Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Hello and proposal
Er, well it would hopefully be more of a summary than a reportage.
The point being, someone like me who's been gone for god knows how long
could read the last couple of digests and have a fair idea of what's going
on.
On 21 May 2017 at 00:22, Quazie wrote:
> And this differs from rule 2446 how?
>
> Rule 2446/3 (Power=1)
> The Agoran Newspaper
>
> The Reportor is an office.
>
> The Reportor's weekly report includes:
>
> a) A suitable name for a newspaper, at the Reportor's
> discretion.
>
> b) A description of events that have happened since the last
> report that the Reportor believes significant or
> interesting.
>
> c) Any editorialization or other pieces of Agora-related
> information the Reportor pleases, as long as it is neither
> i) factually incorrect nor ii) disrespectful to any person
> or Agora itself.
>
> While meeting these requirements, the Reportor may format eir
> report however e pleases.
>
> The Reportor should keep in mind that the goal of eir weekly
> report is to create a more informed population.
>
> On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:18 PM James Beirne
> wrote:
>
>> I'd like to register as a player for about the fifth time.
>>
>> I'd also like to submit a proposal entitled "Reader's Digest": {
>>
>> Enact a new rule entitled "Reader's Digest": {
>>
>>
>> There exists an elected office called Digestive System. "Digestibility"
>> is a singleton switch tracked by the Digestive System with possible values
>> "MONTHLY" and "WEEKLY"; the Digestive System can flip this by announcement.
>>
>> The Digestive System SHALL regularly issue a report which accurately
>> summarizes the state and activities of Agoranomic throughout the relevant
>> period. This report need not be comprehensive, but will contain that
>> information, as assessed by the Digestive System, which would be of the
>> greatest relevance or importance for a player who had been inattentive to
>> the state of the nomic during the relevant period. If Digestibility is
>> MONTHLY, the relevant period is the preceding month; if it is WEEKLY, it is
>> the preceding week.
>> }
>> }
>>
>> - Ienpw III
>>
>
DIS: (no subject)
auctorem vero vitae interfecistis quem deus suscitavit a mortuis cuius nos testes sumus
DIS: Re: BUS: Ribbons, 2010 version
> While a person owns all types of Ribbon, that person can Raise a Banner > by announcement. This causes that person to win the game and a new game > begins. That person's Ribbon Ownership becomes the empty set. > ... > White (W): A player qualifies for a White Ribbon if e has never > previously owned a White Ribbon (including under previous rulesets). A > player who has been registered for at least 30 days and has never caused > another person to gain a White Ribbon (including under a previous > ruleset) CAN award a White Ribbon to another person by announcement. Does this mean it's only possible to win by Ribbons once? Is that the intent?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: "new"playerregistration
> > InmytypicalfashionIdeclaremyintenttoregisterinamannerthatiss lightlyannoyingtoprocessbutthatisstilllegalprovidedthatIamin terpretingtherulesetcorrectly. > Welcome back, Ienpw! Woo, thanks! As always, I hope *this* time I'll be more active!
Re: DIS: Proto: Chess
>So, our system is that we basically just have one player playing the game who optionally takes advice on how to play it? That doesn't seem very nomicy to me (even if it's the best way for us to play chess). >I'd prefer some sort of move voting system, perhaps where everyone can vote on one of the legal moves available to Agora and the Grandmastor is then obligated to play that move (and he would serve as the vote collector and break ties). Voting periods would probably need to be less than 7 days. Yeah, that's why I sent it around for discussion.Nommit will probably make them by consensus, as we have fewer players. It would be up to Agora to determine how to submit its moves. Someone in ##nomic suggested this way but I was originally thinking a voting mechanism of some kind.
Re: DIS: Proto: Chess
>When Agora's turn begins, the Grandmastor SHALL submit Agora's move to the nommitian Outlander-Speaker within 7 days. Oh, that's much neater. >Also, we can probably do both bits in one Rule. I just separated them for my own convenience above, as I'd like to have the first part as close to verbatim as possible in each nomic.
DIS: Proto: Chess
The general bit, to be adopted by both nomics:
{{
The Agora-nommit Chess Game is a game of chess played between Agora and
nommit. The Agoran Ambassador-at-Large and the nommitian Outlander-Speaker
shall determine which nomic will be White, after which the game will begin.
On its turn, each nomic SHALL use internally specified mechanisms to
determine its move. It SHALL report its move to the other nomic within 8
days, at which point that nomic's turn begins. The winner of the game will
be awarded the Internomic Chess Trophy.
}}
The Agoran bit:
{{
The Grandmastor is an office responsible for playing the Agoran-nommit
Chess Game on Agora's behalf. When Agora's turn begins, the Grandmastor
SHALL take up to 7 days to consider Agora's move; e SHALL then submit
Agora's move to the nommitian Outlander-Speaker.
Other players MAY suggest and discuss candidate moves to the Grandmastor;
the Grandmastor SHALL consider these moves before making a decision.
}}
---
Just a proto so feel free to tear it apart.
- Ienpw III
DIS: Re: BUS: Appeal 3383a
FWIW, I did actually consider them. I didn't address them because a) they were only briefly alluded to and did not change my opinion, and b) I was typing this on my phone. Is it necessary for a judge to address every argument in a case or only the ones they consider pertinent to their judgement? On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Charles Walker wrote: > On 29 Aug 2013, at 21:10, James Beirne wrote: > > I become active, make the following judgement, and then become inactive > again. > > > > --- > > > > In ruling on the case originally I probably put too much weight on the > opinions of a vocal few and misjudged Agoran tradition. > > > > I still feel Fool is guilty and deserving of a timeout, but I'll assign > a much shorter sentence. > > > > GUILTY/TIMEOUT 6 days > > I intend to appeal this with two support, because the judge has failed to > consider the arguments given by myself and various appellants regarding the > question of guilt. (I don't really blame em, it was nice enough to become > active to make the judgement.)
Re: DIS: nommit challenges you to a game of chess!
FTR, nommit's turnaround time is under a week (voting begins every Friday). On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Jonathan Rouillard < jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 3:23 PM, Max Schutz > wrote: > > wait explain how the deuce they are faster than us at proposals a nomic > is a > > nomic is a nomic isn't it > > > > > > A nomic I've played (in meatspace, mind you) had a proposal turnaround > time of about 30 seconds. The player read eir proposal aloud, people > voted on it immediately and we moved on. > > Nomic isn't a specific game, really, it's a class of self-modifying > games. You can get very different games (BlogNomic vs Agora vs B) > which are still all nomics. > > ~ Roujo >
Re: DIS: nommit challenges you to a game of chess!
On 2013-08-29 2:32 PM, "Benjamin Schultz" wrote: > > I think it would be properly Agoran to have our move adopted by proposal. Though we would need some mechanism to resolve simultaneous proposals. > > -- > OscarMeyr One potential problem with that would be if there was insufficient interest to meet quorum. Also, proposals can take weeks to pass, whereas nommit is unlikely to take more than a week for its moves. Though a proposal-like mechanism could work well and is what I was originally envisioning.
DIS: nommit challenges you to a game of chess!
C-walker and I have been discussing the possibility of a nommit-Agora chess game as an initial attempt at internomic relations. Basically, each nomic would have a (part of a) rule that looks like this: The nommit-Agora chess game is played between those two nomics. Each nomic shall submit its move to the other within [time period] of receiving the other's last move. The winner of the game is awarded the Internomic Chess Trophy. Or something to that effect. Each nomic would have its own mechanism for deciding moves. nommit will likely have an informal discussion to reach consensus. C-walker suggested that Agora might wish to create an office. Anyway, nommit's been a bit slow lately, so I was hoping to propose something to nommit soon. Thoughts? - Ienpw III, nommitian Outlander-Speaker
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] note to H. Judge Ienpw III
I don't mind becoming active to judge the case. I should be able to get to it this weekend. On 2013-08-27 4:04 PM, "Kerim Aydin" wrote: > > > On Tue, 27 Aug 2013, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Appeal 3383a > > - REMAND without prejudice (Woggle) > > - no opinion (Walker, Wooble) > > - With no majority, as CotC, I cause the panel to judge REMAND > without > > prejudice. > > Note that this puts the judgement back to H. Judge Ienpw III, > despite em being Inactive. > > As e was not Unqualified when e was first assigned, I do not > believe I can recuse or reassign. My apologies, I should have > checked first and opted for Remit. > > -G. > > > >
DIS: nommit recognizes Agora
As the recently-appointed Outlander Speaker of nommit ( http://www.reddit.com/r/nommit), I have the pleasure of informing you that you have been officially recognized (and declared NEUTRAL) by our burgeoning nomic. Following as it does your recent recognition of us, I am confident that we have a strong future of cooperation. I will communicate further with your Ambassador shortly.
Re: DIS: [Ambassador-at-Large] Note on nommit
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Craig Daniel wrote: > > Absolutely! Nothing wrong with it, any more than there's something >> wrong with playing two games of chess at once. >> >> Now I'm getting ideas for Bughouse nomic >> >> Any rule that gets repealed from Nomic A becomes a part of Nomic B? > > Yeah :D!
Re: DIS: [Ambassador-at-Large] Note on nommit
> Absolutely! Nothing wrong with it, any more than there's something wrong with playing two games of chess at once. Now I'm getting ideas for Bughouse nomic > Well, unless there's a rule in one of the Nomics that prevent you from joining another. =P I lololed > Gerontocracy is the current preference Ahhh, I was wondering what the point of that was. But yeah, if anyone wants to join nommit during this convention you should let me know and we can collude the heck out of it >:D My reddit user page is here: http://www.reddit.com/user/Ienpw_III - Ien On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Craig Daniel wrote: > Yes. When such an attempt is underway, it's not uncommon for the nomic on > the receiving end to try to quickly pass a rule barring players of the > other from joining. Sometimes that even works. > > Agora has never been invaded that I'm aware of, but is still a little > paranoid about it and has more robust mechanisms for trying to stop such > things in a hurry. Gerontocracy is the current preference; restricting > voting on many proposals to a subset of players designated as Senators is > another one that was around for an extended period, and I'm sure people who > actually play this specific game a bunch can tell you others that have been > used. > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Max Schutz wrote: > >> well i heard something about being in multiple nomics and people using >> that to try and take over a nomic >> >> >> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Jonathan Rouillard < >> jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Craig Daniel wrote: >>> > Absolutely! Nothing wrong with it, any more than there's something >>> wrong >>> > with playing two games of chess at once. >>> > >>> > Less, even, since outside of showing off it's considered polite to >>> give the >>> > one chess game you're in all your attention until it ends. >>> > >>> > >>> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Max Schutz >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> so we are allowed to be part of more than one nomic at once? >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Charles Walker >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> nommit has gone into a convention. Seems like a good time to join. >>> >>> >>> >>> http://www.reddit.com/r/nommit/comments/1k8d78/new_game_convention/ >>> >> >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> Well, unless there's a rule in one of the Nomics that prevent you from >>> joining another. =P >>> >>> ~ Roujo >>> >> >> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (corrected) Judgement: CFJ 3383
Yeah, I struggled a lot with this. I decided 21 in the end after comparing other sentences of TIME OUT. 7-14 days seems typical for repeated neglect of duties and this seemed a bit more extreme to me. On 2013-08-07 9:57 PM, "Craig Daniel" wrote: > On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: > > Oh, and further arguments: I think that the "please treat Agora right > good forever" clause is vague enough that it should not be punishable in > cases of negligence, but only in cases of actual malice. > > > > —Machiavelli > > I opine that a small amount of actual malice seems like a reasonable > interpretation of Fool's actions. However, I do think 21 days is a bit > much. >
DIS: Re: BUS: (corrected) Judgement: CFJ 3383
For the record, I support an appeal. On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Charles Walker wrote: > On 7 August 2013 20:18, omd wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 6:28 AM, James Beirne > wrote: > >> Judgement: GUILTY/TIME OUT (21 days) > > > > I intend to appeal this judgement with two support, as I disagree that > > Fool's actions so far have been sufficiently severely against the > > spirit of nomic as a whole, and I think it sets a bad precedent to > > punish players for anything other than the most severely poor form > > (and I'm pretty sure you can get a lot poorer than this) or a threat > > to the continued existence of Agora; while I've speculated about the > > potential impact of the scam on the latter, I agree with the judge > > that the threat has not been sufficiently realized. > > I support and do so, because punishing people for doing things that > are unexpectedly or ambiguously against the rules is a bad idea (which > is the reason for Rule 1504(d) and a world apart from finding out that > the rules have unexpected effects in general) and because the clause > in question is too vague to be enforceable except in the most extreme > cases. If there were a rule explicitly prohibiting anything Fool has > done, then this would be a different case entirely, but the > prosecution's case rests entirely on a vague, prominently placed > in-joke: not a good basis for a criminal prosecution. Were this an > inquiry case on whether Fool had violated the Rule in question, then > we might (or might not) find TRUE, but we apply (or at least ought to > apply) stricter standards in criminal cases. We ought to be able to > make a reasonable assumption that the defendant knew for sure that > they were going to violate the rules before they acted in order to > rule GUILTY, or at least that they would have known if they had read > and understand the rule in question (ignorantia juris non excusat and > all that). > > I submit the above as arguments. > > It's worth noting that if Fool's scam had been successful and we > wanted to prosecute em for it, then there would still not be > particularly strong grounds on which to do so. The proposal for a > right to participate is a good start, but it does not extend to > prohibiting bad form in general. Of course, defining "bad form" in > nomic is a minefield, and a blanket ban would be a bad idea when part > of the game is exploring these limits. But what about a rule > prohibiting clear, unambiguous and severe breaches of good form, with > clear malign intent? Or a rule with specific prohibitions (e.g. don't > prevent participation for more than a week, don't risk ending the > game, don't tarnish Agora's reputation)? >
Re: DIS: Proto: Players' Guide
> Two of the lists are backups in case the first three go down (yeah, we take things very seriously) "we take things very seriously" might be a bit intimidating for new players. I also think it;s worth mentioning the irc channel. - Ien On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Michael Slone wrote: > On 2013-08-06, Charles Walker wrote: > > I'd really appreciate some feedback on the following, in particular > > whether the ###-delimited section should be removed or not, but also > > generally. > > I think the ###-delimited section should be kept. > > Some minor nits: > > > > > A distribution is where the Promotor starts > > I'd reword this. > > > > You initiate an infraction case in the same way as a criminal case, > > specifying the defendent, the violated rule and the alleged > ^ > This should be "defendant". > > -- > Michael Slone >
Re: DIS: Ambassador's Survey - Your Chance To Win Great Prizes!
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Sat, 3 Aug 2013, James Beirne wrote: > > If I were to propose, say, a rule that randomly altered the power of > random rules, there's no chance in hell it would > > pass. Which is all nice and responsible, but Agora would be a lot more > fun if things like that weren't discouraged. > > I think we're all rather piratical here. Just about everyone here has > proposed something like > this, but no one votes for anyone else's. > > > Yeah, I'd assumed that was the case. I wish we did, though.
Re: DIS: Ambassador's Survey - Your Chance To Win Great Prizes!
> What is your general view of advertising Agora? > Where is it appropriate to advertise Agora? What kind of fora? Any specific sites? > What kind of things would you say in a message to possible recruits? My thoughts on recruiting follow: - Don't be annoying - We don't want an influx of players who register and don't do anything else, inflating quorum until they are forcibly deregistered - While it seems the majority of Agora's players are math/CS types, I think it has appeal to people with other interests too. For instance, while I am interested in math and CS, I'm an international relations guy and this kind of thing is right up my alley. Political scientists, linguists, lawyers > Why is Agora so terrible at gaining new players? And why is Agora so terrible at retaining players? Agora is boring. I'm actually playing this time around but there's still not a lot to actually /do/. Sure, I can make proposals, but unless they have only minor changes I'm very doubtful that /anyone/ but me would vote for them. Keeping track of administrative stuff is fun for some, I'm sure, but it's not my cup of tea. I have an app to play Go on my smartphone. And I don't have the time to trawl through a sixty-page ruleset to try to find or discredit scams. Maybe I'm just playing the wrong nomic but it seems like there's so much potential to appeal to all kinds of different players. Additionally, there's no real incentive for me to do anything or even check my emails beyond keeping from being hopelessly lost. In Blognomic, for instance, if you neglect the game for too long you're going to be at a disadvantage for the rest of the dynasty. I'm not saying Agora should pick up the pace, I guess what I'm getting at is that it doesn't feel like much of a game. And I would like to STRONGLY agree with Machiavelli's comments on the ruleset. > What can Agora do to improve its record at both of the above? The first thing that comes to my head is to be less restrictive and protective of the status quo. We don't want to irrevocably ruin the game, but it seems like there's a culture of disliking anything new. Now, novel mechanics and applications of existing mechanics do pass from time to time, but from what I've seen over the last few years they all seem like variations on the same theme. If I were to propose, say, a rule that randomly altered the power of random rules, there's no chance in hell it would pass. Which is all nice and responsible, but Agora would be a lot more fun if things like that weren't discouraged. > Would you support defining an FAQ document in the rules, to be tracked by some officer, which would be sent to each new player? Yes, and to me too please. > What about a newbie friendly ruleset format, with the rules defining gameplay at the start and abstract definitions further back? (Take a look at this http://agora.qoid.us/alr.txt) Rather than a differently-organized ruleset, I'd like to echo the suggestion of a (non-binding) newbie friendly rewrite of the rules. As others have said, the rules are terribly opaque. I have a lot of trouble figuring out how anything works without asking people on IRC, and that's a problem. > What would you think of a newbie "tutorial" system? E.g. The Promotor helps each new player write a proposal, the Assessor encourages them to vote, etc. within the first month of them registering. > What about a "mentor" system, where each newbie is assigned an Elder to show them the ropes? The mentor could get an economic bonus for each month the newbie is still an active player. This kind of thing could work in IRC. Personally, I'd feel more invested in the game from something as simple as people encouraging me to do things. Also I'd like to point out that I'm an Elder but I still don't know much about the figurative ropes. > Do you have any more suggestions or comments about recruiting and retaining new players? There's a common theme in my responses, I think, that I'm not articulating very well. My favourite things to do in nomics are a) breaking things and b) proposing interesting rules and seeing how they interact together. There's got to be a way to widen Agora's appeal without sacrificing what we already have.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Emergency Distribution of Proposal 7568
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 8:16 AM, Fool wrote: > On 01/08/2013 5:03 PM, James Beirne wrote: > >> FOR*1 >> > > I think you need to retract your previous vote first. > > I do so and vote FOR*1
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Government Waste election
On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 7:44 PM, Charles Walker wrote: > On 28 July 2013 23:39, Aaron Goldfein wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Charles Walker >> wrote: >>> >>> I hereby initiate the Agoran decision to elect the holder of the >>> Government Waste office. The eligible voters are the active >>> first-class players and each voter's voting limit is one. >>> >>> The options and their proposed salaries are as follows: >>> >>> woggle- (1+1)*(1+1+1)*(1+1)*(1+1+1)+1 >>> Ienpw III - 100+100+100+70+1 >>> Yally - 200+200+100 >>> scshunt - (5+5)*100 >>> Roujo - 5*10^5 >>> ais523- 10^9 >>> ehird - G >> >> >> I intend, with 4 support and without 5 elder objections, to initiate an >> election to decide IADoP. > > Why? > > (I object.) I also object.
DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Government Waste election
Also, I'll note that a more accurate breakdown of my proposed salary is 241.56+102.64+78.39/3+0.67, per my analysis. - Ienpw III On Sun, Jul 28, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Charles Walker wrote: > I hereby initiate the Agoran decision to elect the holder of the > Government Waste office. The eligible voters are the active > first-class players and each voter's voting limit is one. > > The options and their proposed salaries are as follows: > > woggle- (1+1)*(1+1+1)*(1+1)*(1+1+1)+1 > Ienpw III - 100+100+100+70+1 > Yally - 200+200+100 > scshunt - (5+5)*100 > Roujo - 5*10^5 > ais523- 10^9 > ehird - G
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Appeal 3365a assigned to Ienpw III, woggle, Yally
>Quite, but there's no point overruling to TIME OUT. Ideally I'd have preferred to assess a different penalty, but I wasn't sure whether doing so merely because he had subsequently gone on hold would have been inappropriate. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Charles Walker > wrote: >> On 24 Jul 2013 18:11, "James Beirne" wrote: >>> >>> >The panel (and future judges) should consider that the defendant recently >>> > made emself inactive, rendering TIME OUT most likely ineffectual. >>> >>> E was not inactive at the time of the original sentencing, though. >> >> Quite, but there's no point overruling to TIME OUT. > > Precedent comes to mind. > > ~ Roujo
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement, Appeal 3365a
Oh, I misunderstood. Yes, it is, but again, I don't see why the rules permit overruling if it's considered to be inappropriate. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: > On Jul 24, 2013, at 1:11 AM, James Beirne wrote: >> I'm not sure that I have introduced anything new to the case, rather >> than explaining why I felt the original judgement was inappropriate. > > Isn't the idea of a 7-day TIME OUT a new opinion? > > —Machiavelli >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Appeal 3365a assigned to Ienpw III, woggle, Yally
>The panel (and future judges) should consider that the defendant recently made >emself inactive, rendering TIME OUT most likely ineffectual. E was not inactive at the time of the original sentencing, though. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:07 AM, Charles Walker wrote: > On 24 Jul 2013 08:39, "James Beirne" wrote: >> >> What follows is not really a direct reply but is an explanation, of >> sorts, for my feelings towards the sentence, particularly as to why I >> feel a time out is appropriate. > > The panel (and future judges) should consider that the defendant recently > made emself inactive, rendering TIME OUT most likely ineffectual.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Appeal 3365a assigned to Ienpw III, woggle, Yally
What follows is not really a direct reply but is an explanation, of sorts, for my feelings towards the sentence, particularly as to why I feel a time out is appropriate. Perhaps this is coming from my lack of experience, but the rules seem to very clearly permit and encourage appellate panels to provide alternate sentences if they deem it appropriate. Furthermore, it seems to me that failure to publish a report should not be considered a "minor infraction" as (for me, at least), it serves as an important tool to keep up with the game. If players were compelled to hold offices I'd feel differently, but whereas it's entirely voluntary, failure to discharge duties (ie., not do something you signed up to do) seems (to me) deserving of a stricter punishment. If one wanted to not discharge eir duties and avoid punishment, one could simply resign the office. In this case, the defendant did not resign. On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, James Beirne wrote: >> >but that we also wish to avoid making a decision on sentencing on our own >> >> Is that not exactly what the text of rule 911 states we should do? > > There's actually a difference of opinion here. I personally think appeals > courts should overrule more than they do. > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Appeal 3365a assigned to Ienpw III, woggle, Yally
>but that we also wish to avoid making a decision on sentencing on our own Is that not exactly what the text of rule 911 states we should do?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement, Appeal 3365a
My ruling was based on rule 911, which states, in part: >OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior >case, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate in >the prior case and the replacement judgement is appropriate >for the prior case; the replacement judgement is assigned to >the prior case I'm not sure that I have introduced anything new to the case, rather than explaining why I felt the original judgement was inappropriate. - Ien On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Tanner Swett wrote: > I object to this judgement of OVERRULE. I think that since OVERRULE is not > subject to oversight, it should not be used to introduce new opinions, but > rather only to affirm existing opinions (presumably implementing the > judgement suggested by the appellant, or some such), or to effect a judgement > in a case where it is patently clear that that judgement is uniquely > appropriate (and thus there is no room for opinion). Introducing new opinions > should be done using REMIT or REMAND, so that future judges have the ability > to contest the opinion. > > —Machiavelli
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: I can't be arsed to remember / how many days hath September
>Just say 12 weeks Personally, I prefer the date to be as consistent as possible rather than the day of the week. Not that the elections are obliged to be then, of course, but it's just my preference. On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:37 PM, James Beirne wrote: >> I'd definitely prefer just saying "within 3 months before" and letting the >> IADoP handle any disputes. >> —Machiavelli > > And I suppose it would only be a problem something like 5 days per > year, and even then only if there was supposed to be an election.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: I can't be arsed to remember / how many days hath September
> I'd definitely prefer just saying "within 3 months before" and letting the > IADoP handle any disputes. > —Machiavelli And I suppose it would only be a problem something like 5 days per year, and even then only if there was supposed to be an election.
DIS: Re: BUS: Election!
As an aside, are non-integer denominations of Yaks permitted? On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:39 AM, James Beirne wrote: > Oh, I missed this. I nominate myself. > > After an in-depth examination and assessment of the office, I have > determined that I will require Y241.56 as my base salary. In addition, > my office will require Y102.64 in discretionary expenditures. > > The total cost billable cost for this assessment comes to Y78.39. > Assuming I remain in office for 3 months, this works out to > Y26.13/month. I must also, regretfully, assess an Inconvenient Value > charge of Y0.67. This gives, as the total of the salary with which I > nominate myself, Y371. > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Aaron Goldfein > wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Sean Hunt >> wrote: >>> >>> I initiate an election for Governmental Waste. I nominate myself with >>> Salary 1000. >>> >>> -scshunt >> >> >> I nominate myself as well, with a salary of merely 500.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] The One That Got Left Behind
Oh, good, I was worried I'd done something wrong. On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:42 PM, omd wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:40 PM, James Beirne > wrote: >> Is there any particular reason that "Standardized election days (sort >> of, not really)" is not included in the pool? > > Nope, other than apparently even switching to a much better way of > sorting through the list archive isn't enough to avoid missing things.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] The One That Got Left Behind
Is there any particular reason that "Standardized election days (sort
of, not really)" is not included in the pool?
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:26 PM, omd wrote:
> The Proposal Pool contains the following proposals:
>
> NUM AI PF C D AUTHOR TITLE
>
> 7548 2 25 O 1 Walker Recruitment Sanity
>
> }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>
> Proposal 7548 (AI=2, PF=Y25, Ordinary, Distributability=1) by Walker
> Recruitment Sanity
>
> Amend Rule 2401 by removing "each" and "the recruit and" from the last
> paragraph.
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Π have feelings, you know!
>it includes lots of numbers that are extremely difficult to describe We'd have to describe them in order to set a rule's power to that. >arguably, weirdo numbers like... the surreal numbers Arguably. Besides, this proposal isn't going to automatically add 3i to every rule's power; there's still the matter of passing proposals as a check. >Meanwhile, the rational numbers have the convenient property that every >countable totally ordered set is order-isomorphic to a subset of the rational >numbers. I don't think this is terribly relevant for any irrational numbers we can actually describe. On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: > On Jul 22, 2013, at 1:51 AM, James Beirne wrote: >> Proposal: Π & Co.: >> >> Remove the word "rational" from rule 1688. > > Why would we want to do that? The set of all non-negative numbers is pretty > nebulous; it includes lots of numbers that are extremely difficult to > describe, or not possible to define in finitely many symbols, along with, > arguably, weirdo numbers like the ordinal numbers, the cardinal numbers, the > complex numbers, the split-complex numbers, the dual numbers, and the surreal > numbers. Meanwhile, the rational numbers have the convenient property that > every countable totally ordered set is order-isomorphic to a subset of the > rational numbers. > > --Machiavelli
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: I can't be arsed to remember / how many days hath September
This was intended to mean that it will be on the Nth of month + 3, but I wasn't thinking about end-of-month elections. My preferred alternative would be something like: >a) by announcement, if e is the IADoP, or the office is vacant > or assumed, or no election has been initiated for the office > since the Nth of M-3, where N is the current calendar day > of the Mth month (if there is no corresponding day in that > month then the first day of the next month is used > instead); But that's a really clunky solution to a trivial problem. - Ienpw III On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 6:08 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Mon, 22 Jul 2013, James Beirne wrote: >> >a) by announcement, if e is the IADoP, or the office is vacant >> > or assumed, or no election has been initiated for the office >> > within 3 months before the announcement; > > I hate calendars. > > Does this mean that if the earlier date is the Nth of a month, than the > later date is the Nth of (month + 3)? What if the earlier date is a 31st? > Etc. > > Other options: "12 weeks", "In the current quarter", "in any of the past > 3 Agoran months". > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: blargh
Having only skimmed the offices rules, I am not sure if this is legal, but if it is: I assume the office of Government Waste. On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 2:45 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: > I go on hold. > > I resign all my offices. > > -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: The Agoran Digital Revolution
>World Wide Web That takes me back On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Tanner Swett wrote: > I submit a proposal, titled "Public Displays": > > Amend Rule 2143 "Official Reports and Duties" by appending the following > paragraph: "Officers SHOULD maintain a publicly visible copy of their > reports on the World Wide Web, and they SHOULD publish the address of this > copy along with their published reports." > > —Machiavelli
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
>If the rules were to change to allow players to be bound to a constitution they did not agree to, why would that be considered an "agreement"? If two people agreed to that party's constitution it would be an agreement, just not one that all bound players agreed to. - Ienpw III On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 9:25 PM, Fool wrote: > On 19/07/2013 9:01 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, 18 Jul 2013, Fool wrote: >> >>> I don't even see the point of iii. I realise there's history here, but >>> the >>> rules don't define "agreements" anymore, so what does this do? >>> >> >> As there is no official definition, we use a common legalistic sense of >> the term. That's broad in definition, and historically refers to all >> types of binding document that one might agree to. Parties are >> agreements, >> as were recent Contests. >> >> > Doesn't 101 iii. then just restate this definition? > > > Protects against a party constitution like "Anyone who posts the word >> 'the' to the public forum joins this party. To leave without violating >> this >> constitution, you must give us all your Yaks". >> > > At the moment, the rules already only have you joining voluntarily. So 101 > iii does nothing here. > > If the rules were to change to allow players to be bound to a constitution > they did not agree to, why would that be considered an "agreement"? > > E.g. A sentence of COMMUNITY SERVICE binds a player to something (an > arbitrary set of prescribed tasks) they did not agree to, nor had a chance > to review. This is not an agreement. > > -Dan >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Returning Officer] General Election
I vote for omd. On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 4:34 PM, woggle wrote: > On 7/9/13 12:57 , Charles Walker wrote: > > I hereby initiate the general election, in which the valid options are > the > > party leaders, omd and Fool, and NO CHANGE; the eligible voters are the > > active players other than the Speaker (there is no Speaker at present); > and > > the voting limit of an eligible voter is eir VVLOP, or twice eir VVLOP > if e > > is a Minister (no player is a Minister at present). The vote collector is > > the Returning Officer. > > I vote NO CHANGE. > > - woggle >
DIS: Re: BUS: Inactivity intents (Henri, Ienpw III)
I object to making me inactive. On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 2:47 PM, omd wrote: > I intend, without objection, to make Henri inactive. > I intend, without objection, to make Ienpw III inactive. > > (As a reminder to the players in question, it is normal to object if > you don't want to be inactive.) >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: rerereregistration
Thanks! I have a history of registering and idling out of things, so here's hoping this time's different. On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Charles Walker wrote: > On 14 May 2013, at 02:28, James Beirne wrote: > > > I, reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously, announce my intent > to rerereregister as a player of Agora. > > Welcome! > > -- Walker
DIS: I am Ienpw III...
...by the way, and I'd like be referred to by that name (if it's not too much trouble).
Re: DIS: Failed entry into BlogNomic
I'm a blognomic player. Our rules state that "anybody" can be a player. To me, at least, a game is not "anybody", but this question of interpretation would likely be settled by CFJ. On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Charles Walker wrote: > On 11 August 2011 16:10, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: >> On 11 August 2011 17:03, Charles Walker wrote: >>> On 11 August 2011 15:42, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: I don't see why it can't be the mission of the Ambassador to act in Agora's best interest. That's pretty much what an ambassador used to be about: the guy who was entrusted to hang out in other countries and know what the people back home would want him to say. /Tiger >>> >>> In that case we would need a rule allowing the Ambassador to act on >>> Agora's behalf in other nomics. At the moment there simply isn't a >>> mechanism which allows it to act at all. >>> >> So this: >> >> When the office of Ambassador first becomes filled, the holder >> SHALL as soon as possible attempt to cause Agora to become a >> player of BlogNomic. >> >> is kind of pointless? It allows for me to cause Agora to become a >> player, rather than ruling that Agora should become a player, so this >> far it's explicitly me on behalf of it. But yeah, there's nothing at >> all about Agora taking actions elsewhere, now that it is a player >> there. >> >> /Tiger >> > > I suppose this might depend on what BlogNomic considers Agora being a > player of it to consist of. In Agora, legal (second-class) persons > have to meet certain criteria and can only act as defined by the > Rules. Does BlogNomic allow legal persons to play, or have certain > restrictions in place? > > -- > Charles Walker >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: meh
On 30/12/2009 12:50 AM, Sean Hunt wrote: On 12/29/2009 08:44 PM, Pavitra wrote: I go on hold. It /is/ a Holiday. -coppro P.S. anyone know how to get Thunderbird 3 into plaintext mode by default? Tools -> Account Settings -> Composition and Addressing -> Uncheck Compose Messages in HTML Format -- James Beirne
Re: DIS: for the record
On 17/12/2009 10:46 PM, comex wrote: 12:26< benuphoenix> For the record, I have been having trouble reading anything from "schrodingers.katana at gmail dot com" due to volume of mailing lists. Can't you just use filters/labels? My account handles being subscribed to loads of (mostly unread) mailing lists quite easily. Or use Thunderbird or something.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
Aaron Goldfein wrote: Sat 14 Nov 20:38 yuri_dragon_17 changes eir nickname to lenpw III Note that this is an I, not an L.
DIS: Nomopoly IV
My Monopoly-nomic fusion got me thinking about Nomopoly. After viewing the ruleset, I thought that I'd give it a try. It's located here: http://groups.google.com/group/nomopoly-iv
Re: DIS: smarc
Elliott Hird wrote: 2009/11/15 James Beirne : And it's probably easier not to ask what it means. I don't know, my email client makes it very easy to reply to messages. what does it mean? what does it all MEAN? Easy to ask, maybe. Not easy to answer.
Re: DIS: Metanomics?
Elliott Hird wrote: there isn't a big enough nomic landscape to do it nowadays, anyway. That's a shame, too.
Re: DIS: Metanomics?
Kerim Aydin wrote: On Sun, 15 Nov 2009, James Beirne wrote: Just wondering what Agora's historical opinion and stance towards them has been. Do you mean a subnomic or a supernomic (in relation to Agora)? We've tried both a couple times but they haven't been sustained very long (just interest level hard to maintain I think). -G. Supernomic. And that's a shame.
DIS: Metanomics?
Just wondering what Agora's historical opinion and stance towards them has been.
DIS: Re: BUS: Cookie Jar is too arbitrary for me
Ed Murphy wrote: c. wrote: I intend, without three objections, to flip the contestmaster of Cookie Jar to none. I object. Why not submit guesses yourself? I object.
Re: DIS: smarc
James Beirne wrote: smarc smarc smarc smarc smarc smarc smarc smarc Believe me, I did not mean to send this to this mailing list. I promise to be more careful in the future. And it's probably easier not to ask what it means.
DIS: smarc
smarc smarc smarc smarc smarc smarc smarc smarc
DIS: I am bored.
So now my NEW NAME is Ienpw III. - yuri_dragon_17
