Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruleset Thesis

2019-10-15 Thread Jason Cobb

On 10/15/19 10:19 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

if a rule reads
better overall by combining several clauses I don't think it's a concern
if that makes the graph circular at the rules-level.


Alright, I agree. My previous statements notwithstanding, I would 
certainly prefer the rules be readable than completely free from cycles.


--
Jason Cobb



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

2019-10-15 Thread Jason Cobb

On 10/15/19 6:42 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

For more paranoia inducement, see 
also:https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-discussion@agoranomic.org/msg30233.html

-twg


Sounds G. still liked the idea of that, with NSC.

--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruleset Thesis

2019-10-15 Thread Jason Cobb

On 10/15/19 6:53 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Agree. Another way of thinking about it is, if all the rules were combined into
one rule (disregarding the necessary rephrasing of various metarules like R1030
and R2240), there would in theory be no mechanical difference, yet all the
circular dependencies would disappear. The main reason this wouldn't work in
practice is that we sometimes have higher-powered rules depending on lower-
powered rules - so I argue it's those relationships we should be trying to
eliminate, not circular dependencies themselves.

Further philosophising: if all the rules_were_  combined into one rule, would
there be any meaningful semantic difference from the current "ruleset"? Or would
Agora cease to exist as we know it and be replaced by something even more 
bizarre
and inexplicable?


I think there's nothing stopping us from finding a way to put everything 
in one rule while keeping the game mechanics the same. I would suggest 
that we revert the direction that R2240 creates precedence, so that 
higher-powered rules would be higher-up in the text of the monorule. If 
we treat the Rules as a black box, there's nothing stopping a different 
black box that does the same thing, just implemented as one rule instead 
of 100.




And would we know if this had already happened?


If you're referring to actually merging everything into a single rule, 
then that would be many rule-changes governed by R105, so it really 
couldn't happen without someone knowing.


Otherwise, the closest we probably have is the Ruleset as a concept; 
under [CFJ1992], "the Ruleset" is an entity. I proposed defining the 
ruleset as an entity back when I proposed binding entities, and G.'s 
proposal for defining "the Ruleset" in the Rules just passed. And the 
Rules collectively could certainly be construed as placing requirements 
as a whole, rather than placing requirements individually.


However, there are some issues here - R2141 says that each Rule is 
itself an Instrument, thus requiring it to be a separate entity. R101 
says that us Persons must act "in accordance with the Rules", not in 
accordance with the Ruleset as a whole. I thus conclude that what you 
describe has not already happened.



[CFJ1992]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1992


--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruleset Thesis

2019-10-15 Thread Jason Cobb

On 10/15/19 1:01 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


But are the dependencies you've identified truly circular?  Many rules 
have
multiple independent clauses that could very well be separated into 
smaller
rules.  If the "circularity" is created by a link to two entirely 
separate
clauses within a rule, that could easily be separated without any 
change of

function, is it really a circular reference to be concerned about?

-G.


Sure, that would be a valid solution for most of the cycles. Honestly, I 
just thought it would be something interesting to analyze and talk about 
(and apparently it was), so I put it in. I'm not trying to say it's a 
crisis or anything.


--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruleset Thesis

2019-10-14 Thread Jason Cobb

On 10/14/19 10:56 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I created this file just to see what it looked like, but I didn't 
include that in my original thesis 


Gah; I didn't include this in my original thesis because I wasn't sure 
how useful it would be, but it's interesting enough that I'll include it 
in the next version (as I mentioned in my last message).


--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruleset Thesis

2019-10-14 Thread Jason Cobb

On 10/14/19 6:19 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:

On 10/13/19 2:19 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
The clear solution to these problems was to machine-parse the 
ruleset. There are two obvious ways to parse the ruleset - clone the 
ruleset repository and parse the individual files and just parsing 
the single-file SLR. I went with parsing the SLR. I'd love to be able 
to say that this was because of some heavily thought-out technical 
consideration, but I just didn't even think about parsing the 
individual files, and parsing the SLR was pretty easy, since it 
follows a pretty simple format. [Note: as of now, I have no intention 
of trying to machine-parse the FLR, although it probably wouldn't be 
that hard.]


This made me laugh a little bit. For anyone interested in parsing the 
rules individually, the rules are stored by ID in YAML format under 
the `rules` directory of the ruleset repository and the `config/index` 
file contains the list of categories and rules used to generate the 
rulesets. Generating a ruleset as described in the README creates a 
new folder, `meta`, where generated rule text is stored.


I should have known how the H. Rulekeepor would feel when I completely 
ignored eir carefully maintained system in favor of just parsing the 
output file :).




2.4 Circular dependencies

In most places, circular dependencies are a generally bad thing. I 
know this to be a fact in software - where circular dependencies 
cause all kinds of issues.


In software, different links in the chain of a dependency circle are 
generally created and maintained by different people with no 
communication with each other. I argue that, while circular 
dependencies in Agora are certainly messy, the ruleset is centralized. 
This creates a situation where circular dependencies are much less 
concerning of an issue. Generally, if a player is writing a major 
change, e will search for clauses that may be affected by the change 
and make the necessary changes to those rules. There's much less 
opportunity for breaking here.


The fact that everything is in one place certainly makes fixing all 
potential issues with the ruleset easier, since we don't have to deal 
with other people; it also helps that Agora is a nomic, and we can 
effectively control the entire gamestate, which is something that's not 
possible in real world systems.


However, I would still argue that the rules should, at least ideally, 
avoid circular dependencies, even if only as a matter of idealism. I've 
attached to this email an svg file that I didn't include in my original 
submission. This file is a vastly smaller dependency graph, generated by 
simply deleting every rule involved in a dependency cycle (the leaves 
are also colored blue, but that's not super important). It shows a tree 
with actual layers, instead of the mess that is the real dependency 
graph (although it is certainly helped by just having fewer rules); I 
would certainly rather a sane dependency graph like that over what there 
is now.


I created this file just to see what it looked like, but I didn't 
include that in my original thesis


Plans for amendment of the draft: tone back the anti-circular dependency 
rhetoric a bit, or perhaps just clarify that it isn't the end of the 
world in this case; maybe add the attached graph.



Thanks for the comments!

--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Ruleset Thesis

2019-10-14 Thread Jason Cobb

On 10/14/19 2:29 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

In terms of "late addition", the "Agora is a game of Nomic" was implicit
in the title of R1698 before it was put in R101, "the game never ends"
was in and out of some version of R2449, and of course the operative 
terms
(Rules, Players, Fora, Actions) all have their main definitions 
elsewhere.
I think you could repeal R101 entirely and it would hardly change the 
game
at all, except it might lead to a few more CFJs about whether the game 
had
ended and so on. 



Alright, that makes sense.

The main reason that R101 got a lot of dependents because I marked it as 
defining the word "action(s)", which has no definition elsewhere. I 
think this was in the front of my mind because of this quote from your 
judgement in CFJ 3772:



R101 lays out 4 "pillars" of interacting concepts that affect play in
Agora - Persons, Rules, Actions, and Fora.  Persons, Rules, and Fora are
explicitly defined (R869, R2141, and R478 respectively) but Actions are
not.  So we must define what an "action" is using common definitions, game
custom, common sense, past judgements, etc.



So, I marked "action" as being defined by R101, and did the manual 
adjustment that I described in my thesis. In hindsight, this may not 
have been the best decision, but I'll defend it as having basis. R101 
purports to define what the game of Agora is; Rules have the best case 
for being part of the game of Agora, but I'm not sure about the others. 
[Although, honestly, this is all retroactive justification for the 
somewhat arbitrary decisions that I made while writing my program.]


Having just found out that I can revise my draft, I plan to include an 
updated analysis on how R101 should be treated in the final version.


--
Jason Cobb



DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Subgame-in-a-Rule contest vote open!

2019-10-14 Thread Jason Cobb

On 10/9/19 2:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

Unofficial CONTEST:  Subgame in a Rule.

Ranked-choice voting (ballot should be a list), options are (full
submissions below):

- ais523 (Fruits of Persistence and Patience)
- Falsifian  (Clairvoyant Roshambo)
- Jason Cobb (The Watch)
- G. (Hot Potato)

MAIN CRITERION:  "In order, which of these concepts would you most
like to play, starting next month?"  PLEASE ASSUME that
relatively-trivial bugs would be fixed in any final proposed draft.



I vote {Hot Potato, Clairvoyant Roshambo, The Watch, Fruits of 
Persistence and Patience}.


--
Jason Cobb



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

2019-10-13 Thread Jason Cobb

On 10/13/19 1:52 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

5. You might want to include something to the effect of “The ratification
of a ruleset that does not include this rule shall not be deemed to cause
this rule to cease to exist.”


This may not be necessary based on the pending judgement of CFJ 3775 [0].

[0]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3775

--
Jason Cobb



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

2019-10-13 Thread Jason Cobb

On 10/13/19 1:44 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Where does it say that the assignment need be done publicly?  It also 
need
not be sequential - that's tradition not requirement - so the 
Rulekeepor can

assign it a number (e.g. "Pi") secretly[1].  Then it would be illegal to
pass on that information to the next Rulekeepor... 


Title, not ID number. As for why it must be public, R2142 says "by 
announcement":



   Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification. If a rule
   ever does not have a title, the the Rulekeepor CAN and SHALL
   assign a title to it by announcement in a timely fashion.


--
Jason Cobb



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

2019-10-13 Thread Jason Cobb

On 10/13/19 7:01 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Enact a new Rule of Power 1.0 with the text:

Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Rulekeepor's reports
NEED NOT include this rule or any information about it. Clearly
identifying this rule is the Class 1 Crime of Uttering the
Forbidden Name.

Any player CAN, without objection, exorcise this rule (cause it
to repeal itself).



This could still penalize the Rulekeepor, since e SHALL assign the rule 
a title under R2141, and e would have to identify the rule to do so, so 
e's damned if e does, damned if e doesn't


--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Proto: Interesting Chambers v2

2019-10-13 Thread Jason Cobb

On 10/13/19 12:41 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:

Does this repeal the speaker’s existing voting strength buff? If not, should it?


The Speaker's current bonus voting strength is only for PM elections; 
the PM is the one with the voting strength buff on all decisions 
(besides PM elections).


--
Jason Cobb



DIS: Formatting Test

2019-10-12 Thread Jason Cobb

*Bold*

/Italics/

_Underline_

--
Jason Cobb



Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Something vaguely interesting

2019-10-12 Thread Jason Cobb

On 10/12/19 6:11 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Maybe looking for problems with power? I have the general impression that 
high-powered rules oughtn't to be dependent on lower-powered ones.


Oooh, good idea.

--
Jason Cobb



DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal 8250

2019-10-12 Thread Jason Cobb

On 10/12/19 5:13 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:




I earn ceiling((15-0)*1.7) = 26 coins for authoring this proposal. 


This is INEFFECTIVE - you're about 19 hours past the time limit of one 
week set in R2496.


--
Jason Cobb



DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8251-8252

2019-10-12 Thread Jason Cobb

On 10/12/19 5:17 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:
and cause my zombie to endorse me on each. 


This is INEFFECTIVE. Gaelan used to be your zombie, but e has flipped 
eir Master to emself.


--
Jason Cobb



Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Something vaguely interesting

2019-10-12 Thread Jason Cobb

On 10/12/19 1:32 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

I think your graphing software had a bit of a hiccup in the bottom right 
corner. :P


I noticed that - it appears I just got unlucky, since it looks like 
there's some randomness in the generation of the graph, but I didn't 
realize that until after I sent my last email.





Seriously though, this is pretty interesting! You can kind of see which are the 
most integral definitions (power, offices, switches, Agoran decisions, etc., 
plus the ones you've mentioned already) vs. which are more just implementing 
other mechanics (Win by Paradox, birthday gifts, HAN/GHAN, ratification w/o 
objection etc.)

Is there any chance you could publish your dataset? Would be fun to have a poke 
around and see if there are any other insights available.


I'm working on a writing up a thesis for this. I'll publish my code 
concurrently (not a pledge), at which point you could play with it all 
you want. Some other analyses I've considered:


- Number of dependents by rule

- Number of dependencies by rule

- Circular dependencies

I'm sure there's a bunch of interesting stuff that I'm missing.

--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Subgame-in-a-Rule contest vote open!

2019-10-10 Thread Jason Cobb

On 10/10/19 7:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

I think this one has a (fixable) bootstrap issue.  Because this is
backwards-phrased, Predeclarations could be published ahead of the
proposal adoption.  If the Assessor does this, e can win, because
e can choose the date of resolution and get the Fruits right after
resolving the decision.

-G.


Dang it, I was planning to do that.

--
Jason Cobb



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

2019-10-09 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/2/19 12:34 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
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. 



Looks like I missed a "by announcement" here. Looks like this proto is 
very broken as written, even if I still like the idea.


--
Jason Cobb



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

2019-10-08 Thread Jason Cobb

On 10/8/19 11:15 AM, 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.)


Dang, you're completely right, and yes that is the entire point :P.



- There’s no way for someone to become Exiled.

Gaelan


Looks like I left that in from an earlier draft, but I don't think it 
hurts anything by existing.



--
Jason Cobb



DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Blasphemy

2019-10-03 Thread Jason Cobb

On 10/2/19 6:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

Followup:  a quick search on "candle" shows R. Lee to be the only
other member.  -G.


Looks like omd also consented in a reply to the main thread, but e may 
have never actually lit a candle.


--
Jason Cobb



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

2019-09-29 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/28/19 7:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
Past example:  win an auction, and transfer all your coins to someone 
else

before the auction ends.  Then for this R2551 SHALL:

>  The winner of the lot SHALL, in a timely fashion, pay a fee (the
>  number of the Auction's currency equal to eir bid)

if you don't get your coins back before that timer expires, it is
technically IMPOSSIBLE for you to pay the fee at any point in time.
That's why we had to add the below clause to R2550, after someone got 
away

with that:

>  A person SHALL NOT bid on an Auction if it would be impossible for
>  em to pay that amount at the conclusion of the Auction.

-G. 



Would something like this fix that (and remove possibly criminalizing 
future actions)?


{

Amend Rule 2550 by deleting the paragraph beginning "A person SHALL NOT 
bid".


Amend Rule 2551 by replacing the final paragraph with:

   The possibility of doing so notwithstanding, the winner of the lot
   SHALL, in a timely fashion, pay a fee (the number of the Auction's
   currency equal to eir bid) to the Auctioneer in order to satisfy eir
   auction debt. When e does so, if the auctioneer CAN transfer the
   items in that lot to that winner at will, e immediately does so;
   otherwise, the possibility of doing so notwithstanding, e SHALL do
   so in a timely fashion.

}


I think this would work under Aris's proposal, and I think it would work 
now since the explicit text in the rule would supersede the precedent.


--
Jason Cobb



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

2019-09-28 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/28/19 7:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


if you don't get your coins back before that timer expires, it is
technically IMPOSSIBLE for you to pay the fee at any point in time.
That's why we had to add the below clause to R2550, after someone got 
away

with that:

>  A person SHALL NOT bid on an Auction if it would be impossible for
>  em to pay that amount at the conclusion of the Auction.

-G. 



Doesn't this mean that whether or not someone commits a crime by bidding 
on an auction depends on the future gamestate? If so, that makes me 
slightly uncomfortable.


--
Jason Cobb



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

2019-09-28 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/28/19 6:55 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 3:29 PM Jason Cobb  wrote:


On 9/28/19 6:22 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

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

Out of curiosity, what is the exception?

--
Jason Cobb


I knew someone was going to ask that.


Then I won't feel bad for asking :).



It’s a bit hard to pin down, but it
basically applies when they got themselves into the mess in the
first place. Like, imagine an officer who agrees by contract not to publish
any reports. The fact that they are both required as an officer to publish
reports and required by their contract not to is their responsibility, and
thus they are still held accountable.

-Aris

I don't follow - an officer CAN publish a report and CAN fail to publish 
a report. Sure, it's impossible to for em to be in compliance with both 
simultaneous, but e's not incapable of being in compliance with either 
one. So how does a CANNOT come into play here?



--
Jason Cobb



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

2019-09-28 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/28/19 6:22 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

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


Out of curiosity, what is the exception?

--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Proto: Interesting Chambers v2

2019-09-27 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/27/19 2:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


> Is the Ruleset ever referred to as a single entity?

R1030 last paragraph, specifically with respect to changes:
>  No change to the Ruleset can occur...
>  ...This Rule takes precedence over
>    any Rule that would permit such a change to the Ruleset.

Since "amend" is a direct synonym for "change", I don't see any issues
with defining "amendment of a rule" explicitly in R105 while saying that
"amendment of the Ruleset" follows the common, general definition of
any change however made, as per R1030.

-G.



Alright. I probably should have seen that :P. So that brings us back to 
whether or not twg's previous arguments are correct. (I couldn't find 
the CFJ that e was referring to, but I may be missing something.)


Perhaps an argument could be made that if something could be defined by 
a single rule, then it must also be defined by the Ruleset, and that 
would contradict the assumption in R1586 that there is a sole defining 
entity?


--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Proto: Interesting Chambers v2

2019-09-27 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/27/19 8:04 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

on my phone so can't provide detailed arguments (and sorry for the execrable 
mess it will undoubtedly produce of the reply chain), but I would argue that 
the entity defining switches, assets etc. is not any one rule, but rather the 
Ruleset as a whole → repealing a rule counts as amending the ruleset?



Is the Ruleset ever referred to as a single entity?

R2166 ("Assets") says:


  An asset is an entity defined as such by a document that has been
  granted Mint Authority by the Rules



Then goes on to say: "The rules collectively have Mint Authority." Does 
"collectively" provide evidence for some entity that consists of all the 
rules? I'm sure other Agoran lawyers could answer this far better than I 
could.


--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Proto: Interesting Chambers v2

2019-09-26 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/26/19 11:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

There's a long-standing (and regularly cited) precedent for this in
CFJ 1500: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1500
Short, simple, says that if the definition is repealed from the current
ruleset, it reverts to a "common" definition.

R1586/2 was in effect at the time of that judgement, and was not
substantially different w.r.t. this situation.

-G.


I don't contest that if the rest of the rules referred to the 
previously-defined entity, since the former definition is no longer in a 
Rule, so it can't affect the interpretation of the Rules.


Here's my thought process:

1. Does repealing a Rule count as amending it for the purposes of R1586? 
If no, then the entities don't cease to exist or otherwise change 
(barring other wording, like for assets).


2. If yes, then does repealing a rule cause it to cease to define the 
second entity? If no, then the entities don't cease to exist.



First, I would argue that the answer to 1 is no, since R105 defines 
"amend" for Rules and has higher power than R1586. Second, I would argue 
that the answer to 2 is no, since the former-Rule's text still exists 
(it doesn't have effect on anything, but it still exists), and text can 
define something just by saying what it is.


--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Proto: Interesting Chambers v2

2019-09-25 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/25/19 8:48 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

The reason I added that bit is because of 2009's chamber system where
Chamber was a proposal switch. Back then, though, its possible values
were different -- red, green, and purple, if I remember correctly. My
fear is that all the proposals from that time would be affected and have
their chamber set to "unset" due to it being the default value under
this proposal. I don't think it will change the rest of the gamestate,
but I would rather they stay that way for historical correctness. If I'm
wrong, I'll change it to "every proposal".

I believe you're wrong. Specifically, under Rule 1586, "Definition and
Continuity of Entities", those switches stopped existing when the
rules stopped defining them. Even if we reenacted the old rules, the
value of the switch would still go to default. So you're not
overwriting their switch values because they don't currently*have*
switch values.



I've been wondering about this for a little while. R1586 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.



[Note that the below is speculative and not something that I'm willing 
to die for]


Repealing a rule is distinct from amending a Rule by R105, and since 
R105 has higher Power than R1586, R1586 gets R105's definition of "amend".


Even so, one could argue that repealing a Rule is "amending" it, since 
it causes the Rule to cease to be a Rule. However, I don't think that 
would remove the text from the former rule; R105 even implies that that 
text is still part of the gamestate (since it's used in reenactment).


And, I would argue that the text of a Rule can still "define" something 
even if that former-Rule doesn't have effect or Power. If a Rule were to 
say "A Market is an entity" (arbitrary example), and that Rule were to 
be repealed, the former-Rule's text can still "define" what a "Market" 
is, since defining words is something that text can do.


In conclusion, I'm not sure that R1586 actually works for Rules in 
general (assets and switches have some special wording, so they might be 
different...).


--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Proto: Interesting Chambers v2

2019-09-25 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/25/19 2:39 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:

Title: Interesting Chambers v2
AI: 2
Author: Trigon

[Changes:
 - Assigned Loyalties to offices.
 - Changed voting strength slightly. ]

Create a new rule with title "Interest Groups", power 2, and text:
  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:

  A. Justice: interested in seeing justice served
  B. Efficiency: interested in seeing official duties performed
  C. Legislation: interested in seeing proposals passed
  D. Participation: interested in seeing votes cast
  E. Economy: interested in economic activity


Is there a reason to restrict the definitions to this Rule? Another 
approach would be to have a separate Rule per interest group, then 
define the Offices that are loyal to it in that Rule. That would 
concentrate the changes in many fewer places, and be more modular (and 
easy to repeal later if necessary).





Create a new rule with title "Proposal Classes", power 2, and text:
  Every proposal either in the Proposal Pool or for which there is
  an ongoing Agoran decision about whether to adopt it has a Class
  switch, which is either ordinary or democratic.


This means that after the voting period ends, the Class goes away. Since 
voting strength is determined after the voting period ends, this means 
that the voting strength bonuses won't apply at the time of resolution.




Create a new rule with title "Proposal Chambers", power 2, and text:
  Chamber is an ordinary proposal switch whose possible values
  include unset (the default) and each of the interest groups.

  When a player submits a proposal with an adoption index of 2 or
  lower, e SHOULD specify a valid interest group to which e submits
  it, determined by which interest group's goal the proposal effects
  the most. Doing so flips the chamber of the proposal to the
  interest group to which the player submitted it.


Does this work? When a player sends a message that specifies the Class, 
does that occur before or after the proposal is created? If it is before 
(which would be my initial guess), then I don't think this works because 
the proposal wouldn't yet exist, so its switches couldn't be flipped.


Also, possible bug: Does this permit specifying the Chamber for any 
proposal? The "doing so" could be read as either applying to "specify a 
valid interest group" or "When a player submits...".



--
Jason Cobb



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

2019-09-23 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/17/19 4:02 PM, 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 actually had an idea to submit a thesis on something like this (I have 
no idea if that would actually get me a degree, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯). 
Basically, I would try to group the current Ruleset into modules that 
depended on each other, and then analyze circular dependencies and other 
potential issues.


I might actually get started on that at some point...

--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Testing...

2019-09-20 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/20/19 10:26 PM, 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).


Either way, welcome!

--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: something to auction

2019-09-20 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/17/19 12:25 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

On 9/16/2019 6:42 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
  > there's not that many uses for coins right now.

I'm just gonna repost this proto from May - no longer "topical" I suppose
but it's an idea. (I know there were some comments back then, particularly
some nice stone ideas from Falsifian, I'll include those comments in the
next draft if there's interest in this draft).  If there's momentum
for a new multi-tiered economy this can just stay an idea.

Proto: Stones


I really like this idea for a subgame. (Sorry, praise over text is hard.)




[Reason: we need more things to auction.  And vaguely topical.]

New Rules to be created (will add the appropriate verbiage, power,
etc. in the next draft)

Stones
A Stone is a unique indestructable liquid asset defined by the
Rules.


AFAIK there is no definition of "unique" for assets - you could just 
provide no way to create them. Also, does anything actually create the 
stones in any entity's possession?


Editorial: only time where "Stone" is capitalized



To define a stone, the definition must include:
(i)   The unique Name of the stone;
(ii)  The Frequency of the stone's use, which must be one of
  daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or N/A.
(iii) The Escape Risk of the stone, which must be a percentage
  between 10% and 100% inclusive;
(iii) The Effects of wielding the stone.

Ownership of stones is entirely restricted to Agora and players.
The Stonekeepor is an office, and the recordkeepor of stones.


What do you mean by "entirely"? As in no Lost & Found department?



Wielding Stones
Unless otherwise made IMPOSSIBLE by the rules, the owner of a
stone CAN wield it by announcement, clearly specifying any
values needed to interpret the stone's effects.

If the frequency of a stone is not N/A, then it is IMPOSSIBLE to
activate that stone if it has been previously wielded in the


"activate that stone" doesn't appear to be defined anywhere else.



same Agoran time interval as indicated by its frequency (e.g. if
its frequency is daily, if it has been wielded in the same Agoran
day).

When a stone is wielded, the power of the stone is set to the
power of the rule defining that stone, and the stone applies its
defined effects as specified; the power of the stone is immediately
thereafter set to 0.

Distributing Stones
The Stonekeepor CAN initiate an auction for any set of stones
belonging to Agora for which an auction is not ongoing, with each
individual stone being an auction lot.  The Stonekeepor is the
Announcer, the auctioneer is Agora, and the auction currency is
Coins.

The Stonekeepor SHALL so initiate an auction for a set of stones
consisting of at least one third the stones eligible for auction
in a timely fashion after publishing a Collection Notice.

Collecting Stones
Once per month, the Stonekeepor CAN publish a Collection Notice.
A collection notice includes, for every stone not belonging to


Editorial: inconsistent capitalization of "Collection Notice".



Agora, a random choice of whether that stone escapes; it escapes
with a probability equal to its escape risk.  When a stone
escapes, it is transferred to Agora.  The Stonekeepor SHALL
publish such a notice in the first Eastman week of each month.

The Gauntlet
When a player makes a correct announcement that a single specified
player, owns 5 or more stones, the specified player wins the game.
Upon such a win, all existing stones are transferred to Agora.

The Stones
The following stones are defined, one per paragraph, with the
following format: Stone Name (Frequency, Escape Risk): Effects.

- Power Stone (weekly, 40%): The wielder specifies an unresolved
  Agoran Decision and a player; that player's voting strength on
  that decision is increased by 3.



I don't think this works under R2422:


   The voting strength of an entity on an Agoran decision is an
   integer between 0 and 5 inclusive, defined by rules of power 2
   or greater.


This Rule may give have power >= 2, but the Rule itself isn't defining 
that player's voting strength, even if it gives effect to a Stone that does.





- Wealth Stone (weekly, 25%): The specified player earns 7 coins.

- Time Stone (weekly, 50%): Specify an act of wielding a different
  stone that was performed in the last 7 days; the effects of that
  previous wielding are undone.  This is not retroactive.

- Reality Stone (monthly, 40%): Specify a valid value for an
  instance of any unsecured switch; that switch is flipped to that
  value.

Re: DIS: Testing...

2019-09-20 Thread Jason Cobb

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



DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Rulekeepor's notes on Proposals 8235-8242

2019-09-18 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/18/19 6:33 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:

On 9/17/19 6:28 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:

//
ID: 8235
Title: Unified fine creation syntax
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors:

Amend Rule 2479 ("Official Justice") by replacing the text "levying a
fine of up to 2 blots on em" with the text "levying a fine of (a value
not exceeding 2) on em".


The text to replace is not found in Rule 2479/6.



//
ID: 8236
Title: Definition de-capitalization
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Jason Cobb
Co-authors: Aris

Amend Rule 2595 as follows:

   In the second sub-bullet under item 2 of the only list, replace the
   text "Without N Objections, With N Support, or With N Agoran
   Consent" with the text "without N objections, with N support, or
   with N Agoran Consent".


This one doesn't invalidate any changes, but it's worth noting that 
"with N Agoran Consent" is in the replacement text, but this is 
inconsistent with the remainder of the proposal.





My bad on both of those. I won't annoy everyone by submitting a cleanup 
to the cleanup :).


--
Jason Cobb



DIS: Acting on Behalf for Dependent Actions

2019-09-17 Thread Jason Cobb
Can someone actually act on behalf of someone to cause them to 
support/object to a dependent action?



Rule 2124 ("Agoran Satisfaction") reads:


   A Supporter of an intent to perform an action is an eligible
   entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn.
   "consent") for an announcement of that intent. An Objector to an
   intent to perform an action is an eligible entity who has publicly
   posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of
   that intent.


The requirement here is that a person must "publicly post" 
support/objection to the intent. Since a person CANNOT act-on-behalf to 
send a message (R2466), it seems to me that it is not possible to cause 
someone to support/object to an intent.


This doesn't seem to be what was intended, especially given that Rule 
2532 ("Zombies") explicitly prevents doing something that already seems 
to be impossible.


--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system

2019-09-16 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/16/19 8:19 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

Oops, forgot this part:  In addition to proposals and voting, we did
do blot-expunging tokens.



I was actually thinking about the exact opposite of this - gaining Coins 
in exchange for also gaining Blots, sort of a lender of last resort 
thing. I'm not going to actually propose it because there's not that 
many uses for coins right now.


--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: [proto] Markets

2019-09-16 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/15/19 10:52 PM, James Cook wrote:

It seems a bit complicated, maybe because you've tried to make it very
general.


You're right, it is a bit complicated.



Do you have any applications in mind other than selling
cheques?


First was the Supermarket - which was just a rules-defined Market with 
all the defaults. But, as you point out, that role is already filled by 
pledges/contracts.


I was also considering something with permitting free trade of zombies - 
a Rule could require a fee to submit an Order, then in exchange permit 
flipping the Master of that zombie, but that's not fully fleshed out 
(pun not intended).




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.
--


That seems reasonable enough - although I'm not sure that I see why it's 
a "sell" order - you're selling what you have just as much as you're 
buying what someone else has.




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.


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).





-- - Falsifian



--
Jason Cobb



DIS: [proto] Markets

2019-09-14 Thread Jason Cobb
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



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

2019-09-11 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/11/19 5:12 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Gratuitous: Since spaaace was repealed before the date on the Evil Astronomor 
report, this is definitely not PARADOXICAL as I originally intended it to be 
(whether or not it would even been otherwise). Whether that makes TRUE or FALSE 
is something I don't feel qualified to answer, though...

-twg



Gratuitous: it's possible that simply publishing information that claims 
to be about the future could be construed as a violation of R2471 or 
R2143, regardless of whether the information ends up being accurate.


--
Jason Cobb



DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter (Weekly Report)

2019-09-11 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/11/19 12:51 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Blot history does not appear to have been recorded for several months,
so I have restarted it from the time of the last report.

I intend, with 3 Agoran Consent, to designate the ratification of that report 
(which was published on 2nd September by Jason Cobb) as a convergence.


I think the old report has self-ratified by now.

Also, I've read the rule that says what convergences are, but I'm still 
not really sure exactly what they do and what they should be used for. 
Would somebody mind clearing that up for me?




I cause Jason Arduino to support my intent.


R2532 says:


A zombie's master, if another
   player, is allowed to act on behalf of the zombie (i.e. as the
   zombie's agent), except a master CANNOT act on behalf of a zombie
   to:
 - initiate, support, object to, or perform a dependent action;


--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system

2019-09-10 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/10/19 8:21 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:


I've written a script to parse the distributions, so the fact that 
there are proposals doesn't affect me there. 


Whoops - yes the fact that proposals exist does affect me, but the 
number doesn't.


--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system

2019-09-10 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/9/19 6:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:


Create a new rule with title "Interest Groups", power 1, and text:
  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:

  A. Justice: interested in seeing justice served
  B. Efficiency: interested in seeing official duties performed
  C. Legislation: interested in seeing proposals passed
  D. Participation: interested in seeing votes cast

  Value is a natural interest group switch with a maximum value of
  10 and a default value of 5. 


A few more thoughts on this (sorry, thought of these after first message):

Explicitly limiting the definitions to a single rule increases coupling 
and decreases modularity. Would something break if other rules could 
define interest groups?


Also, you need to state who tracks Value - under R2139, this proto would 
force the Registrar to track it.


--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system

2019-09-10 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/10/19 7:43 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

Who do infinite free proposals hurt? The only people I can think of who
might be adversely affected are the Promotor and the Assessor (if the
proposals are really bad, they’ll never hit the Rulekeepor, and extra the
amount of work for voters isn’t big). As Promotor, I can say that I’d much
rather track extra proposals than track whether proposals have been pended.
Does it bother the H. Assessor? If not, we’re gating proposals out of an
abstract opinion that they ought to be gated rather than because it’s in
anyone’s interest.

-Aris



My thoughts:

I've written a script to parse the distributions, so the fact that there 
are proposals doesn't affect me there.


Recording the votes doesn't take long - even with the distributions with 
dozens of proposals are pretty quick.


What does bug me is redistributions - I try to keep each set of 
proposals separate in the Github repo, so I end up having to record 
votes twice.


So, no, I do not, as the Assessor, particularly care how many proposals 
there are.


--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system

2019-09-09 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/9/19 10:27 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:


I kind of already see proposals as the fastest way to earn money - I 
think I've earned more money from proposals than all the other 
methods (not a rigorous claim).


With that in mind, does there need to be any more incentive?


Alright, maybe the current amount is a bit high (esp. with more active 
people), but I'm not sure that I quite see the need to equalize it all, 
but if it's unimplementable otherwise, so be it.


--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system

2019-09-09 Thread Jason Cobb
Sorry, looks like I forgot to say that I like the idea generally - I 
guess I focused on the minutiae in my previous message.



On 9/9/19 8:24 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Possible ambiguity: "(Casting a vote [...]) on eir own behalf" vs. 
("Casting a vote on (all proposals distributed [...] on eir own 
behalf)".


What does a proposal distributed on one's own behalf even look like? 
Unless I'm missing something, the second suggestion wouldn't even make 
sense.


Alright, it's a stretch, but it could be read as only counting if you 
were the one to distribute the proposals, and you acted on your own 
behalf. So, effectively, only Aris could get it.






  * Being the author of an adopted proposal: 1 legislation cheque.


I like the AI*(F-A) because a) it creates more money, b) it values 
proposals that touch more important parts of the ruleset more highly, 
and c) it values uncontroversial proposals more highly. You could 
probably do something similar here, but I think all proposals getting 
equal rewards is not a good thing.


While I was writing this draft up, I thought about how to do that. 
Every solution I could think of was extremely inelegant. Giving out a 
number of legislation cheques greater than 1 unbalances the whole 
thing -- I would have to increase the others so that this is not seen 
as the only way to earn money. This would, in turn, cause major 
inflation because all the rewards would be multiple times greater at 
points. I suppose I could change how valuable cheques are, but I feel 
the system is granular enough as it is.


I kind of already see proposals as the fastest way to earn money - I 
think I've earned more money from proposals than all the other methods 
(not a rigorous claim).


--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Proto for a new economics system

2019-09-09 Thread Jason Cobb
  week on eir own behalf: 1 participation cheque.


Possible ambiguity: "(Casting a vote [...]) on eir own behalf" vs. 
("Casting a vote on (all proposals distributed [...] on eir own behalf)".






  * Being the author of an adopted proposal: 1 legislation cheque.


I like the AI*(F-A) because a) it creates more money, b) it values 
proposals that touch more important parts of the ruleset more highly, 
and c) it values uncontroversial proposals more highly. You could 
probably do something similar here, but I think all proposals getting 
equal rewards is not a good thing.





  * Judging a CFJ that e was assigned to without violating a time
    limit to do so: 1 justice cheque.

  * Publishing an office's weekly or monthly report, provided that
    publication was the first report published for that office in
    the relevant time period (week or month respectively) to fulfill
    an official weekly or monthly duty: 1 efficiency cheque.

  * Resolving an Agoran Decision on whether to adopt a proposal,
    provided that no other Agoran Decision on whether to adopt that
    or any other proposal had been resolved earlier in that Agoran
    week: 1 efficiency cheque.

  * Having a Thesis pass peer-review and be granted a Degree based
    on its merit: 20 coins


This idea has been stewing for a long time, and this is the rough draft
of a proposal that captures my initial thoughts somewhat.

I am putting this out there because the game is barren. The closest
thing we have to gameplay at this point is the stuff Agora always has.
CFJs and whatnot. I hope the minigame contest goes somewhere, but this
is different and important in a completely different way.

It's been a while since we've had an actual economics anyway. Coins are
not the most interesting system out there and don't even have a cool
name.

TL;DR: Agora is boring and gross.


That may be a bit harsh...






Now let's talk about this proposal specifically. It's really a simple
system, built on the back of the parties in the politics minigame and
basic stock market economics. It also takes inspiration from the idea of
collaborative punishment that we experimented with with the Ritual.

It's a minigame, but not one that everyone needs to be especially
involved in, but involving yourself does get you minimal extra rewards.
It's Aris-friendly!

TL;DR: This proto will be helpful.



However, this is a proto for a reason: because this draft is trash. I
could list all the things I dislike about it if I wanted to. And so I
have.

1. For such a simple (in-concept) system, it sure requires quite a bit
   of text to describe it. I feel like it could be a bit more concise.


Defining cheques as assets would help. However, I don't think that text 
is inherently a bad thing - I would honestly rather see something that's 
relatively clear but longer than something that's overly clever and brittle.





2. Penalizing proposals that fail is a terrible idea because it
   discourages being the slightest bit controversial or else the entire
   collective is punished.


If you want a party that tries to get legislation _passed_, then that is 
the natural definition. You could punish proposals that do horrendously, 
but that discourages pointing out flaws in proposals.





3. I'm not sure that evaluating offices' weekly duties over 4 is always
   a good idea because some Agoran months take place over more than 4
   Agoran weeks.

4. Not all proposals and not all CFJs are counted when evaluating
   performance values. The wording is terrible.

5. The new rewards might be scammable.

6. Theses should probably be converted to cheques first.


I would be against 6 - theses don't really fit into any of the 
categories, and I feel like theses should always be equally valuable.





7. Many other issues that are probably over my head.

TL;DR: This proto sucks.



Now, Agora, work your magic on this proto. I know y'all are far smarter
than I am. I can think of a few good potential improvements, but it is
far too late and I do not wish to enumerate them.


--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: [Promotor] Another Draft Since I Took So Long

2019-09-07 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/8/19 12:57 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:

Here's another draft, sorry for the inconvenience.

-Aris

---
I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 5, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
conditional votes).


Also, this is missing the proposals added by Proposal 8247 ("Quorum 
Defailure").


--
Jason Cobb



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

2019-09-07 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/7/19 9:26 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

I'm not sure this is an equivalent situation. CFJ 3638 ruled that a Notice of 
Honour had been published, even though it was invalid, but even then it didn't 
end up altering Karma.

In the same way, I would argue that you succeeded in publishing a document that 
purported to be the resolution of an Agoran decision, but because the 
announcement was invalid (as well as for the reason you give in your argument 
here), you didn't actually resolve it.

-twg


Well, the Rule doesn't specify the effects of the announcement being 
"valid" or not "valid", and, even if the announcement is not "valid", 
its still an announcement, and thus satisfies the "by announcement".


What I meant was that I don't think that the word "valid" has special 
meaning, i.e. that it would be equivalent to saying, "To be beautiful, 
this announcement must satisfy the following conditions:" (having no 
effect unless given effect elsewhere).


--
Jason Cobb



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

2019-09-07 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/7/19 5:24 PM, James Cook wrote:

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.



I think there's something interesting here - resolving a proposal is 
both an action and a self-ratifying public document. As far as I can 
tell, it's the only thing in the rules that behaves this way (although 
distribution is similar, but doesn't use self-ratification).


I was required by R2201 to respond to twg's CoE, since the resolution 
was a self-ratifying document, but I wasn't required by law to attempt 
to resolve it again. Although, if the first attempt failed, it would 
still be a crime to fail to resolve the decision in a timely fashion.


But, if the first attempt succeeded, then the second attempted 
resolution was INEFFECTIVE. Self-ratification might fix that, but, since 
a decision that was already resolved can't be re-resolved, that might 
fall under the "inconsistencies between the gamestate and the rules" 
clause of R1551, making it fail to ratify. The first attempt definitely 
won't self-ratify because of the CoE.



So, we have to figure out whether the first attempt at resolution was 
EFFECTIVE.


R208 reads, in part:


   The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve
   it by announcement, indicating the outcome. If it was required to
   be initiated, then e SHALL resolve it in a timely fashion after
   the end of the voting period. To be valid, this announcement must
   satisfy the following conditions:
   
   1. It is published after the voting period has ended.
   
   2. It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.
   
   3. It specifies the number of voters (or a list of the voters).

  For these purposes and for determining quorum, a "voter" is
  someone who submitted a ballot on the decision that was valid
  when it was submitted and also valid (i.e. not withdrawn or
  otherwise invalidated) at the end of the voting period.
   
   4. It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there

  was more than one valid option, provides a tally of the voters'
  valid ballots.


R. Lee found in CFJ 3638 [0] that an action that creates something that 
is not "valid" does not render the action INEFFECTIVE. This would seem 
to imply that the word "valid" doesn't have a special meaning in 
determining whether an action is EFFECTIVE or not. If so, then we need 
not consider the list, leaving



   The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve
   it by announcement, indicating the outcome.
I note that this says "the outcome", not "an outcome" (or similar), so I 
think a resolution attempt is only EFFECTIVE if it correctly specifies 
the outcome. This would mean the first attempted resolution was 
INEFFECTIVE, so the second attempted resolution would be EFFECTIVE.



[0]: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3638

--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Fwd: BUS: Proposal

2019-09-07 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/7/19 2:14 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

On Sat, Sep 7, 2019 at 5:04 AM Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

I act on Jacob Arduino's behalf to submit the following proposal, "No Harm No 
Foul", AI=1.0, with myself as a co-author:

Is there a game reason for using a zombie to submit on an ongoing
basis?  I was looking but couldn't find one (it vaguely bothers me
that the historical Rules annotations won't capture the "true" author
of these proposals - I*have*  used that info, even going back some
years, e.g. tracking down the text of a proposal to its original
submission to figure out the intent of a textual change for a CFJ;
often "author" is the best way to do that before a proposal has an
ID).  -G.



I think twg might be going for a Lime ribbon:


   Lime (L): A person qualifies for a Lime Ribbon if three or more
   proposals adopted in the preceding 7 days had that person as a
   coauthor.


--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: September Zombie Auction

2019-09-05 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/5/19 9:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

Of course it's worth asking whether "amount of (items)" in R2550
is similar enough to "number of (items)" in R2550, but it seems fairly
close to common sense that (items) is the governing part of the
definition.



Ah, glorious quotation marks. This may be hyper-textualist (and I don't 
know if there's precedent for this), but I would think the quotations 
marks demand matching exactly that pattern (modulo formatting, 
apparently), so it wouldn't apply to "amount".


--
Jason Cobb



DIS: Re: BUS: Disposal of lost Coins

2019-09-05 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/5/19 3:11 PM, James Cook wrote:

I intend, without objection, to destroy every Coin owned by the Lost
and Found Department.



I wonder if some of those could be used as the purse for the subgame in 
a rule contest instead of G. having to use eir own personal coins.


--
Jason Cobb



DIS: On Deputisation

2019-09-05 Thread Jason Cobb

R2160 reads, in part:


   A player (the deputy) CAN perform an action ordinarily reserved
   for an office-holder as if e held the office if
   
   1. the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of

  holding that office, to perform the action (this requirement is
  fulfilled by the deputy performing the action);
   
   2. it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,

  other than by deputisation, if e held the office;
   
   3. either (i) a time limit by which the rules require the action

  to be performed has expired or (ii) the office is vacant;
   
   4. either (i) the office is vacant, (ii) the aforementioned time

  limit expired more than fourteen days ago, or (iii) the deputy
  announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e intended
  to deputise for that office for the purposes of the particular
  action; and
   
   5. the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e is

  doing so by deputisation or by temporary deputisation



I think this may allow deputisation for an office for a previous missed 
report, even if a report is later published.


For example, say the Murderor SHALL publish a weekly report, and failed 
to do so one year ago. I think all of the conditions in R2160 would be 
fulfilled:


1. Yes, because the Murderor SHALL publish that report.

2. Yes, because the Murderor CAN publish a Murderor's weekly report

3. Yes, because the time limit for that missed week has still expired. 
The fact that a report was later published does not retroactively 
un-violate that time limit.


4. Yes, because the time limit to publish the missed report expired more 
than 14 days ago (again, this isn't retroactively un-violated).


5. Yes, trivially fulfilled.

--
Jason Cobb



DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3772 assigned to G.

2019-09-05 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/2/19 9:01 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

- Changes in existence state (e.g. ceasing to exist) are indeed actions -
inferring the state as an action would make these situations (actions
performed on actions) rather messy. 



I've been thinking about this, and I think the action of coming into 
existence would probably be regulated, given the rules on creation of 
assets and contracts. That begs the question of whether or not the Rules 
can recognize that something exists while simultaneously stating that 
that thing CANNOT come into existence because, for an entity to exist, 
it must at some point have started to exist, which the Rules state that 
it CANNOT do.


--
Jason Cobb



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

2019-09-03 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/3/19 7:08 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

I am a little unclear on exactly how this works, but I don't think ratifying a 
report can change anyone's Citizenship if it's not reporting on Citizenship in 
the first place. The most you could do here is create Spaceships in Corona's 
and L's possession - which I think would then instantly become property of the 
Lost and Found Department, because non-players are not valid Spaceship owners.



Here's my logic:

By 1551, we must find how the gamestate would be "minimally modified to 
make [the report] as true and accurate as possible [at the time it 
says].", with the exception that the modification can't introduce 
inconsistencies between the gamestate and the rules or modifying the 
rules (which would make ratification fails).


Corona and L owning Spaceships would be more "true and accurate" than 
them not owning Spaceships. So, if at all possible, it must make Corona 
and L own Spaceships. The only way they can own Spaceships is if they 
are players. Therefore, ratification must make Corona and L players, if 
at all possible. Therefore, ratification must flip their Citizenship 
switches to Registered if at all possible. It can do all of this by 
simply ratifying that the switches are at Registered, then by ratifying 
that they have Spaceships with the specified properties.


--
Jason Cobb



DIS: Re: OFF: [Astronomor] State of the Universe

2019-09-02 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/2/19 10:13 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:


CoE: Corona and L were not players at the time of this report, and 
could not have possessed Spaceships.


(About 20 minutes more and this would have self-ratified.)



For this reason (and other deregistrations), I don't think the report 
about the future will actually ratify.


R1551:


Such a modification cannot add inconsistencies
   between the gamestate and the rules


and


If no such modification is possible, or multiple
   substantially distinct possible modifications would be equally
   appropriate, the ratification fails.



A non-player owning a Spaceship would mean that there is no possible 
modification. However, it is technically possible for these people to 
register (thus getting Spaceships), so I don't think a CoE on that 
report would work.


--
Jason Cobb



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

2019-09-02 Thread Jason Cobb

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



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

2019-09-02 Thread Jason Cobb

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



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

2019-09-02 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/2/19 12:00 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
This report is accurate at the time that is 6 days, 23 hours, 59 
minutes, and 59 seconds after it is published.



I'm sure this is abuse of power or a violation of R2143 or something 
(feel free to impeach me), but since Spaaace is already dead, probably 
going to be repealed, and has no impact on anything else, I thought I 
might as well see what happens.


--
Jason Cobb



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

2019-09-01 Thread Jason Cobb

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.


--
Jason Cobb



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

2019-09-01 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/2/19 12:00 AM, James Cook wrote:

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



I remember that judgement (that was a fun case), but I'm still not quite 
sure how H. Judge D. Margaux reached the conclusion that R2125 can apply 
the same action differently to different entities.


--
Jason Cobb



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

2019-09-01 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/1/19 7:40 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:

On 9/1/19 7:35 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

  We could just say "when X, Y CAN and
SHALL Z". It's certainly much more elegant.


Hmm... would that mean that Y could only Z for the exact instance in 
which X happens, since CAN doesn't have the special wording that SHALL 
does.




[Note: all of the below is based on my reading. I am not an Agoran 
Lawyer, this is not legal advice.]


I would like to clarify this. If X is a condition (say, "a proposal 
exists"), then I think the CAN is fine (since Y could perform Z whenever 
the condition is satisfied), but I think the SHALL doesn't get the 
timely-fashion interpretation (since there's no instant of time involved).


However, if X is an event (say, "a proposal is created"), then I think 
the SHALL is fine (and gets the timely-fashion interpretation), but I 
think the CAN is broken, since there's no ongoing time where the CAN is 
applied, only the instant where that event happens.



For instance, take this excerpt from R2478 ("Vigilante Justice"):


   When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate
   the allegation and CAN, and in a timely fashion SHALL, conclude
   the investigation by


The actual pointing of the Finger happens only in an instant, so the 
investigator CAN only conclude the investigation in that instant (which 
means CHoJ might be broken again, /yay.../).


--
Jason Cobb



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

2019-09-01 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/1/19 7:35 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

  We could just say "when X, Y CAN and
SHALL Z". It's certainly much more elegant.


Hmm... would that mean that Y could only Z for the exact instance in 
which X happens, since CAN doesn't have the special wording that SHALL does.


--
Jason Cobb



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

2019-09-01 Thread Jason Cobb

On 9/1/19 5:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On 9/1/2019 1:29 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
>> 8233A  Murphy   3.0   Duties
> AGAINST; I prefer the "WILL" version

Oh I'm just blind aren't I.  I withdraw my proposal "there's a WILL".
(I'll re-propose WILL if "duties" fails, but if it passes mine would mess
stuff up).

Also curious why twg and Jason Cobb voted against it?  Is there something
wrong with the idea that I wholly missed a discussion about?

-G.



I linked Falsifian's reasoning here: 
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-July/041135.html


--
Jason Cobb



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

2019-08-31 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/31/19 9:42 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

AGAINST. I believe this creates a circular definition: a Promulgator is someone 
who has a weekly duty to publish a report of a regulation, and a regulation is 
anything that has been published in a ratified Promulgator's report. Rule 2493 
is supposed to prevent regulations from existing if they are not specifically 
defined in the rules, but it is outpowered by ratification. I think there is a 
chance - not necessarily a large chance, but worth CFJing - that enacting this 
proposal would cause*all*  undoubted public documents older than a week to 
become regulations.



I'm not sure I understand your logic.


R2493:


   A regulation is an textual entity defined as such by this rule,
   and under the authority of an person, known as its Promulgator. A
   regulation must be authorized by a rule (its parent rule) in order
   to exist. It has only the effect that rule explicitly gives it.



At least by my reading, only a person who is explicitly designated as 
being in charge of regulations is a Promulgator, not someone who has a 
duty to publish a report of a regulation; that requirement comes by 
virtue of already being a Promulgator.


Additionally, not all public documents purport to be part of a 
Promulgator's report.



--
Jason Cobb



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

2019-08-30 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/30/19 9:22 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

An actively interested officer means promoting play, being very proactive
at proposing bug-fixes (your latest proposal seems like "too little, too
late")


That's fair - I could have made the Fame fix proposal earlier; I'm not 
quite sure why I didn't.




and NOT using the position to conduct scams, which simply leads to
"why bother playing if the officer is cheating"?

While conducting the scam per se was not bad form, it's something of a
higher standard that goes with "office" if you want to continue 
holding the

job after the scam and not expect people to just repeal your position.

-G.


Also fair. I very much expect Spaaace to be repealed, and I don't really 
object to that (although I do like free money).



I'll keep what you said in mind if I ever come to control a sub-game 
office again, though that does seem unlikely to me.



--
Jason Cobb



DIS: Proto-CFJ on existing

2019-08-30 Thread Jason Cobb
This is NOT a CFJ, but is formatted like one because I see no reason why 
I shouldn't. I might submit it later if there's disagreement.


I was thinking about this because of my question of R1586.


(Fake) 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.


}


If such a CFJ were to be found TRUE, that may have some interesting 
consequences. Specifically, I don't think the Rules explicitly describe 
how a person can perform the action of existing, so a person CANNOT 
exist...?


--
Jason Cobb



DIS: On R1586

2019-08-29 Thread Jason Cobb

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



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

2019-08-29 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/29/19 7:27 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


If the officer-in-charge is not even interested (except for a few coins),
really, it's time for it to go.  Sub-games need active commitment of the
officer to keep going. 



I'm perfectly happy to resolve Space Battles (should any occur), but I 
don't particularly see a need to attack anyone (esp. since that would 
get you involved and you've already stated that you don't want that).


--
Jason Cobb



DIS: Re: BUS: Comptrollor selection

2019-08-25 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/25/19 7:15 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:

On 8/25/19 4:21 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:

#P emurph...@zoho.com
#S 21
#D 1
#R 1
#L 1
#C 1=omd 2=Aris 3=G. 4=Cuddle Beam 5=Trigon 6=Murphy 7=ATMunn 8=twg 
9=D. Margaux 10=Baron von Vaderham 11=Falsifian 12=Bernie 13=Rance 
14=o 15=Jason Cobb 16=Walker 17=PSS 18=Gaelan 19=Halian 20=Jacob 
Arduino 21=Telnaior

#T Comptrollor result

Comptrollor is selected from among the Officers, not among all of the 
Players.



Ah, sorry; I should really read all of my mail before responding.

--
Jason Cobb



DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora

2019-08-14 Thread Jason Cobb

On 7/31/19 4:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

SILVER QUILLS
 Alexis (2014/13), ais523 (2015/07)



Was this Patent Title actually awarded in the 13th month of 2014? I 
don't know what the effects of ratifying that would be.


--
Jason Cobb



DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3769 judged TRUE

2019-08-13 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/13/19 11:58 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

I find no fault with the caller's arguments, though I admit I can't see why e 
cares one way or the other about the matter. I judge this CFJ TRUE.

-twg


As for why I care:

It came up in an earlier CFJ (3761) about causing an asset to come into 
existence.The first judgement argued that if ratification w/o objection 
were performed, then the person performing the ratification would have 
caused the asset to come into existence. I argued that it didn't count 
as the person causing the changes, so the person wasn't causing the 
asset to come into existence. The judgement was reconsidered and given a 
different resolution, but I felt the question was still valid.


--
Jason Cobb



DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8235-8242

2019-08-11 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/11/19 8:13 PM, omd wrote:

8236  Jason Cobb, Aris 3.0   Definition de-capitalization

FOR, although some of the replacement text is inconsistently
capitalized (Consent, With/Without)


Good catch. If the proposal passes, I'll submit cleaning intents for 
those inconsistencies.


--
Jason Cobb



DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Penalty limmericks

2019-08-11 Thread Jason Cobb

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



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

2019-08-11 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/11/19 4:09 PM, James Cook wrote:

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.


The Titles rule says:

Each further rule shall please assign to exactly one title to an 
AGORAN GOD. Every contest message, when it refers to an AGORAN GOD by 
name, shall include each title that that GOD has at the time that the 
message is sent.
I'm not sure that an invalid rule would fail to trigger this provision, 
so I will continue to use RIGHT GOOD in my Rules until Eir Supreme 
Eminence, the Pontifex Maximus rules otherwise.


--
Jason Cobb



DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Rituals

2019-08-11 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/11/19 4:02 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
I submit that this rule is INVALID; it fails to honor ASCIIUS and CANTUS. 


Whoops, you're right. They were on my list, but I guess I somehow missed 
them.


--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More space shenanigans

2019-08-11 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/9/19 11:28 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On 8/9/2019 6:52 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-08-08 at 16:24 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I award Falsifian the Patent Title Champion.
>> I award Jason Cobb the Patent Title Champion (once).
>>
>> (I'm sure these are fine, but I'll wait just a little longer in case
>> someone wants to question the other 98).
>
> Arguably the text of rule 649 only allows you to award one copy of the
> patent title within the week after the player wins.
>
> Being authorised twice to award a patent title once doesn't strike me
> as having any different game effect from being authorised once to award
> a patent title once, and the time window is the same in each case.

Oh - interesting!

Other than how it's listed in the Scroll, the only, practical knock-on
effect I see is whether staggered Champion awards extend the time 
window for
earning an Ultraviolet - which matters for Transparent, even if the 
player

gets the Ultraviolet from the 1st champion.

Jason Cobb is trying to get a Transparent Ribbon right now so this might
come up.

-G.



If I write you a check for $50, then you are allowed to ask your bank to 
transfer $50 out of my account and into yours. You couldn't ask them to 
do it 20 times and end up getting $1000 from me. So, that check once 
authorizes you to take $50 out of my account.


But, if I were to write you two checks for $50 and date them the same, 
each check is authorization to once take $50 out of my account. The fact 
that they are dated the same doesn't matter, each check is a separate 
authorization to perform an action once. Therefore, you are permitted to 
perform the action twice.


I would argue that a similar logic applies here. Rule 2449 reads:


   When the Rules state that a person or persons win the game, those
   persons win the game; specifically they win the Round that ends
   with the indicated win. Agora itself does not end and the ruleset
   remains unchanged. The Herald is then authorized to award those
   persons the Patent Title of Champion once, by announcement.
Each win was a separate event (even if they happened at the same time). 
Rule 2449 then, for each win, authorizes the Herald to once award the 
winner the Patent Title Champion.


--
Jason Cobb



DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Problems

2019-08-10 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/10/19 3:46 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.



Agora is vastly less important than your health. Please take care of 
yourself. I sincerely do hope that you feel better.


--
Jason Cobb



DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3767 assigned to G.

2019-08-10 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/10/19 12:57 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:

On 8/10/19 2:12 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


The below is CFJ 3767.  I assign it to G.

I judge it as follows:

FALSE.  Using common sense and direct forward reasoning (R217), this 
fits
into a "formatting" issue where the meaning is clear, even to a moron 
in a
hurry[0], and is no more consequential to rules interpretation than 
whether

* or - is used for bullets in a bullet list.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry



Alright, sorry for wasting your time, G. This was really a stretch.



Whoops, that went to official. Sorry, everyone.

--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More space shenanigans

2019-08-09 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/9/19 11:28 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On 8/9/2019 6:52 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-08-08 at 16:24 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I award Falsifian the Patent Title Champion.
>> I award Jason Cobb the Patent Title Champion (once).
>>
>> (I'm sure these are fine, but I'll wait just a little longer in case
>> someone wants to question the other 98).
>
> Arguably the text of rule 649 only allows you to award one copy of the
> patent title within the week after the player wins.
>
> Being authorised twice to award a patent title once doesn't strike me
> as having any different game effect from being authorised once to award
> a patent title once, and the time window is the same in each case.

Oh - interesting!

Other than how it's listed in the Scroll, the only, practical knock-on
effect I see is whether staggered Champion awards extend the time 
window for
earning an Ultraviolet - which matters for Transparent, even if the 
player

gets the Ultraviolet from the 1st champion.

Jason Cobb is trying to get a Transparent Ribbon right now so this might
come up.

-G.

I /think/ that if I become speaker then I can get Transparent 
immediately. So if you appoint Falsifian speaker, someone can award em 
Platinum, then I can win again, become speaker, and get Transparent.


--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [frc] the riches of our temple shall accumulate

2019-08-08 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/8/19 10:24 PM, Rebecca wrote:

Sorry, to praise a new god


E praised UNICODE in the final paragraph.

--
Jason Cobb



DIS: Re: BUS: More space shenanigans

2019-08-08 Thread Jason Cobb
I probably will, but I want to make sure you get your speaker ribbon first
:).

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, 4:29 PM James Cook  wrote:

> On Sun., Aug. 4, 2019, 20:47 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.
> >
> > --
> > - Falsifian
> >
>
> Having given notice, I win the game.
>
> (Jason Cobb, you're welcome to win again if you want to be the most recent
> winner.)
>
> - Falsifian
>
> >
>


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More space shenanigans

2019-08-08 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/8/19 3:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

Well only 1 counts for Transparent - it's the number of "types" of
ribbons that matters there.


I know, but it's also cool to be able to say that I've won Agora 999 
times :P.


--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: [FRC] Draft Judgements

2019-08-08 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/8/19 1:40 AM, Aris Merchant wrote:

Rule 9, by nch:



Your Supreme Eminence, I humbly suggest that Rule 9 is INVALID due to 
its failure to contain the word "please" in the first paragraph 
following the opening brace, as required by Rule 6.



Worshiper of the AGORAN GODS,

Jason Cobb



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

2019-08-04 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/5/19 1:35 AM, James Cook wrote:

Our business being concluded, I cease being a party to the contract
called "Space Shenanigans 2: Electric Boogaloo". Thanks, Jason Cobb!


No problem! :)



(I'm trying not to lose track of what contracts I'm a party to. I
*think*  there are now none.)


I've fallen into this trap, but I don't think any that I'm party to can 
actually do anything (although I think G. might be able to steal a coin 
from me, though e clearly doesn't need it).


--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More space shenanigans

2019-08-04 Thread Jason Cobb

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



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More space shenanigans

2019-08-04 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/4/19 10:34 PM, James Cook wrote:

I will spend 0 energy in this space battle.

- Falsifian


NttPF.

--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: [proto] ansible v0.2

2019-08-04 Thread Jason Cobb

A person (the Transmitter) CAN transmit a Cable


You capitalize "Cable" here, but nowhere else, similarly for 
"Transmitter", and "Hash".


Side-note: I'm not sure that I understand the cable metaphor. How does 
one "transmit" a cable?






  The delivery is SUCCESSFUL, and the cable is considered to be
  Received by Agora (or just 'received') if and only if all of the
  following are true:
  - it occurs while the Delivery Window for that cable is open;
  - that cable has not been previously delivered;
  - SHA-256 produces the cable's hash as its output if the alleged
    plaintext is the input. 



I think this definition is broken. This would mean that a cable is only 
Received if "the cable has not been previously delivered". So, the cable 
would only be considered Received for an instant, since at any time 
after that instant, the cable would have been previously delivered.




  - SHA-256 produces the cable's hash as its output if the alleged
    plaintext is the input. 


Careful, there could be encoding issues here. I could pick some crazy 
encoding scheme and put the binary representation into SHA-256.





[* I want to say "output of the SHA-256 algorithm" but that's kind of
like saying "the ATM Machine" - what's the right grammar here?] 


I would say "the output when SHA-256 is applied to the input".


Create the following Rule, "Terms of Engagement" 
You don't specify a power here. I know that the default is 1, but it 
would be clearer to just specify.



--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: [proto] the Ansible

2019-08-04 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/4/19 6:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On 8/4/2019 3:10 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:

On 8/4/19 6:09 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:

On Sun, 2019-08-04 at 14:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:

[* do we need to define what a "hash method" is or is that in
common-enough use to leave to common definitions?]

Fun though it would be to scam this myself, in the spirit of "catch
loopholes rather than exploit them": the common definition of "hash
method" is not what you're actually looking for here. (In particular,
you probably want to confine to hashes with collision resistance,
otherwise someone could prepare multiple plaintexts in advance and
choose which to show based on events since.)

I hereby define the TenHash hashing method: The hash is, and always 
will be, 10.


I also just realized that I didn't require the hashing method to be
generally computable by anyone with reasonable effort and the provided
information, under this someone could use a method that requires secret
info.

So: I can give it a try, but if someone more expert than me wants to 
have a

go at a definition, I'd love that!

-G.


I'd say just enumerate the acceptable algorithms. You could probably 
just start with SHA256 - it's secure and easy to find calculators for 
online.


--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: [proto] the Ansible

2019-08-04 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/4/19 6:09 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:

On Sun, 2019-08-04 at 14:55 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:

[* do we need to define what a "hash method" is or is that in
common-enough use to leave to common definitions?]

Fun though it would be to scam this myself, in the spirit of "catch
loopholes rather than exploit them": the common definition of "hash
method" is not what you're actually looking for here. (In particular,
you probably want to confine to hashes with collision resistance,
otherwise someone could prepare multiple plaintexts in advance and
choose which to show based on events since.)

I hereby define the TenHash hashing method: The hash is, and always will 
be, 10.


--
Jason Cobb



DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Burnt Offerings

2019-08-04 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/4/19 2:53 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:

This rule is dedicated to INTERCAL, the most esoteric of all the gods.

Fie on thee, 0x44, thou fugitive!

To each new fantasy rule, please allow  a file to be attached, which file
shall contain the ASCII art of exactly one animal which shall be sacrificed.

I praise the LORD, first and foremost in our Pantheon. I give thanks to
ARCAS, king of Arcadia. I bow before THE AGORAN SPIRIT OF THE GAME. I make
myself more lowly than the HONOURLESS WORM, the overlooked. I surrender my
mind to INTERCAL, the insane. I type messages of reference to ASCIIUS,
without whom no form or order could descend upon computing.

--
Trigon


Sorry, I just want to make sure that attachments work (I'm sure that 
they do, but just to be safe).


Also, you can see that I've been very creative with my animal.

--
Jason Cobb

I do hereby sacrifice this worm to the AGORAN GODS, praise be to them:

 ---
|   |   |   |
 ---


Re: DIS: On Ratification

2019-08-04 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/4/19 1:22 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


In R1551:
   the gamestate is modified to what it would be if,
  at the time the ratified document was published ...

(later it says "if" the document has a different time then the 
publication
date, use that instead.  otherwise, the publication date is used). 


Yeah, realized that. Sorry for wasting your time.

--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: On Ratification

2019-08-04 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/4/19 1:17 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
So, if I'm correct, this may be a fairly serious bug, but only if 
people do what I did and don't put the date in their self-ratifying 
reports.


I think that if a report fails to state when it is true, then when it 
is self-ratified, it becomes true at the time that it is ratified, 
rather than at the time that it was published.


Take, for example, my old Astronomor report (now fixed). If that were 
allowed to self-ratify (at least the asset reports and switch 
reports), then since it didn't specify when it was true, then under 
the first paragraph of Rule 1551, it would change the gamestate to be 
true _as of the time it ratified_.


This would nuke everything between the time that the report was 
published and the time that it ratified, and could possibly cause 
inconsistencies between the rules and the gamestate (if the rules had 
changed since then), which Rule 1551 explicitly prohibits.


Does this look right to everyone else?


Wow I'm blind sorry, disregard this.

--
Jason Cobb



DIS: On Ratification

2019-08-04 Thread Jason Cobb
So, if I'm correct, this may be a fairly serious bug, but only if people 
do what I did and don't put the date in their self-ratifying reports.


I think that if a report fails to state when it is true, then when it is 
self-ratified, it becomes true at the time that it is ratified, rather 
than at the time that it was published.


Take, for example, my old Astronomor report (now fixed). If that were 
allowed to self-ratify (at least the asset reports and switch reports), 
then since it didn't specify when it was true, then under the first 
paragraph of Rule 1551, it would change the gamestate to be true _as of 
the time it ratified_.


This would nuke everything between the time that the report was 
published and the time that it ratified, and could possibly cause 
inconsistencies between the rules and the gamestate (if the rules had 
changed since then), which Rule 1551 explicitly prohibits.


Does this look right to everyone else?

--
Jason Cobb



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

2019-08-04 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/4/19 3:01 AM, James Cook wrote:

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



Yay, directly contradictory judgements.

R2576 has never changed, so there's no reason for this contradiction, or 
to think that either judgement would be invalidated between the time it 
was issued and now.


I don't know how I'm supposed to deal with that. Do I need to call yet 
another CFJ?


--
Jason Cobb



DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Politeness

2019-08-04 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/4/19 11:29 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:
Each worshiper must understand that only the AGORAN GODS, and, by 
extensions, their PHYSICAL EMBODIMENT, Eir Supreme Eminence, and, that 
in order to satisfy the AGORAN GODS enough to enforce their rules, 
each Novel Paragraph must once contain the word "PLEASE".


I sincerely apologize, Eir Supreme Eminence, the Pontifex Maximums, for 
failure to include your full title in the text of this Rule. This was an 
unacceptable breach of decorum, and I will endeavor ensure that it never 
happens again.


--
Jason Cobb



DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Patron Gods

2019-08-04 Thread Jason Cobb

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



Re: DIS: Clairvoyant Roshambo

2019-08-03 Thread Jason Cobb

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_".


--
Jason Cobb



Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [FRC] Sustained Worship

2019-08-03 Thread Jason Cobb

On 8/4/19 12:56 AM, Jason Cobb wrote:


[This is not a challenge, and is not sent to the public forum]

By my reading, by this rule each contest message must contain one 
message _per Agoran God_. Is there a defined set of Agoran Gods 
anywhere? Because if not, there might be an issue. 


Never mind, I'm blind, please ignore me.

--
Jason Cobb



  1   2   3   4   5   >