Re: DIS: Re: BUS: For real this time [intent(s) to banish the Ritual]

2019-06-25 Thread Kerim Aydin
; Jason Cobb > > On 6/25/19 2:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Oh sure why not. > > > > I CFJ: Jason Cobb made an announcement of intent to banish the Ritual > > with 2.1 Agoran Consent that meets the clarity standards of R2595/0. > > > > (will slice and dic

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: For real this time [intent(s) to banish the Ritual]

2019-06-25 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 6/25/2019 9:04 AM, Jason Cobb wrote: So, what about the ones where you both supported and objected (like X=2.1)? Are you both a Supporter and Objector, because I don't see anything in the dependent action rules that says you can't do both? I think that's right.

DIS: Re: BUS: For real this time [intent(s) to banish the Ritual]

2019-06-25 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 6/24/2019 11:17 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: This is probably the easiest way to do this: For each number X that is an integral multiple of 0.1 not less than 1.0 and not exceeding 5.0, I do the following: { I declare intent, with X Agoran Consent, to banish The Ritual, pursuant to Rule 2596

DIS: AI fix proto

2019-06-23 Thread Kerim Aydin
Does this do the trick - Amend Rule 1950 (Decisions with Adoption Indices) by replacing: Adoption index is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran decisions and proposals, whose value is either "none" (default) or an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9. with:

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188-8195

2019-06-23 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 6/23/2019 2:47 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: Accepted. I'm guessing that this makes the entire submission invalid. It's possible that it defaults to 1.0, but I think that invalidation is more plausible. Revision: There is no proposal 8193. Oooh, this may be messy. So both proposals and

DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction fix

2019-06-23 Thread Kerim Aydin
Hi folks, I thought we'd done this before, quite recently in fact (unless I'm misunderstanding the question!). CFJs 3693-3694 found that a zombie CAN be transferred as the result of an auction, under the current rules. The case arguments are kind of spread in Discussion, but here's a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's served its purpose

2019-06-23 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 6/22/2019 11:02 PM, James Cook wrote: On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 at 02:52, Jason Cobb wrote: I note that the Ritual has been performed for 5 continuous weeks. The ruleset has in the past been Appeased for 5 continuous weeks, but I had been assuming R2596's "has been continuously appeased at

Re: DIS: Seriously, what do you guys think about the Revival of Spaaace?

2019-06-22 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 6/22/2019 7:19 PM, Rebecca wrote: Does the previous state of spce carry over or does it all reset? Are you planning to battle your spces? discuss today I believe all of the space assets were eliminated via ratification? There's no provisions in the rules for creating new

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election Intents

2019-06-22 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 6/21/2019 7:40 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: I refuse to use it to help in scams, even when people offer bribes. It's true - I've tried. Speaking of which, I'm hoping to see a proposal distribution this week - there's some stuff in there I'm concerned about on timeliness.

Re: DIS: History of "The rules SHALL NOT be interpreted..."

2019-06-21 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 6/20/2019 9:56 PM, James Cook wrote: Summary: I can't find any particular reason it's phrased that way. I can't remember any particular discussion over that phrase either. I *do* remember that the "limit, allow, enable, or permit" absolutely *was* assumed to include SHALL NOTs as making

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

2019-06-20 Thread Kerim Aydin
I feel like we're hitting a binary decision point with a split group of players so I'm guessing this is Moot-bound regardless (FWIW, I'm with R. Lee on this one so far). On 6/20/2019 7:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: And to think this all could have been avoided if people had just kept my

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

2019-06-20 Thread Kerim Aydin
ons. [0]: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg26252.html Jason Cobb On 6/20/19 11:59 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: lol.  I just noticed that "The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions" can be directly interpreted as proscribing

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

2019-06-20 Thread Kerim Aydin
Kerim Aydin wrote: lol. I just noticed that "The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions" can be directly interpreted as proscribing unregulated actions. (because "interpreting rules" is something we all do continuously in an unregulated fashi

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

2019-06-20 Thread Kerim Aydin
ulated action. By these two facts, I cannot come to the obviously correct conclusion that the contract proscribes an unregulated action without breaking rule 2152. There really is no way out of this, is there? On 6/17/19 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 6/17/2019 8:10 AM, Reuben Staley w

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform

2019-06-19 Thread Kerim Aydin
Nice. I think you can shorten this by getting rid of most of the "entities" like so: "An entity is requirement-creating if and only if..." "Regulations are requirement-creating." "Contracts are requirement-creating." Etc. On 6/19/2019 6:08 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: Here it is. This one

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

2019-06-18 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 1:14 PM omd wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 6:11 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Hi omd, > > > > When a Motion to Reconsider is filed, I drop the old arguments > > entirely from the case log, so the old judgement isn't mistaken for > >

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

2019-06-18 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:50 AM Aris Merchant wrote: > Secondly, yes, there are. Specifically, a SHALL or a SHALL NOT doesn’t > limit the *performance* of an action, they limit the *permissibility* of an > action. This interpretation means that there is no superfluous or > ineffective text in

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

2019-06-18 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 10:35 AM D. Margaux wrote: > > On Jun 18, 2019, at 11:59 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > In eir first judgement, > > Judge Trigon opined that, in R2125, in this list: > > > >> An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit

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

2019-06-18 Thread Kerim Aydin
seems sound to me. I > plan to adopt it as the reasons for judgement on 3737, unless someone > gives me persuasive arguments to the contrary. > > > On Jun 17, 2019, at 3:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > I think V.J. Rada had it right - the Rules don't punish

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

2019-06-17 Thread Kerim Aydin
Hi omd, When a Motion to Reconsider is filed, I drop the old arguments entirely from the case log, so the old judgement isn't mistaken for precedent (there's no objective way of knowing whether motion-filers are objecting to minor portions, or the whole thing, and keeping both gets quite

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

2019-06-17 Thread Kerim Aydin
breaking rule 2152. There really is no way out of this, is there? On 6/17/19 9:32 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 6/17/2019 8:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: Does a "SHALL NOT" really count as "proscription"? I reiterate that, assuming a player has been given permission elsewhere, e still CA

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

2019-06-17 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 6/17/2019 8:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: Does a "SHALL NOT" really count as "proscription"? I reiterate that, assuming a player has been given permission elsewhere, e still CAN perform an action that the rules state e SHALL NOT perform. From the dictionary I get: Proscribe - forbid,

Re: DIS: unregulation

2019-06-16 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 6/16/2019 6:10 PM, Rebecca wrote: Anyone dumb enough to consent to a contract forbidding breathing deserves any blots that may be imposed, in my view. No such protections are needed, and if somehow somebody scams someone into such a contract, the referee can use eir discretion to not

Re: DIS: unregulation

2019-06-16 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 6/16/2019 5:43 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 6/16/19 8:37 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> V.J. Rada >> > Text: Repeal rule 2125 "Regulated Actions" >> >> Jason Cobb wrote: >> > Simply striking the last sentence of the Rule would suff

DIS: unregulation

2019-06-16 Thread Kerim Aydin
V.J. Rada > Text: Repeal rule 2125 "Regulated Actions" Jason Cobb wrote: > Simply striking the last sentence of the Rule would suffice... I think we'd always like to have some sort of protection against regulating breathing and the like. Grabbed some old language from the Rights era, maybe

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

2019-06-16 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 6/16/2019 4:28 PM, Rebecca wrote: > G., I strongly suspect, very strongly, that there is a body of precedent > on regulated actions. Do you know anything about that before we get too hasty? > > I create and pend the below proposal > First, why the heck would you repeal that as a solution?

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-16 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 6/16/2019 1:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: My judgement is as follows: When a player "SHALL NOT" perform an action, e "violates the rule in question" [Rule 2152 "Mother, May I?"]. Any parties to this theoretical contract would still be able to breate but to do so would violate the rule.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: judicial list

2019-06-15 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 6/15/2019 9:15 AM, Charles Walker wrote: I was actually thinking of trying the weekend court as a way of committing to the game more gradually. Either way I won't have much time until July, so I'll check back in at that point. Point taken! A couple weeks ago there were only a few judges

Re: DIS: Idea: Notice and comment

2019-06-15 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 6/15/2019 8:09 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > - I really like the idea of obiter dicta, there might be a few good ways > to implement that. Thinking about this a bit more, our system really requires individual judges to set broad precedents - sticking to the narrow would really bog down th

Re: DIS: Idea: Notice and comment

2019-06-15 Thread Kerim Aydin
So a few overall thoughts here. - I saw your call for a Motion, and mentally thought "I'll come back and read through the arguments before supporting" then never did. Not so much Apathy or stigma against filing, but losing track of it, in part because all the facts weren't immediately at

DIS: report reward fixes

2019-06-14 Thread Kerim Aydin
I think this covers stuff w.r.t the report Rewards issue - comments? Proto-proposal "Report Rewards", AI-2: [First prevent Contracts from defining offices, then limit rewards to official reports (which are pretty well-defined)]. Amend Rule 1006 (Offices) by prepending the following text to the

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

2019-06-14 Thread Kerim Aydin
ANOTHER UNOFFICIAL JUDICIAL CUSTOM (boy we've got a lot of these - good to note these if we make judicial changes it might be nice to simply define the ideas in the rules). When you have a single issue that has several separate sub-questions, you can call multiple CFJs in one message and request

DIS: comments on theses

2019-06-13 Thread Kerim Aydin
Just wanted to make a couple comments: 1. I think CuddleBeam's text is decent for an A.N., but I would object to any A.N. where the text wasn't published in Agora first (especially given the editable nature of the Wiki). 2. Falsifian's work on the CFJs is excellent and deserving of thesis,

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

2019-06-13 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 2:51 PM omd wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 2:56 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > It won't self-ratify even then. The resolution of a CFJ doesn't > > "cause it to cease to be a doubt" the way a denial of claim does. The > > only

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Oh, and [Attn. Arbitor]

2019-06-13 Thread Kerim Aydin
"understood" :) To fill this out, at one time we had a more strictly-structured judges' rota system that used a bunch of puns on the "bench" concepts with switches on whether a judge was "sitting" or "standing" and "lying down" IIRC that indicated how recently e'd been a judge. Actually relevant

DIS: Re: OFF: [Priest] Weekly Report

2019-06-13 Thread Kerim Aydin
After more discussion, I plan to motion to reconsider my own judgement to deal with this situation, because I apparently left out enough context to imply this worked. Basically, to infer from my argument is that R2123 means "defining things to add to weekly reports" or "to be a weekly report" is

DIS: Re: implausible denial

2019-06-12 Thread Kerim Aydin
m of error: On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 3:01 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I submit the following proposal, "Denial", AI-3: > --- > Amend Rule 2201 (Self-Ratification) by replacing: > 1. Deny the claim > with: > 1. Publicly and c

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: implausible denial

2019-06-12 Thread Kerim Aydin
is). > > What about this:. "publicly and clearly announce that the claim is denied" or > "publicly and clearly deny the claim by announcement" > > > > On Jun 12, 2019, at 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I submit the following proposal, "

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

2019-06-12 Thread Kerim Aydin
It won't self-ratify even then. The resolution of a CFJ doesn't "cause it to cease to be a doubt" the way a denial of claim does. The only way to make it undoubted post-CFJ is to either just publish a "new" document, or re-CoE the old one (which gives the publisher an opportunity to deny the

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

2019-06-12 Thread Kerim Aydin
Sorry, I'm being an idiot - I was looking back and forth between things and got the SHOULD/SHALL thing backwards backwards. On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 11:44 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > To me, OUGHT is closer to SHOULD than SHALL, and it bears a tinge of > reproach (you ought not to

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

2019-06-12 Thread Kerim Aydin
To me, OUGHT is closer to SHOULD than SHALL, and it bears a tinge of reproach (you ought not to have done that). In particular, if you look at the single place it's used, in R2231, that's clearly (to me anyway) a SHOULD not a SHALL: "As this title is the highest honour that Agora may bestow, a

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

2019-06-12 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 8:40 AM D. Margaux wrote: > Under R2154, “In a timely fashion after the nomination period ends, the ADoP > CAN and SHALL” initiate an Agoran decision to resolve that PM “election.” IMO one of the biggest recurring grammatical issues in the Rules is whether "CAN and SHALL

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

2019-06-12 Thread Kerim Aydin
. Not sure what I'm missing, but seems straight forward to me. On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 1:16 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: The below CFJ is 3732, I assign it to Murphy. === CFJ 3732 === In the message quoted below, Corona gave eir

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pending judicial actions

2019-06-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:51 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > In either case, I'm officializing them in my proposal. Still, you're > right that this is interesting, and I could see the precedent being > potentially relevant in the future. I don't want to add to your > overload right after you've taken

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: pending judicial actions

2019-06-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:17 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > Note that (probably) only the Referee can assign an ID number to this > case. Under Rule 2246, "Submitting a CFJ to the Referee", "the Referee > receives all obligations and powers for the specific case that the > Arbitor would otherwise

DIS: Re: BUS: pending judicial actions

2019-06-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
, Jun 11, 2019 at 3:09 PM D. Margaux wrote: > > > > > On Jun 11, 2019, at 3:52 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > Jun 4, 1:09 PM > > - Arbitor attempts to assign #3730 to a case with text "If no player > > activates Rule 2596...", and assign it to D

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: judicial list

2019-06-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
ot; people "equal" opportunities to judge by assigning cases only to non-interested people, such that the "interested" people all got equal chances (zero). :) On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 1:34 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > What is the '"weekend court" distinction'? &g

DIS: Re: BUS: finger point

2019-06-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
it now. I’m sincerely > sorry to resign and leave a mess for the next Arbitor to clean up. As a > note, IIRC anyone can assign themself as the judge of an open case without > objection, meaning cases can still be processed even without an Arbitor. > > -Aris > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots

2019-06-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
That works nicely, because "the Rules" as a backing document already specifies how Proposals change things, so that's covered. On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:52 AM Jason Cobb wrote: > > I was thinking something more like "except as explicitly specified by > the asset's backing document", since

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie auction status (unofficial report)

2019-06-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 6/11/2019 6:43 AM, Rebecca wrote: God I hate that there's public and non-public forums. Why do we need them? It should just be OFF and BUS. Because we want to discuss things without accidentally doing things.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots

2019-06-10 Thread Kerim Aydin
captured by the Rule? The authorizing Instrument would be the Rule, giving it power to do secured changes. The Rule explicitly delegates to the proposal, thus effectively giving it the entire power of the Rule to destroy assets. Jason Cobb On 6/10/19 3:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Interesting cat

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots

2019-06-10 Thread Kerim Aydin
mehow that this kind of interpretive move would be out of bounds--I'm not really sure why. But it's not necessary out of bounds in Agora, and I'm not sure why that is either. On Jun 10, 2019, at 3:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Interesting catch. It's the difference between "except by a proposa

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots

2019-06-10 Thread Kerim Aydin
Interesting catch. It's the difference between "except by a proposal or rule" versus "except as described by a proposal or rule" which is the usual phrasing that would work fine - so the question is can we infer the "as described" part - which might be a hard sell given how picky we usually

Re: DIS: Overpowered Deputies

2019-06-09 Thread Kerim Aydin
It's a known scam, it's been used a few times where someone deputizes for PM to appoint emself to be new Speaker which then makes em the Prime Minister too. I think the CFJ the first time was pretty straightforward ("yep, seems to work") and the Resignation demand stopped any abuses really.

Re: DIS: Proposed Birthday Tournament Regulations Discussion

2019-06-08 Thread Kerim Aydin
I'd submit 3 "impossible" riddles per week for 21 points guaranteed - can't see a block against that? Similar "riddle-making" games I've seen have penalties (e.g. 0 points) if no one else gets the riddle to penalize making them too hard. Also, two players could cross-invent a bunch of riddles

Re: DIS: Agreement to Contracts

2019-06-07 Thread Kerim Aydin
This goes back to some ancient precedents, which amount to "if a communication has basic purpose, a contract can't redefine that purpose to hijack the activity into joining". It's kind of covered in R217 that doesn't allow willy-nilly redefinition of common terms into other meanings (unless in

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: third church of the reformed ritual - post schism

2019-06-07 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 8:22 AM James Cook wrote: > > On Fri, 2019-06-07 at 14:44 +, James Cook wrote: > > > On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 13:48, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I light a candle. > > > > > > Does this actually work? > > > > &

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: third church of the reformed ritual - post schism

2019-06-07 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 8:22 AM James Cook wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 14:50, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk > wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2019-06-07 at 14:44 +, James Cook wrote: > > > On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 13:48, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I light a cand

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: humble agoran farmer goes to uni, Attn. Herald

2019-06-06 Thread Kerim Aydin
do > > them for, I just do essays because I like to do them. And if I can cash in > > some cool stuff on the side because of it, all the better lol. > > > > On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 00:02, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > >> > >> The standards can

Re: DIS: How are Rule ID Numbers assigned?

2019-06-06 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 6:08 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > Good question. Rule 2141 says that the Rulekeepor can assign a number, and > doesn’t say in what way e must do so, so e could theoretically assign any > number. There is possibly a limitation against re-assigning ID numbers based on an old

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: comptrollor nerf

2019-06-06 Thread Kerim Aydin
s, during the > > voting period, the Comptrollor would still have higher power than the > > proposal, fulfilling the requirements of Rule 2140. > > > > On 6/6/19 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > When comptrollor was proposed, frankly the main point was to > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: comptrollor nerf

2019-06-06 Thread Kerim Aydin
it results in ADOPTED? Thus, during the > > voting period, the Comptrollor would still have higher power than the > > proposal, fulfilling the requirements of Rule 2140. > > > > On 6/6/19 12:15 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > When comptrollor was proposed, f

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: comptrollor nerf

2019-06-06 Thread Kerim Aydin
AM Jason Cobb wrote: > > Fogive me if I misunderstand, but isn't the power of a proposal 0 unless > and until the Decision about it results in ADOPTED? Thus, during the > voting period, the Comptrollor would still have higher power than the > proposal, fulfilling the requirements of Rule

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

2019-05-28 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 1:26 PM omd wrote: > On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 7:05 AM D Margaux wrote: > > Additionally, I do not think the conditional vote “required the report > > ratification to go through before the voting period ended”; did it? If the > > empty reports self-ratify tomorrow,

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

2019-05-28 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 11:21 AM D. Margaux wrote: > > On May 26, 2019, at 9:01 PM, omd wrote: > > > >> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 5:49 PM D. Margaux wrote: > >> and, therefore, any attempt to impose a fine was retroactively INEFFECTIVE. > > > > ...wow, that's strange. Why the heck is rule 2531

Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Hotfixes

2019-05-28 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:36 AM Aris Merchant wrote: > I think it would be better to have some sort of proposal expedition > mechanism again. It's more general and cleaner (no need to have > another free-text decision type). The basic principle is to have a > process whereby a person can mark a

Re: DIS: [Proto-proposal] Hotfixes

2019-05-28 Thread Kerim Aydin
A big question to me is whether such fixes should be retroactive? Probably not - that's what ratification is for.So one option (an even faster hotfix) is to allow anything that can be self-ratified to also be changable in a non-retroactive manner with 3 Agoran Consent. Maybe excepting votes!

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

2019-05-28 Thread Kerim Aydin
Oops, don't mind me - I see the parallel attempts now this is sooo confusing... On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 11:12 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > CoE: My conditional vote quoted below required the report > ratification to go through before the voting period ended (I mis-read > D. Margaux's

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

2019-05-27 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 9:25 PM James Cook wrote: > I would be honoured, but would it be more appropriate to assign this > case to someone who hasn't already shown a preference for one outcome? > I invite whoever judges the case to refer to my arguments if they seem > helpful. Unless you have a

Re: DIS: the end never games

2019-05-22 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 5/21/2019 8:54 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: I guess "things don't change unless something changes them" is a principle that isn't actually written explicitly into the rules, which goes somewhat against the Nomic spirit of "everything is stated by the rules, thus it can be modified

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

2019-05-20 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 5/20/2019 1:12 PM, James Cook wrote: I imagine there must be precedent where old rules defining entities have been re-enacted, and the players assumed no such entities existed immediately after the re-enactment. Maybe that's enough to favour the interpretation that no sectors exist when the

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

2019-05-20 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 5/20/2019 1:16 PM, James Cook wrote: On Mon, 20 May 2019 at 12:08, Kerim Aydin wrote: I vote AGAINST 8177. I act on behalf of Telnaior to vote AGAINST 8177. As commented earlier, I was knocked out of space early on, as have others. Willing to sit out of a subgame this long

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

2019-05-20 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 5/20/2019 10:31 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:> On 5/20/2019 8:59 AM, James Cook wrote:>> I can't see anything other than the third>> paragraph of R1586 implying that a generic entity is destroyed when>> its defining rule goes away, and I don't think it applies in this ca

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

2019-05-20 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 5/20/2019 8:59 AM, James Cook wrote: [* the rules must define a switch for it to exist, and a rule with no force or effect includes no force or effect for its definitions - note R1586 is only power-2 so this "no force or effect" clause would overrule R1586. So if the switch doesn't exist

DIS: the end never games

2019-05-20 Thread Kerim Aydin
Proto: Stones [Reason: we need more things to auction. And vaguely topical.] New Rules to be created: Stones A Stone is a unique indestructable liquid asset defined by the Rules. To define a stone, the definition must include: (i) The unique Name of the stone;

DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: [dicelog] Selection of Comptrollor

2019-05-20 Thread Kerim Aydin
Did I have an equal chance, as Tailor? On 5/20/2019 6:41 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: D. Margaux wrote: Another CoE for most recent ADOP report—by ratification, twg wasn’t an officer at the time of this dice roll. So omd wasn’t chosen from among all officers; he was chosen from among all

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

2019-05-20 Thread Kerim Aydin
recreated when the suspension ends, which means in its default state]. On 5/20/2019 5:18 AM, D. Margaux wrote: What if, by ratification, we reset all Spaaace and Politics switches to their default values before suspending? On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 8:08 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: I vote AGAINST 817

DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: [dicelog] Selection of Comptrollor

2019-05-19 Thread Kerim Aydin
Also: I am tailor and should be included? (If I should be included and twg excluded, the 1/7 chance that turned up omd may be valid, as it wouldn't matter if I or twg had been #4...?) On 5/19/2019 3:55 PM, D. Margaux wrote: Another CoE for most recent ADOP report—by ratification, twg wasn’t

DIS: proto: public contracts

2019-05-17 Thread Kerim Aydin
This is a useful concept for a bigger proposal I'm working on, but it also might be useful for other things, so proposing separately. Any thoughts or wording improvements? Proto: Public Contracts Create the following Rule, "Public Contracts", power 2.5: A public contract is a contract

DIS: Re: Your message to Agora awaits moderator approval

2019-05-16 Thread Kerim Aydin
Oh nevermind I remember why now (my outgoing address has changed from ke...@u.washington.edu to ke...@uw.edu, and I didn't update it on this list) On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 2:54 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Ironic that I sent a message to BAK earlier confirming that I've > received all t

DIS: Fwd: Your message to Agora awaits moderator approval

2019-05-16 Thread Kerim Aydin
Ironic that I sent a message to BAK earlier confirming that I've received all the emails that were questionable, and despite being subscribed got the below reply... is this list or its moderator in violation of the first paragraph of R478? -- Forwarded message - From: Date: Thu,

DIS: Re: BUS: Greed

2019-05-16 Thread Kerim Aydin
You could have bid 29 so my decision point was stable :) On 5/15/19, James Cook wrote: > I bid 20. > > On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 14:32, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> I bid 10 coins in this auction. >> >> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 9:16 PM James Cook wrote: >> &g

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election

2019-05-11 Thread Kerim Aydin
I also received the original message (via an enterprise gmail if it matters). Note a couple months ago when I migrated to gmail I had to explicitly whitelist everything with to:agoranomic.org because some people kept ending up in spam (can't remember if Murphy was one of them). On 5/10/2019

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

2019-05-10 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 5/9/2019 10:10 PM, James Cook wrote: >> >> "[When both systems have been revived], any player can cause this rule >> to repeal itself with Notice". > > I think the second-last paragraph of Rule 105 requires the warning period. > > It also says the "full text" of any rule change must be

DIS: Re: BUS: Zombie Auction Status (unofficial report)

2019-05-09 Thread Kerim Aydin
The first one's over now right? (fwiw, I plan to bid again to keep the 2nd auction going so you can't claim two :) ) On 5/9/2019 4:53 PM, James Cook wrote: Two zombie auctions are ongoing. First auction. Initiated 2019-05-04. Lots: 1. Tarhalindur Bids: 2019-05-04 15:44 UTC.

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

2019-05-09 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 5/9/2019 8:21 AM, D. Margaux wrote: >> On May 9, 2019, at 11:14 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> But overall, I'm not sure that this is an improvement over a straight up >> repeal, followed by a simple "re-enact Rules XXX, YYY" if someone wants >> to

DIS: Re: BUS: Side-Game Suspension Act

2019-05-09 Thread Kerim Aydin
If we take this route, I think whomever revives and takes the office should be under an added penalty to stick with the office - "if a player does this, e must perform all the Astronomor duties with no late duties for at least 60 days". But overall, I'm not sure that this is an improvement

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8174A and 8175

2019-05-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 5/5/2019 2:36 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Sun, 2019-05-05 at 14:22 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: That makes sense - and clever little bug. Does inserting the following sentence into R1607 do the trick: That might potentially make officer pay harder to compute under some

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8174A and 8175

2019-05-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 5/5/2019 11:31 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Sun, 2019-05-05 at 11:27 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 5/5/2019 11:02 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: The main brokenness I note is that if there are two proposal distributions in the same week, the Assessor CAN resolve the second

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8174A and 8175

2019-05-05 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 5/5/2019 11:02 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: The main brokenness I note is that if there are two proposal distributions in the same week, the Assessor CAN resolve the second distribution, but NEED NOT, and nobody can deputise for em to do so either. That's not an issue of

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: ADoP's weekly report (temporary deputisation)

2019-05-01 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 4/30/2019 9:26 PM, James Cook wrote: > CoE: If G.'s attempt to resolve Proposal 8170 was successful, I should > have listed the office of Comptroller. The Report would be correct anyway. Comptroller would have been at its default value (vacant), and switch reports are only required to

Re: DIS: Office Apportionment

2019-04-30 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 4/27/2019 7:38 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: I'll take Arbitor, although I'm unsure if I'll want to hold on to it in the long run. If D. Margaux isn't interested a month or so from now when the birthday gets closer, I'd willing to take it on again then. If there are no interested takers, I

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: deputy-[Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8165-8174

2019-04-30 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 4/27/2019 7:08 PM, James Cook wrote: Thanks for your hard work. I'm optimistic that things will gradually get back on track if the ratio of (reports published and other actions that clarify the state of the game) to (actions that raise questions) stays reasonably high for a while. > > And

Re: DIS: [Idea] Equity Based Civil Law

2019-04-26 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 1:20 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > Finally, it turns out to be fairly hard to actually restore equity in > Agora. The "hard to restore equity" part was the weakest link IMO, due to the lack of a common currency basically it was hard to value anything. We strictly

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Prime Minister Transition

2019-04-24 Thread Kerim Aydin
zombie prohibitions is this: - enter a contract, pledge, or other type of agreement; And giving consent for something new (including implied consent) is an "other" type of agreement. On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 17:08, Kerim Aydin wrote: I declare G. the winner of the Prime Min

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

2019-04-22 Thread Kerim Aydin
Loudly. Gaelan On Apr 22, 2019, at 9:30 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I intend to ratify the below Herald's list of Patent Titles and holders as being correct as of its publication date of 31-Mar-2019, Without Objection. [This would not ratify the informal categories of championship]. On 3/31

Re: DIS: doing stuff?

2019-04-09 Thread Kerim Aydin
is that noting cares about the end of an unction actually been announced. Gaelan On Apr 8, 2019, at 5:26 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 4/8/2019 12:03 PM, James Cook wrote: I've just been busy, personally. Ya I totally meant to add the "just busy" option... When I have time I've be

Re: DIS: doing stuff?

2019-04-08 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 4/8/2019 12:03 PM, James Cook wrote: I've just been busy, personally. Ya I totally meant to add the "just busy" option... When I have time I've been meaning to figure out what the rules say about the zombie auction I bid in that never was announced completed, so technically I'm not

DIS: doing stuff?

2019-04-08 Thread Kerim Aydin
ok, are we on pause because: (a) the person with every single gameplay office (twg) has gotten busy or whatever, no updates = no play; or (b) we're all bored of the current gameplay options and should think of new ones; or (c) more general Agora fatigue; or (d) with Notice.

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

2019-03-07 Thread Kerim Aydin
I was just writing a note to say I'd spotted the Feb 24th ADoP report's ratification of D. Margaux as Prime Minister as well! You don't have to worry about the Disclaimer in the ADoP's report - disclaimers are used all the time to ratify false things, under the guidance of R2202 you're

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >