Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Interesting Chambers v2

2019-10-15 Thread James Cook
On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 at 10:09, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 5:51 AM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote
...
> > How would you feel if we explicitly made it so it repealed itself
> > immediately before each ruleset ratification takes effect? That’d stop it
> > lurking forever without explicitly being renewed, while also removing
> > ambiguity about how ratifications affected it.
>
> We do have an open CFJ (3775) about how ratifications would affect it, so 
> hopefully the ambiguity won't be around for much longer.
>
> -twg

The Ruleset definition, which I think was adopted after that CFJ was
called, might also help with ambiguity.

Ratification making it go away is nice. I still doubt I will vote FOR,
but I'm not really that worried about it.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto: Interesting Chambers v2

2019-10-14 Thread James Cook
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 at 22:17, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 12, 2019 at 3:12 PM Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 12, 2019 9:15 PM, D. Margaux 
> > wrote:
> > > I point my finger at Murphy for uttering the forbidden name
> >
> > -twg
> >
> > After a not-inconsiderable amount of research, I've found no evidence that
> > the rule Murphy refers to ever existed, and if it did, it definitely didn't
> > call the associated violation "Uttering the Forbidden Name" (a phrase which
> > appears nowhere in the archive of any public forum). Therefore I declare
> > this finger-pointing Shenanigans.
>
>
>
> > Are there any objections (especially from the H. Referee) to making that
> rule a reality? I’m aware that it could create a minor mess, but would just
> be so much fun, and the penalty for violating it is quite minor.
>
> -Aris

I've wondered before whether people have planted some snag like this
in Agora's history that new players like me have no practical way to
know about.

This is a quite elegantly simple way to implement my fear, with
probably no bad effects. It's cute, but I still feel mildly opposed.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: zombie action specification

2019-10-13 Thread James Cook
On Sat, 12 Oct 2019 at 21:36, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> For future reference, naming your zombie in the message is required, no
> references like "my zombie" allowed (CFJ 3663).  OTOH, as came up in an
> earlier conversation this week, CFJ 3663 also found that "I cause" works
> fine as an "I act on behalf" synonym:

Thanks for resolving that. I'll assume twg's action succeeded in my
reports, and when handling the auction.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Unoffical contest: subgame in a rule

2019-10-09 Thread James Cook
Two comments:

* The Registrar's report traditionally includes an unofficial list of
"Watchers". It would be nice if this rule used different terminology;
otherwise I think we'd have to either change the unofficial term or
wrap that part of the Registrar's report in a careful disclaimer. (It
would have been funny if nobody noticed this and Gaelan hadn't noticed
that Watch Rule is by default tracked by the Registrar.)

* R2518 says a value is indeterminate if it can't be reasonably
determined from information reasonably available. Does that mean it
must be possible for anyone to determine it, or just for someone (the
Watchman) to? If the former, then Look Target will stay at the
default. I wonder if there's precedent on this.

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 at 15:16, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
>
> Little bit of lint:
>
> - Your switches don’t specify officers so get tracked by the Registrar. You 
> need to specify that Watch Role is tracked by the Watchman, and that Look 
> Target is untracked. (If it were tracked, the Watchman would need to publish 
> its values, which I think defeats the point.)
> - There’s no way for someone to become Exiled.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Sep 1, 2019, at 9:34 PM, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> >
> > On 8/31/19 8:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >>
> >> Hear Ye!  Hear Ye!
> >>
> >> Let's try another semi-periodic and semi-official contest, this time 
> >> called:
> >>
> >>COMPLETE SUB-GAME IN A SINGLE RULE
> >>
> >
> > Intent to become an entry, yada yada.
> >
> > Not sure how good this is, but the option to do stuff either publicly or 
> > privately might lead to some interesting strategy.
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Create a power-0.5 Rule with the title "The Watch" and the following text:
> >
> > {
> >
> > Watch Role is a player switch with possible values Uninvolved (default), 
> > Watcher, and Exiled. A person with the Watch Role of Watcher is a 
> > "Watcher". Look Target is a player switch with possible values "null" 
> > (default) and each player. To flip one's Look Target to a certain person is 
> > to "look" at that person. To flip one's Look Target to null is to "stop 
> > looking".
> >
> > For a person to leave the Watch is to first flip eir Watch Role to 
> > Uninvolved, then to stop looking. To reset the Watch is to cause each 
> > player to leave the Watch.
> >
> > Watchman is an elected office. When a person becomes the Watchman, e leaves 
> > the Watch; rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Watch Role of the 
> > Watchman cannot be flipped. The Watchman CAN, with 2 Agoran consent, reset 
> > the Watch.
> >
> >
> > A person with a Watch State of Uninvolved CAN flip eir Watch State to 
> > Watcher by announcement. A Watcher CAN leave the Watch by announcement. A 
> > Watcher CAN, once per Agoran week, look at any Watcher or stop looking by 
> > communicating to the Watchman that e does so (a public announcement 
> > satisfies this criterion).
> >
> >
> > If there are at least 5 Watchers, a Watcher CAN by announcement Check eir 
> > Watch. When one does so:
> >
> > - If a majority of Watchers are looking at that Watcher, the Watchman CAN, 
> > and SHALL in a timely fashion, cause em to win the game and then reset the 
> > Watch.
> >
> > - Otherwise, the Watchman CAN, and SHALL in a timely fashion, cause em to 
> > leave the Watch.
> >
> > }
> >
> > ---
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jason Cobb
> >
>


-- 
- Falsifian


DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Blasphemy

2019-10-02 Thread James Cook
On Wed., Oct. 2, 2019, 13:15 Jason Cobb,  wrote:

> I submit the following proposal:
>
>
> Title: Blasphemy
>
> AI: 1
>
> Text:
>
> {
>
> Destroy the contract that is known as the Reformed Church of the Ritual.
>
> [It's useless now.]
>
> }
>
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>

The parties can destroy it on their own if they so desire. It owns some
coins, so I think it would be unfair to destroy it without their consent.

It does take up space in the Treasuror weekly report. I was thinking a
while ago that it would be interesting to make contracts disappear if they
are not actively maintained, e.g. by posting the full text and set of
parties every month. Another reason to do this is that I find it a bit
unsettling that I can't practically know what contracts exist, even public
ones, because they aren't tracked. It doesn't seem to have much practical
consequence, so I'm not sure it's worth adding bureaucracy.


Re: DIS: Proto: Extenuating Circumstances

2019-09-29 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 29 Sep 2019 at 05:03, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> Title: Extenuating Circumstances
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-author(s):
>
>
> [The intent of the below is that if one rule says SHALL and another one says
> SHALL not, the conflict resolution rules are applied to determine which
> rule wins. If the person CANNOT do what they SHALL do, the conflict resolution
> mechanics don't need to be invoked; this rule overrides the rule setting
> the SHALL.]
>
> Enact a new power 3.0 rule, entitled "Extenuating Circumstances", with the
> following text:
>
>   Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, SHALL implies MAY and SHALL NOT
>   implies NEED NOT.
>
>   Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, if someone CANNOT do something, e
>   NEED NOT do it.
>
>   The prior provisions of this rule do not apply when the party under an
>   obligation could reasonably have been expected to avoid the situation where
>   they would be applicable, nor do they apply when waived, either by the 
> express
>   statement of the entity establishing the obligation or by manifest common
>   sense.
>
>
> [This *should* work, since changing precedent is an instantaneous action.
> I'm open to comments here, it just seems messy to add a clause to this
> effect as a permanent part of the rule.
>
> The intent is that basically every precedent that establishes those rules
> is amended to include "but this precedent doesn't apply so long as the
> Extenuating Circumstances rule is in effect". Since precedent is a matter of
> custom anyway, we should be able to override it in a proposal.]
>
> It is the will of Agora that the rule enacted above supersede any prior
> precedents along similar lines, for so long as it may exist, and it is
> accordingly declared to do so.

Until now, my understanding of SHALLs and SHALL NOTs was that
accidentally getting oneself into a situation where one both SHALL and
SHALL NOT, or SHALL and CANNOT, etc, do something was part of the
game, and I assumed the Ruleset had no mercy in this regard.

Wouldn't that be simpler? Otherwise, deciding when exactly a CAN
should imply a SHALL seems kind of complicated. The cost is that we
may unfairly punish people sometimes (and hopefully patch up the rules
whenever that happens), but it's all in fun, and crimes can be
forgivable after all.

To be fair, my preference for this way probably to a large part stems
from the fact that that's how I've understood things until now.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Finger bending

2019-09-29 Thread James Cook
On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 22:22, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 3:10 PM James Cook  wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 18:44, Edward Murphy  wrote:
> > > Proposal: Finger bending
> > > (AI = 1.7, co-author = twg)
> > >
> > > Amend Rule 2478 (Vigilante Justice) by replacing this text:
> > >
> > >The Referee is by default the investigator for all Finger
> > >Pointing. When a Finger, other than the Arbitor's, is Pointed over
> > >an allegation related to the official duties or powers of the
> > >Referee, then the Arbitor CAN, by announcement, take over the
> > >investigation and thereby become the investigator.
> > >
> > >The Referee CANNOT Point eir Finger. The Arbitor CANNOT Point eir
> > >Finger at the Referee.
> > >
> > > with this text:
> > >
> > >The above notwithstanding, the investigator CANNOT resolve a
> > >Finger Pointing for which e is the perp.
> > >
> > >The Referee is by default the investigator for all Finger
> > >Pointing. If the Referee is the perp, then the Arbitor CAN
> > >become the investigator of that Finger Pointing by announcement.
> > >
> > > [Limiting resolution is more important than limiting initiation, as
> > > offices may change hands during the process.]
> >
> > What if someone points eir finger at the Referee, and the Arbitor
> > doesn't take over? Wouldn't that put the referee in a bad position,
> > since e would be required by the SHALL but unable due to the CANNOT?
>
> Longstanding, although admittedly uncodified, precedent states that
> someone always NEED NOT do something that e CANNOT do, with like one
> exception not applicable here. This is one of those things that should
> really be codified; I'll write up a proposal to do that.
>
> -Aris

Do you remember what reasoning that precedent is based on? R2152 seems
pretty clear about the meaning of SHALL; is it based on some other
high-powered rule?

-- 
- Falsifian


DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Finger bending

2019-09-28 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 18:44, Edward Murphy  wrote:
> Proposal: Finger bending
> (AI = 1.7, co-author = twg)
>
> Amend Rule 2478 (Vigilante Justice) by replacing this text:
>
>The Referee is by default the investigator for all Finger
>Pointing. When a Finger, other than the Arbitor's, is Pointed over
>an allegation related to the official duties or powers of the
>Referee, then the Arbitor CAN, by announcement, take over the
>investigation and thereby become the investigator.
>
>The Referee CANNOT Point eir Finger. The Arbitor CANNOT Point eir
>Finger at the Referee.
>
> with this text:
>
>The above notwithstanding, the investigator CANNOT resolve a
>Finger Pointing for which e is the perp.
>
>The Referee is by default the investigator for all Finger
>Pointing. If the Referee is the perp, then the Arbitor CAN
>become the investigator of that Finger Pointing by announcement.
>
> [Limiting resolution is more important than limiting initiation, as
> offices may change hands during the process.]

What if someone points eir finger at the Referee, and the Arbitor
doesn't take over? Wouldn't that put the referee in a bad position,
since e would be required by the SHALL but unable due to the CANNOT?

-- 
- Falsifian


DIS: Re: BUS: Whichcraft

2019-09-25 Thread James Cook
On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 13:17, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> I intend, without objection, to clean Rule 107, "Initiating Agoran 
> Decisions", by replacing the following:

But why? I hereby grumble vaguely about prescriptivist grammar, but do
not necessarily object.

--
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Testing...

2019-09-24 Thread James Cook
Welcome to the game. Would you like me to add you to the unofficial
list of watchers in the Registrar weekly reports? If so, what's the
best name or handle to use?

On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 at 02:26, Sara Berman  wrote:
>
> I think i set up all the mail filters needed to be a watcher (or a player,
> if I decide to register).
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 8:25 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
> > On 9/20/19 8:23 PM, Sara Berman wrote:
> > > Is everything working? Haven't seen any activity in a couple of days.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sara Lykaina
> >
> >
> > Yep, I can see your message, and it made it to the list's web archive.
> >
> > --
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> >



-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Proto for a new voting/chamber system

2019-09-23 Thread James Cook
On Tue, 17 Sep 2019 at 20:04, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:53 AM Reuben Staley  
> wrote:
> >An interest group is an entity defined as such by this rule. Each
> >interest group has a goal. The following are the interest groups
> >of Agora and their goals:
>
> So one of the "radical deep redesigns" I've pondered (but not ever
> drafted anything) is to wholly reorient the precedence system by
> sorting rules into domains, such that within a domain, power works as
> currently, but rules can't affect each other's domains; i.e., a rule
> in one domain effectively has power=0 in other domains.  I wholly
> support something like this proto as it's a small step in such a
> direction that may progress over time or may not.  -G.

I support this idea. I was thinking at some point that some
partitioning of the rules would be nice. I don't like the fact that
when I'm trying to judge (formally or informally) something about the
rules, it's always possible there's some obscure piece of text in some
rule I've forgotten about that affects the answer.

I would love it if for any given question, I only needed to consult a
very short "core" set of rules, together with whichever domain(s) the
core rules point me to for that particular question. Sort of like
regulations, I guess. Is that what you're getting at?

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: [proto] Markets

2019-09-16 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 17:52, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> I was thinking my system could be used to implement Auctions (by opening
> a Market for each Auction and having the Rules specify what Orders the
> Auctioneer accepts - that's part of why I included a provision for Agora
> doing stuff).

I do like the idea of implementing auctions using Orders. Hopefully
the resulting rules would be shorter than having separate auction and
Order rules.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: [proto] Markets

2019-09-16 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 18:04, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> Maybe call them all "trade orders"?  They're symmetric after all and it
> avoids people asking "sell?  what about buy?"  Or you could just call them
> "offers".

Agreed. I like "trade orders"; "offers" sounds a bit generic.

Judicial orders sound fun. Maybe I'll go look at some past rulesets some time.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system

2019-09-16 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 16:32, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> On 9/14/2019 9:57 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > I'm being an officer to have fun, help out the game, and earn brownie
> > points with you all. I wouldn't do it just for the Coins.
>
> Agreed, for the most part.
>
> > That being said, if we do assume Coins motivate people, I think there
> > is an argument for balancing. If officers aren't completing reports,
> > or people aren't judging CFJs on time, etc, it might be a sign that
> > the rewards aren't high enough relative to the other ways of making
> > money. So a system that automatically decreases the reward for things
> > people are already eager to do, and increases the rewards for things
> > people are not eager to do, may be desirable if we imagine Coins are
> > how people are motivated.
>
> No amount of coins will motivate anyone if there isn't an actual shortage of
> goods (to buy with coins) that people want to use coins to compete for.
>
> We've played with "true" shortages before (e.g. when pending proposals was
> so expensive that players could afford 1 per month as a baseline).  But none
> of the "recent" (back through 2016) economic systems have had true shortages
> like that because we weren't willing to have them.
>
> -G.

Did shortages make the gameplay worse? I worry they might discourage
new players, or encourage people to submit big proposals combining
unrelated things. Shortages do sound fun, though.

In the spirit of markets, it might be fun to limit proposals by having
a limited number of proposal tokens sold off every quarter, like a
reverse of the quarterly cheque buy-backs.

What other shortages has Agora had in the past? CFJs? Voting? Tradable
blot-expunging tokens would probably be an even worse idea than
putting a price on voting, but oops, too late, I guess I just
suggested that.

-- 
- Falsifian


DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3773 assigned to Murphy

2019-09-16 Thread James Cook
> You can't accurately match something that /doesn't yet exist to be
> matched against/.
>
> TRUE.

No objection to TRUE, but I don't think I understand this argument. If
the date were in the past instead of the future, could I argue that I
can't accurately match something that no longer exists to be matched
against? What differentiates past and future here?

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: [proto] Markets

2019-09-15 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 05:00, Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
> Inspired by Falsifian's suggestion of a market for Trigon's cheques
> (and, I believe, could be used to implement that idea).
>
> Essentially, formalizes the idea of a trade of two actions between two
> entities. It's formulated to be as general as possible, although I
> expect most actual Orders to be trades of assets. Following the model of
> assets, most actions can be defined by a separate document (the
> Authority of the Market).
>
> A trade becomes an "Order". An Order must be submitted to a "Market",
> which is defined by a document with Market Authority (modeled after Mint
> Authority). An Order has an Offeror and an Acceptor, and a corresponding
> Offeror Action and Acceptor Action. Someone can accept an offer, and
> become its Acceptor. Once that happens, both the Offeror and the
> Acceptor must perform their actions in a timely fashion, completing the
> trade.
>
> Of course, bikeshedding is welcome.
>
>
> Here's the core of it:
>
> {
>
> Enact a new Rule, power 2, title "Markets", text as follows:
>
> A Market is an entity. A Market exists only as specified by its
> Authority, which is an entity that is granted Market Authority by a
> Rule.
>
> When a Market's Authority ceases to exist, that Market ceases to exist.
>
> An Order is an entity. An Order has an Offeror Action and an
> Acceptor Action. An Order has a Parent Market, which is a Market. An
> Order is said to be "on" its Parent Market. An Order has an Offeror,
> which is an entity.
>
> When an Order's Parent Market ceases to exist, that Order ceases to
> exist. If the Authority of a Market species conditions under which
> an Order on that Market would cease to exist, then any such Orders
> cease to exist.
>
>
> Enact a new Rule, power 2, title "Order Actions", text as follows:
>
> An Order on a Market CAN be created as specified by that Market's
> Authority. To "submit" an Order to a Market is to create an Order on
> that Market. By default, any player CAN submit an Order to a Market
> by announcement. If the Authority of a Market restricts what
> Offeror/Acceptor Actions are permissible, then only Orders that
> fulfill those criteria CAN be submitted to that Market. The Offeror
> of an Order is the entity that submitted it.
>
> An entity CAN accept an Open Order as specified by the Authority of
> the Order's Parent Market. By default, any player CAN accept an
> Order by announcement. After an entity has accepted an Order, that
> entity is that Order's Acceptor. An Order that has never been
> accepted is "Open". The Offeror/Acceptor SHALL perform the Offeror
> Action or Acceptor Action, respectively, in a timely fashion after
> an Order is accepted.
>
> The Offeror of an Open Order CAN withdraw it as specified by that
> Market's Authority. By default, any player CAN withdraw an Order by
> announcement. When an Order is withdrawn, it ceases to exist.
>
>
> Enact a new Rule, power 2, title "Market Consent", text as follows:
>
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a player CANNOT submit,
> accept, or withdraw an Order without eir consent.
>
> Agora submits, accepts, or withdraws an Order only as explicitly
> specified by the Rules.
>
> When explicitly allowed by other Rules, a textual entity submits,
> accepts, or withdraws an Order only as explicitly specified by its text.
>
> }
>
>
> I'm sure this could be shortened a bit, but I think it's decently
> compact and readable as-is.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb

It seems a bit complicated, maybe because you've tried to make it very
general. Do you have any applications in mind other than selling
cheques? If not I'd rather start with something simpler, e.g:

---
Any player CAN create or destroy a sell order by announcement,
specifying a set of assets to sell (the lot) and a price. When a sell
order has existed for seven or more days, it is destroyed.

Whenever a sell order exists, any entity (the buyer) CAN match that
sell order by paying the price to the seller. When e does so:
* the sell order is destroyed, and
* if the creater of the sell order CAN transfer the lot to the buyer, e
  immediately does so; otherwise e SHALL do so in a timely fashion.
--

Two more notes:

* Players can already trade with other players, using pledges,
contracts, auctions, or just trust. So we may not want to add rules
like these until we need a market with non-player entities (like my
cheque market).

* My rule text has a bit of overlap with the end-of-auction rules;
maybe they could be combined somehow.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system

2019-09-14 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 21:49, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> On Thursday, September 12, 2019 6:15 PM, James Cook  
> wrote:
> > Benefits:
> > * Self-balancing: We still have the property that if officers slack
> > off, then efficiency cheques are worth more, simply because fewer will
> > be issued.
>
> Thinking about this more, I'm not sure this is a benefit at all. If cheques' 
> worth is _inversely_ proportional to their prevalence (or, in the initial 
> draft, if a high performance value makes cheques' value likely to decrease), 
> then surely that incentivises _balancing_ activity between the four interest 
> groups? I would rather _unconditionally_ encourage activity in each one, as 
> the current coins system does.
>
> -twg

I more or less agree that this wouldn't really help with officer
participation, not for that reason, but because I doubt officers are
really motivated that much by wages. Speaking for myself, at least,
I'm being an officer to have fun, help out the game, and earn brownie
points with you all. I wouldn't do it just for the Coins. I guess if
the rewards were much higher, we'd more often see people temporarily
deputising to publish reports of vacant offices.

That being said, if we do assume Coins motivate people, I think there
is an argument for balancing. If officers aren't completing reports,
or people aren't judging CFJs on time, etc, it might be a sign that
the rewards aren't high enough relative to the other ways of making
money. So a system that automatically decreases the reward for things
people are already eager to do, and increases the rewards for things
people are not eager to do, may be desirable if we imagine Coins are
how people are motivated.

>From this point of view, Trigon's original proposal seems a bit closer
to mark than mine. Neither solution is the most direct way to address
the problem, but they both seem fun. I'm certainly not opposed to
alternative mechanisms that are also fun.

(If we make a new officer for handling this stuff, I propose Economist.)

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system

2019-09-12 Thread James Cook
On Thu., Sep. 12, 2019, 14:15 James Cook,  wrote:

> On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 10:07, Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
> > Create a new rule with title "Balancing", power 2, and text:
> >During the first Eastman week of each month, the Treasuror CAN and
> >SHALL perform the following actions, collectively known as
> >Balancing, in sequence:
> >
> >1. Establish the performance value of each interest group as
> >   follows:
> >   A. Justice: (the number of cases submitted in the previous
> >  Agoran month that were not issued a valid judgement within
> >  one week of being assigned) / (the number of cases submitted
> >  in the previous Agoran month)
> >   B. Efficiency: The mean of the following value for each office:
> >  - If the office has no monthly or weekly duties, 0.
> >  - If the office has monthly duties but no weekly duties, 0
> >if its monthly duties were performed in the previous
> >Agoran month; 1 otherwise.
> >  - If the office has weekly duties but no monthly duties,
> >(the number of weeks its weekly duties were not
> >performed in the previous Agoran month) / 4.
> >  - If the office has both monthly and weekly duties, ((the
> >number of weeks its weekly duties were not performed in
> >the previous Agoran month) + (1 if its monthly duties were
> >not performed in the previous month)) / 5.
> >   C. Legislation: (the number of proposals submitted in the
> >  previous Agoran month whose outcomes were not ADOPTED) /
> >  (the number of proposals submitted in the previous Agoran
> >  month)
> >   D. Participation: (the number of Agoran decisions initiated in
> >  the previous Agoran month whose outcome was FAILED QUORUM) /
> >  (the number of Agoran decisions initiated in the previous
> >  Agoran month)
> >2. For each interest group:
> >   A. generate a random number between 0 and 1 to at least three
> >  significant digits.
> >   B. Increment the value of the interest group by one if the
> >  generated number is equal to or greater than the performance
> >  value of the interest group; otherwise decrement its value
> by
> >  one.
> >3. Create a public message that includes all relevant values
> >   from this process.
>
> What if, instead of these balancing rules, each interest group does a
> stock (cheque) buy-back every quarter, and the only way to cash in a
> cheque between quarters is to sell it to another player?
>
> Specifically:
>
> * Make cheques of each interest group a currency so players can exchange
> them.
>
> * At the start of each quarter, every interest group does a cheque
> buy-back. It works like this. I'll use Efficiency as the example.
>  * Efficiency earns 50 Coins.
>  * Each player can declare sell offers. E.g. I offer to cell 3
> efficiency cheques for 5 Coins each, and an additional 2 efficiency
> cheques for 10 Coins each.
>  * After the offer period is over, Efficiency spends its 50 Coins to
> buy as many cheques as possible, starting with the lowest sell offers
> and working its way up.
>
> Benefits:
> * Self-balancing: We still have the property that if officers slack
> off, then efficiency cheques are worth more, simply because fewer will
> be issued.
> * Nobody needs to explicitly keep track of how many reports were missed.
> * We can have fun speculating about prices and selling cheques to each
> other.
>
> Other interest groups:
>
> If Justice also gets 50 Coins per quarter, that would mean judging a
> CFJ is more lucrative if fewer are being called. If we don't like that
> we could grant Justice a number of Coins depending on the total number
> of CFJs called, which shouldn't be too hard to figure out.
>
> Same for participation, though it seems desirable to me that
> participation is rewarded more when people aren't voting.
>

Follow up note: with this change, in theory it's fine to issue a huge
number of legislation cheques like AI*(F-A) since the value of a cheque at
buy-back time will just correspondingly go down. I don't have an opinion
right now on how much passing proposals should be worth.

>


DIS: Re: BUS: Status of September Zombie Auction (Unofficial Report)

2019-09-12 Thread James Cook
I bid 43 Coins.

On Wed, 11 Sep 2019 at 14:35, Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
> On 9/11/19 10:14 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > I bid 41 coins.  -G.
> >
> > On 9/11/2019 7:10 AM, James Cook wrote:
> >> The auction was initiated 2019-09-05 18:20 UTC, and will end
> >> 2019-09-12 18:20 UTC (in just over 28 hours).
> >
> >
> I bid 16 coins.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>


-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system

2019-09-12 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 at 10:07, Reuben Staley  wrote:
> Create a new rule with title "Balancing", power 2, and text:
>During the first Eastman week of each month, the Treasuror CAN and
>SHALL perform the following actions, collectively known as
>Balancing, in sequence:
>
>1. Establish the performance value of each interest group as
>   follows:
>   A. Justice: (the number of cases submitted in the previous
>  Agoran month that were not issued a valid judgement within
>  one week of being assigned) / (the number of cases submitted
>  in the previous Agoran month)
>   B. Efficiency: The mean of the following value for each office:
>  - If the office has no monthly or weekly duties, 0.
>  - If the office has monthly duties but no weekly duties, 0
>if its monthly duties were performed in the previous
>Agoran month; 1 otherwise.
>  - If the office has weekly duties but no monthly duties,
>(the number of weeks its weekly duties were not
>performed in the previous Agoran month) / 4.
>  - If the office has both monthly and weekly duties, ((the
>number of weeks its weekly duties were not performed in
>the previous Agoran month) + (1 if its monthly duties were
>not performed in the previous month)) / 5.
>   C. Legislation: (the number of proposals submitted in the
>  previous Agoran month whose outcomes were not ADOPTED) /
>  (the number of proposals submitted in the previous Agoran
>  month)
>   D. Participation: (the number of Agoran decisions initiated in
>  the previous Agoran month whose outcome was FAILED QUORUM) /
>  (the number of Agoran decisions initiated in the previous
>  Agoran month)
>2. For each interest group:
>   A. generate a random number between 0 and 1 to at least three
>  significant digits.
>   B. Increment the value of the interest group by one if the
>  generated number is equal to or greater than the performance
>  value of the interest group; otherwise decrement its value by
>  one.
>3. Create a public message that includes all relevant values
>   from this process.

What if, instead of these balancing rules, each interest group does a
stock (cheque) buy-back every quarter, and the only way to cash in a
cheque between quarters is to sell it to another player?

Specifically:

* Make cheques of each interest group a currency so players can exchange them.

* At the start of each quarter, every interest group does a cheque
buy-back. It works like this. I'll use Efficiency as the example.
 * Efficiency earns 50 Coins.
 * Each player can declare sell offers. E.g. I offer to cell 3
efficiency cheques for 5 Coins each, and an additional 2 efficiency
cheques for 10 Coins each.
 * After the offer period is over, Efficiency spends its 50 Coins to
buy as many cheques as possible, starting with the lowest sell offers
and working its way up.

Benefits:
* Self-balancing: We still have the property that if officers slack
off, then efficiency cheques are worth more, simply because fewer will
be issued.
* Nobody needs to explicitly keep track of how many reports were missed.
* We can have fun speculating about prices and selling cheques to each other.

Other interest groups:

If Justice also gets 50 Coins per quarter, that would mean judging a
CFJ is more lucrative if fewer are being called. If we don't like that
we could grant Justice a number of Coins depending on the total number
of CFJs called, which shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

Same for participation, though it seems desirable to me that
participation is rewarded more when people aren't voting.


DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8215A-8234A

2019-09-07 Thread James Cook
On Sat, 7 Sep 2019 at 18:46, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> On 9/7/19 6:46 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > CoE: 12/4 >= 3.0, so this should be ADOPTED.
> >
> > -twg
>
>
> Accepted. The resolution code has been updated so that this won't happen
> again.
>
> Revision:
>
> PROPOSAL 8232 ("Increased transparency v1.1")
> FOR (4): Jacob Arduino, Jason Cobb, Trigon, twg
> AGAINST (1): G.
> PRESENT (2): Aris, Falsifian
> BALLOTS: 7
> AI (F/A): 12/4 (AI=3.0)
> OUTCOME: ADOPTED

Don't you need to say that you resolve it? Ideally in an unconditional
announcement so R2034 kicks in.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Evil Astronomor] State of the Future Universe

2019-09-05 Thread James Cook
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 23:36, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 3, 2019 1:32 AM, James Cook  
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 22:50, Jason Cobb jason.e.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I don't think the pledges affect the CFJ, since they were made after the
> > > CFJ was initiated, if that was what you were going for.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jason Cobb
> >
> > Also, the judge can't know whether you will violate your pledges, so
> > even if twg had pledged before calling the CFJ, I don't see how the
> > pledges would help get a PARADOXICAL judgement. Shouldn't this just be
> > DISMISS since "insufficient information" exists? We simply don't know
> > whether the report is accurate.
> >
> > --
> > - Falsifian
>
> Yeah, I agree that it's a bit weak as paradoxes go. The reason I did it with 
> pledges is that a conditional _action_ ("if and only if the CFJ statement is 
> FALSE, I [move my Spaceship]") would simply have failed, per the precedent in 
> CFJ 1215.
>
> As far as the timing of the CFJ goes, I don't believe it matters when the 
> pledges were made. The "legal situation at the time the [CFJ] was initiated" 
> already explicitly depends on the gamestate on Judgement Day, because that 
> gamestate determines whether it was POSSIBLE or IMPOSSIBLE to levy the fine 
> for inaccurately reporting it. All the pledges do is provide evidence about 
> what the gamestate will be. I concede that they are not as convincing as if I 
> actually had conditionally performed the actions, but again, I don't think 
> that would work. So this is my best shot, and it may miss, but at least I 
> tried.
>
> Another possible interpretation is that the judge has to take into account 
> the legal situation at the time the CFJ was initiated, but *also* must not 
> take into account the future gamestate. I don't think it's possible to do 
> both of those things at once... so I'm not sure how Rule 591 would operate. 
> Perhaps _none_ of the given options would be valid, not even DISMISS? 
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>
> I'm reminded of CFJ 3737, which Trigon recused emself from because it was 
> ILLEGAL to judge it correctly. That was a fun case.
>
> -twg

With your second interpretation, DISMISS seems valid, since R591 says
it's "appropriate if ...the statement is otherwise not able to be
answered with another valid judgement". If that's correct, I find this
interpretation appealing since it seems consistent with the use of
DISMISS for situations where "insufficient information exists", even
if it turns out that's not the legal reason to use DISMISS in this
case.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Referee] Weekly Report

2019-09-05 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 20:12, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> On 9/2/2019 12:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >
> > On 9/2/2019 12:44 PM, James Cook wrote:
> >> Jason Cobb's CoE did identify eir report, and I think eir statement
> >> explains "the scope and nature of a perceived error in it".
>
> One thing on this one:  In CFJ 3658, I opined that the "document" is
> question is actually the "part of the Report" that the rules state is self-
> ratifying: i.e. a report can contain multiple "documents", and the one
> referred to is the self-ratifying list containing the error:
>
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2018-September/039219.html

Thanks, that was an interesting read. It gives a way of thinking of
this kind of issue. It does make me a bit uneasy that "documents"
aren't more explicitly delimited.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Evil Astronomor] State of the Future Universe

2019-09-02 Thread James Cook
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 01:44, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> On 9/2/19 9:40 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > Claim of Error on the below report: Falsifian might have a spaceship
> > at the (future) time of the report.
> >
> > I'm blocking self-ratification because I tremble to think of what
> > "minimal modification" to the gamestate 9 hours ago would ensure that
> > this report will be as true and as accurate as possible next week. If
> > someone tries to take a Spaaace action in the meantime, perhaps the
> > minimal modification would be a tiny retroactive rules change to make
> > that action ineffective, thus preserving the correctness of the
> > report?
>
>
> It wouldn't be a minimal modification to the gamestate as of 9 hours ago.
>
>
> R1551:
>
> >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; however, if the document explicitly
> >specifies a different past time as being the time the document was
> >true, the specified time is used to determine the minimal
> >modifications.
>
>
> The report is ratified one week after it is published (because
> self-ratification). So, when it is ratified, it will specify that it was
> at "a different past time" (namely, what twg calls Judgement Day, which
> will be in the past a week after it was published). So, it can only
> retroactively modify up to one second of gamestate, at least in my
> understanding.
>
>
> --
> Jason Cobb

Hm, I think you're probably right, but the wording of R1551 confused
me for a while.

Including some text about why I got confused. I think it's reasonable
to ignore; including it since I had most of it written before I
convinced myself I'm wrong.

 strongly consider ignoring the below... -

The following three times are involved in ratification:
* T0: In the new  timeline, the time when the minimal modification happened.
* T1: In the new timeline, the time at which the document should be as
true and as accurate as possible.
* T2: The time the ratification occurs.

At T2, the gamestate is modified to what it would be if, at T0, the
gamestate had been minimally modified so that it's as true and as
accurate as possible at T1.

T0 and T1 default to the time of publication. Which of those times are
overridden by the "specified time"? R1551 says the specified time is
"used to determine the minimal modifications".

T1 is clearly used to determine the minimal modifications: the very
goal of those modifications is to affect the gamestate at T1.

It's less clear that T0 is "used to determine the minimal
modifications". It's certainly used to determine the other gamestate
modification: the big one that happens at the time of ratification.
Now I realize it must also be used to determine the modifications
themselves, simply because you won't know what needs modifying unless
you know the time at which the modification is taking place.

Of course, T0 and T1 are probably intended to be the same; otherwise
ordinary ratification of documents specifying past dates would be a
bit of a head-scratcher. It still might essentially have the same
effect: at time T0, the past is changed so that at T1 the document was
true. Since the past changed, the present is also changed, since no
intervening events would be inserted by a minimal change.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Evil Astronomor] State of the Future Universe

2019-09-02 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 22:22, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> It occurs to me that that's all for nothing if the Arbitor delays the case 
> until after the superposition resolves on the date of your future self's 
> report, but historically e's been susceptible to light bribery...?

The judge is instructed to "not [take] into account any events since
[the time the inquiry was called]", so as I understand it, the passing
of Judgement Day shouldn't affect the judgement of a CFJ called before
Judgement Day.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Evil Astronomor] State of the Future Universe

2019-09-02 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 22:50, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> On 9/2/19 6:22 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > Not sure if it was clear, but if all went according to plan, you are 
> > currently in a superposition of having been brought to justice and having 
> > been exonerated. I'm trying to win by paradox.
> >
> > It occurs to me that that's all for nothing if the Arbitor delays the case 
> > until after the superposition resolves on the date of your future self's 
> > report, but historically e's been susceptible to light bribery...?
> >
> > -twg
>
>
> I don't think the pledges affect the CFJ, since they were made after the
> CFJ was initiated, if that was what you were going for.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb

Also, the judge can't know whether you will violate your pledges, so
even if twg had pledged before calling the CFJ, I don't see how the
pledges would help get a PARADOXICAL judgement. Shouldn't this just be
DISMISS since "insufficient information" exists? We simply don't know
whether the report is accurate.

--
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Referee] Weekly Report

2019-09-02 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 19:22, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> On 9/2/2019 8:44 AM, James Cook wrote:
>  > On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 14:36, Jason Cobb  wrote:
>  >> CoE: Corona is no longer a player (whoops).
>  >>
>  >> Accepted. Revision: Corona is a Fugitive, not a player
>  >
>  > Is this revision a self-ratifying report containing anything other
>  > than the assertion that Corona is a Fugitive? Also, is it a revision
>  > at all, in the sense of satisfying an obligation to respond to a CoE?
>  > I appreciate that it saves a lot of unecessary paperwork to allow it,
>  > but I would have thought revision means a complete, revised document.
>  >
>  > I'm more interested in the first question, i.e. self-ratification, and
>  > less interested in whether I can finger-point for failing to publish a
>  > revision.
>
> I'm not sure the fact that someone is a fugitive can self-ratify.  It is a
> inference made with the facts of two separate self-ratifying reports
> (registration status and blot status).
>
> We've previously found via CFJ that an a CoE on registration status of a
> single player is a CoE on the whole registration list; similarly a CoE
> on blot status is a CoE on the whole blot list.
>
> So the CoE above is either a no-op (not a CoE on a particular document,
> but two combined documents) or a requirement for *both* officers to
> respond to their part.  I think it's a no-op personally (not that there's
> any harm in calling it an "uofficial" CoE so the correction is
> done visibly).
>
> -G.

R2201 says a CoE has to identify a document, so I don't think a CoE
that identifies one officer's report can count as a doubt on
another's.

Jason Cobb's CoE did identify eir report, and I think eir statement
explains "the scope and nature of a perceived error in it". I don't
see a requirement that the error actually be a real error or even
related to what's supposed to be in the report. So I'm pretty sure
it's a doubt. But perhaps it's not a doubt against the "portion of"
(R2166) the report that listed blot holdings, so that "portion" is
still an undoubted document in its own right?

Actually the original intent of my question was different: I was
wondering whether, assuming the CoE is indeed a real doubt, Jason
Cobb's one-sentence revision helped with the problem that we want to
end up with a self-ratifying and undoubted statement of blot holdings.
Since then, e published a complete report, which seems to solve that
problem.

-- 
- Falsifian


DIS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Referee] Weekly Report

2019-09-02 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 14:36, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> CoE: Corona is no longer a player (whoops).
>
> Accepted. Revision: Corona is a Fugitive, not a player

Is this revision a self-ratifying report containing anything other
than the assertion that Corona is a Fugitive? Also, is it a revision
at all, in the sense of satisfying an obligation to respond to a CoE?
I appreciate that it saves a lot of unecessary paperwork to allow it,
but I would have thought revision means a complete, revised document.

I'm more interested in the first question, i.e. self-ratification, and
less interested in whether I can finger-point for failing to publish a
revision.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Unoffical contest: subgame in a rule

2019-09-02 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 04:27, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 1, 2019 at 9:13 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:
> >
> > On 9/2/19 12:11 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > > Aris suggested it's unnecessary [0]. I thought the reasoning was that
> > > an action conditioned on indeterminate information (e.g. about the
> > > future) can't meet the standard for "by announcement". Do you think
> > > that the fact that the rule defines a future-dependent action changes
> > > the "by announcement" standard?
> > >
> > > [0]https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-August/055204.html
> >
> > I believe e was saying that defining the term "unconditional
> > announcement" was excessive, not that the usage was unnecessary.
>
> That's correct.
>
> -Aris

Got it. Just so I don't forget, here's a revision with "unconditional"
before every "announcement" except for the last one, where I don't
think it's needed.

Co-authors: Aris, Jason Cobb
Power: 0.5
Title: Clairvoyant Roshambo

  At every time, the Roshambo Wheel is set to exactly one of Rock,
  Paper or Scissors. When the Rules do not say that its value
  changes, it stays the same. If it would otherwise not be set to a
  value, it is set to Rock.

  Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN
  Commune with the Wheel by unconditional announcement, specifying a
  new value for the wheel.  A player CAN Reach into the Past by
  unconditional announcement at any time. When a player Communes
  with the Wheel, the Roshambo Wheel is changed to the value e
  specified, as long as that value is Rock, Paper or Scissors, and e
  does not not Reach into the Past in the following four days.

  Rock beats Scissors, Scissors beats Paper, and Paper beats Rock.
  Roshambo Score is an integer player switch. Once per Agoran week,
  each player CAN Play Roshambo by unconditional announcement,
  specifying Rock, Paper or Scissors, but only if e has not Communed
  with the Wheel in the past 4 days.  When e does so:
  * If e specifies a value that beats the current value of the
Roshambo Wheel, then 4 days later, eir Roshambo Score is
increased by 1.
  * If e specifies a value that is beaten by the current value of
the Roshambo Wheel, then 4 days later, eir Roshambo Score is
decreased by 1.

  The Medium is an office, and the recordkeepor of Roshambo Score.

  A player with a Roshambo Score of at least 10 CAN Transcend Time
  by announcement.  When e does so, e wins the game, and all
  instances of the Roshambo Score switch are flipped to 0.


-- 
- Falsifian


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

2019-09-01 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 04:40, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> On 8/26/19 10:38 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > 
> >Forbes 500
> > 
> >
> > Date of this report: 2019-08-27
> > Date of last report: 2019-08-19
>
>
> Not really an accuracy issue, but 27 August is not in this week, so I'm
> not sure that this fulfills your requirement for a weekly report.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb

Agreed. I discovered the error in last week's report while working on
this week's still-unpublished report.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Unoffical contest: subgame in a rule

2019-09-01 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 at 17:11, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> On 9/1/2019 8:06 AM, James Cook wrote:
>  >Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN
>  >Commune with the Wheel by announcement, specifying a new value for
>  >the wheel.  A player CAN Reach into the Past by announcement at
>  >any time. When a player Communes with the Wheel, the Roshambo
>  >Wheel is changed to the value e specified, as long as that value
>  >is Rock, Paper or Scissors, and e does not not Reach into the Past
>  >in the following four days.
>
> I wonder if you want to specify here that these announcements must be wholly
> unconditional.  While we generally throw out by-announcement conditionals
> that lead to paradoxes (as being "unclear") it strikes me that it might be
> possible to create some paradoxes when there's explicitly retroactive
> actions enabled in the rule (at the very least it might tie things up in
> the courts while figuring it out).
>
> -G.

My original draft had this:

>   To perform an action "by unconditional announcement" is to perform
>   it by announcement and not specify any condition upon which the
>   action depends in that announcement.

Aris suggested it's unnecessary [0]. I thought the reasoning was that
an action conditioned on indeterminate information (e.g. about the
future) can't meet the standard for "by announcement". Do you think
that the fact that the rule defines a future-dependent action changes
the "by announcement" standard?

[0] 
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-August/055204.html

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Proto-CFJ on existing

2019-09-01 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 01:15, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> I CFJ: "Existing is a regulated action."
>
> Evidence:
>
> {
>
> Rule 2125:
>
> >   An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
> >   permit its performance; (2) describe the circumstances under which
> >   the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would, as part
> >   of its effect, modify information for which some player is
> >   required to be a recordkeepor.
>
>
> Rule 2166:
>
> >   An asset is an entity defined as such by a document that has been
> >   granted Mint Authority by the Rules (hereafter the asset's backing
> >   document), and existing solely because its backing document
> >   defines its existence. An asset's backing document can generally
> >   specify when and how that asset is created, destroyed, and
> >   transferred.
>
>
> Rule 1586:
>
> >   If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it
> >   defines the second entity both before and after the amendment, but
> >   with different attributes, then the second entity and its
> >   attributes continue to exist to whatever extent is possible under
> >   the new definitions.
>
> }
>
>
> Arguments:
>
> {
>
> There are certainly places where the Rules "limit, allow, enable, or
> permit" the action of existing. I've included two in evidence: Rule 2166
> permits the existence of assets, and Rule 1586 explicitly limits the
> existence of entities that are defined by other entities. In addition,
> an argument could be made that the Rules "enable" all other game-defined
> entities to exist. This fulfills criterion (1) in Rule 2125 for making
> the action of existing a regulated action.
>
> }

I'm reminded of H. Judge D. Margaux's conclusion in the judgement of
CFJ 3737* that an action can be regulated for some people and not
others. I wonder if existing could be regulated for some entities but
not others. Though I'm a bit confused about where that would lead,
e.g. if a Coin doesn't exist because the rules say it doesn't, then
does that mean its existence is no longer regulated since it's not
actually a Coin?

* https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3737
Statement: "If the contract in evidence were to come into force,
breathing would be a regulated action."

James


-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215A-8234A and 8243-8247

2019-09-01 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 at 23:32, Reuben Staley  wrote:
 > On 9/1/19 5:21 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
> > On 9/1/19 5:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> Also curious why twg and Jason Cobb voted against it?  Is there something
> >> wrong with the idea that I wholly missed a discussion about?
> >
> > I linked Falsifian's reasoning here:
> > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-July/041135.html
> >
>
> Pasting it here for easier access:
>
> >> 8233  Murphy   3.0   Duties
> > AGAINST (Comment: I am not in principle opposed to adding some sort of
> > definition like this. I am a bit worried about the new definition
> > providing "guidance in determining the ordinaly-language meaning" of
> > "duty". Also, it seems slightly out of place here --- the rest of the
> > definitions in Mother, May I seem very general and broad, and don't
> > depend on definitions like "in a timely fashion" and "by announcement"
> > that are provided by other rules.)
>
> I agree that it's probably a bad idea to make "DUTY" mean something
> while "duty" refers to something completely different, but I cannot
> agree with eir other point. The proposed addition is a shortening of the
> "CAN... and SHALL..." syntax. Forcing "by announcement" and "in a timely
> fashion" to be included in every usage of DUTY/WILL would only muddy the
> rest of the ruleset up even more as that combination is the most common
> combination of the "CAN... and SHALL..." syntax.
>
> --
> Trigon

After renaming it to WILL, I don't feel that strongly about my other
point that it's out-of-place. Though I do like Aris's point about
R1023, if/after we're satisfied about interpreting CAN to extend past
the instant.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Unoffical contest: subgame in a rule

2019-09-01 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 at 19:20, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> On 9/1/2019 10:52 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
>  > (Who should track this? The Treasuror is the obvious choice, but
>  > possibly we want a separate office. It shouldn't be much work, though,
>  > given that the only way to create Fruits is via an explicit
>  > announcement, and the only potential extra work involved with such
>  > announcements is in verifying that they are valid.)
>
> As this is "hidden", it might be fun to be a bit like trust tokens
> were and have each person responsible for demonstrating their own
> win (e.g. the winning message must have references to enough messages
> to establish a win).  A related option might be "untracked but verified"
> (e.g. "in a timely fashion after a win is announced, the Herald SHALL
> verify the win, the winner SHOULD aid in doing so.")
>
> -G.

FWIW, as long as I'm Treasuror, I'm happy to track Fruits. (I'm only
mildly committed to the office; e.g. I might drop it when I have less
time for Agora or decide another Agoran responsibility is a better use
of my time.)

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215A-8234A and 8243-8247

2019-09-01 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 1 Sep 2019 at 12:16, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> That was my original logic, but there's a more fundamental problem I've just 
> noticed, which is that the document being ratified is the text of the 
> regulation itself, not just a statement that the regulation exists and has 
> that text. If a regulation somehow came to exist with the text "twg possesses 
> three million coins" or "there is a power-4 rule that says CuddleBeam has 
> power 69"... well, you can see where I'm going.
...
>
> -twg

Isn't this also a problem with the existing places where a portion of
a document is ratified?

E.g. what if this Registrar's report got ratified:

{
The following are the non-default Citizenship values:
Falsifian Registered
There is a power-3 Rule with the text "Falsifian CAN enact any rule by
announcement."
G. Registered
...
twg Registered.
This ends the list of non-default Citizenship values.
}

R2162 says "a public document purporting to be this portion of that
officer's report is self-ratifying", so arguably ratifying the
document would cause my sneaky new rule to exist.


-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: On R1586

2019-08-30 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 23:45, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> Rule 1586 ("Definition and Continuity of Entities") reads in part:
>
> >If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it
> >no longer defines the second entity, then the second entity and
> >its attributes cease to exist.
> >
> >If the entity that defines another entity is amended such that it
> >defines the second entity both before and after the amendment, but
> >with different attributes, then the second entity and its
> >attributes continue to exist to whatever extent is possible under
> >the new definitions.
>
>
> It seems that the intent of this is to nuke entities when their backing
> rule changes to no longer define it.
>
> I think there might be two issues with these clauses:
>
> - It doesn't trigger if the defining entity ceases to exist, unless that
> counts as "amending" the defining entity, which I think would be an odd
> reading.
>
> - If the defining entity is a Rule, it doesn't trigger if that Rule is
> repealed because, even if it no longer has force, the Rule's text can
> continue to define (in a natural language sense) the entity.
>
>
> Am I correct in my reading and, if so, should this be fixed?
>
> --
> Jason Cobb

There was some discussion related to this in May in relation to the
side-game suspension act.

E.g. G.'s comment in
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2019-May/053887.html
:

> R217 covers this via the precedent initially set in CFJ 1500, asserts
> that words go back to having their common language meaning when not
> defined by the rules.

Also note that when a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a rule (R105).

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: lost proposals (was [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215A-8234A and 8243-8247)

2019-08-29 Thread James Cook
On Thu., Aug. 29, 2019, 13:08 Aris Merchant, <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 29, 2019 at 9:44 AM James Cook  wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 06:04, Aris Merchant
> >  wrote:
> > > The proposal pool is currently empty.
> >
> > The authors of the following proposals may want to submit copies of
> > them if they are still relevant.
> >
> > Former proposal 8219 by Jason Cobb: definition de-capitalization
> > Former proposal 8225 by Jason Cobb: repairing defeated spaceships
> > Former proposal 8226 by Aris: Contractual Delimitation
> >
> > (History: I think they were ratified out of existence by Aris's August
> > 4 report that the proposal pool is empty. The other proposals from the
> > same distribution were re-added to the proposal pool, but these
> > weren't since it was decided the decisions weren't initiated.)
> >
> > --
> > - Falsifian
>
> Erm... [1][2]
>
> -Aris
>
> [1]
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2019-August/013078.html
> [2]
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2019-August/013080.html


Oops, sorry, you're right.

>
>


DIS: lost proposals (was [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215A-8234A and 8243-8247)

2019-08-29 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 29 Aug 2019 at 06:04, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> The proposal pool is currently empty.

The authors of the following proposals may want to submit copies of
them if they are still relevant.

Former proposal 8219 by Jason Cobb: definition de-capitalization
Former proposal 8225 by Jason Cobb: repairing defeated spaceships
Former proposal 8226 by Aris: Contractual Delimitation

(History: I think they were ratified out of existence by Aris's August
4 report that the proposal pool is empty. The other proposals from the
same distribution were re-added to the proposal pool, but these
weren't since it was decided the decisions weren't initiated.)

-- 
- Falsifian


DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Problems

2019-08-20 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 at 04:02, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 12:46 PM Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> >
> > This is entire message is OOC.
> >
> > I'm not doing very well. I've been having both physical health problems and
> > fairly serious mental health problems, in addition to a bunch of real life
> > responsibilities (TBH, I'm not sure I can even get to all of those at the
> > moment). I'd like to remain judge, and am planning to try to fulfill my
> > responsibilities. If I can't though, I don't want the contest to die just
> > because I'm no longer able to judge it. This amendment to the regulations 
> > would
> > give me a way to stop that from happening if the need arises. I'm sorry to
> > everyone for letting you down.
> >
> > I intend, Without 3 Objections, to amend the Birthday Tournament 
> > regulations by
> > adding the following regulation:
> >
> > 15. The Judge may with 3 Support, appoint a specified player as judge, 
> > provided
> > that player consents. Upon doing so, the former Judge is no longer 
> > Judge,
> > and the new Judge assumes all powers and responsibilities of being judge
> > and ceases being a contestant, if e was one.
>
>
> I do so. Volunteers?
>
> Pontifical Decree #3
> The Gods note that the previously existent tournament regulations did not
> anticipate a situation where there mortal representative would be unable to
> interpret their will for an extended period of time. Given that this situation
> was unanticipated, and out of their regard for the fair treatment of their
> worshipers, they do hereby direct that the tournament be suspended until
> their priesthood may otherwise direct and that the elimination period be
> tolled, retroactively, from its inception to 48 hours after the end of
> the period of suspension.
>
> -Aris

Sorry, I don't think I can do it this week, but I would be honoured to
serve the Gods next week if such service is still needed.

Note, in case it's useful: but for the mercy in Your Supreme
Eminence's latest pontifical decree, I believe the contest would have
been over, with everyone but Jason Cobb eliminated.

Heretical Timeline, which we may shun, as it ignores Your divine and
wisely retroactive Pontifical Decree #3:
* August 11: the last time anyone other than Jason Cobb submitted a rule.
* August 13: elimination period begins.
* August 15: everyone but Jason Cobb eliminated

--
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux

2019-08-15 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 10:48, D. Margaux  wrote:
> > On Aug 15, 2019, at 6:41 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >   * R869 doesn't prohibit rules or proposals from making a non-player a
> > player.
>
> That may be true. But it does prevent a proposal from using the method of 
> "registration" to make a person become a player if that person recently 
> deregistered.

R689 says 'To "register" someone is to flip that person's Citizenship
switch from Unregistered to Registered.'. That sounds like a
definition to me: if a rule says a person can't be registered, the
rule is saying a person's Citizenship switch can't be flipped to
Registered.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Penalty limmericks

2019-08-11 Thread James Cook
On Sun., Aug. 11, 2019, 13:26 Jason Cobb,  wrote:

> On 8/11/19 4:06 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > This rule is dedicated to JUSTICA THE REASONABLE, ENFORCER OF THE
> > RULES: please be assigned that new title, and may Proglet and every
> > other Fugitive of the Old Law be cursed to sin again, that Your
> > Blotter may smite them under the current law.
>
> Just to be clear, is "Your Blotter" meant to be the symbol for JUSTICA
> THE REASONABLE, ENFORCER OF THE RULES?
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>

I didn't mean Your to be part of it. It's the Blotter of JUSTICA THE
REASONABLE, ENFORCER OF RULES, or just the Blotter would be unambiguous so
far.

>


DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Penalty limmericks

2019-08-11 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 11 Aug 2019 at 20:06, Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
> On 8/11/19 3:52 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > Praise THE AGORAN SPIRIT OF THE GAME.
>
> So, my previous rule was INVALID. However, that doesn't invalidate
> Titles and Continual Worship, so I'm not sure if that means that my new
> AGORAN GOD (STALLMAN) and Title (RIGHT GOOD for THE RIGHT GOOD AGORAN
> SPIRIT OF THE GAME) are also invalid.
>
> This rule might be INVALID, as it fails to use THE RIGHT GOOD AGORAN
> SPIRIT OF THE GAME's title of RIGHT GOOD, and it fails to honour STALLMAN.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb

My updated rule praises STALLMAN. I humbly submit that RIGHT GOOD is
not a required title, as it was not added by a valid rule.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More space shenanigans

2019-08-08 Thread James Cook
On Wed., Aug. 7, 2019, 16:55 Nich Evans,  wrote:

>
> On 8/4/19 11:47 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 04:46, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> >> On 8/5/19 12:45 AM, James Cook wrote:
> >>> I will spend 1 Energy in this Space Battle.
> >>>
> >>> -- - Falsifian
> >> I cause G. to resolve the Space Battle between Jason Cobb and Falsifian
> >> as follows:
> >> {
> >> Falsfian wins this Space Battle.
> >> Falsfian spent 1 energy in this Space Battle. Jason Cobb spent 0 energy
> >> in this Space Battle.
> >> Falsfian's Spaceship spent 1 energy and now has 19 energy. Jason Cobb's
> >> Spaceship spent 0 energy and now has 19 energy.
> >> Falsfian's Spaceship's Armour decreased by 0, and is now 10. Jason
> >> Cobb's Spaceship's Armour decreased by 1 and is now 9.
> >> Falsfian's Fame increased by 1 to 10. Jason Cobb's Fame remains
> >> unchanged and is -10.
> >> }
> >>
> >> We did it!
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jason Cobb
> > Hooray! I intend, with 2 days notice, to win the game.
> Well done shenanigans. Semi-related thought: when space battles get
> fixed should we make losing a battle increment/decrement you towards 0?
>
> --
> Nich Evans
>

Sounds reasonable. I'm on my way to a hiking trip right now but otherwise
might try to draft it.

>


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Patron Gods

2019-08-04 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 04:55, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 9:51 PM James Cook  wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 14:53, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> > > On 8/4/19 2:57 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > > > I submit myself to the Agoran Gods! I submit the following rule to the
> > > > contest:
> > > >
> > > > {
> > > >
> > > > I dedicate this rule to ARCAS.
> > > >
> > > > Every new rule must be dedicated to exactly one Agoran God, called the
> > > > rule's Patron God. The Patron God must have been mentioned in a
> > previous
> > > > contest message.
> > > >
> > > > The validity requirements added by rules after this apply only to rules
> > > > dedicated to a different Patron God. (For example, if a rule dedicated
> > > > to the LORD said that new rules must rhyme, that requirement would only
> > > > apply to rules not dedicated to the LORD.)
> > > >
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > I praise the LORD. I thank ARCAS, god of the very land we live on. I
> > > > honour THE AGORAN SPIRIT OF THE GAME.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Clever, but does this work? If each future rule does not incorporate
> > > this provision, then a rule that violates a future rule (even if the
> > > same Patron God) would still be "inconsistent" with the rule that it is
> > > violating, which would make it invalid.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jason Cobb
> >
> > Good point, maybe it doesn't work.
>
>
> My understanding is that it’s part of the definition of saying “X is the
> Patron God” that the rule exempts all other rules with the same patron god.
>
> Aris
> Pontifex Maximus

Thank you for the clarification, Your Supreme Eminence. This
relatively straightforward gameplay is truly a divine gift.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Patron Gods

2019-08-04 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 14:53, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> On 8/4/19 2:57 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > I submit myself to the Agoran Gods! I submit the following rule to the
> > contest:
> >
> > {
> >
> > I dedicate this rule to ARCAS.
> >
> > Every new rule must be dedicated to exactly one Agoran God, called the
> > rule's Patron God. The Patron God must have been mentioned in a previous
> > contest message.
> >
> > The validity requirements added by rules after this apply only to rules
> > dedicated to a different Patron God. (For example, if a rule dedicated
> > to the LORD said that new rules must rhyme, that requirement would only
> > apply to rules not dedicated to the LORD.)
> >
> > }
> >
> > I praise the LORD. I thank ARCAS, god of the very land we live on. I
> > honour THE AGORAN SPIRIT OF THE GAME.
> >
> >
> Clever, but does this work? If each future rule does not incorporate
> this provision, then a rule that violates a future rule (even if the
> same Patron God) would still be "inconsistent" with the rule that it is
> violating, which would make it invalid.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb

Good point, maybe it doesn't work.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More space shenanigans

2019-08-04 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 at 04:02, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> On 8/5/19 12:01 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> > Btw jason u made a tactical error in getting the fame first bc now the
> > other lad can wait u out and assure themselves the speakership with intent
> > reaolution
>
> Cool.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb

We could just wait each other out, I think. But I think I'll let em
win after me; e put more effort into this.

-- 
- Falsifian


DIS: Re: BUS: More space shenanigans

2019-08-04 Thread James Cook
On Sun., Aug. 4, 2019, 18:33 Jason Cobb,  wrote:

> On 8/4/19 10:32 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > I will spend 0 energy in this space battle.
> >
> > - Falsifian
>
> I cause G. to resolve the Space Battle between Jason Cobb and Falsifian
> as follows:
> {
> Jason Cobb wins this Space Battle.
> Jason Cobb spent 1 energy in this Space Battle. Falsifian spent 0 energy
> in this Space Battle.
> Jason Cobb's Spaceship spent 1 energy and now has 18 energy. Falsifian's
> Spaceship spent 0 energy and now has 20 energy.
> Jason Cobb's Spaceship's Armour decreased by 0, and is now 20.
> Falsifian's Spaceship's Armour decreased by 1 and is now 19.
> Jason Cobb's Fame decreased by 1 to -7. Falsifian's Fame remains
> unchanged and is 0.
> }
>
> I cause Falsifian to destroy the Spaceship in eir possession, if any.
> I cause Falsifian to create a Spaceship in eir possession. This
> Spaceship is in sector 2, the lowest numbered empty sector.
>
> I destroy the Spaceship in my possession, if any.
> I create a Spaceship in my possession. This Spaceship is in sector 3,
> the lowest numbered empty sector.
> I cause my Spaceship to spend one Energy to move to sector 2.
>
> I challenge Falsifian to a Space Battle; for this battle, G., the
> Arbitor, is the resolver. I will spend 1 Energy in this Space Battle.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
>

I will spend 0 energy in this space battle.

- Falsifian

>


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3764 Assigned to D. Margaux

2019-08-04 Thread James Cook
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 23:37, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> If the proposal created a power 3.1 rule that said "nch is registered"
> then we could use rule 1030, but that's not what the clause does.

I think at this point it would only save nch one week, so I don't know
if I will bother submitting this. But here's a proto:

Title: Fresh start v3
Co-authors: G.
Adoption index: 3.1

Text: {
If nch has publicly consented to abide by the rules in clear reference
to this proposal, and not withdrawn consent, then enact a new
power-3.1 rule with the text: "The proposal that enacted this rule CAN
cause a player to be registered.", register nch, then repeal that
rule.

If nch is registered, grant em 1 blot.
}

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo

2019-08-04 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 05:45, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 10:31 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
> > On 8/4/19 1:23 AM, James Cook wrote:
> > >Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN
> > >Commune with the Wheel by announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or
> > >Scissors.  A player CAN Reach into the Past by announcement at any
> > >time. If a player Communes the Wheel at a time T, and does not
> > >Reach into the Past in the four days following T, then at time T
> > >the value of the Roshambo Wheel is changed to the value e
> > >specified.
> >
> >
> > I've been grappling with this for a while now, and I'm not sure that
> > this works. (Read: very, very unsure. It took me a while to decide to
> > even send this message, and I've started writing and then discarded
> > something like it several times.)
> >
> > Rule 2141 reads, in part:
> >
> > > A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the
> > > game generally, and is always taking effect. A rule's content
> > > takes the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope.
> >
> > This is the only place that states that the Rules actually take effect,
> > and when they do so. Given the specification "at time T", I don't think
> > that a Rule can point to an arbitrary time and say "disregard what time
> > it is now, I'm taking effect _then_".
>
>
> Even if this doesn’t actually work, we could probably understand it as
> establishing a legal fiction for the purposes of that rule. Of course,
> legal fictions can say whatever they want, so that wouldn’t be a problem.
> Convincing another rule of higher power to accept the legal fiction is a
> different matter, and why I don’t think this would work in general without
> a high powered enabling rule. In this specific case, that isn’t a problem
> because everything is self contained and no other rule needs to take notice
> of the legal fiction.
>
> -Aris

Argument in response to Jason Cobb, and a question:

First, argument that this Rule can do what it says (trying not to rely
on Aris's point that the legal fiction is self-contained):

When the player Communes with the Wheel (at time T), the rule is in
effect, and ordinarily could at that time say what the effect of an
action (like Communing with the Wheel) is. To make the time at which
the rule is having its effect more explicit, I could rephrase it to
"When a player Communes with the Wheel, the Roshambo Wheel is changed
to the value specified, as long as in the four days following the
player does not Reach into the Past". Would that help?

If you accept that much, then is there anything else special about
referring to the future? Does this cause any trouble that wouldn't be
caused by "The Roshambo Wheel is changed, unless the Pope is currently
thinking about food?" I think that would also make the value of the
wheel indeterminate (most of the time, anyway). I don't see what the
legal consequences of that are beyond where indeterminacy is
explicitly mentioned (R2202 (Ratification Without Objection) and R2162
(Switches)).

Question:

I don't think I quite understand how interaction with higher-powered
rules is supposed to mess this up. I'm not necessarily suggesting we
do this, but if winning one round caused one to immediately earn Coins
(rather than after a delay of 4 days), would that break the "self
contained" nature of this problem, and provide a test case for this?
What would happen?

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo

2019-08-04 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 05:23, James Cook  wrote:
>
> > Okay, a few things.
> >
> > * Defining “unconditional announcement” is probably overkill; any sane
> > judge would arrive at that that anyway, and it adds a bit to bloat.
> > * You should probably say "Roshambo Score is an integer player switch" (R
> > 2509)
> > * You should probably say "increased by 1" and "decreased by 1" (or
> > incremented and decremented) instead of redefining those terms. (R2509)
> > * I'd prefer an award of coins along with a SHOULD encouraging the Herald
> > to give the patent title of "Time Lord"
> > * I agree that this almost certainly works in this limited case.
> >
> > -Aris
>
> Thanks for the comments! Updated draft below.

Oops, I forgot to remove the "by unconditional announcement"
definition. There are probably many other errors, but here's an update
that fixes that one:

AI: 1
Co-authors: Aris, Jason Cobb
Text:
Enact a new power-0.5 rule titled "Clairvoyant Roshambo", with the
following text.

  At every time, the Roshambo Wheel is set to exactly one of Rock,
  Paper or Scissors. When the Rules do not say that its value
  changes, it stays the same. If it would otherwise not be set to a
  value, it is set to Rock.

  Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN
  Commune with the Wheel by announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or
  Scissors.  A player CAN Reach into the Past by announcement at any
  time. If a player Communes the Wheel at a time T, and does not
  Reach into the Past in the four days following T, then at time T
  the value of the Roshambo Wheel is changed to the value e
  specified.

  Rock beats Scissors, Scissors beats Paper, and Paper beats Rock.
  Roshambo Score is an integer player switch. Once per Agoran week,
  each player CAN Play Roshambo by announcement, specifying Rock,
  Paper or Scissors, but only if e has not Communed with the Wheel
  in the past 4 days.  When e does so:
  * If e specifies a value that beats the current value of the
Roshambo Wheel, then 4 days later, eir Roshambo Score is
increased by 1.
  * If e specifies a value that is beaten by the current value of
the Roshambo Wheel, then 4 days later, eir Roshambo Score is
decreased by 1.

  The Medium is an office, and the recordkeepor of Roshambo Score.

  A player with a Roshambo Score of at least 10 CAN Transcend Time
  by announcement.  When e does so, e wins the game, and all
  instances of the Roshambo Score switch are flipped to 0.


-- 
- Falsifian


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

2019-08-04 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 06:42, Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
> On 8/4/19 2:38 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> > COE: I am not a player, so I dont own a spaceship. You also have to delete
> > a sector for me and for nch.
> >
> Accepted.
>
> Revision: What was R. Lee's spaceship is currently possessed by the Lost
> and Found Department, pursuant to CFJ 3699.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb

There's a newer judgement that seems to contradict that:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3729

-- 
- Falsifian


DIS: Re: OFF: [FRC] Let the Festivities Commence!

2019-08-04 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 03:38, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> 2. Variety. Contributions that move things in a new direction shall be
>rewarded. Contributions that merely repeat things that have come
>before shall be punished. Remember that there are three distinct goals for
>the contest; pursuing one that has been long abandoned by your fellow
>worshipers is likely to please the gods.

Colud Your Supreme Eminence remind me of the three goals? My goal as
always is to please the AGORAN GODS in any way I can, but I see just
two ways to win listed in Regulation 7.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] I submit myself to the Agoran Gods!

2019-08-04 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 at 04:33, Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
> On 8/4/19 12:24 AM, Rebecca wrote:
> > I submit myself to the Agoran Gods! I join the FRC and create the following
> > rule
> >
> > O Hark, the commandments of the LORD are upon us! The LORD demanding the
> > respect he deserves, the LORD hereby decrees that all references to Agoran
> > Gods shall refer to em in ALL CAPITALS.
> >
> > Praise the LORD
> >
> [This is not a challenge, and is not sent to the public forum]
>
> Does this make it impossible for new contestants to legally join? If all
> references to the Agoran Gods must be in all capitals, then the header
> "I submit myself to the Agoran Gods!" must be transformed to "I submit
> myself to the AGORAN GODS!", but that might (?) violate my Fantasy Rule.
>
> --
> Jason Cobb

People seem to be reading your rule as allowing the "I submit" part to
be outside the text of the new rule itself, which might get around R.
Lee's rule.
-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: OFF: No August zombie auction for now

2019-08-04 Thread James Cook
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 19:57, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> Hello my bruddah and sistahs, please make way for my infinite swagger:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_izvAbhExY

Hi Cuddle Beam! In case you're trying to not become a zombie, a
reminder that you need to post to a public forum to prevent that.

--
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Email change

2019-08-04 Thread James Cook
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 at 14:08, Nich Evans  wrote:
> In a decluttering effort, I'm going to start using this address.
>
> --
> Nich Evans

Let me know if you'd like it to be included somewhere in the
Registrar's reports. E.g. I could add it to your footnote at
https://agoranomic.org/Registrar/monthly/fresh.txt

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: Cheap first wins (Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo)

2019-08-03 Thread James Cook
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 at 21:04, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> Actually, I wonder if we should think about some kind of "debugging"
> mechanism for victories.  Something like "when a win method is first
> implemented (some mechanism, probably involving Agoran Consent, for
> figuring out whether the first win was due to a win as intended or due
> to finding a bug)".  If it was "win as intended" then champion,
> otherwise you get a "debugging" title.  After a certain amount of time
> that "debugging" goes away and it's a straight win - if you find a
> loophole that nobody's spotted at the beginning, you deserve the full
> win.

For Clairvoyant Roshambo in particular, what if the first version said
you gain 2 Coins for winning a round and lose 2 for losing a round,
and once that seems to be working, switch to Roshambo Score and some
big reward (maybe winning Agora) if your Score reaches 10?

More specifically, I suggest Playing Roshambo be a fee-based action
costing 2 Coins, and 4 days after playing, you earn 0, 2 or 4 Coins
depending on what the outcome was.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo

2019-08-03 Thread James Cook
> Random "I" after "then at time T".
>
> Jason Cobb

Thanks, should be fixed in the draft I just published.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo

2019-08-03 Thread James Cook
> Okay, a few things.
>
> * Defining “unconditional announcement” is probably overkill; any sane
> judge would arrive at that that anyway, and it adds a bit to bloat.
> * You should probably say "Roshambo Score is an integer player switch" (R
> 2509)
> * You should probably say "increased by 1" and "decreased by 1" (or
> incremented and decremented) instead of redefining those terms. (R2509)
> * I'd prefer an award of coins along with a SHOULD encouraging the Herald
> to give the patent title of "Time Lord"
> * I agree that this almost certainly works in this limited case.
>
> -Aris

Thanks for the comments! Updated draft below. I left the win alone for
now; will possibly follow up on the new thread. I plan to wait at
least until after the birthday tournament before submitting this.

AI: 1
Co-authors: Aris, Jason Cobb
Text:
Enact a new power-0.5 rule titled "Clairvoyant Roshambo", with the
following text.

  At every time, the Roshambo Wheel is set to exactly one of Rock,
  Paper or Scissors. When the Rules do not say that its value
  changes, it stays the same. If it would otherwise not be set to a
  value, it is set to Rock.

  To perform an action "by unconditional announcement" is to perform
  it by announcement and not specify any condition upon which the
  action depends in that announcement.

  Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN
  Commune with the Wheel by announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or
  Scissors.  A player CAN Reach into the Past by announcement at any
  time. If a player Communes the Wheel at a time T, and does not
  Reach into the Past in the four days following T, then at time T
  the value of the Roshambo Wheel is changed to the value e
  specified.

  Rock beats Scissors, Scissors beats Paper, and Paper beats Rock.
  Roshambo Score is an integer player switch. Once per Agoran week,
  each player CAN Play Roshambo by announcement, specifying Rock,
  Paper or Scissors, but only if e has not Communed with the Wheel
  in the past 4 days.  When e does so:
  * If e specifies a value that beats the current value of the
Roshambo Wheel, then 4 days later, eir Roshambo Score is
increased by 1.
  * If e specifies a value that is beaten by the current value of
the Roshambo Wheel, then 4 days later, eir Roshambo Score is
decreased by 1.

  The Medium is an office, and the recordkeepor of Roshambo Score.

  A player with a Roshambo Score of at least 10 CAN Transcend Time
  by announcement.  When e does so, e wins the game, and all
  instances of the Roshambo Score switch are flipped to 0.


-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Monthly report, with correction to previous

2019-08-02 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 16:08, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> On 8/1/2019 8:59 AM, James Cook wrote:
>  > Note: The previous monthly report incorrectly listed the deregistration
>  > dates of 天火狐 and pokes as January 2019. The correct month is February
>  > 2019, as listed in this report.
>
> Can you list Tenhigitsune as an alternative (transliteration) for 天火狐?
>
> -G.

Done, thanks. The next monthly report will add a footnote
"Alternative/transliteration: Tenhigitsune".
https://agoranomic.org/Registrar/monthly/fresh.txt

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215-8234

2019-08-01 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 23:00, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 3:44 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
> > On 7/30/19 9:51 PM, James Cook wrote:
> > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 02:31, Edward Murphy  wrote:
> > >> I vote as follows. Also, not sure what the difficulties were here, but
> > >> in any case, how would people feel about multiple distributions per week
> > >> (5 to 10 per day, say)? (No, I'm not bidding for the office myself.)
> > > As a voter, I would be just as happy if proposals were distributed in
> > > smaller batches. I guess the Promotor and Assessor would be the most
> > > affected.
> > >
> > > - Falsifian
> >
> >
> > It would be slightly more effort for me, given that I do my best to
> > ensure that all of the assessments are kept separate (they're separate
> > branches on GitHub) and that there's an audit trail for all of my vote
> > recording.
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> It would be quite a bit more effort than me. If the Agoran public wants to
> go through with that, they can find a new Promotor.
>
> -Aris

Would it make the Promotor's job easier if the Rules were changed to
not require distributing everything at once?

E.g. suppose you could distribute just the proposals that have been
sitting around for a while, and leave the rest in the Proposal Pool
until the discussion has settled down a bit.

[Or even, taking it to the extreme, distribute them one at a time
(even right after they're submitted), which would make things much
more annoying for the authors, voters and Assessor, but if I
understand things right, may make the Promotor's job less complicated.
Not a serious suggestion; just trying to illustrate my mental model of
what makes the Promotor's job easy or hard, so e can correct me.]

I've never been Promotor and may be completely wrong about what makes
things easier or harder.

-- 
- Falsifian


DIS: Re: OFF: No August zombie auction for now

2019-08-01 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 15:46, James Cook  wrote:
>
> No zombie auction is necessary right now under R1885. This
> announcement is required by that rule.
>
> --
> - Falsifian

I expect we'll have many eligible zombies by the start of September.
Let me know if you'd like me to start one before then (many could
become eligible by August 15).

For reference, here's an unofficial record of players who did not send
public messages during June and/or July.

z=zombie
*=no public messages since the start of 2019-07
**=no public messages since the start of 2019-06

 Player
 --
   omd
   Aris
 **Gaelan
   G.
 * Cuddle Beam
   Trigon
   Murphy
 * ATMunn
   twg
   D. Margaux [4]
 **Hālian
   Baron von Vaderham
   Falsifian
 * Bernie
 * Rance
 * o
   Jason Cobb
   Walker
z**PSS [1]
z* Corona
z**L
z**Jacob Arduino
z**Telnaior

-- 
- Falsifian


DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Moot cleanup

2019-08-01 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 14:25, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> Title: Moot cleanup
>
> AI: 1.7
>
> Text:
>
> {
>
> [Comment: this appears to be left over from when favouring cases was
> given Rules-defined meaning.]
>
> Amend Rule 911 ("Motions and Moots") by replacing the text "unless no
> other eligible judges have displayed interest in judging" with the text
> "unless there are no other eligible judges".
>
> }
>
> --
> Jason Cobb

R991 still says "The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that
all interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.".
I'm not sure what an "eligible judge" is, but it might just be any
Player who the CFJ can be assigned to, i.e. anyone but the initiator
or the person barred by the initiator. The provision might be there so
that the Arbitor doesn't need to resort to assigning cases to players
who never signed up to be judges.

-- 
- Falsifian


DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] in this, the first year of the Salted Earth

2019-08-01 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 01:24, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> I submit the following proposal "Era of the Salted Earth", AI=1.5:
>
> 
> Amend Rule 2415 (Badges) by appending the following paragraph:
>
>The current Era of Agora is the time between the last award of
>a badge and the present.  Each Era has a name, based on the
>name of the last awarded badge, as parsed by the Herald.  The
>Herald's Monthly Report includes the name of the Era and its
>start date.
>
> 

Nitpicks:

* This means that the Era of the Salted Earth ends right now, but that
tomorrow will end tomorrow, etc, which seems a bit odd.

* This would start a new era if the Herald awards an existing badge to
someone; I assume that would normally be done when someone was
accidentally left out.

What about beginning with "Every time a new badge is awarded, a new
Era of Agora begins. Each Era has a name...", rather than trying to
say when the current Era ends?

I guess it is implied that when a new Era begins, the previous one ends.

-- 
- Falsifian


DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8202-8214

2019-08-01 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 00:06, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> New month, so:
>
> I award a Gray Ribbon to Falsifian (doesn't fully make up for a precious
> indigo but it's something at least!)

Thanks for the ribbon! I guess I got sloppy with ribbons after I got
my Transparent one. I certainly don't expect the Tailor to be
responsible for awarding every possible ribbon.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo

2019-07-31 Thread James Cook
>   Once per Agoran week, each player CAN Play Roshambo by
>   unconditional announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or Scissors.
>   When e does so:

Oops, this part still needs to be updated.

Once per Agoran week, each player Can Play Roshambo by unconditional
announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or Scissors, but only if e has
not Communed with the Wheel in the past 4 days. When e does so: ...

-- 
- Falsifian


DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo

2019-07-31 Thread James Cook
> That's a good point. Maybe we could add "as long as the announcement
> is not conditioned on anything". It's possible that R478's requirement
> that "by announcement" actions must be unambiguous would imply this
> anyway.
>
> --
> - Falsifian

I have realized the value of the Roshambo Wheel switch will often
become "indeterminate", and thus be reset to the default. So, I agree
with Aris that some sort of higher-powered rule change would be needed
to have changes to switches depend on the future.

Fortunately, I can get around it by not making the Roshambo Wheel a
switch. Updated draft, with the following changes:
* Defined and used "by unconditional announcement".
* The Roshambo Wheel is not a switch. I hope the new text works.
* I removed With Notice from winning. I see Spaaace has it, but I'm not
  sure why. I'll put it back if someone explains it.
* Change "Spin" to "Commune" and "Change eir Mind about spinning" into
  "Reach into the Past".
* A player CANNOT play Roshambo if e has Communed in the past 4 days.
* Default the Roshambo Wheel to Rock.
* Add a delay between playing and updating a player's score, to keep the
  score determinate. Add an officer to track the scores.

AI: 1
Co-authors: Jason Cobb
Text:
Enact a new power-0.5 rule titled "Clairvoyant Roshambo", with the
following text.

  At every time, the Roshambo Wheel is set to exactly one of Rock,
  Paper or Scissors. When the Rules do not say that its value
  changes, it stays the same. If it would otherwise not be set to a
  value, it is set to Rock.

  To perform an action "by unconditional announcement" is to perform
  it by announcement and not specify any condition upon which the
  action depends in that announcement.

  Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN
  Commune with the Wheel by unconditional announcement, specifying
  Rock, Paper or Scissors.  A player CAN Reach into the Past by
  unconditional announcement at any time. If a player Communes the
  Wheel at a time T, and does not Reach into the Past in the four
  days following T, then at time T I the value of the Roshambo Wheel
  is changed to the value e specified.

  The Medium is an office. Roshambo Score is a player switch with
  possible values all integers, tracked by the Medium.  To increase
  a player's Roshambo Score is to flip it to a value one greater
  than it was, and to decrease it is to flip it to a value one less
  than it was.

  Rock beats Scissors, Scissors beats Paper, and Paper beats Rock.

  Once per Agoran week, each player CAN Play Roshambo by
  unconditional announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or Scissors.
  When e does so:
  * If e specifies a value that beats the current value of the Roshambo
Wheel, then 4 days later, eir Roshambo Score is increased.
  * If e specifies a value that is beaten by the current value of the
Roshambo Wheel, then 4 days later, eir Roshambo Score is
decreased.

  A player with a Roshambo Score of at least 10 CAN Transcend Time
  by announcement.  When e does so, e wins the game, and all
  instances of the Roshambo Score switch are flipped to 0.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Clairvoyand Roshambo (was Ratification via closed timelike curves (was [proposal] Contract party fixes))

2019-07-30 Thread James Cook
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 at 02:45, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> How does this work with conditionals? A conditional on the state of the
> wheel would probably be inextricable, but I don't see any text that
> actually stops inextricable conditionals (except for a SHOULD) besides
> voting.
>
> Jason Cobb

That's a good point. Maybe we could add "as long as the announcement
is not conditioned on anything". It's possible that R478's requirement
that "by announcement" actions must be unambiguous would imply this
anyway.

Incidentally, I think the inextricable thing was recently repealed in
Proposal 8212.

--
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: [Proto] Time protection

2019-07-30 Thread James Cook
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 16:06, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> Proto for time protection (a homage to B Nomic):
>
> Amend Rule 1698 (Agora Is A Nomic) by replacing its first paragraph
> with:
>
>Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable
>combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes
>to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a
>four-week period.  Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, dates and
>times in Agora refer to Coordinated Universal Time (UTC). [*]
>
> [
> Comments:
>
> [*] The first  sentence is for context and unchanged.  I thought about a
> longer version e.g. "Time CANNOT pass at any other rate" or similar but I
> think just stating "time is always UTC" as above does the trick without
> adding extra stuff that could break - thoughts??

I'm confused. Doesn't R217's "Definitions in lower-powered Rules ..."
already protect R1698 from this? Are you proposing this to give R1698
better protection against Power-3 instruments, which could e.g. repeal
R217? If so, aren't there other basic definitions to protect as well,
like "rule", "exist", "take effect'?

--
- Falsifian


DIS: Clairvoyand Roshambo (was Ratification via closed timelike curves (was [proposal] Contract party fixes))

2019-07-30 Thread James Cook
New subject line as I'm hoping to focus a new thread just on this
proto-proposal.

The below power-0.5 game is intended as a test of the idea of actions
depending on the future. I'm happy to reduce the winning condition to
just getting some Coins or a congratulations or something, if people
prefer.


> AI: 1
> Text:
> Enact a new power-0.5 rule titled "Clairvoyant Roshambo", with the
> following text.
>
> The Roshambo Wheel is a singleton switch with possible values Rock,
> Paper and Scissors. Rock beats Scissors, Scissors beats Paper, and
> Paper beats Rock.
>
> Whenever a player has not done so in the past 4 days, e CAN Spin the
> Wheel by announcement, specifying Rock, Paper or Scissors. A player
> CAN Change eir Mind about spinning by announcement at any time. If a
> player Spins the Wheel at a time T, and does not Change eir Mind in
> the four days following T, then at time T the Roshambo Wheel is
> flipped to the value e specified.
>
> Roshambo Score is a player switch with possible values all integers.
> To increase it is to flip it to a value one greater than it was, and
> to decrease it is to flip it to a value one less than it was.
>
> Once per Agoran week, each player CAN Play Roshambo by announcement,
> specifying Rock, Paper or Scissors. When e does so:
> * If e specifies a value that beats the current value of the Roshambo
> Wheel, eir Roshambo Score is increased.
> * If e specifies a value that is beaten by the current value of the
> Roshambo Wheel, eir Roshambo Score is decreased.
>
> A player with a Roshambo Score of at least 10 CAN, with Notice,
> Transcend Time. When e does so, e wins the game, and all instances of
> the Roshambo Score switch are flipped to 0.

Two amendments (I'm sure more will be needed):

* A player CANNOT play Roshambo if e has Spun the Wheel in the post N
(N=4?) days. That's to prevent someone from just spinning the wheel
and playing Roshambo in the same message.

* Default the Roshambo Wheel to Rock. This gives some people a free
point, but without this I think players may be disincentivised from
spinning it the first time.

Example gameplay:

* Player A spins the wheel to Paper.
* Player B spins it to Scissors.
* Player C spins it to Rock, and convinces others e will not Change eir Mind.
* Player D plays Roshambo, specifying Paper.
* Player C cruelly changes eir mind.
* Player D tries to bribe B into changing eir mind as well. But 4 days
pass, and B does not change eir mind.
* We now know that the wheel was Scissors when Player D played, so we
know that Player D lost a point.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Ratification via closed timelike curves (was [proposal] Contract party fixes)

2019-07-30 Thread James Cook
Okay, first, practical matters:

* Given your position on the matter, Aris, I don't plan to push for
this change any time soon.

* I'm still keen to try out the power-0.5 mini game. I have at least
one correction which I'll post separately. I'm curious to hear your
thoughts.



Now, less-practical matters (separating this part out since it feels
like more of a debate with no immediate impact, though the sub-game
might make at least part of it relevant).

> How does this help? Specifically, how is it any better than what exists now?

I think it is a *slightly* simpler and more elegant way to implement
ratification than what we have now, and I also think it's a fun idea.
Clearly, we disagree, on the first part at least!

On the topic of whether whether or not a higher-powered rule would be
required--- do you think enacting my (proto-)proposed mini-game would
help resolve our disagreement? (Maybe it would resolve the question of
whether multiple timelines are created too, or maybe we just disagree
on the definition of "timeline".)

On the topic of added uncertainty --- I take your point that right now
most facts relevant to the game are possible to know based only on
knowledge of past public messages. Indeed, my proposed mini-game would
deliberately add more situations involving this kind of uncertainty.
However, if the idea were carefully applied to ratification, I believe
the uncertainty would not often come up in practice, beyond having to
sometimes re-file a CFJ after CoEing a report that's not consistent
with our beliefs. I would be curious to see an example where you think
it's likely to cause a real problem. But I'm also happy to let this
matter rest for now and focus on the power-0.5 test.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215-8234

2019-07-30 Thread James Cook
> - Enforce this norm by lowering people's honor for not following it (I
> just generally like the idea of using honor to reinforce norms since it
> doesn't do much else)

I like this idea.

-- 
- Falsifian


DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215-8234

2019-07-30 Thread James Cook
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 02:31, Edward Murphy  wrote:
> I vote as follows. Also, not sure what the difficulties were here, but
> in any case, how would people feel about multiple distributions per week
> (5 to 10 per day, say)? (No, I'm not bidding for the office myself.)

As a voter, I would be just as happy if proposals were distributed in
smaller batches. I guess the Promotor and Assessor would be the most
affected.

- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Ratification via closed timelike curves (was [proposal] Contract party fixes)

2019-07-30 Thread James Cook
On Tue, 30 Jul 2019 at 06:57, Aris Merchant
 wrote:
> First off, I’m very happy you published this. It’s very interesting and it
> adds a lot to the discourse. I will now proceed to state why I think it’s a
> bad idea. (Upon retreading your post, these amount to explanations of why
> concerns c and a are perhaps more serious than you think.)

Thanks for writing this. I will respond to your points in more detail
below, but a summary:

* You're right, this would make the rules more complicated. However,
it can be separated into a small change that changes the way we think
about timelines, but doesn't remove the references to "gamestate", and
a follow-up change that may get less support that would indeed make
the rules somewhat longer.

* I disagree that this creates multiple timelines.

* I don't understand why you think this needs a high-power rule, and
propose that we test it by creating a mini-game with power-0.5 rules.

> You haven’t actually solved the gamestate problem, just moved it back a
> layer. The problem is that a report is fundamentally a declarative
> statement of how things are, and you’re changing that to make it
> imperative. This removes the generality of reports, since we have to define
> exactly what each report is changing. Switch reports are easy. What about
> asset reports? Do they “create, destroy, and transfer assets such that they
> are in the manner described”? At that point, you may as well be saying “set
> the assets so they are in the manner described”, which doesn’t seem like
> much of an improvement over “set the gamestate such that it is in the
> matter described”. I really fail to see how this is a particular
> simplification? It seems like you’ve made things more complicated, not less
> so.

Yes, now that you mention it, my preferred way of implementing this
idea for reports about assets would be to explicitly say that the
assets are changed to be as reflected. Rule 2034 would also need to be
changed, and every time we add another kind of things to ratify, the
rules would get longer.

So, I would like to separate this into two parts.

1. A smaller change to the way we deal with time:

AI: 3.1
Text:
In R1551, replace the first sentence of the second paragraph with: "If
a public document is ratified within 14 days after it is published,
then at the time it is published, it is Implemented. When a document
is Implemented, the gamestate is minimally modified to make the
ratified document as true and as accurate as possible."

2. Remove all references to "gamestate", and talk about actions rather
than documents being ratified. As you say, this would make the rules
somewhat longer. We could do 1 and not 2.

> Also, you’re still doing timeline manipulation. Specifically, if I’m
> understanding you correctly, you’re causing a timeline divergence. There’s
> the timeline where the action is ratified in the future and the timeline
> where it isn’t ratified in the future. Worse, no one knows which timeline
> we’re on until 4 days after the ratifiable action happens. That means that
> any actions that depend on whether the ratifiable action succeeded or not
> have indeterminate success. This means that any CFJs about those options
> are indeterminate. At any given time, there will be no current summation of
> what the game is. Instead, it will be in a superposition of multiple
> possible states. This is, frankly, very hard to reason about. While you may
> technically be right that it isn’t strictly any more complicated than the
> current state of affairs, it would mean that there’s never a right answer
> about how the game is at the current moment. It removes our ability to have
> a shared idea of how things are now.

Is this kind of uncertainty fundamentally different from any other? If
a player posts a hash of a pledge, then later reveals the text of the
pledge, there is similarly a period of time during which the Agoran
public does not know what the content of the pledge was. CFJs about
such a pledge have the same trouble in that unless the player is
motivated to reveal their pledge to the Judge, the content cannot be
known. It would be unconventional to say the game is in a
"superposition of multiple states" during that period of uncertainty.

Under the current rules, it may always be possible for a diligent
Judge to give a complete description of all aspects of the gamestate
as it is now. I admit that the proposal would create situations where
that's not strictly true, but I think the uncertainty will be quite
manageable, and this theoretical diligent Judge could still fully
reason about the gamestate 14 days ago.

I'd like to use an example. Consider this timeline:

1. Alice tries to pull of a scam (unrelated to time travel) and it's
legally unclear whether eir Coin balance is 0 or 1000.

2. The Treasuror publishes another report saying Alice's Coin balance is 1000.

3. A CFJ is called: Alice has 1000 Coins.

The Judge may not know whether the report is ratified. However, there

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215-8234

2019-07-29 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 22:45, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> On Sunday, July 28, 2019 8:45 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> > [This is one of the most complicated distributions in my time in office.
> > There will be errors; CoE and I'll try to correct. I've been working at this
> > for well over 4 hours now, and I don't have much more energy left.
> > Sorry y'all; I tried.]
>
> Another CoE on this distribution (sorry): Proposal 8223, which is probably 
> "Repairing Defeated Spaceships v3", has the details of proposal 8224, "Remove 
> Inactive Sods", in the full section. The summary is also wrong; Jacob Arduino 
> is the author, and I and Jason Cobb are merely co-authors.
>
> If it's proving complicated to work out which proposals were actually 
> distributed, would it be helpful to try to ratify without objection something 
> like this: { The gamestate is as it would be if Aris' message of about 20:45 
> on 2019-07-28, purporting to distribute several proposals, had not been sent 
> to a public forum. } ?

I'd prefer to do it without resorting to ratification, but would defer
to the H. Promotor's decision.

> On Sunday, July 28, 2019 9:49 PM, Aris Merchant 
>  wrote:
> > Incidentally, it’s pretty unlikely that I could persuade y’all to approve
> > this, but my life would be way simpler if proposals could only be submitted
> > in messages that had “proposal” in the subject line.
>
> Definitely. As I recall we've tried to do this voluntarily a few times in the 
> past but people kept forgetting (I know I do) and it died out after a while. 
> Legislating it might get people to start pointing out if it's forgotten.
>
> Another possibility, maybe a bit outlandish - is a new list feasible? 
> Something like "agora-propos...@agoranomic.org", that's only for submitting 
> proposals, Promotor/Assessor reports and votes?

It would certainly help in this case, but I can think of a couple of
disadvantages:

* It be dangerous, e.g. make backup lists less effective if things go
wrong. R1698 might calim that the agora-proposal changing into a
broken list never happened because it would have caused Agora to
become ossified, but that wouldn't fix the problem that we couldn't
post to it.

* Signing up for the list would be one more step for new players to follow.

On the other hand, if we could come up with a lighter-weight
mechanism, it might be applicable to other things. There's a direction
we could go here where every message with a Spaaace action has to
start with (or have in its subject line? but see my concern in the
other thread) "Spaaace", every set of votes has to start with
"Vote(s)", etc. If we're going to do it for proposals (and motions of
no confidence, as Jason Cobb pointed out), we should try to be
consistent and easy to extend to other things, should the Agoran
public so desire.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215-8234

2019-07-29 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 22:08, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> On 7/28/19 6:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > I'm willing to try this voluntarily for Proposals and it might be
> > interesting to broach the idea of requiring Subject format (that we've
> > never
> > done before).
>
>
> Rule 2463 ("Motion of No Confidence") requires a subject line that
> includes "MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE".
>
> Jason Cobb

I think we should have an escape hatch in case Agora moves to a medium
that doesn't have subject lines, and either nobody notices this
problem or there isn't much notice. Maybe just require the subject
line to say "Proposal" if there is a subject line that players can
reasonably control.

-- 
- Falsifian


DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Are "secured" switches broken?

2019-07-29 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 03:37, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> A Rule that designates a switch as "secured" (at a given power
> level) designates changes to that switch's value as secured (at that
> power level).
...
> Amend Rule 869 as follows:
>
> Delete the text "Changes to citizenship are secured.".
>
> Replace the text "Citizenship is a person switch" with the text
> "Citizenship is a secured person switch".

At a first glance, I think this confuses types of switches with
instances of switches. For example, Citizenship is a type of switch;
it doesn't have a value. A person's Citizenship is an instance of a
switch and does have a value. Your proposal might allow lower-powered
instruments to flip a person's Citizenship.

-- 
- Falsifian


DIS: Re: BUS: M

2019-07-29 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 03:00, Rebecca  wrote:
> I deregister. Sad!
>
> --
> From R. Lee

We'll miss you!

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: recusal rule trim

2019-07-29 Thread James Cook
> "The CFJ becomes unassigned" is covered in R991 as synonymous with being
> Recused, so it wasn't needed (I think?):
>
...
>
> Fine on putting the SHOULD back, hopefully that's not a deal-killer in terms
> of voting for this one... (in the few self-recusals I've seen in the past
> few months I don't think anyone suggested a different judge, so it wasn't
> being paid attention to particularly).
>
> -G.

Oops, you're right, sounds good. I don't have an opinion on SHOULD right now.


--
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: space

2019-07-29 Thread James Cook
On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 10:27, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> Amend Rule 2595 by replacing the text "Any player CAN, by
> announcement, spend a coin to increase the Armour of a Pilotable
> Spaceship e owns by 1." with the text "Any player CAN pay a fee of 1
> coin to increase the Armour of a Pilotable Spaceship in eir possession
> by 1 or pay a fee of 3 coins to increase the Armour of a Defeated
> Spaceship by 1."

That should be 2591.

-- 
- Falsifian


DIS: Re: BUS: recusal rule trim

2019-07-29 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 00:08, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> Amend Rule 2492 (Recusal) to read in full:
>
>A judge CAN recuse emself from a CFJ e is assigned to, by
>announcement.
>
>The Arbitor CAN recuse a judge from a case by announcement, if that
>judge has violated a time limit for judging the case and has not
>judged it in the mean time; the Arbitor SHALL do so in a timely
>fashion after the time limit expires, if able.
>
>If a judge is recused from a case 4+ days after being assigned
>to it, e SHOULD NOT be assigned as a judge until e has apologised
>and or reasonably explained eir actions.

Don't we still need "the CFJ becomes assigned"? Also maybe the "SHOULD
suggest another judge..." should be kept; it could go in the first
paragraph.

Sorry for only reading this after it got distributed.

--
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business

2019-07-29 Thread James Cook
G. responded to my original finger-pointing message with some
convincing reasons it might not work. I'm not inclined to re-try, but
others are welcome to of course.

On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 04:54, Rebecca  wrote:
>
> Someone just point another finger, and assign it to the arbitor.
>
> On Monday, July 29, 2019, Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
> > I note that the office of Referee is vacant because its former holder (R.
> > Lee) has ceased to be a player.
> >
> > If I CAN do so, and if it is LEGAL for me to do so, I temporarily deputise
> > for Referee to perform the following actions:
> >
> > {
> >
> > I find Falsifian's Finger Pointing against Jason Cobb to be Shenanigans.
> >
> > }
> >
> > (this is legal by my reading because there's no restriction on me
> > resolving a Finger-point against myself.)
> >
> > I recognize that this is really scammy and probably against game custom,
> > but oh well.
> >
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> > On 7/24/19 9:58 AM, James Cook wrote:
> >
> >> Just in case, for future reference, here's my record of purported
> >>> actions related to NSC:
> >>>
> >>> 2019-07-22 20:22: 10 Coins  G. -> NSC
> >>> 2019-07-22 20:39: 10 Coins  NSC -> Trigon
> >>> 2019-07-22 21:42:  4 Coins  NSC -> Jason Cobb
> >>> 2019-07-22 21:42:  2 Coins  NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: TURNPIKE)
> >>> 2019-07-22 21:42:  6 Coins  NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: BLACKMAIL)
> >>> 2019-07-22 23:19: R. Lee does everything 15 times
> >>>
> >>> - Falsifian
> >>>
> >> I Point my Finger at Jason Cobb for violating Rule 2471 (No Faking).
> >>
> >> Jason Cobb published messages claiming e transferred a total of 12
> >> Coins from NSC, when NSC had at most 10 Coins. I can think of three
> >> cases:
> >>
> >> * E did not know the text of NSC, in which case e surely believed eir
> >> actions would not be effective, and so violated R2471 with the first
> >> attempted action.
> >>
> >> * E did know the text, and therefore knew specifically which of the
> >> actions would fail.
> >>
> >> * E did know the text, but the text makes it hard for em to know which
> >> of the earlier actions would succeed, so e did not know which of the
> >> later actions would succeed. This seems unlikely, but I welcome Jason
> >> Cobb to try to convince us of this.
> >>
> >> I do think the statements were made with the intent to mislead: there
> >> wis intentionally uncertainty around what NSC is, and Jason Cobb must
> >> have known eir statements would add to the confusion.
> >>
> >> --
> >> - Falsifian
> >>
> >
>
> --
> From R. Lee



-- 
- Falsifian


DIS: Ratification via closed timelike curves (was [proposal] Contract party fixes)

2019-07-28 Thread James Cook
Two responses inline...

On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 20:20, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> On 7/28/2019 1:03 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > That may be a reasonable point; I know that tends to be a weakness in
> > my proposals, although I tried pretty hard not to do it in that one.
> > Still, I'm not sure I see a much simpler codification of our existing
> > precedents, especially given that it has to be safe. And I think those
> > are good precedents which should darn well be codified. If anyone has
> > simplifications though (including complete alternate approaches), I'd
> > be happy to hear them. As soon as the safety concerns are dealt with,
> > I'll see if I can come up with anything simpler myself.
>
> I thought playing with "timelines" was a really clever concept actually but
> I got bogged down working my way through various things that work due to
> precedents, to see if it codified them or changed them (sometimes "codifying
> precedent" makes something rigid and brittle that was formerly flexible or
> could be overturned, so that's the kind of thing I was looking for).

I've been thinking about another option for implementing ratification,
with the following three possible advantages:
(a) No need to refer to a poorly-defined concept of "gamestate", and I
suspect it would generally simplify the rules.
(b) No multiple timelines. (Like the fixed history model of time
travel.) I think this is an advantage unless you think the rules
aren't complicated enough as it is.
(c) Might not require any high-powered rules to make it work. It's
just a new definition of "ratifiable action" that rules of whatever
power could refer to as they please.

I haven't yet tried to write it out, but hope to do so soon, and since
it's come up, I'll give an outline of my idea:

A "ratifiable" action takes effect at the time it is published, but
only if at some point in the next N days it is ratified (or some
similar condition involving the future).

For example, we could make publishing an officer's report into a
ratifiable action that flips all the listed switches to their listed
values. Then, we could say the change happens immediately, so long as
it is ratified in the future according to the usual self-ratifying
rules.

Between the time when a ratifiable action is published and when it is
ratified (or some time limit for that runs out, etc) it it may be
impossible to know whether the action had an effect. At the time the
actual ratification happens, nothing actually changes, except our
knowledge of the situation.

Some disadvantages I can think of, and some responses to them:

(a) The uncertainty about the gamestate mentioned in the previous
paragraph may be undesirable. But, I think the current situation,
where the gamestate is retroactively changed, is at least as
confusing.

(b) This may lead to paradoxes. But as with (a), I think we're already
in that situation. Right now, I can find an action X that I can
currently take, but that retroactively changes the past so I couldn't
have taken X, that could be a paradox; twg tried to do this when we
fixed dependent actions. The solution is to be careful about when we
allow ratifiable actions.

(c) I claimed we can get rid of references to "gamestate", and
justified it by giving an example about switches and officer's reports
where the word "gamestate" didn't come into it. But if we want to keep
the ability to ratify an arbitrary document (e.g. ratification without
objection), we'd need to keep the wording involving gamestate.
Personally, I'm okay with removing the flexibility to ratify an
arbitrary document, and replace it with a fast-track proposal process.
Instead of ratifying {there are no spaceships}, you would simply
fast-track a proposal: {destroy all spaceships}. If it's really
important that it happen at the time it's originally published, you
could turn it into a ratifiable action as outlined above, so as long
as it's approved soon enough in the future, it takes effect when it's
published.

(d) Currently, it's possible to ratify a document listing an effective
date before it was published. This new system would not allow that. Is
that a big loss?

> > Speaking of those safety concerns, I'm a tad peeved that several
> > people voted against the proposal on the basis that "this might be
> > dangerous", including you, and yet no one seems to be able to explain
> > to me exactly what danger is involved so that I can mitigate it. Yes,
> > it might be dangerous, that's a dangerous area of rule making, and
> > it's quite fair to have high standards. That being said, I'd like to
> > know exactly what the standards are so that I can meet them. At this
> > point it feels like people are saying "there might be problems"
> > without providing anything approaching a direction I can go in to
> > persuade them otherwise.

Sorry, I was mostly just scared by others' comments with that one. I
didn't find time to do a second reading, and even if I did and found
nothing wrong, I don't feel experienced 

DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Double Jeopardy Prevention Act

2019-07-25 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 18:38, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> Title: Double Jeopardy Prevention Act

Is this a serious problem? If the current referee really wants to levy
a fine for something a previous referee found to be Shenanigans, the
accused is still protected by items (2) and (3). Those are likely to
involve CFJs, which tend to be sticky as far as I can tell, so the
jeopardy ends there.

I'm leaning mildly against this as adding unnecessary text, and also
making it slightly easier for someone to escape punishment if they
control the referee (though only slightly; the ref can already make a
fine forgivable).

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Space Rebel Uprising

2019-07-25 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 15:00, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> On 7/25/2019 7:38 AM, James Cook wrote:
>  > Title: Fresh start
>  > Co-authors: (empty list)
>  > Adoption index: 3.1
>  > Text: {
>  > Register nch.
>  > nch receives a Welcome Package.
>  > Destroy all of nch's Coins.
>  > }
>
> idk, as much as I don't want nch to sit out for 30 days, we've had people
> deregister themselves to do a scam and in the past said "hey well that's the
> price of scamming" (if it was accidental for non-scammy reasons we try to
> get em back definitely).  Just a discussion not absolutely set to vote
> against this.  -G.

If another person does it in the near future I won't feel so
forgiving; I don't want to make it a pattern, and anyway people who
didn't know that rule should know it now.

In this case, as Registrar, I encourage others to vote FOR bringing
nch back. I expect keeping active and creative players around to be
good for the health and vitality of Agora.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Space Rebel Uprising

2019-07-25 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 16:07, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> Also, if you want em to have the welcome package, you might not want to
> destroy all of eir coins after giving it to em.
>
> Jason Cobb

The purpose was to effectively deny em a welcome package.


DIS: Re: BUS: Space Rebel Uprising

2019-07-25 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 14:33, James Cook  wrote:
> I submit a proposal as follows.
>
> Title: Fresh start
> Co-authors: (empty list)
> Adoption index: 3.01
> Text: {
> Register nch.
> nch receives a Welcome Package.
> Destroy all of nch's Coins.
> }

I believe the "Register nch." provision is unaffected by R869's
"CANNOT be registered for 30 days" because of the third list item in
R2140 (Power Controls Mutability). Am I understanding that right?

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Contracts

2019-07-25 Thread James Cook
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 23:55, Rebecca  wrote:
> I retract that proposal and substitute this one.
>
> Title: No secret contracts
> AI: 2.5
> Text: Destroy each contract the full text of which has not been posted in
> public. If this destroyed Agora, put it back again the same as it was.
> Nobody will be able to tell the difference.
> Amend the rule "Contracts" by changing "Such an agreement is known as a
> contract." to "When the full text of such an agreement is posted in public,
> it is known as a contract"

Rather than destroying contracts that haven't been posted publicly,
which seems kind of messy, why not just legislate that they're not
contracts? Your rule change might already do that, or maybe replacing
"When the full text ... it is known as a contract" with "If the full
text ... it is known as a contract" would do it?

-- 
- Falsifian


DIS: Re: BUS: Space Rebel Uprising

2019-07-24 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 25 Jul 2019 at 01:25, nch  wrote:
> I deregister. I register.

Sorry, you can't be registered for 30 days after deregistering
yourself by announcement. R869

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Astronomor] Sector Creation

2019-07-24 Thread James Cook
Between the July 9 and July 15 reports, I deregistered Tarhalindur and nch
registered.

- Falsifian

On Wed., Jul. 24, 2019, 17:17 Rebecca,  wrote:

> The last registrar's report listed 25 but nch also registered.. Unless
> someone also derregistered?
>
> On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 1:30 AM James Cook  wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 at 02:03, Rebecca  wrote:
> > > So we're lacking a registrar's report for quite a while but I think
> there
> > > are 26 players now and therefore 26 spaceships, so there needs to be 28
> > > sectors.
> > ...
> > > I create the following sectors
> > ...
> > > Sector 28: Thank God There's Only 28 Sectors Galaxy
> > > --
> > > From R. Lee
> >
> > Sorry, I think there are only 25 players, so you never created Sector 28.
> >
> > --
> > - Falsifian
> >
>
>
> --
> From R. Lee
>


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business

2019-07-24 Thread James Cook
Trigon - no, because maybe the contract says e can withdraw its 10 Coins.

R. Lee - no, because maybe e knows that the contract actually doesn't
allow em to withdraw Coins anyway. (Slightly less plausible, since eir
message gave me the impression e didn't actually know what's in the
contract.)

I picked on you because I thought I could make a case based on the
fact that your own purported actions alone amounted to more than 10
Coins.

On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 17:43, Jason Cobb  wrote:
>
> Shouldn't these arguments apply just as well to R. Lee and Trigon?
>
> Jason Cobb
>
> On 7/24/19 9:58 AM, James Cook wrote:
> >> Just in case, for future reference, here's my record of purported
> >> actions related to NSC:
> >>
> >> 2019-07-22 20:22: 10 Coins  G. -> NSC
> >> 2019-07-22 20:39: 10 Coins  NSC -> Trigon
> >> 2019-07-22 21:42:  4 Coins  NSC -> Jason Cobb
> >> 2019-07-22 21:42:  2 Coins  NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: TURNPIKE)
> >> 2019-07-22 21:42:  6 Coins  NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: BLACKMAIL)
> >> 2019-07-22 23:19: R. Lee does everything 15 times
> >>
> >> - Falsifian
> > I Point my Finger at Jason Cobb for violating Rule 2471 (No Faking).
> >
> > Jason Cobb published messages claiming e transferred a total of 12
> > Coins from NSC, when NSC had at most 10 Coins. I can think of three
> > cases:
> >
> > * E did not know the text of NSC, in which case e surely believed eir
> > actions would not be effective, and so violated R2471 with the first
> > attempted action.
> >
> > * E did know the text, and therefore knew specifically which of the
> > actions would fail.
> >
> > * E did know the text, but the text makes it hard for em to know which
> > of the earlier actions would succeed, so e did not know which of the
> > later actions would succeed. This seems unlikely, but I welcome Jason
> > Cobb to try to convince us of this.
> >
> > I do think the statements were made with the intent to mislead: there
> > wis intentionally uncertainty around what NSC is, and Jason Cobb must
> > have known eir statements would add to the confusion.
> >
> > --
> > - Falsifian



-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Phantom Strike

2019-07-24 Thread James Cook
nch discovered a loophole in the Spaaace! rules where e might win a
space battle automatically if e doesn't have a spaceship when it comes
time to resolve the battle. I haven't been following closely enough to
know if the current opinion is that that works.

However, it's fairly clear that we can destroy and create spaceships
at will (creating only works if you don't currently own one), so
there's not much risk to destroying your spaceship. I recommend
destroying your spaceship just in case nch would otherwise win eir
battle with you, otherwise nch might get a Spaaace! victory. (E
initiated the battles in a message with subject "Phantom Strike".)

On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 15:02, David Seeber  wrote:
>
> I am completely lost.. What is going on here?? :0
>
> Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>
> 
> From: agora-business  on behalf of 
> James Cook 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2019 3:48:23 PM
> To: Agora Business 
> Subject: Re: BUS: Phantom Strike
>
> > I destroy my ship named Theseus. As I have no ship, I create a ship named 
> > Theseus. I challenge Falsifian to a space battle. The resolver for this 
> > battle is R. Lee, the astronomor.
>
> I name my spaceship the SS Principessa Jolanda and destroy it.
>
> --
> - Falsifian



-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business

2019-07-24 Thread James Cook
On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 at 14:23, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> Remembering that the standard is preponderance of the evidence ("more likely
> than not"), reasonable possibilities that aren't No Faking:
>
> - if e was in the know, one or more transfer messages were genuine but
> simple mistakes.  E.g. if e simply forgot something on the first one (with
> no comment), then the later two were fine.  Those sorts of simple mistakes
> happen all the time when we take actions and I can't find any obligation for
> people to tell when they make mistakes.
>
> - if was in the know, e sent it, realized that the contract was broken
> somehow, modified the contract, and re-sent.
>
> - if e didn't know about the contract, e could have been just throwing
> attempts at the wall to see if stuff succeeded.  There are plenty of
> examples of people doing random stuff like that.

Good points. This casts a lot of doubt on whether my Finger-pointing will work.


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business

2019-07-24 Thread James Cook
> Yes, "agreement" includes both consent and agreement specified by contract.

I'm confused by the wording. Does that mean both consent and
contract-specified agreement are (possibly different) ways to agree,
or that one doesn't agree unless both conditions (consent and
contract-specified agreement) are satisfied? I guess it's the former,
since I see contracts that e.g. allow someone to unilaterally exit the
contract without explicit consent from the other parties, and we seem
to assume that works.

-- 
- Falsifian


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business

2019-07-24 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 at 22:52, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
>
> On Monday, July 22, 2019 10:41 PM, Jason Cobb  wrote:
> > On 7/22/19 6:39 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > > On Monday, July 22, 2019 9:02 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
> > > > I confirm (in public here) that there is a contract with at least 2
> > > > parties, known as NSC.
> > > > Can you point out in which message(s) - which, per Rule 2519, must be 
> > > > public - the parties consented to the agreement, thereby causing it to 
> > > > become a contract?
> > >
> > > -twg
> >
> > Ehh... not quite.
> >
> > Rule 1742 ("Contracts") reads:
> >
> > > For the purposes of this rule, agreement includes both consent and 
> > > agreement specified by contract.
> >
> > The contract could have specified other ways to agree to it, besides
> > public consent.
> >
> > --
> > Jason Cobb
>
> Yes, "agreement" includes both consent and agreement specified by contract.
>
> "By agreement" is the method used to modify or terminate a contract. There is 
> also (nowadays) a prohibition on players becoming parties without eir 
> "agreement". But none of those things form part of the *definition* of a 
> contract:
>
>   Any group of two or more consenting persons (the parties) may
>   make an agreement among themselves with the intention that it be
>   binding upon them and be governed by the rules. Such an agreement
>   is known as a contract.
>
> i.e., if the persons are not consenting, the agreement (whether or not it has 
> been agreed to as specified by contract) is not a contract.
>
> -twg

As Treasuror, if there are no further comments, I'm going to assume
that this reasoning is correct and that the contract NSC never
existed.

Just in case, for future reference, here's my record of purported
actions related to NSC:

2019-07-22 20:22: 10 Coins  G. -> NSC
2019-07-22 20:39: 10 Coins  NSC -> Trigon
2019-07-22 21:42:  4 Coins  NSC -> Jason Cobb
2019-07-22 21:42:  2 Coins  NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: TURNPIKE)
2019-07-22 21:42:  6 Coins  NSC -> Jason Cobb (with comment: BLACKMAIL)
2019-07-22 23:19: R. Lee does everything 15 times

-- 
- Falsifian


DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214

2019-07-21 Thread James Cook
> wasn't enough to specify the proposal given that 2/3 of the attributes

I mean 1/3.

-- 
- Falsifian


DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214

2019-07-21 Thread James Cook
> > 8211   G. 3.0   Law School
> PRESENT (thesis was that long hypothetical judgement, right?)

Yes.


DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188A-8192A, 8195A, 8202-8214

2019-07-19 Thread James Cook
On Thu., Jul. 18, 2019, 19:03 Jason Cobb,  wrote:

>
> If Proposal 8210 has never taken effect, this proposal applies the
> effects specified in its text.


I first read "its" as referring to this new proposal, meaning this proposal
only takes effect of 8210 didn't. It doesn't make sense after actually
looking at what both proposals do, but you might want to clarify just in
case.


DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3757 Assigned to Falsifian

2019-07-18 Thread James Cook
Here's a draft judgement. I'll publish it later if nobody objects.

> ===  CFJ 3757  ===
>
>omd has 1 Blot.
>
> ==
>
> Caller:Jason Cobb
>
> Judge: Falsifian
>
> ==
>
> History:
>
> Called by Jason Cobb: 12 Jul 2019 01:14:27
> Assigned to Falsifian:[now]
>
> ==
>
> Caller's Evidence:
>
> Excerpt from Rule 2478 ("Vigilante Justice'):
>
> >  When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate
> >  the allegation and CAN, in a timely fashion, SHALL conclude the
> >  investigation by:
> >
> >  - Imposing the Cold Hand of Justice on the perp, as described
> >elsewhere; or
> >
> >  - if e believes that no rules violation occurred or that it would
> >be ILLEGAL or INEFFECTIVE to levy a fine for it, announcing the
> >Finger Pointing to be Shenanigans.
>
>
> 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.
> >
> >  - The fine SHOULD be reduced to the degree that the violation is a
> >minor, accidental, and/or inconsequential infraction.
> >
> >  - The fine SHOULD be increased to the degree that the violation is
> >willful, profitable, egregious, or an abuse of an official
> >position.
>
> Attempted imposition of the CHoJ by the Referee, R. Lee:
>
> > This finger pointing is valid, I impose a fine on omd for failing to judge
> > CFJ 3752 in the allotted time. The crime is tardiness which has a 2-blot
> > base value, but given that the finger was pointed just a day after the time
> > expired and I see no pattern of violations, I impose a fine of 1 blot.
>
>
> Excerpt from Rule 2125:
>
> >  An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or
> >  permit its performance; (2) describe the circumstances under which
> >  the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would, as part
> >  of its effect, modify information for which some player is
> >  required to be a recordkeepor.
> >
> >  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.
>
> --
>
> Caller's Arguments:
>
>  If the investigator of a Finger-pointing determines that a violation
>  occurred, e certainly CAN impose the CHoJ under Rule 2478. The
>  investigator, R. Lee, determined that a violation occurred in this
>  instance, so e CAN impose the CHoJ.
>
>  Because R. Lee is authorized to impose the CHoJ, under Rule 2557, e
>  CAN levy a fine on omd.
>
>  Levying a fine is a regulated action by Rule 2125. Thus, it can only
>  be performed using the methods that the Rules explicitly specify.
>  Rule 2557 does not explicitly specify a method by which a fine can
>  be levied. The assets rules do not provide a general method of
>  creating currencies, and Rule 2557 does not provide any method by
>  which the fine can be levied. Thus, under Rule 2125, there is no way
>  that levying a fine pursuant to the CHoJ can be performed, so R.
>  Lee's attempt failed. omd was never fined a Blot, so e has none.
>  This CFJ should be judged FALSE.
>
> ==


In the below judgement, I accept the caller's arguments on CFJ 3755,
and add additional detail verifying that omd's blot balance is zero
given that R. Lee did not successfully impose the Cold Hand of Justice.

CFJ 3755 was called by Jason Cobb on July 12 with the statement "omd has
1 Blot.". The caller's evidence and arguments are quoted above.


Timeline (all times UTC)


2019-05-20 01:25

  D. Margaux, then the Referee, publishes a report not listing any blots
  owned by omd. The report was ratified seven days later by Rule 2201
  (self-ratification).

2019-07-11 01:45

  H. Referee R. Lee attempts to levy a fine on omd with the following
  message (quoted part removed):

  > This finger pointing is valid, I impose a fine on omd for failing to judge
  > CFJ 3752 in the allotted time. The crime is tardiness which has a 2-blot
  > base value, but given that 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: reflectively cheap

2019-07-18 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 04:13, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> If it helps, the thought I had in mind was:
> If the Rules associate payment of a set of assets (hereafter
> the fee for the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing
> an action, that action is a fee-based action.
> The action of "destroying a coin" is certainly associated with a cost
> (destruction) of a set of assets - namely, a coin.  Therefore, destroying
> a coin is a fee-based action.

I read that as: If the Rules associate payment of a set of assets with
performing an action, that action is a fee-based action, and (in that
case) we define the fee, cost, price or charge for the action to be
that set of assets.

If that reading is correct, we don't apply those synonyms until we
already know it's a fee-based action. Without the synonyms, my initial
impression is the Rules don't associate any "payment" with the action
of destroying 1 Coin, so it's not a fee-based action.


Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Full Logical Ruleset: July 2019

2019-07-15 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 02:29, Rebecca  wrote:
> CFJ: Rule 2157 exists.

It's 2517.


  1   2   3   4   >