be distributed > 8125 Trigon 3.0 Time periods are confusing > 8126 Trigon 3.0 High-level asset verbs > 8127 Trigon 2.0 Reinstituting Rewards > 8128 twg 2.0 [1] > 8129 twg, Trigon, G. 3.0 Bugfix: Treasuror doesn't self-ratify v2 > 8130 Gaelan 2.0 Law is Ambiguous Word Act > 8131 天火狐, twg 2.0 V.J. Rada Protection Act > 8132 Aris1.0 Website Ruleset Update Petition > > > [1] With not very much responsibility comes fewer shinies > > The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below. > > // > ID: 8123 > Title: Independence > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Gaelan > Co-authors: > > > Prepend “Such an action is known as a dependent action.” to the > beginning of the last paragraph of rule 1728, “Dependent Actions.” > > // > ID: 8124 > Title: Only proposals should be distributed > Adoption index: 1.0 > Author: Trigon > Co-authors: > > > [ COMMENT: This was pretty useless back in the day and it still is. If >someone decides they need this mechanic for anything, just reenact >it. ] > > Repeal Rule 2515 "Distributing Assets". > > // > ID: 8125 > Title: Time periods are confusing > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Trigon > Co-authors: > > > [ COMMENT: The current way is a really roundabout way of doing it, in my >opinion. I'm not sure if this is any better, to be honest, but >I think it has some merit. ] > > Amend Rule 1728 "Dependent Actions" by: > replacing the following: >2. If the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N > Agoran Consent, or With Notice, if the intent was announced at > least 4 days earlier > >3. If the action is to be performed With T Notice, if the intent > was announced at least T earlier. > with: >2. The intent was announced at least T earlier. If T is undefined, > it is instead considered to be 4 days if the action is not With > N Support; otherwise 0 days. > > and by renumbering the list accordingly. > > // > ID: 8126 > Title: High-level asset verbs > Adoption index: 3.0 > Author: Trigon > Co-authors: > > > [ COMMENT: This terminology is ripped from the coins rule and applies to >all assets. I really like this one. ] > > Amend Rule 2577 "Asset Actions" by replacing the second paragraph with > the following three paragraphs: > For an entity to earn an asset is for that asset to be created in > that entity's possession. To grant an entity an asset is to create > it in eir possession. > > For an entity to lose an asset is for that asset to be destroyed > from that entity's possession. To revoke an asset from an entity > is to destroy it from that entity's possession. > > For entity A to take an asset from entity B is to transfer it from > entity B to entity A. > > > Amend Rule 2559 "Paydays"
