Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fw: CFJ: Can The Ritual be banished?

2019-06-11 Thread Reuben Staley
I believe that the problem is that Yahoo does not cooperate with mailman.
Each of Rance's emails has gone directly to my spam folder. When I tried to
join Agora on my Yahoo account, I received similar reports from other
players. It was easier to for me to switch to Gmail that figure out what
was happening with Yahoo.

--
Trigon

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019, 19:36 James Cook  wrote:

> It's hard to tell that the rest of your message is quoted. I suspect
> Yahoo mail interacts badly with the mailing list somehow. Maybe it
> doesn't format the text version of the email very well.
>
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 03:36, Rance Bedwell  wrote:
> >
> >  I withdraw the below CFJ.  omd has shown me the error of my ways.
> >
> >
> >  I want to attempt to banish The Ritual, but I do not believe it is
> currently possible to do so. For this reason I Call For Justice for this
> statement:
> >
> > "The value of N Agoran Consent currently required to banish The Ritual
> (Rule 2596) is indeterminate, because it is not possible to know if The
> Ritual was performed in the week that began on May 27."
> >
> >
> > Arguments in support of the CFJ
> >
> > If it is not possible to know the number of weeks that the ruleset has
> been continuously appeased (value of B per Rule 2596) then it is not
> possible to determine the value of N Agoran Consent as defined in Rule
> 2596.  If it is not possible to know whether The Ritual was performed
> during the week of May 27, then it is not possible to determine the value
> of B.
> >
> > I believe it is not possible to know if The Ritual was performed because
> the rules do not define or limit the scope of what The Ritual is.  No
> player paid a fee of 7 coins which is the only way to know that The Ritual
> was performed, but the failure to pay a fee of 7 coins is not necessarily
> proof that The Ritual was not performed since The Ritual is never defined
> specifically as "paying a fee of 7 coins".
> >
> > Consider a possible rule named "Definition of The Ritual" that reads:
> "The Ritual is the posting of a message to a public forum."
> >
> > If this were a rule in the current ruleset, it would not in any way
> conflict with or modify the meaning of Rule 2596.  The clause "Any player
> CAN perform The Ritual by paying a fee of 7 Coins." meets the requirements
> of the hypothetical "Definition of The Ritual" rule. The paying of 7 coins
> is a specific way to perform The Ritual but is not the The Ritual itself.
> If the "Definition of The Ritual" rule is then removed that does not change
> anything in Rule 2596 so still The Ritual is not equal to or defined as
> "paying a fee of 7 coins".  The Ritual is something else which at this time
> is undefined.
> >
> > Or, consider a possible rule named "Long Live Agora" that reads:  "Any
> player CAN perform The Ritual by announcing 'Long live Agora the glorious,
> long live Agora the beautiful, long live Agora the magnificent.'"
> >
> > If this were a rule in the current ruleset, it also would not conflict
> with Rule 2596.  It would describe a different way that The Ritual CAN be
> performed, but since neither rule specifies how The Ritual MUST be
> performed they would not conflict.  They would describe two possible ways
> The Ritual CAN be performed, but they would not define The Ritual.
> >
> > If Rule 2596 specified that The Ritual MUST be performed by paying a fee
> of 7 coins, that would then create a defined scope of what The Ritual is or
> is not.  The "Long Live Agora" rule would lie outside of that scope and
> would conflict with the definition.  This is another example that supports
> that The Ritual is currently undefined.
> >
> > If Rule 2596 stated; "Any player CAN perform The Ritual by paying a fee
> of 7 Coins. The Ritual MUST be performed by paying a fee of 7 coins at
> least once in every Agoran week..." then The Ritual would be defined and we
> would know it was not performed in the week of May 27.  Since it is not
> defined in the rule, it is not possible to know if The Ritual was performed
> in that week.  This means the value of B and thus also N in Rule 2596 are
> currently indeterminate.
> >
> > -Rance
> >
>


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: June Zombie Auction

2019-06-07 Thread Reuben Staley
FYI, you don't bid on individual lots, but auctions as a whole. The highest
bidder gets the first lot, the second-highest gets the second, and so on.
Because of this, all the quoted bids may not have worked.

--
Trigon

On Fri, Jun 7, 2019, 06:17 David Seeber  wrote:

> I bid 6 coins for publius
> 
> From: agora-business  on behalf of
> omd 
> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 3:11:31 AM
> To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org
> Subject: BUS: Re: OFF: June Zombie Auction
>
> On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 4:39 PM James Cook  wrote:
> > I initiate a zombie auction, with the following lots (each zombie a
> > separate lot) ordered as follows (highest-bid first):
>
> I bid 5 coins for each lot.
>


Re: DIS: On Cleanliness

2019-06-04 Thread Reuben Staley
I could have sworn we had a clause that prevented the cleaning from 
affecting the interpretation of the rule at some point. Regardless, omd 
is right. This may be covered already. Additionally, since it is without 
objection, any issues this may cause would (hopefully) be seen in 
advance by the ever-diligent Agoran population.


On 6/4/19 6:40 PM, omd wrote:

On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 7:36 AM Jason Cobb  wrote:

Given that Rule 2221 ("Cleanliness") permits correcting the
capitalization of a rule, would that, for example, permit changing a
rule from saying "shall" to "SHALL" (or vice versa)?

Note: I'm not planning anything, the question just crossed my mind.


Possibly.  Though if the change to capitalization would change the
meaning of the rule, you could argue that it doesn't count as a
"correction".



--
Trigon


Re: DIS: How are Rule ID Numbers assigned?

2019-06-01 Thread Reuben Staley

Rulekeepor reporting in.

As AIS523 says, there is no perscribed method of ID assignment. I assign 
each rule the ID number one greater than the one enacted before it. 
Theoretically, I *could* influence the way rules are interpreted in a 
very minor way, but I don't see any purpose. The general attitude at the 
moment is that we should let the officers handle whatever they need to 
and if they become corrupted, we just remove them from office with 
minimal and easily reprable harm to the gamestate.


On 6/1/19 7:01 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:

On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 20:57 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote:

I'm new, and I've just started reading the rules, so please forgive me if
this is has an obvious answer.

Can the Rulekeepor assign any ID numbers to rules that e wishes? I ask
because I noticed that the ID numbers of rules affect conflict resolution,
and there doesn't seem to be a way of assigning ID numbers specified in the
rules, thus giving the Rulekeepor some (small) amount of say in the
application of the rules.


There used to be a rule enforcing a particular ID number allocation
algorithm. It got repealed, though, so right now it's fully up to the
Rulekeepor.

I think that at the time, we were in an "office perk era" where
officers were paid via giving them advantages like that one, because
there wasn't a functioning economy, so the discretion didn't seem out
of place. Some of the perk economy still survives, and I don't think
it's doing any real damage.



--
Trigon


Re: DIS: humble agoran farmer checks their pulse

2019-05-29 Thread Reuben Staley

You are not a zombie as of yet, but you're on thin ice.

See this report for details:

https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg09312.html

On 5/29/19 2:45 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote:

Hello Agorans. I hope I’m not a zombie or anything.



--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Ruleset history error

2019-05-26 Thread Reuben Staley
Having looked into the matter further, I can safely say that mistakes 
were indeed made. The following is my analysis.


On 5/25/19 3:52 PM, omd wrote:

Just a quick note -

The FLR credits Proposal 7778 (in various places) as:

Amended(21) by P7778 'Instant Runoff Improved' (Alexis), 14 Aug 2014

But in fact I submitted it:

https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2015-July/033799.html


This claim is substantiated, with a big asterisk.


And it was actually adopted on 14 Aug 201*5*:


This claim is perfectly substantiated.


https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2015-August/08.html

Confusing things further, the resolution message incorrectly lists the
author as yet a third individual – scshunt –


scshunt was a previous player name for Alexis. When e switched eir 
player name to Alexis, all eir ruleset attributions were changed to 
reflect this. Had this proposal been drafted by who was then scshunt, 
there would be no error.



and it would have
self-ratified under rule 2034...


For the reference of readers, selections from the text of rule 2034/10 
follow:


Rule 2034/10 (Power=3)
Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges

  A public message purporting to resolve an Agoran decision
  constitutes self-ratifying claims that...

  4. (if the indicated outcome was to adopt a proposal) such a
 proposal existed, was adopted, and took effect.

To me, this seems to point to the proposal's attributes changing due to 
the self-ratification.



though I'm not sure whether
self-ratification would affect the type of historical annotations
involved here.


For this, I consult the current ruleset. Selections from the text of 
rule 1681 follow:


Rule 1681/21 (Power=1)
The Logical Rulesets

  The Full Logical Ruleset (FLR) is a format of the ruleset. In this
  format, rules are assigned to the same category and presented in
  the same order as in the SLR. The FLR must contain all the
  information required to be in the SLR, and any historical
  annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to record

  Whenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor SHALL record
  a historical annotation to the rule indicating:

  1. The type of change.

  2. The date on which the change took effect.

  3. The mechanism that specified the change.

  4. If the rule was changed due to a proposal, then that proposal's
 ID number, author, and co-author(s) (if any).

Because it appears that Proposal 7778 itself was changed by the 
resolution of the decision so that its author was scshunt/Alexis, I 
believe this means that I am to report that Alexis is the author. I 
believe simply ratifying a document changing the author of Proposal 7778 
to omd would be sufficient.


IN CONCLUSION, the date reported in the annotation will be changed but 
the author's name will not.


--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Ruleset history error

2019-05-25 Thread Reuben Staley
Thank you for pointing that out. It is through the due diligence of the
players of Agora Nomic that what I report is even remotely accurate.

--
Trigon

On Sat, May 25, 2019, 15:52 omd  wrote:

> Just a quick note -
>
> The FLR credits Proposal 7778 (in various places) as:
>
> Amended(21) by P7778 'Instant Runoff Improved' (Alexis), 14 Aug 2014
>
> But in fact I submitted it:
>
>
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2015-July/033799.html
>
> And it was actually adopted on 14 Aug 201*5*:
>
>
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2015-August/08.html
>
> Confusing things further, the resolution message incorrectly lists the
> author as yet a third individual – scshunt – and it would have
> self-ratified under rule 2034... though I'm not sure whether
> self-ratification would affect the type of historical annotations
> involved here.
>


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Bleach] Line-wrapping the Line-Item Veto (attn H. Rulekeepor)

2019-05-22 Thread Reuben Staley
I added the critical character to the YAML file. In this week's SLR, the 
error will be fixed.


On 5/22/19 11:33 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:

On May 23, 2019, at 1:27 AM, Reuben Staley  wrote:


Well, in order for a cleaning to be valid, it must be a "correction". If there is nothing to correct, 
then the cleaning can nowise be effective. Rule 2429 ("Bleach") states that "[r]eplacing a non-zero 
amount of whitespace with a different non-zero amount of whitespace is generally _insignificant_, except for 
paragraph breaks." This seems to disqualify spacing issues as corrections, as they are "insignificant.”



On May 23, 2019, at 1:24 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:


You're suggesting a no-op change to the rules; the text that you're
trying to replace and the text that you're trying to replace it with
are the same. Rule 2429 says that the two sets of text are completely
identical.

If you want to suggest that the Rulekeepor formats the SLR/FLR
differently than they currently are, you can do that, but you do so via
talking to the Rulekeepor, not via attempting to amend the rules e's
publishing to have different formatting (because the formatting isn't
actually part of the rule and thus can't be amended).


Fair enough. I should have additionally included in my original reply to Trigon 
that I’m glad e’s willing to correct it directly!

It seems to me that if the rules address formatting, then formatting _is_ in 
fact significant, but I’ll accept the rationale for this specific change not 
being significant as “Bleach” explicitly excludes whitespace from the class of 
significant formatting. Consider my intent abandoned.

-o



--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Bleach] Line-wrapping the Line-Item Veto (attn H. Rulekeepor)

2019-05-22 Thread Reuben Staley
Well, in order for a cleaning to be valid, it must be a "correction". If 
there is nothing to correct, then the cleaning can nowise be effective. 
Rule 2429 ("Bleach") states that "[r]eplacing a non-zero amount of 
whitespace with a different non-zero amount of whitespace is generally 
_insignificant_, except for paragraph breaks." This seems to disqualify 
spacing issues as corrections, as they are "insignificant."


On 5/22/19 11:20 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:

I’m relying more heavily on rule 2221 (“Cleanliness”) for mechanism. It 
provides:


Any player CAN clean a rule without objection by specifying one or more 
corrections to spelling, grammar, capitalization, formatting, and/or dialect, 
or to whether a synonym or abbreviation is used in place of a word or phrase, 
in the rule's text and/or title; the rule is amended by this rule as specified 
by that person.


I’ll admit that respecifying the entire rule is not the _ideal_ way of 
specitying “one or more corrections to … formatting,” but it appears to meet 
all the other elements of this rule as I understand it, and my message is 
intended to meet the form requirements for a dependent action (in this case 
“[cleaning] a rule without objection”).

I’m only relying on rule 2429 for policy, not mechanism. I agree with your 
interpretation of how it otherwise applies in isolation.

What have I missed?

-o

On May 23, 2019, at 1:14 AM, Reuben Staley  wrote:


You are mistaken as to how the Bleach rule works. It does not mean any player 
can change the spacing by way of cleaning, it means that I can format rules 
using whatever spacing I want, as long as I respect paragraph breaks.

If the Bleach rule did work that way, then every rule would be wrapped several 
different ways because it seems everyone submits proposals using different 
wrapping standards. All I generally do is wrap the ruleset to 72 characters.

This mistake is understandable, however. For future reference, what you can do 
instead of attempt a cleaning is inform me that I have messed up the spacing 
somewhere and I will remedy it in the next draft.




--
Trigon


DIS: Re: BUS: [Bleach] Line-wrapping the Line-Item Veto (attn H. Rulekeepor)

2019-05-22 Thread Reuben Staley
You are mistaken as to how the Bleach rule works. It does not mean any 
player can change the spacing by way of cleaning, it means that I can 
format rules using whatever spacing I want, as long as I respect 
paragraph breaks.


If the Bleach rule did work that way, then every rule would be wrapped 
several different ways because it seems everyone submits proposals using 
different wrapping standards. All I generally do is wrap the ruleset to 
72 characters.


This mistake is understandable, however. For future reference, what you 
can do instead of attempt a cleaning is inform me that I have messed up 
the spacing somewhere and I will remedy it in the next draft.


On 5/22/19 8:47 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:

I intend, without objection, to clean rule 2597 (“Line-item Veto”) to have the 
following formatting:

-
   The Comptrollor is an imposed office. When the office is vacant,
   the ADoP CAN, by announcement, set the Comptrollor to a player
   chosen at random from the set of current Officers, excepting any
   player who was most recently the Comptrollor. The ADoP SHALL do
   so in a timely fashion after the office becomes vacant.

   When the Comptrollor office has been held for the same player for
   30 days, it becomes vacant.

   A Notice of Veto is a body of text, published by the Comptrollor,
   clearly, directly, and without obfuscation labelled within the
   publishing message as being a Notice of Veto.

   When a Comptrollor publishes a Notice of Veto, the office of
   Comptrollor becomes vacant.

   If the text of a Notice of Veto clearly indicates certain
   provisions within specified Proposals as being vetoed, and the
   voting period for a decision to adopt the proposal is ongoing
   when the Notice is published, then the provisions are vetoed. For
   the purposes of this Rule, each individual change specified
   within a proposal's text is a "provision".

   Vetoed provisions in a proposal are prohibited from being applied
   when the proposal takes effect (that is, that part of the
   proposal's effect CANNOT be applied).
-

This change treats each line in the current rule as a paragraph, and makes no 
other changes. I believe it respects rules 2221 (“Cleanliness”) and 2429 
(“Bleach”).

-o



--
Trigon


DIS: Arcadia tournament to get people back into Agora.

2019-05-17 Thread Reuben Staley
This is actually a contract and a tournament, the contract existing 
solely to help the iterative design I want to go for here. Here is the 
rough draft:


= CONTRACT =

Definitions

   - The Lord-Ruler of Arcadia is the player designated as such by this
 contract. Currently, Trigon is the Lord-Ruler.

   - If the Lord-Ruler is the gamemaster of any tournament created in
 response to this contract, that tournament is the Arcadian
 Tournament.

   - The Tournament Template is a textual entity.

   - Arcadian Proposals are textual entities.

   - The Iteration Date is a singleton switch with the possible values
 of any date or Never (the default).

Iterations

   - If no Arcadian Tournament exists, the Lord-Ruler CAN and SHOULD
 announce a new date and set the Iteration Date to it.

   - On the Iteration Date, the Lord-Ruler SHALL set the Iteration Date
 to Never and then attempt to begin a new Free Tournament, as
 described in Rule 2566, with the set of regulations supplied by the
 Tournament Template. Parties to this contract are ENCOURAGED to
 support this attempt.

Modifying the Game

   - Any party to this contract can create an Arcadian Proposal by
 announcement by specifying its text.

   - With 2 support and without 2 objections from active parties to this
 contract, the player who submitted an Arcadian Proposal CAN apply
 any changes listed therein to the Tournament Template and post to
 the Public Forum the full modified Tournament Template.

= TOURNAMENT =

Definitions

   - Land Units are assets. The Map is the term for the set of all Land
 Units. Each Land Unit has switches for Latitude and Longitude. Both
 are integers between 1 and 9, inclusive.

   - Exactly one Land Unit can exist for each combination of Latitude
 and Longitude. If there ever exist more than one land unit with the
 same Latitude and Longitude pair, the most recently created ones
 are destroyed. Likewise, if there ever is a possible Latitude and
 Longitude pair where no Land Units exist, a new Land Unit is
 created with that Latitude and Longitude.

   - The Location of a Land Unit is its (Latitude, Longitude) pair.

   - Any land for which ownership has not been explicitly defined is
 owned by Agora.

   - Land Units belonging to Agora are called Public Land, and Land
 Units belonging to any other entity are called Private Land.

   - Two Land Units are adjacent if they have the same Latitude, and
 their Longitudes differ by exactly one; or they have the same
 Longitude, and their Latitudes differ by exactly one.

   - Land Unit A is said to be connected to Land Unit B by an attribute
 if it is possible to reach B by moving only to adjacent Land Units
 that have that attribute, starting from A.

   - Land Type is a Land Unit switch with the possible values of Black,
 White, and Aether (the default).

   - A group of Land Units is a set thereof where every member of the
 set is connected to every other member of the set by Land Type.

   - Facility is a Land Unit switch with the possible values of Farm,
 Mine, Orchard, Monument, and None (the default).

   - The act of setting a Facility switch to any value other than None
 is called building. The act of setting a Facility switch to None is
 called destroying.

   - Food, Stone, and Lumber are each currencies.

Gameplay

   - Players, upon joining this tournament, are given 2 Stone and 2
 Lumber.

   - Energy is a player switch with the possible values of all integers
 0 or above. Every day at midnight, each player's Energy is set to
 6. Any actions that would set a player's Energy to be less than 0
 are INEFFECTIVE.

   - Players CAN, by announcement, destroy N Food in order to increase
 eir Energy by N.

   - The Alternating Land Type is a singleton switch. Its possible
 values are Black and White.

   - Participants CAN set the Land Type of a Land Unit whose type is
 Aether to the value of the Alternating Land Type and transfer it to
 emself by announcement. This action decreases eir Energy by one
 more than the amount of times this action has been performed by the
 player in question since another player has performed this action.
 This action also flips the Alternating Land Type to its other
 possible value.

   - The owner of a Land Unit with a Facility value None CAN set that
 Land Unit's Facility value to Farm by destroying 1 Lumber and 1
 Stone, to Mine by destroying 2 Lumber, or to Orchard by destroying
 2 Stone. Each of these actions decreases eir Energy by 2.

   - The owner of a Land Unit with a Facility value not equal to None
 can set its Facility value to None by announcement. This action
 decreases eir Energy by 1.

   - Every day at midnight, for each Farm each player owns, 1 Food is
 created in eir possession; for each Mine each player owns, 1 

Re: DIS: doing stuff?

2019-04-08 Thread Reuben Staley
My activity in this game is very much reactionary. I generally only
remember to do any of my duties if someone does something to remind me
about them. That's why I haven't done much.

--
Trigon

On Mon, Apr 8, 2019, 13:51 Aris Merchant 
wrote:

> I think the immediate cause of the current slowness is twg's
> departure. The lack of proposal resolutions, in particular, has had a
> large impact on gameplay. However, that's hardly a sufficient
> condition for inactivity. I'm also busy IRL, which is why I haven't
> been generating much activity of my own. I think the players have
> become somewhat disengaged, for varying reasons, including those you
> mentioned, which is why no one has picked up the slack.
>
> Making sure all of the reports get completed would be a start to
> engaging the Agoran public. Proposal resolutions are especially
> important; Promotor, Assessor, and Arbitor are the essential offices,
> and having any of them vacant halts gameplay. If we could get at least
> a basic level of activity going again, we would be in a better
> position to receive new members who might bring in more ideas.
> Historically, we get a bunch of registrations sometime around April
> and May, but if the game is totally dead people may not join.
>
> -Aris
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 12:03 PM James Cook  wrote:
> >
> > I've just been busy, personally. 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 lacking for
> > something to do.
> >
> > On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 at 19:00, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > 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: I want to become a player of Agora

2019-04-06 Thread Reuben Staley

Welcome!

If you want to join, all you need say is "I register" and send it to 
agora-business.


On 4/5/19 7:57 PM, Bernie Brackett wrote:

I just discovered Nomic through a convoluted series of events, and I
decided to join Agora because it was the only one listed on the wikipedia
article. I've already read the important parts of the SLR(and skimmed the
rest), and if there's anything else I should do, tell me



--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset: Eighth Week of 2019

2019-03-01 Thread Reuben Staley
Oh, another thing. https://agoranomic.org/ruleset is updated now with 
the data about February 22nd's rulesets.


On 3/1/19 9:34 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
I worded my response poorly. When I said to check the archives on 
agoranomic.org I really meant the mailman archives. The mail-archive 
archives are the ones that it falls through on. It is possible to remove 
the login requirement -- I know because of other mailman lists I've 
subscribed to do not have the requirement -- but don't count on it 
changing any time soon because our Honorable Distributor omd only pops 
in when the lists are in dire need of attention.


On 3/1/19 8:32 PM, James Cook wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 04:11, Reuben Staley  
wrote:
The logical rulesets are very long documents. Lots of times, the 
rulesets
slip through because of that. Check the archives on agoranomic.com. 
When I

get around to updating the ruleset site, it'll also be there.


I'm sure you mean agoranomic.org. The owner of agoranomic.com must be
profiting greatly from using this famous nomic's name.

It looks like while the public archives linked from agoranomic.org
(which I managed to link to twice, oops) are missing both, the actual
mailman archives (requiring login) have them:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/
. I wonder if it's possible to remove the login requirement from
those.





--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset: Eighth Week of 2019

2019-03-01 Thread Reuben Staley
I worded my response poorly. When I said to check the archives on 
agoranomic.org I really meant the mailman archives. The mail-archive 
archives are the ones that it falls through on. It is possible to remove 
the login requirement -- I know because of other mailman lists I've 
subscribed to do not have the requirement -- but don't count on it 
changing any time soon because our Honorable Distributor omd only pops 
in when the lists are in dire need of attention.


On 3/1/19 8:32 PM, James Cook wrote:

On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 04:11, Reuben Staley  wrote:

The logical rulesets are very long documents. Lots of times, the rulesets
slip through because of that. Check the archives on agoranomic.com. When I
get around to updating the ruleset site, it'll also be there.


I'm sure you mean agoranomic.org. The owner of agoranomic.com must be
profiting greatly from using this famous nomic's name.

It looks like while the public archives linked from agoranomic.org
(which I managed to link to twice, oops) are missing both, the actual
mailman archives (requiring login) have them:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/
. I wonder if it's possible to remove the login requirement from
those.



--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [SPOOKY Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8164

2019-02-27 Thread Reuben Staley
I just want to make sure it works as intended since this is an important
amendment. It's possible it does amend the rule but that just wasn't clear
to me.

--
Trigon

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 21:35 James Cook  I was thinking of the proposal as two changes: first, the gamestate
> changes, and then, the rule is amended. After the second change, the
> ruleset would contain the amended rule.
>
> But I'm not sure proposals are interpreted as a sequence of actions
> like that. If it's treated as a bunch of assertions with no particular
> order, I'll have to read it more carefully.
>
>
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 04:32, Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
> >
> > It also says that the gamestate, excluding the ruleset, is modified to
> what
> > it would have been if the amendment took place. Does this override the
> > amendment itself?
> >
> > --
> > Trigon
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 21:29 James Cook  >
> > > It does say "Rule 2124 is amended...". Why wouldn't that happen? I
> > > don't think the first paragraph referring to it as "the following
> > > amendment" stops it from being an effective part of the proposal on
> > > its own.
> > >
>


Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [SPOOKY Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8164

2019-02-27 Thread Reuben Staley
It also says that the gamestate, excluding the ruleset, is modified to what
it would have been if the amendment took place. Does this override the
amendment itself?

--
Trigon

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 21:29 James Cook  It does say "Rule 2124 is amended...". Why wouldn't that happen? I
> don't think the first paragraph referring to it as "the following
> amendment" stops it from being an effective part of the proposal on
> its own.
>


DIS: Re: OFF: [SPOOKY Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8164

2019-02-27 Thread Reuben Staley
I hate to point this out after the distribution, but if I'm correct in my
reading, this does not actually amend the rule. After this passes, won't
intents still be broken?

--
Trigon

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 18:34 D. Margaux  Pursuant to the Living Zombie contract, I hereby cause ATMunn to issue the
> Cabinet Order of Manifesto to distribute the below 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).
>
>
> Proposal ID: 8164
> Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 2.4
> Author: Falsifian
> Co-authors: ais523, D. Margaux, G., twg
> Adoption Index: 3.1
> Text:
>
> The gamestate, excluding the rules, is changed to what it would have
> been if the text of the following amendment to Rule 2124 had determined
> whether Agora was Satisfied with any intents attempted after Proposal
> 7815, rather than the text of what Rule 2124 was at that time. To the
> extent allowed by the rules, this change is designated as a convergence.
>
> Rule 2124 is amended by replacing its text with the following:
>
>  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 entities eligible to support or object to an intent to perform
>  an action are, by default, all players, subject to modification by
>  the document authorizing the dependent action. However, the
>  previous sentence notwithstanding, the initiator of the intent is
>  not eligible to support it.
>
>  Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
>  unless at least one of the following is true:
>
>  1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and there
> are at least N Objectors to that intent.
>
>  2. The action is to be performed With N support, and there are
> fewer than than N Supporters of that intent.
>
>  3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and the
> number of Supporters of the intent is less than or equal to N
> times the number of Objectors to the intent.
>
>  The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and
>  an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within
>  the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent.
>
>  The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with an intent
>  if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours.
>
>  A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent
>  before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same
>  type of response.
> --
> D. Margaux
>


Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset: Eighth Week of 2019

2019-02-27 Thread Reuben Staley
The logical rulesets are very long documents. Lots of times, the rulesets
slip through because of that. Check the archives on agoranomic.com. When I
get around to updating the ruleset site, it'll also be there.

--
Trigon

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 21:07 James Cook  I don't see this message in the public archive at
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/maillist.html
> or at
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/maillist.html
> . Same for Trigon's FLR publication around the same time. Does anyone
> know why?
>


Re: DIS: Non-email public fora

2019-02-27 Thread Reuben Staley
On 2/26/19 4:34 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote> Reuben Staley 
 also wrote:



Along the same line, we have the distribution system of proposals. This goes 
along with (1), but is still worth mentioning. In most other Nomics, proposals 
are immediately put up for voting since one post can represent a proposal. Of 
course, this is not something that would definitely have to go; it's not hard 
to imagine a blog-based Nomic in which proposals are distributed all at once.


Agora’s propose-then-distribute-then-vote model closely mirrors how proposals 
are resolved in systems like Robert’s Rules, which are designed to be effective 
up to the 200-person deliberative scale. That a cut-down version is effective 
in Agora is not surprising, but I think it is important. The immediacy of 
decisions in other nomics reflects the immediacy of, say, a pull request, and 
probably puts similar pressures on people to make snap decisions, whereas the 
more structured schedule Agora uses gives people a deliberate and 
widely-agreed-upon window of time to consider and respond before the 
opportunity to give input closes.


In most other nomics I've played, I haven't noticed the *need* for such 
deliberation. Rarely has there been proposal in other more ephemeral 
nomics that really needed more that the standard 48-96 hours of 
discussion about whether or not it would be a good idea. Agora has more 
of these than other games, sure, but even here, they're rather uncommon. 
Most proposals could probably be resolved here in a matter of days.



You’ve made a strong argument that no current web-based discussion system is a 
good match _as shipped,_ though. None of them include the idea of gathering up 
and regularly publishing digests of important subjects (proposals, in this 
case). It’s something the users can do, just as we do with email on Agora, 
instead, perhaps.


It's not as if we don't have any options at all to implement a 
digest-system, though. G.'s reply to this thread presents a rather good 
method to keep our reports system mostly intact, for instance.



Reuben Staley  also wrote:


Now, let's discuss potential new forums for Agora. I believe that a bulletin 
board would be the best way to continue playing Agora should it be moved. 
Agoran threads get very long very fast, and a bulletin board would show every 
comment response. Gamestate tracking could be relegated to a specific category 
of posts; as could proposals and maybe even minigames. This may just be my 
personal opinion about bulletin boards being the best out of the current ways 
to play Nomic; however, I do honestly believe it would be the best way to go.

I hope this helps you with your research, o.



Thank you, it very much does.

Remember, my intention is not to move Agora. I like Agora where it is, and 
would personally vote against proposals (or try to oust officers) that attempt 
to move it to a web forum, absent an extremely compelling reason to change or a 
patent and obvious shift in the culture of the game. I’m looking at ways to 
extract useful tools from Agora to apply to other groups - particularly, groups 
where I see that consensus mechanisms either don’t exist or have broken down 
entirely.


I would also vote against such proposals, and I understand your 
intention behind this thread. As a self-proclaimed nomic scholor, I am 
rather curious to see how you implement this data.


--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Non-email public fora

2019-02-25 Thread Reuben Staley
One key trait of Nomic that comes from its main spin as a game built 
around rule changes is adaptability. I am of the opinion that, as of 
right now, there is no perfect forum on which to play Nomic, but Nomic 
can and, with a reasonably wise group of players who each have the 
strengths and limitations of the forum in question in mind, will become 
more suited to its environment.


Agora, in its over twenty years of history, has adapted to the mailing 
list format because it had to to facilitate play. Emails are messages 
that can either be long or short, but that cannot be changed after they 
are sent. So we had to work around that.


The main manifestation of Agora's adaptation is reports. In BlogNomic, 
the Ruleset page on the wiki and the GNDT do most of the tracking, 
whereas in Agora, we publish the information every week because we can't 
keep a constantly changing record. If we were to transition off a 
mailing list, Reports would be one of the first mechanics to go.


Along the same line, we have the distribution system of proposals. This 
goes along with (1), but is still worth mentioning. In most other 
Nomics, proposals are immediately put up for voting since one post can 
represent a proposal. Of course, this is not something that would 
definitely have to go; it's not hard to imagine a blog-based Nomic in 
which proposals are distributed all at once.


Now, there are many issues with the idea of moving a Nomic platform. 
Suppose that the mail server went offline one day and a group of Agorans 
got together off-list to figure out what to do. Chances are, not 
everyone would agree on everything. It seems to me that there's a 
non-negligible chance that Agora would split into multiple games at that 
point, each one claiming to be the true successor to Agora in the same 
way FRC and Agora itself argue about who is the worthy successor to 
Nomic World.


Another point: remember how I said Nomic is adaptable? Well, I would 
like to add an important clarification: Nomic is adaptable, but it 
adapts slowly. It's likely that some forks of Agora would die out before 
they finished adapting to the new platform because it would just be so 
hard to play in its current state.


Now, let's discuss potential new forums for Agora. I believe that a 
bulletin board would be the best way to continue playing Agora should it 
be moved. Agoran threads get very long very fast, and a bulletin board 
would show every comment response. Gamestate tracking could be relegated 
to a specific category of posts; as could proposals and maybe even 
minigames. This may just be my personal opinion about bulletin boards 
being the best out of the current ways to play Nomic; however, I do 
honestly believe it would be the best way to go.


I hope this helps you with your research, o.

On 2/25/19 5:15 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote:

Hi Agorans! Please put the pitchforks down - I’m here with a question, not a 
request.

It’s my view that the Rules and the structural properties of the fora in which 
Agora is played have a sympathetic relationship with one another. The Rules and 
CFJ case law combine to treat email as the preferred format for playing Agora, 
and in turn email contains properties that make it uniquely attractive to 
Agora’s players.

Rule 478 (“Fora”) sets out the basic requirements for an Agoran forum:


   Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of
   any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player shall
   be prohibited from participating in the Fora, nor shall any person
   create physical or technological obstacles that unduly favor some
   players' fora access over others.
   
A forum must, in technical implementation, be reasonably equitable,



   Each player should ensure e can receive messages via each public
   forum.


It is the responsibility of each player to ensure that they can view each fora, 
before it is the responsibility of the forum’s operator to ensure the players 
can view the forum they operate,


   A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to
   all players and containing a clear designation of intent to be
   public. A rule can also designate that a part of one public
   message is considered a public message in its own right. A person
   "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message.
   
A forum is a collection of messages, which may include sub-messages,


are collectively a pretty good description of the email system, as deployed on 
the internet.

However, the use of email (and the use of email distribution lists, in 
particular) is far out of favour on the internet at large. While most people 
can be taught to operate mailman and how to effectively participate in an email 
distribution list discussion, those skills are no longer as prevalent in the 
internet userbase as they may once have been. This shows up for Agora in terms 
of people failing to subscribe, 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Politics

2019-02-24 Thread Reuben Staley
I was mildly interested, but I was deterred from participation by the early
scam.

--
Trigon

On Sun, Feb 24, 2019, 17:06 Kerim Aydin 
> Funnily enough, the last time this was implemented, the same sort of thing
> happened: several people said "this sounds cool", then almost no one played
> and the winner was effectively unopposed.  (for me personally, the rules
> sounded worth trying and are well-written, I just didn't get around to
> thinking through any moves).  Dunno why it plays out that way!
>
> On 2/24/2019 4:01 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
> > I pay 24 balloons to win the game (legitimately this time).
> >
> > H. Clork: Unless I misread the rules or botched the calculations last
> week, I think this works?
> >
> > Although, given the lack of interest anyone else has shown in the
> politics subgame, perhaps this should be categorized as a win by apathy...
> >
>


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-24 Thread Reuben Staley
This reminds me of a concept I ran across while reading an essay about 
Nomic one time called Fork World, where the guiding principle of play is 
"no coercion". In Fork World, the group of players who vote against each 
rule change and the group of players who vote for are sent to their own, 
non-interacting universes where their rules hold power. While it is an 
interesting concept, the author points out that after N decisions, the 
playerbase would be split into 2^n different groups. In Agora's case, 
this would be a number over two thousand digits long and I'm pretty sure 
we've never had that many players.


The essay in question is here: http://shirky.com/writings/nomic.html

On 2/22/19 11:45 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:

On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 10:22 AM D. Margaux  wrote:

On Feb 22, 2019, at 12:39 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
Every so often, someone decides "we're not really playing Agora
anymore" because (in their perception) we improperly papered over some
platonic truth that made everything freeze.


That point of view makes me think of the “sovereign citizens” who believe that 
their view of the law is
somehow platonically right, and that it means they don’t have to pay taxes or 
whatever.


Never made that connection!  Given that, unlike countries, Agora is an
entirely voluntary organization, my personal worry about Agora is not
a "full ossification that almost everyone agrees happened" nor "1 or 2
people saying we were playing wrong" but a situation where two
similarly-sized camps disagree with an aspect, and end up trying to
run two entirely separate games (separate reports, etc.) on the same
list while arguing that theirs is the One True Way.  The oldest
existential crisis from Nomic World ("Lindrum World") was a crisis of
this type, and it was only ended when both camps agreed to a method to
converge the gamestate while never agreeing on which was the "true
path" they took to get there, with lots of arguments and rage-quits
along the way.



--
Trigon


DIS: Re: BUS: Apathy

2019-02-19 Thread Reuben Staley
Support

On Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 20:56 James Cook  Apathy
>


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-18 Thread Reuben Staley
Someone has to ask the inevitable question: to what extent should 
cleaning self-ratify? What if the clause that is to be cleaned shouldn't 
even exist? The reality is that some elements of rules are lost when 
applying rule changes. Is it fair to say that when a clause mistakenly 
left in the ruleset is cleaned, the entire text of that rule is then 
ratified? There's a definite Rulekeepor scam in self-ratifying 
cleanings, and trying to mitigate this scammability will be difficult.


On 2/18/19 10:34 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2019, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:


This probably isn't a problem, unless past cleanings were broken (in
which case it still isn't really a problem but we might want to retry
the cleanings in order to make sure all our typos are gone). Dependent
actions otherwise tend not to change the ruleset much, and proposal
results self-ratify.


Perhaps it would be a good idea to make cleanings self-ratifying for the 
future.


Greetings,
Ørjan.


--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Another useful string for future reference

2019-02-18 Thread Reuben Staley
d8dcc8184c9160ce7f09a369127580b4

--
Trigon

On Mon, Feb 18, 2019, 17:22 Madeline  347e6994e340b1887cb464eed0a980f5dd708170f25dd5eda31d318fdc
>
> 1aeb71e07bab1ed854b51a9303d574f3bf086044146fcdfb8f8f4e82951d37eec0aa5939e458c490617
> 614c2970d08d161190fe0a50
> 2012c8d6da48df899382751889975ece9c334fc1b3222
> 1f7042dc25ecce54d6a5aed39f4024a95fa8e4f68e42c8
> b2b4564793ce6ca10fd8323df9ec9239c6dbbf79a1abe82e4
> 398489f18ba9c37d18a233fe3427d4c5e528f94
> 5699c069ff45c208c735dd373ebbd402346f6b5c2e4
> 6750f3e4af341b76db7fe7b60c57e759dd74
>
> On 2019-02-19 10:55, D. Margaux wrote:
> > Just in case too:
> >
> >
> 29B9A02A56E8A3E15EC1E0E5ABE816C27686A7B1A6A7E6C7D6A1F7059E48A688C96855481739012E592A8D65EAC7AD95F6D30E0EFFC6B27A2745B2A63BBF72E6
> >
> >> On Feb 18, 2019, at 6:47 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> >>
> >>
> gwt-uMHZuFGagIXdvlHIu9GIl1Wa0BCajVXbg82b0BSesVmcpRnblBSZ2FGagwiclRWYlJHIyFWZkBCL19WW
> >>
> >>
> >> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> >>> On Monday, February 18, 2019 8:52 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 784743443F7C486AF33A5FEA440ECD9F92B02CA7B12E19EBFB5330863B050F7C
> >>> A1196E9457A2E1FFCE97EC027FC82CD4790CCB33C666734DE474C3A5B358400E
> >>
>
>


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-18 Thread Reuben Staley
I would say that the reading of the proposal in question would imply an 
override of all the amendments since 7815. I haven't been following this 
thread so I don't know what a better solution would be.


On 2/18/19 9:21 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


On 2/18/2019 7:07 AM, James Cook wrote:

The gamestate is changed as if the below amendment had taken effect
immediately after Proposal 7815, and as if no further changes had been
made to that Rule since. (In particular, the text of Rule 2124 is now
as described in the amendment, since the Rules are changed by this
proposal as part of the gamestate.)


Can the Rulekeepor (or anyone) comment how this will be recorded in the 
FLR?

Will we lose amendment numbers?  I wouldn't want to lose any historical
annotations if we "set the gamestate" so that they didn't happen.  (given
that they were important to figuring this out just now!)

And are there any side issues like this unclear enough to run against the
"any ambiguity" standards of R105?


--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-17 Thread Reuben Staley

===
= = OFFICIAL IMPERIAL STATEMENT = =
===

I will not perform any actions that would unfairly benefit BlogNomic 
players coming from an Agoran invasion.


However, if it is decided that one of us should take over BlogNomic and 
declare an Agora-themed dynasty during the dynasty of whoever wins the 
First Dynasty of Trigon, I would be willing to assist in the overthrow.


-- Trigon, Emperor of BlogNomic

On 2/17/19 6:51 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Trigon is the current Emperor of BlogNomic, so depending on how corruptible e 
is we may have an in...

More seriously, the office of "Ambassador" (to other nomics) that apparently 
used to be a thing is mildly interesting:

https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg06285.html

(repealed here: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07140.html)

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 7:20 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:


It would’ve been pretty easy to win last dynasty with a coordinated team
(wealth was pretty unambiguous from the start in the form of Clues:
Emperor-given info on a series of data a la Cluedo; wealth could be easy
shared because you just needed to know it. Unsurprisingly, a team of two
players won.)

This dynasty isnt as obvious unfortunately but a teaming up/planning to
pool into a single person is very often super strong anyways.

On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 07:45, Gaelan Steele g...@canishe.com wrote:


Consider me interested.
Gaelan


On Feb 16, 2019, at 10:33 PM, Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com wrote:
We could just win it in the normal way next time and declare an Agora
theme...
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 01:32, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote:


My reading justifies the Agoran invasion better.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:


I rather hoped the “mutatis mutandis” was implied.
-Aris
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 4:27 PM Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no
wrote:


On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Aris Merchant wrote:


BlogNomic almost actually passed something like that once. We sent
someone
over to caution them that such an unfortunate plan would result in an
Agoran invasion (okay, ais actually did it sua sponte, but my version
sounds better).


Wait, BlogNomic legislated that Agora would be destroyed? I don't
think



that works.
Greetings,
Ørjan.


-Aris
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:56 PM Madeline j...@iinet.net.au wrote:


Obviously, I'm just talking in hypotheticals.
On 2019-02-16 09:55, Aris Merchant wrote:


No one is doing anything that has any meaningful chance of
destroying



Agora. If there’s a bug in your mechanism, the stakes go from it
being



broken to the game dying permanently.
-Aris
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:52 PM Madeline j...@iinet.net.au
wrote:



"If this Rule's power exceeds 4.0, then all other rules
notwithstanding,



Agora is destroyed."
(Would any other rule need to actually change for such a clause to
work



if an outside Power 3 rule is adjusting its power?)
On 2019-02-16 09:47, D. Margaux wrote:


Love it.
You could have a separate power 3 rule that (1) changes the power
of



the


Ritual rule and (2) causes itself to be repealed when the Ritual
rule



is


repealed.


And I’d love to see the power of the Ritual rule increase, too,
if



the


Rule is left unappeased... and maybe increase at a higher rate
than



it


can


be decreased?


On Feb 15, 2019, at 5:12 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
Actually I've been pondering something even fancier, like every
time



it's appeased it decreases in Power and the Power is linked to
the



Consent required. Or something. (of course you can't increase
power



in the same way).


On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:08 PM D. Margaux <
dmargaux...@gmail.com>



wrote:


Any chance we can have it repeal with Agoran Consent or
something



more


than notice? Or is that excessive? :-)


On Feb 15, 2019, at 3:41 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu
wrote:



Actually, one more time. Empty sacrifices are meaningless.
I withdraw my proposal, The Ritual.
I submit the following proposal, Ritual Sacrifice, AI-1:



Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the
following



text:

   Any player CAN perform The Ritual by paying a fee of 7



Coins,


thus appeasing
this Rule for a single instant. This Rule MUST be
appeased



at


least once


   in every Agoran week.

   If this rule has been appeased by The Ritual in 5



successive


   Agoran weeks, then any player CAN banish this rule



(cause


it


to


   repeal itself) with Notice.




On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:12 PM Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu
wrote:



I withdraw the proposal I recently submitted, quoted below.
I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual, AI-1:



Create a Rule entitled "The Ritual", Power-0.5, with the
following



text:

   Any player CAN perform The Ritual by announcement, thus



appeasing


   this Rule for a single instant.  

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette (v1)

2019-02-17 Thread Reuben Staley
I'm sorry, but this week has been the busiest and most tiring I've had in
quite a while. I will deliver judgements for all the cases I'm currently
assigned to in a few hours.

On Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 12:48 Kerim Aydin 
> Trigon,
>
> Are you actually judging stuff?  I know you stepped away from a couple
> cases
> and timed-out on others, and a couple of these still on your docket are
> looking time-sensitive...
>
> -G.
>
> On 2/17/2019 8:24 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
> > Work and life have both been busy this week, and I unfortunately haven't
> had time to update the context/arguements/evidence section below.  Very
> sorry. I hope to have time to update it in a revised version at some point
> this week.
> >
> > I publish this report:
> >
> > COURT GAZETTE (Arbitor's weekly report)
> >
> > Date of last report:07 Feb 2019
> > Date of this report:17 Feb 2019
> > Version of this report: 1
> >
> > Disclaimer:  Informational only. No actions are contained in this
> report. Information in this report is not self-ratifying. The
> context/arguements/evidence section is in need of updating, and will
> hopefully be updated in a forthcoming revised version.
> >
> >
> > Open cases (CFJs)
> > -
> >
> > 3701 called 01 February 2019 by G., assigned 03 February 2019 to Trigon,
> reassigned 17 February 2019 to D. Margaux: "If the definition of quanging a
> player had not been explicitly included in the message in evidence, the
> attempt to transfer currencies on behalf of Tenhigitsune would have failed."
> >
> > 3704 called 05 February 2019 by D. Margaux, assigned 07 February 2019 to
> Murphy, Murphy recused 10 February 2019, reassigned to Trigon 10 February
> 2019: "There were no objections made to D. Margaux’s January 29 intent to
> transfer to players other than emself and eir zombie the spaceships in the
> lost & found department."
> >
> > *3712 called 14 February 2019 by Falsifian, assigned 15 February 2019 to
> Trigon: "Agora is not Satisfied with an intent to perform an action unless
> it is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. In particular, Gaelan's
> recent attempt to Declare Apathy on February 7, 2019 was ineffective, and
> D. Margaux's dependent actions in their recent message that starts 'I
> thought for sure people would object...' were ineffective."
> >
> > Highest numbered case: 3715
> >
> > Context/arguments/evidence are included at the bottom of this report.
> >
> >
> > Recently-delivered verdicts and implications
> > 
> >
> > 3700 called 01 February 2019 by G., assigned 03 February 2019 to Trigon,
> judged TRUE 06 February 2019 by Trigon, self-filed motion for
> reconsideration and recusal 07 February 2019 by Trigon, reassigned 07
> February 2019 to Murphy, judged TRUE 10 February 2019 by Murphy: "In the
> message quoted in evidence, D. Margaux earned at least 1 coin."
> >
> > 3702 called 01 February 2019 by Cuddle Beam, assigned 03 February 2019
> to ATMunn, reassigned 12 February 2019 to D. Margaux, judged TRUE 12
> February 2019 by D. Margaux: "Gaelan's (only) ship is at Sector 4."
> >
> > 3703 called 6 February 2019 by twg, assigned 6 February 2019 to Murphy,
> judged IRRELEVANT 10 February 2019 by Murphy: "If and when -N (negative N)
> coins are revoked from an entity, where N is a natural number, that
> entity's coin balance increases by N."
> >
> > *3705 called 9 February 2019 by twg, assigned 10 February 2019 to G.,
> judged FALSE 10 February 2019 by G.: "I own an Indigo Ribbon."
> >
> > *3706 called 9 February 2019 by twg, assigned 10 February 2019 to G.,
> judged TRUE 14 February 2019 by G.: "All Players are parties to the Rules
> as a contract."
> >
> > *3707 called 9 February 2019 by twg, assigned 10 February 2019 to G.,
> judged DISMISS 11 February 2019 by G.: "The Ruleset (as a contract) now has
> 1 coin."
> >
> > *3708 called 10 February 2019 by D. Margaux, assigned 10 February 2019
> to G., judged FALSE 13 February 2019 by G.: "The parties to an existing
> contract CAN agree to amend it by adding additional players as parties,
> even if those additional players did not expressly agree to be party to
> that contract apart from agreeing to be bound by the Rules generally."
> >
> > *3709 called 7 February 2019 by Gaelan, assigned 7 February 2019 to
> Aris, judged FALSE 7 February 2019 by Aris, motion for reconsideration
> filed 7 February 2019 by G., judged TRUE 14 February 2019 by Aris: "Gaelan
> won the game by one of the above declarations of apathy."
> >
> > *3710 called 7 February 2019 by Gaelan, assigned 7 February 2019 to
> Aris, judged FALSE 7 February 2019 by Aris, motion for reconsideration
> filed 7 February 2019 by G., judged TRUE 14 February 2019 by Aris: "Gaelan
> won the game twice by the above declarations of apathy."
> >
> > *3711 called 12 February 2019 by Falsifian, assigned 12 February 2019 to
> D. Margaux, judged FALSE 13 February 2019 by D. Margaux: "It is Falsifian's
> Agoran Birthday today (the day 

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8152-8163

2019-02-09 Thread Reuben Staley

First off, NttPF.

On 2/9/19 10:09 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:

8161  Trigon, Ørjan   3.0   Extend "amend" and “reenact”

AGAINST, because “A repealed rule not in the ruleset identified by its most 
recent rule number MUST be specified for reenactment” could be interpreted as 
imposing an obligation to reenact rules. (Why have an office to randomly 
reenact ONE rule when we can make EVERYONE reenact EVERY rule?)


If this creates an obligation to reenact rules, the current version is 
even worse since it creates an obligation to reenact rules with the same 
ID number and the next change identifier.


--
Trigon


DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8152-8163

2019-02-09 Thread Reuben Staley
CoE: D. Margaux withdrew the Duumvirate proposal in this thread: 
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33451.html


On 2/9/19 5:04 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
quorum is 3, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
conditional votes).

IDAuthor(s)   AITitle
---
8152  G.  2.0   Justice Reenactment
8153  D Margaux   1.0   Favour Loophole Closure
8154  CuddleBeam  1.0   [Seductive yodeling noises]
8155  twg, Telnaior   1.0   Spaaace Loophole #493
8156  Trigon  3.0   version ∞
8157  Trigon  1.0   No one likes a (space) bully
8158  D Margaux,  G.  3.0   The Duumvirate v.1.2
8159  G.  3.0   Temporary Deputies
8160  D Margaux   1.0   Justice Favour Adjustments
8161  Trigon, Ørjan   3.0   Extend "amend" and "reenact"
8162  Telnaior, G.2.0   No Contract Reporting Rewards
8163  twg 3.0   Holey Loops, Batman!

The proposal pool is currently empty.

The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.

//
ID: 8152
Title: Justice Reenactment
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: G.
Co-authors:


Re-enact Rule 2246 (name at repeal: Submitting a CFJ to the Justiciar),
at Power-2, and the following text:

   When a person initiates a Call for Judgement, e CAN, optionally,
   submit it to the Referee by announcement. All persons are
   ENCOURAGED to submit a case to the Referee only when there is a
   good reason not to let it be processed by the Arbitor as usual.

   When a CFJ is submitted to the Referee, the Referee receives all
   obligations and powers for the specific case that the Arbitor
   would otherwise receive due to being Arbitor.  This takes
   precedence over Rules that would otherwise assign duties and
   powers regarding a judicial case to the Arbitor.


Retitle Rule 2246 to "Submitting a CFJ to the Referee".



[
History of R2246:
Created by Proposal 6181 (comex), 7 April 2009
Amended(1) by Proposal 6333 (coppro), 29 May 2009
Amended(2) by Proposal 6496 (coppro), 26 September 2009
Amended(3) by Proposal 6662 (Murphy; disi.), 10 March 2010
Amended(4) by Proposal 6752 (Murphy), 2 August 2010
Amended(5) by Proposal 6891 (coppro), 20 November 2010
Repealed by Proposal 6961 '52-pickup v2' (G.), 3 March 2011
]

//
ID: 8153
Title: Favour Loophole Closure
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: D Margaux
Co-authors:


Amend Rule 2542 to replace:

   “The following officers CAN by announcement award Favours in the listed
   Parties, but SHALL NOT do so except as required by rule.”

With:

   “The following officers CAN by announcement award Favours in the listed
   Parties only to the extent required by rule.”


//
ID: 8154
Title: [Seductive yodeling noises]
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: CuddleBeam
Co-authors:


Change "Any player whose Fame is either 10 or -10 CAN win the game With 2 Days
Notice." to "Any player whose Fame is either 10 or -10 CAN Become One With
The Cosmos With 2 Days Notice

When a player Becomes One With The Cosmos, if their Fame is either 10 or
-10, their Fame is set to 0 and they win the game."

//
ID: 8155
Title: Spaaace Loophole #493
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: twg
Co-authors: Telnaior


Amend Rule 2591, "Spaceships", by changing the text "Armour (an
integer switch limited to values from 0 to 10 inclusive)" to "Armour
(an integer switch limited to values less than or equal to 10)" and
by changing the text 'A Spaceship with an Armour of 0 is "Defeated"'
to 'A Spaceship with an Armour of 0 or less is "Defeated"'.

[There are other ways to patch this, but I feel this is more elegant.
  If anybody else prefers a different solution, feel free to propose
  it.]

//
ID: 8156
Title: version ∞
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Trigon
Co-authors:


Amend Rule 2350 (Power=3) 'Proposals' by adding an item to the bulleted
list:

   * A version, which SHOULD only be used when a proposal has been
retracted and another proposal has been created with a similar
purpose.

//
ID: 8157
Title: No one likes a (space) bully
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: Trigon
Co-authors:


Amend the paragraph beginning "A Space Battle CANNOT be initiated" in
Rule 2593 (Power=1) 'Space Battles' by removing the final period and
adding the following: "or if 

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Agora itself is a contract

2019-02-09 Thread Reuben Staley
Actually, the CFJ I submitted was not to the public forum, so it doesn't 
count. But you seem to have covered it up pretty well, so I won't resubmit.


On 2/9/19 11:36 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:

I submit the following CFJ, and I suggest the same Judge to be assigned to
both (it's trivially False if Trigon's is False too, but if Trigon's is
True then we're in big business):
"All Players are parties to the Rules as a contract."

I don't know how the retroactive nature of the Agora-contract works - if
everyone is now a party of the Agora-contract, ie. a player of Agora, or if
only people who have registered while the contract rule was in place - but
a few curious things that now could happen because of it regardless.

- Agora-contract can never fall below two players, because of R1742: "A
contract automatically terminates if the number of parties to it falls
below two", and Anti-Ossification is Power 4. Amusingly, the whole consent
deal has less priority than Anti-Ossification, so even if you don't want to
stay as a player the rules will NON-CONSENSUALLY keep you as a player to
ensure it's survival.
- You can change the rules if everyone agrees to it, without needing a
proposal for it. R1742: "A contract may be modified, including by changing
the set of parties, by agreement between all existing parties."
- R1742: "Parties to a contract governed by the rules SHALL act in accordance
with that contract." - redundant but it would mean that breaking SHALLs,
will mean blots for two things, the direct SHALL you broke and this one.
Cool stuff.
- Assets are BOTH public and private now, lmao. R2166: "A rule defined
asset is public; one defined by a contract is private."

I transfer 1 coin to the Ruleset (ie. Agora as a contract).

Note that Agora as a contract and Agora itself is, bizarrely, two separate
things. Contracts are the agreement itself, the agreement per se, not the
container or form which the agreement exists within such as the textual
rules. For example, in the case that the membership to the Agora-contract
isn't retroactive, it means some people will be bound to Agora as a
contract, and some people will not be, and it's the facet of Agora as a
contract to the which that I'd be making the transfer to.

Bizarre shit. But I love it.

Another CFJ which is trivially False if Trigon's is False, but anyways, I
call the following:
"The Ruleset (as a contract) now has 1 coin."


On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 6:44 PM Reuben Staley 
wrote:


Upon my first reading, this didn't surprise me that much. It makes sense
that these systems would look similar because AFAIK Contracts were
actually modeled after the rules. However, then I realized that CFJ 3664
where G. and D. Margaux informally agreed to do something but because it
satisfied all the requirements for a contract it was considered to be one.

So let's see:

1) Is it an "agreement"?
2) Did players consent to it?
3) Did said players have the intention that it would be binding upon
 them and governed by the rules?

These are the same tests judge twg wrote for CFJ 3664. And I'm pretty
sure the rules satisfy them.

I CFJ: "The Rules are a Contract"

For this CFJ, this message is evidence.

Thanks, Cuddles, for the idea.

On 2/9/19 10:14 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:

I might have something wrong, hence why I'm posting it here for
scrutiny, but I suspect Agora itself is a contract (with all that
implies, oh boy).


We have in Rule 869 with Power 3: "A person, by registering, agrees to
abide by the Rules. The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a person to abide
by any agreement without that person's willful consent."

So, registering is an agreement, an agreement to abide by the rules
(by power 3).


We also have Rule 1742 with power 2.5: "Any group of two or more
consenting persons (the parties) may make an agreement among
themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and be
governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a contract."

Now, this is a bit of a rough part but, a contract doesn't need to be
called or known to be a contract, to be a contract. Its just a name to
a form of agreement.

We've all agreed to the Agora-contract with intention that it's
binding onto us and be governed by the rules via registering, because
it expressly means that we agree to abide by the rules.

It's a bit weird that the contract and the rules that govern them are
the same thing, but that's the case in Agora itself.


So, Agora is a contract.


[image: 980x.gif]



--
Trigon



--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Agora itself is a contract

2019-02-09 Thread Reuben Staley
Upon my first reading, this didn't surprise me that much. It makes sense 
that these systems would look similar because AFAIK Contracts were 
actually modeled after the rules. However, then I realized that CFJ 3664 
where G. and D. Margaux informally agreed to do something but because it 
satisfied all the requirements for a contract it was considered to be one.


So let's see:

1) Is it an "agreement"?
2) Did players consent to it?
3) Did said players have the intention that it would be binding upon
   them and governed by the rules?

These are the same tests judge twg wrote for CFJ 3664. And I'm pretty 
sure the rules satisfy them.


I CFJ: "The Rules are a Contract"

For this CFJ, this message is evidence.

Thanks, Cuddles, for the idea.

On 2/9/19 10:14 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:

I might have something wrong, hence why I'm posting it here for
scrutiny, but I suspect Agora itself is a contract (with all that
implies, oh boy).


We have in Rule 869 with Power 3: "A person, by registering, agrees to
abide by the Rules. The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a person to abide
by any agreement without that person's willful consent."

So, registering is an agreement, an agreement to abide by the rules
(by power 3).


We also have Rule 1742 with power 2.5: "Any group of two or more
consenting persons (the parties) may make an agreement among
themselves with the intention that it be binding upon them and be
governed by the rules. Such an agreement is known as a contract."

Now, this is a bit of a rough part but, a contract doesn't need to be
called or known to be a contract, to be a contract. Its just a name to
a form of agreement.

We've all agreed to the Agora-contract with intention that it's
binding onto us and be governed by the rules via registering, because
it expressly means that we agree to abide by the rules.

It's a bit weird that the contract and the rules that govern them are
the same thing, but that's the case in Agora itself.


So, Agora is a contract.


[image: 980x.gif]



--
Trigon


DIS: [Proto] Extend "amend"

2019-02-08 Thread Reuben Staley
The mistake of conflating retitlings and amendments has been made many 
times recently, the most recent being by an experienced player, and one 
of the earlier ones breaking a minigame completely. Also, adding 
different property changes as separate rule changes is more 
time-consuming for your Rulekeepor than being able to just put them in 
as a singular rule change. So here we go:


-
Title: Extend "amend"

Amend Rule 105 (Power=3) 'Rule Changes' by removing items 3-6 in the
ordered list and then adding to that list:

  3. reenact a rule. A repealed rule not in the ruleset identified
 by its most recent rule number MUST be specified for
 reenactment. The rule's properites are to be set as follows:

 * its ID number will be the same as it was when the rule was
   most recently repealed.

 * its change identifier will be one more than its change
   identifier when it was most recently repealed.

 * If no text is specified for the rule, it is to have the same
   text it had when it was most recently repealed. If the
   reenacting instrument provides new text, it is to have that
   text. The rule SHOULD have materially the same purpose as did
   the repealed version.

 * If a new power is not specified, it is to have power equal to
   the power it had at the time of its most recent repeal, or
   power 1, if power was not defined at the time of that rule's
   repeal. If the reenacting instrument provides a new power, it
   is to have that power.

 * If a new title is not specified, it is to have the same title
   as it had when it was most recently repealed. If the
   reenacting instrument provides a new title, it is to have
   that title.

 If the re-enacting instrument is incapable of setting the
 reenacted rule's power to that value, then the re-enactment is
 INEFFECTIVE.

  4. amend a rule. This may include changing the rule's text, name,
 or power.

--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup

2019-02-08 Thread Reuben Staley

On 2/8/19 6:56 PM, D. Margaux wrote:

On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:53 PM, Reuben Staley  wrote:

Unfortunately, Markdown is rather limited in the types of lists it implements. 
It can do 1., 2., 3., but unless you have an extended markdown, it does not 
recognise parenthesized numbers or any kind of letters. It does support *, -, 
and + for unordered lists.

We can either have different lists or we can stop trying to maintain Markdown 
support.


I think we could make it markdown compliant, and still formatted reasonably 
well, if we break it into two rules. I’m happy to take a shot at drafting that 
unless people are opposed to that idea.


This isn't even the only rule that suffers with same-style sublists. 
Rule 1023, 2201, and most likely others have numbered sublists inside 
numbered sublists.


One easy option is to replace some of the lists with bulleted lists.

--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup

2019-02-08 Thread Reuben Staley
Unfortunately, Markdown is rather limited in the types of lists it 
implements. It can do 1., 2., 3., but unless you have an extended 
markdown, it does not recognise parenthesized numbers or any kind of 
letters. It does support *, -, and + for unordered lists.


We can either have different lists or we can stop trying to maintain 
Markdown support.


On 2/8/19 6:39 PM, D. Margaux wrote:

I think it’s confusing also because there is a second level list that uses the 
same numbering as the two top-level lists. Is that not possible to change?

Maybe we could split the rule into two rules, which would fix the issue of 
having two top level lists with the same numbering system. But that wouldn’t 
fix the second level list.

Or maybe no one else is as bothered by the formatting of this rule as I am...?


On Feb 8, 2019, at 8:19 PM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:

Yep, that would be me. And that is still nice (agora-ruleset.gaelan.me uses 
it), so I’d prefer that we keep that up. But if others think it’s fine, it’s 
not a dealbreaker for me.

Gaelan


On Feb 8, 2019, at 4:11 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

I am reminded that a previous Rulekeepor (Gaelan perhaps?) made a number of 
formatting changes in order to make the Ruleset valid markdown, and I don't 
quite remember for sure, but that may be how this rule ended up with the 
confusion of two top-level lists with the same numbering scheme.  I suspect 
this proposal breaks that.

Greetings,
Ørjan.


On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:

Below is a protoproposal that is meant to address the bug that Gaelan
identified.  I also noticed what might be another bug--I believe,
under the current first paragraph (1), an intent might fail if the
player ever announced that same intent more than 15 days prior.  So,
arguably, if Gaelan ever announced intent to declare apathy more than
14 days ago, then eir current declaration of apathy failed under the
first paragraph (1).  I also think the current dependent action rule
is very very difficult to parse, so I made some modifications to
improve readability.  I think part of the reason the bug was able to
slip through was that the formatting of the rule makes it hard to
parse.

Comments welcome.  I won't be offended if people say that they don't
want to reformat the rule, but I do think it's currently very hard to
read.

Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act
Author: D Margaux
Co-author: Gaelan
AI: 3

Amend Rule 1728 to replace its entire text with the following:

{

(a) The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent
actions" (N is 1 unless otherwise specified):

  1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater
 than 8 ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with
 N = 1);

  2. With N Support, where N is a positive integer ("With
 Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1);

  3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1
 with a minimum of 1;

  4. With Notice; or

  5. With T Notice, where T is a time period.

(b) A rule that purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform
an action by a set of one or more dependent actions defined above in
section (a) thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if
all of the following are true:

  1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent to
  perform the action within the 14 days preceding the action;

  2. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform
  the action between 4 and 14 days preceding the action, if
  the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N
  Agoran Consent, or With Notice;

  3. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform
  the action between T and 14 days preceding the action,
  if the action is to be performed With T Notice;

  4. Any announcement of intent relied upon to meet any
  applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or
  (b)(3) unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without
  obfuscation specified the action intended to be taken
  and method(s) to be used (including the value of
  N and/or T for each method);

  5. At least one of the following is true:

A. The performer is the initiator;

B. The initiator was authorized to perform the action
   due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the
   performer; or

C. The initiator is authorized to perform the action,
   the action depends on support, the performer has
   supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the
   performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from
   performing it,

   6.  Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined
by other rules; and

   7. The conditions are met, if any conditions were stated in
   the announcement of intent relied upon to meet any
   applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or
   (b)(3).

(c) The actor SHOULD publish a list 

Re: DIS: Proto-Proposal - Dependent Action Cleanup

2019-02-08 Thread Reuben Staley
Actually, the markdown-compliance has been broken for a while, for 
example by Rule 2531 as of revision 3.


On 2/8/19 6:19 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:

Yep, that would be me. And that is still nice (agora-ruleset.gaelan.me uses 
it), so I’d prefer that we keep that up. But if others think it’s fine, it’s 
not a dealbreaker for me.

Gaelan


On Feb 8, 2019, at 4:11 PM, Ørjan Johansen  wrote:

I am reminded that a previous Rulekeepor (Gaelan perhaps?) made a number of 
formatting changes in order to make the Ruleset valid markdown, and I don't 
quite remember for sure, but that may be how this rule ended up with the 
confusion of two top-level lists with the same numbering scheme.  I suspect 
this proposal breaks that.

Greetings,
Ørjan.


On Fri, 8 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote:

Below is a protoproposal that is meant to address the bug that Gaelan
identified.  I also noticed what might be another bug--I believe,
under the current first paragraph (1), an intent might fail if the
player ever announced that same intent more than 15 days prior.  So,
arguably, if Gaelan ever announced intent to declare apathy more than
14 days ago, then eir current declaration of apathy failed under the
first paragraph (1).  I also think the current dependent action rule
is very very difficult to parse, so I made some modifications to
improve readability.  I think part of the reason the bug was able to
slip through was that the formatting of the rule makes it hard to
parse.

Comments welcome.  I won't be offended if people say that they don't
want to reformat the rule, but I do think it's currently very hard to
read.

Title: Dependent Action Cleanup Act
Author: D Margaux
Co-author: Gaelan
AI: 3

Amend Rule 1728 to replace its entire text with the following:

{

(a) The following methods of taking actions are known as "dependent
actions" (N is 1 unless otherwise specified):

   1. Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater
  than 8 ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with
  N = 1);

   2. With N Support, where N is a positive integer ("With
  Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1);

   3. With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1
  with a minimum of 1;

   4. With Notice; or

   5. With T Notice, where T is a time period.

(b) A rule that purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform
an action by a set of one or more dependent actions defined above in
section (a) thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if
all of the following are true:

   1. A person (the initiator) published an announcement of intent to
   perform the action within the 14 days preceding the action;

   2. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform
   the action between 4 and 14 days preceding the action, if
   the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N
   Agoran Consent, or With Notice;

   3. The initiator published an announcement of intent to perform
   the action between T and 14 days preceding the action,
   if the action is to be performed With T Notice;

   4. Any announcement of intent relied upon to meet any
   applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or
   (b)(3) unambiguously, clearly, conspicuously, and without
   obfuscation specified the action intended to be taken
   and method(s) to be used (including the value of
   N and/or T for each method);

   5. At least one of the following is true:

 A. The performer is the initiator;

 B. The initiator was authorized to perform the action
due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the
performer; or

 C. The initiator is authorized to perform the action,
the action depends on support, the performer has
supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the
performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from
performing it,

6.  Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined
 by other rules; and

7. The conditions are met, if any conditions were stated in
the announcement of intent relied upon to meet any
applicable requirements of paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), or
(b)(3).

(c) The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters if the action
depends on support, and a list of objectors if it depends on
objections.

}





--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: With apologies to Trigon

2019-02-06 Thread Reuben Staley
You can hold this off as long as you want, but please don't violate any 
rules in doing so. I can take the beating.


On 2/6/19 9:26 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

The following is a Notice of Honour:
+1 Trigon (for eir neat storytelling)
-1 Telnaior (for continuing to exploit a known loophole that has a patch 
pending, which IMO is not very sporting)

What do people think of another one of those sneaky officer tricks: Declining 
to resolve Space Battle 0005 for as long as possible in order to protect the 
galaxy from Space Pirate Telnaior, in the hope the proposal Spaaace Loophole 
#493 passes quickly?

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 12:14 AM, Reuben Staley  
wrote:


The quoted hashed string is:

Trigon watched as his hit landed. Surprisingly, it didn't seem to do
much damage. He realized that he had lost. But how? Telnaior hailed his
ship once again. "I apologize for this, but you're the best target I
have. Picking on anyone else would be far too much effort." And with
that, Trigon hatched a plan to end this cycle that would clearly
continue if he didn't stop it.

On 2/4/19 2:08 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:


Telnaior has sent eir Energy value now, so fire away with the melons.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 4, 2019 1:40 AM, Reuben Staley reuben.sta...@gmail.com 
wrote:


PF
On 2/3/19 6:40 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:


Getting roped into doing a space battle I didn't even want to do in the
first place and then getting a rule violation for it. Figures.
I wish to spend an amount of energy equal to the number of times the
word "cantaloupe" appears in the following hashed string:
c60be28bd4658321826d9eae4cb14222
On 2/3/19 6:28 PM, Madeline wrote:


I haven't sent mine yet, that didn't count.
On 2019-02-04 12:29, Reuben Staley wrote:


I wish to spend 0 energy on this space battle
On 2/3/19 6:01 PM, Telnaior wrote:


You're really the only good target that I wouldn't have to go
halfway across the map to reach :(
I spend one coin to repair the Armour of my Spaceship by 1.
I initiate a Space Battle between my Spaceship and Trigon's
Spaceship, specifying twg as the resolver.


--
Trigon


--

Trigon





--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Proposal Versions

2019-02-05 Thread Reuben Staley
I understand the proposal is flawed but Telnaior is space-bullying me 
and this fixes my problem.


On 2/5/19 3:28 AM, Cuddle Beam wrote:

I’m against the Space bullying thing because I believe it’s more
interesting if that was achieved via contracts and such. (Our own Geneva
Convention of a sort, maybe?)

It would harm the “free open world simulation” vibe that I enjoy from Space
Battles.

Also, a duo of players could still bypass this.

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 01:38, Reuben Staley  wrote:


Context for "version ∞" that I forgot to send in the previous email:
when I was going through all the proposals adding names I noticed a lot
of them had a version tacked onto the end of the title. I don't even
have a problem with versions being an informal system, but I like the
idea of them being out of the title; therefore this exists.

I also submit the following proposal, while I'm at it:

-
Title: No one likes a (space) bully
AI: 1
Author: Trigon
Co-authors:

Amend the paragraph beginning "A Space Battle CANNOT be initiated" in
Rule 2593 (Power=1) 'Space Battles' by removing the final period and
adding the following: "or if the prior Space Battle the spaceship
initiating the Space Battle has been in was against the spaceship it is
attacking."

On 2/4/19 5:27 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:

I submit the following proposal:

-
Title: version ∞
AI: 3
Author: Trigon
Co-authors:

Amend Rule 2350 (Power=3) 'Proposals' by adding an item to the bulleted
list:

* A version, which SHOULD only be used when a proposal has been
  retracted and another proposal has been created with a similar
  purpose.



--
Trigon



--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: With apologies to Trigon

2019-02-04 Thread Reuben Staley

The quoted hashed string is:

Trigon watched as his hit landed. Surprisingly, it didn't seem to do
much damage. He realized that he had lost. But how? Telnaior hailed his
ship once again. "I apologize for this, but you're the best target I
have. Picking on anyone else would be far too much effort." And with
that, Trigon hatched a plan to end this cycle that would clearly
continue if he didn't stop it.

On 2/4/19 2:08 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Telnaior has sent eir Energy value now, so fire away with the melons.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Monday, February 4, 2019 1:40 AM, Reuben Staley  
wrote:


PF

On 2/3/19 6:40 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:


Getting roped into doing a space battle I didn't even want to do in the
first place and then getting a rule violation for it. Figures.
I wish to spend an amount of energy equal to the number of times the
word "cantaloupe" appears in the following hashed string:
c60be28bd4658321826d9eae4cb14222
On 2/3/19 6:28 PM, Madeline wrote:


I haven't sent mine yet, that didn't count.
On 2019-02-04 12:29, Reuben Staley wrote:


I wish to spend 0 energy on this space battle
On 2/3/19 6:01 PM, Telnaior wrote:


You're really the only good target that I wouldn't have to go
halfway across the map to reach :(
I spend one coin to repair the Armour of my Spaceship by 1.
I initiate a Space Battle between my Spaceship and Trigon's
Spaceship, specifying twg as the resolver.


--

Trigon





--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: With apologies to Trigon

2019-02-03 Thread Reuben Staley
Getting roped into doing a space battle I didn't even want to do in the 
first place and then getting a rule violation for it. Figures.


I wish to spend an amount of energy equal to the number of times the 
word "cantaloupe" appears in the following hashed string:


c60be28bd4658321826d9eae4cb14222

On 2/3/19 6:28 PM, Madeline wrote:

I haven't sent mine yet, that didn't count.

On 2019-02-04 12:29, Reuben Staley wrote:

I wish to spend 0 energy on this space battle

On 2/3/19 6:01 PM, Telnaior wrote:
You're really the only good target that I wouldn't have to go halfway 
across the map to reach :(


I spend one coin to repair the Armour of my Spaceship by 1.

I initiate a Space Battle between my Spaceship and Trigon's 
Spaceship, specifying twg as the resolver.








--
Trigon


DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3699 Judgement

2019-02-03 Thread Reuben Staley
Me: decides hundreds of wins for one player works completely fine because
that interpretation makes more sense to me
Agoran population: ok cool
Me: decides 5 coins and a spaceship exist
Agoran population: hold up

--
Trigon

On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 11:17 Edward Murphy  Trigon wrote:
>
> >   CFJ STATEMENT
> > ===
> >
> > "A Spaceship owned by the Lost and Found Department is in Sector 05".
> >
> >   JUDGEMENT
> > ===
> >
> > Events leading up to this CFJ:
> >
> > 1. No spaceship existed in Sector 05 on January 21
> > 2. Telnaior registering on January 29 created a new spaceship
> > 3. Telnaior deregistered the same day
> > 4. Telnaior registering again created another new spaceship
> >
> > The main point of ambiguity is that when Telnaior deregistered during
> > Event 3, we don't know where eir spaceship went.
> >
> > So what /could/ have happened to it?
> >
> > Possibilities:
> >
> > 1. It was destroyed because it left the class of entities its ownership
> > was restricted to (Rule 2576 'Ownership' ¶1), or
> > 2. It is owned by the Lost and Found Department because any entity which
> > would otherwise lack an owner is owned by it (Rule 2576 'Ownership'
> > ¶2).
> >
> > Since these are in the same rule, which one takes precedence? We need to
> > look to Rule 2240 ('No Cretens Need Apply') for clarification. This rule
> > says that if one does not claim precedence over the other, the later
> > clause wins out. If the "rules to the contrary notwithstanding" in the
> > second paragraph doesn't already make Possibility 2 win out -- I won't
> > state either way because I don't know -- the clause supporting it comes
> > in ¶2 of Rule 2576, after Possibility 1.
> >
> > I judge TRUE.
>
> I intend (with 2 support) to group-file a Motion to Reconsider this
> case.
>
> Paragraphs 1 and 2 are never triggered at the same time. Having a
> restriction-violating owner isn't the same as having no owner:
>
>* Having a restriction-violating owner triggers paragraph 1 but not
>  paragraph 2. If the destruction is somehow prevented, then the
>  asset continues to have its restriction-violating owner.
>
>* Having no owner triggers paragraph 2 but not paragraph 1. If the
>  transfer to the LFD is somehow prevented, then the asset continues
>  to have no owner.
>
>
>


DIS: Re: BUS: spaaaaaaaace shall be mine

2019-02-02 Thread Reuben Staley

:/

On 2/2/19 5:38 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

I resolve Space Battle 0004 as follows:

Telnaior spent 2 Energy (private communication), so eir Energy decreases from 
20 to 18.
Trigon spent 10 Energy (public announcement), so eir Energy decreases from 20 
to 10.

Therefore:
Telnaior's Spaceship's Armour decreases from 1 to 0 (it is Defeated).
Trigon's Spaceship's Armour decreases from 10 to 8.

Trigon's Spaceship's Armour decreased by more than Telnaior's Spaceship's 
Armour did, and therefore Telnaior is the winner. Sorry Trigon.

I submit the following proposal:

//
Title: Spaaace Loophole #493
Adoption index: 1.0
Author: twg
Co-authors: Telnaior


Amend Rule 2591, "Spaceships", by changing the text "Armour (an
integer switch limited to values from 0 to 10 inclusive)" to "Armour
(an integer switch limited to values less than or equal to 10)" and
by changing the text 'A Spaceship with an Armour of 0 is "Defeated"'
to 'A Spaceship with an Armour of 0 or less is "Defeated"'.

[There are other ways to patch this, but I feel this is more elegant.
  If anybody else prefers a different solution, feel free to propose
  it.]

//

-violent space warmonger


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, February 2, 2019 11:04 PM, Reuben Staley  
wrote:


I'm going to post the whole thing anyway because I spent actual time on
it. The entirety of the next paragraph is the aforementioned string.

Once there was a very polygonal fellow named Trigon. Trigon owned a
spaceship, which he loved to ride around in. Even though Trigon had an
alliance with a violent space warmonger named twg, he remained very
peaceful otherwise. One day, Trigon was idling in his spaceship in
Sector 12, far away from most of the contention in the galaxy. Suddenly,
to the starboard side of the ship, Trigon heard the distinctive sound of
a warp drive slowing down. Trigon rushed to the window and saw an
unfamiliar ship obviously waiting to do battle with him. Trigon hailed
the ship and a voice proclaimed from the other side: "Trigon, I am
called Telnaior. I have come back to life. Space shall be mine!"
Trigon didn't feel like he deserved this, as he had just helped Telnaior
in space court. However, Trigon, ever a good sport, obligingly aimed at
Telnaior with all the power he had.

If this doesn't work, I wish to spend 10 energy.

On 2/2/19 3:58 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:


Oh, uh, I should probably have said this earlier (sorry), but Telnaior's 
already sent me eir value so you can just reveal yours. Or privately message it 
to me. As you wish.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, February 2, 2019 10:44 PM, Reuben Staley reuben.sta...@gmail.com 
wrote:


I wish to spend an amount of energy equal to the amount of times the
word "Trigon" appears in the following MD5-hashed string:
3ead941ba453030eaf88ac41692aa0f2
On 2/2/19 5:14 AM, Telnaior wrote:


I cause my Spaceship to pay 4 energy to move from Sector 16 to Sector
12. I then initiate a Space Battle between my Spaceship and Trigon's
Spaceship in Sector 12, specifying twg as the resolver.


--
Trigon


--

Trigon





--
Trigon


DIS: Re: BUS: Karma time

2019-02-01 Thread Reuben Staley

This is not a Notice of Honour BUT IF IT WERE:

+1 Cuddlebeam for coming up with inventive ways to use contracts
-1 Telnaior for being a poor sport

On 2/1/19 11:28 PM, Telnaior wrote:

This is a Notice of Honour.

Agora gains 1 karma for being "positively ancient".

Cuddle Beam loses 1 karma for making a ridiculous contract.



--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: bring back judicial protections

2019-01-31 Thread Reuben Staley
I'm pretty sure that me trying to do both at the same time is why we had to
converge the gamestate when PAoaM was broken.

--
Trigon

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019, 13:44 Ørjan Johansen  On Wed, 30 Jan 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> > Re-enact Rule 2246 (name at repeal: Submitting a CFJ to the Justiciar),
> > at Power-2, with the title "Submitting a CFJ to the Referee", and the
> > following text:
>
> I don't think you can change the title without a separate rule change,
> although the reenactment provision doesn't actually mention titles at all.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>


Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

2019-01-29 Thread Reuben Staley
And I would have reconsidered if the motion had gone through.

--
Trigon

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019, 10:47 D. Margaux 
>
> > On Jan 29, 2019, at 12:28 PM, Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
> >
> > Interesting that I judged 3592 more recently than 83 or 84 but it's not
> > recorded anywhere.
>
> Oops. The decision in 3692 was recorded in the Court Gazette of 20
> January, but I forgot to add it to the list of recently judged CFJs. Will
> do that next time.
>
> BTW, G. had intended to seek reconsideration of that CFJ, which I thought
> was a good idea, because IRRELEVANT probably isn’t the right decision. If
> the arguments were lacking enough detail, I think DISMISS is more proper.
>
> It may be too late to do that though.


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] The Police Blotter

2019-01-29 Thread Reuben Staley
I object to that answer, just in case.

--
Trigon

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019, 10:33 Timon Walshe-Grey  As I said, it's Kenyon who's the fugitive and ought to have had some of
> eir blots destroyed, not you.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:30 PM, Cuddle Beam 
> wrote:
>
> > Why do you object lol
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 6:29 PM Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, January 29, 2019 5:27 PM, Cuddle Beam <
> cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ah, no worries. Ratification can be solved with ratification.
> > > >
> > > > I intend to ratify without objection the following document:
> > > >
> > > > The player Cuddlebeam has 1 Blot.
> > >
> > > I object, but nicely done.
> > >
> > > -twg
>


DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

2019-01-29 Thread Reuben Staley
Interesting that I judged 3592 more recently than 83 or 84 but it's not
recorded anywhere.

--
Trigon

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019, 10:16 D. Margaux  COURT GAZETTE (Arbitor's weekly report)
>
> Date of last report: 20 Jan 2019
> Date of this report: 29 Jan 2019
>
> Disclaimer:  Informational only. No actions are contained in this report.
>Information in this report is not self-ratifying.
>
>
> Open cases (CFJs)
> -
>
> 3695 called 15 January 2019 by twg, assigned 16 January 2019 to G.:
> "Tenhigitsune has fulfilled eir obligation, detailed in the rule
> entitled 'Space Battles', to 'once communicate to the resolver the
> amount of Energy [e wishes] to spend" in Space Battle 0001."
>
> 3696 called 15 January 2019 by twg, assigned 16 January 2019 to G.:
> "D. Margaux has fulfilled eir obligation, detailed in the rule
> entitled 'Space Battles', to 'once communicate to the resolver the
> amount of Energy [e wishes] to spend" in Space Battle 0001."
>
> 3697 called 20 January 2019 by D. Margaux, currently unassigned: "D.
> Margaux won the game by politics in this message."
>
> 3698 called 22 January 2019 by D. Margaux, currently unassigned: "D.
> Margaux committed at least 1,000,000,000 rule violations."
>
> 3699 called 29 January 2019 by Telnaior, assigned 29 January 2019 to
> Trigon: "A Spaceship owned by the Lost and Found Department is in Sector
> 05."
>
> Highest numbered case: 3699
>
> Context/arguments/evidence are included at the bottom of this report.
>
>
> Recently-delivered verdicts and implications
> 
>
>
> Day Court Judge Recent
> --
> D. Margaux 3685, 3686, 3690*, 3691*, 3694
>  [11/2 11/2 12/25 12/25 01/20]
>
> G. 3679, 3680, 3688, 3691, 3695, 3696
>  [11/2 11/2 11/11 12/2 01/16 01/16]
>
> Murphy 3682, 3678, 3687, 3689
>  [11/1 11/4 11/10 11/14]
>
> Trigon 3683, 3684, 3699
>  [11/1 11/1 01/29]
>
> Weekend Court Judge Recent (generally gets half as many cases)
> --
> ATMunn 3690
>  [12/2]
>
> * Indicates that the CFJ was reassigned to this judge.
>
> (These are informal designations. Requests to join/leave a given court
> will be noted. Individual requests to be assigned a specific case will
> generally be honored, even for non-court judges.)
>
>
> Context/arguments/evidence
> --
>
>
> * CFJ 3695 and CFJ 3696
>
> ***3695 & 3696 Background message from twg:
>
> I act on behalf of Tenhigitsune to announce that e will spend rau
> Energy in Space Battle 0001, where "rau" is a word in twgese, which is
> a constructed language invented by me. (Other twgese words include
> "quang" and "spaaace".)
>
> Go ahead, CFJ this. You know you want to
>
> ***3695 & 3696 response by ais523
>
> I recommend searching the CFJ archives and/or Agoran mailing lists for
>
> "nkeplwgplxgioyzjvtxjnncsqscvntlbdqromyeyvlhkjgteaqnneqgujjpwcbyfrpueoydjjk".
> (It's not a very commonly used word, after all!)
>
> And as a followup, the most relevant of the many nkep precedents
> appears to be CFJ 2625 (which is almost exactly this situation,
> attempting to act on behalf of another player using a word that has not
> been publicly defined). I disagree with the outcome of that case (as
> you can see from the arguments), and I'm not sure it gives us any
> guidance for sorting out this situation anyway (as unlike in CFJ 2625,
> there's no reason to suppose that the player in question knows the
> meaning of the word, nor that they are paying enough attention to the
> game to object to an attempt to use it incorrectly).
>
>
>
> ***3695 & 3696 arguement from D. Margaux:
>
> I have no idea how this resolves.
>
> One reason this might not work is that the rule requires Tenhigitsune
> to “communicate” eir choice, and Rule 2466 prohibits you from acting
> on behalf of em to send a “message” (or synonymously, to “publish”
> something). The only thing you can do is take the underlying game
> action on eir behalf—but here there seems to be no action separate
> from the very act of sending a message (i.e., “communicat[ing]”).
>
> ***3695 & 3696 response by twg to D. Margaux:
>
> I see your Rule 2466/1 and raise you CFJ 3649.
>
> -twg
>
>
>
>
> ***3695 & 3696 response by twg to ais523:
>
> Actually, I don't think this is the same scenario. twgese is just a
> mechanism for ensuring that the value of the number Tenhigitsune has
> announced is unknown to D. Margaux; the nature of the action that is
> being taken is perfectly cromulent to everybody. (Unless it fails for
> another reason.)
>
> -twg
>
>
>
> ***3695 & 3696 arguement from G. responding to twg:
>
>
> There's a fairly established set of decisions that says public
> communication
> has to be intelligible to "a typical Agoran" and not 

DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8146-8151

2019-01-29 Thread Reuben Staley
3 votes FOR and 12 votes...

This satisfies the first condition for an AI majority decision (0.25 is
greater than 0.1) but not the second (0.25 is not greater than 1).

--
Trigon


On Tue, Jan 29, 2019, 09:34 Timon Walshe-Grey  I resolve the Agoran Decisions to adopt each of Proposals 8146-8151 as
> follows.
>
> -twg
>
>
> SUMMARY
> 
> This section self-ratifies.
>
> IDAuthor(s)  Title  Result
> 
> 8146  twgPowerless TangeloesADOPTED
> 8147  twgTangeloes Taking PrecedenceADOPTED
> 8148  twgPowerful Tangeloes REJECTED
> 8149  twg, G.Bad Space Captaincy Legalisation   ADOPTED
> 8150  twg, TrigonSharing the Wealth Again   REJECTED
> 8151  twg, G.With apologies to Michael SuberADOPTED
>
> 5 ballots were cast on Proposal 8151, so Quorum on Agoran Decisions is
> now 3 except where otherwise stated.
>
>
> TALLY OF VOTES
> 
> This section does not self-ratify.
>
>  +-+-+-+-+-+-+
>  | 8146| 8147| 8148| 8149| 8150| 8151|
> ++-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |AI  | 0.1 | 0.1 | 3.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
> |Quorum  |  5  |  5  |  5  |  5  |  5  |  5  |
> ++-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |Aris| FFF | FFF | FFF | FFF |  P  | FFF |
> |G.   1b.| AAA | AAA | AAA | FFF |  P  | AAA |
> |Gaelan  | AAA | AAA | AAA |+ P  |+ P  |+ P  |
> |Murphy  | AAA | AAA | AAA | FFF |  P  | FFF |
> |Trigon  | AAA | AAA | AAA | FFF |  P  | FFF |
> ++-+-+-+-+-+-+
> |FOR |  3  |  3  |  3  | 12  |  0  |  9  |
> |AGAINST | 12  | 12  | 12  |  0  |  0  |  3  |
> |Ballots |  5  |  5  |  5  |  5  |  5  |  5  |
> |Resolved|ADOP.|ADOP.|REJE.|ADOP.|REJE.|ADOP.|
> ++-+-+-+-+-+-+
>
> Key:
> #b. Possesses # blots [-floor(#/3) voting strength]
> PM  Prime Minister [+1 voting strength]
> Z   Zombie
> +   Extricated conditional
> x   Inextricable conditional
>
>
> RIBBONS EARNED IN THIS RESOLUTION
> 
> This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify.
>
>PlayerRibbonProposal(s)
>-------
>(none)
>
>
> FAVOUR AWARDS
> 
> I award Favours in Parties as follows:
>
>PlayerPartyNo.For
>-------
>twgMLP  1 Adoption of Proposal 8146
>Aris   PLA  2 Voting on Proposal 8146
>G. PLA  2 Voting on Proposal 8146
>Gaelan PLA  2 Voting on Proposal 8146
>Murphy PLA  2 Voting on Proposal 8146
>Trigon PLA  2 Voting on Proposal 8146
>twgMLP  1 Adoption of Proposal 8147
>twgMLP  1 Adoption of Proposal 8149
>twgMLP  1 Adoption of Proposal 8151
>
>
> TEXT OF ADOPTED PROPOSALS
> 
> This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify.
>
> //
> ID: 8146
> Title: Powerless Tangeloes
> Adoption index: 0.1
> Author: twg
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Enact a new rule "The Tangelo Rule" (Power=0.1) with the following
> text:
>
>   Tangelo. All rules begin with the word "Tangelo". This rule
>   automatically repeals itself 10 days after it is enacted.
>
> //
> ID: 8147
> Title: Tangeloes Taking Precedence
> Adoption index: 0.1
> Author: twg
> Co-authors:
>
>
> If a rule named "The Tangelo Rule" exists, amend it by replacing the
> text "All rules" with "Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, all
> rules".
>
> //
> ID: 8149
> Title: Bad Space Captaincy Legalisation
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: twg
> Co-authors: G.
>
>
> Amend the Rule entitled "Space Battles" by changing the words
> "the combatants SHALL" to "the combatants SHOULD".
>
> Amend the Rule entitled "Space Battles" by removing the following
> paragraph:
>
>   Failing to do so is the Class-2 Crime of Being a Bad Space Captain.
>
> //
> ID: 8151
> Title: With apologies to Michael Suber
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: twg
> Co-authors: G.
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: Fwd: Re: BUS: Weekly maintenance

2019-01-23 Thread Reuben Staley
In response, I ask for clauses in the ruleset which a judge might cite to
determine the result of a quanging.

--
Trigon

On Wed, Jan 23, 2019, 11:26 Kerim Aydin 
> I intend to file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3692 w/2 Support.  It is
> certainly relevant whether or not twg earned 5 coins.  It may be trivially
> true and therefore not relevant to the future interpretation of "quang"
> (because twg cited the meaning directly in the message), but the success of
> the transfer itself is not IRRELEVANT.
>
> On 1/19/2019 10:26 AM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 3692
> >
> > This case concerns a message sent by twg on the eighth of January. In
> this
> > message, twg defined two definitions to the word "quang" as an
> unofficial
> > term undefined by the rules. While it is true that shorthand is
> tolerated in
> > Agora and is somewhat of an integral part of our culture, what with
> > constantly using "TTttPF" to correct our mistakes, it is also true that
> such
> > terminology only gains its meaning from the acceptance of the Agoran
> > community at large and not from the rules themselves. Because of this, I
> > judge this case IRRELEVANT.
> >
> >  Forwarded Message 
> > Subject: Re: BUS: Weekly maintenance
> > Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 17:39:37 -0500
> > From: ATMunn 
> > Reply-To: agora-discussion@agoranomic.org
> > To: agora-busin...@agoranomic.org
> >
> > because why not, I CFJ on the following:
> >
> > In the message quoted below, twg successfully earned 5 coins for
> publishing
> > the Treasuror's most recent report.
> >
> > On 1/8/2019 11:38 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> >> Defining some shorthand:
> >> To "quang" an office is to earn 5 coins for publishing that office's
> most
> >> recent report.
> >> To "quang" a player is to act on the player's behalf to transfer all
> eir
> >> liquid assets to oneself.
> >>
> >> I quang Treasuror. I quang Referee. I quang Tailor. I quang
> Tenhigitsune.
> >>
> >> -twg
> >>
>


DIS: Massive Ruleset Website Overhaul

2019-01-18 Thread Reuben Staley
I just committed a new version of the gh-pages branch to the ruleset's 
github, and it includes a lot of new features. I would like to go over 
them because I think that they are useful for historical purposes.


Before I begin the explanations, I would like to note that I redid the 
front page to include links to all my new projects: 
https://agoranomic.com/ruleset/.


The first noticable addition is the changelogs page: 
https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/changelogs.


This is a list which I will update every time a new SLR is published. It 
will include every rule change put into effect since the last SLR.


The second is the ruleset format updates log page: 
https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/updates.


Every time I make a change in the way the ruleset is formatted, you will 
see a post here reflecting that.


Both links have one post each detailing changes made for the most recent 
ruleset.


These use only the most basic HTML elements, because I just wanted 
something I could finish quickly. If anyone wants to style it up, go 
ahead and make some commits.


--
Trigon


Re: DIS: oh dear

2019-01-18 Thread Reuben Staley
This is exactly what I said nearly a year ago when PAoaM passed. Minigames
rarely work the way they are supposed to on their first revision.

On Thu, Jan 17, 2019, 18:18 Timon Walshe-Grey  Good luck figuring how spaaace works, it appears to be completely broken
> in multiple different ways judging by the messages I've skimmed... :P
>
> -twg
>


DIS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

2019-01-14 Thread Reuben Staley
But the Assessor hasn't resolved the proposals that would create Clork and
Astronomor yet. This isn't a CoE because that section is not self ratifying
but it's still worth pointing out.

--
Trigon

On Mon, Jan 14, 2019, 14:33 Timon Walshe-Grey  Date of this weekly report: 2019-01-14
> Date of last weekly report: 2019-01-08
>
>
> ASSET INDEX
> 
> This section does not self-ratify.
>
>Asset class   Recordkeepor   Ownership
>---      -
>Coins Treasuror (twg)Agora, players, contracts
>Balloons  Clork (twg)Players
>Favours   Clork (twg)Players
>Blots Referee (twg)  Persons
>SpaceshipsAstronomor (twg)   Players
>EnergyAstronomor (twg)   Spaceships
>
>
> COIN BALANCES
> 
> This section self-ratifies.
>
>CoinsActive player
>--
>   66ATMunn
>   50Aris
>   66Corona
>   34CuddleBeam
>  716D. Margaux
>  508G.
>   40Gaelan
>   30Jacob Arduino
>   97Murphy
>   46omd
>   35Tarhalindur
>  257Trigon
>  471twg
>   39V.J. Rada
>
>CoinsZombie
>---
>   35Hālian
>   35L.
>   30nichdel
>   20pokes
>   33Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   25Telnaior
>0天火狐
>
>CoinsNon-player entity
>--
> 1135Agora
>   12Lost and Found Department
>
>
> RECENT HISTORY
> 
> This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify.
>
> Person Change  Date (UTC)Reason
> 
> D. Margaux +  5c.  2019-01-13 18:40  Reward (Registrar weekly)
> Murphy +  5c.  2019-01-13 18:14  Reward (ADoP weekly)
> twg+ 10c.  2019-01-08 16:38  Transfer from 天火狐
> 天火狐  - 10c.  2019-01-08 16:38  Transfer to twg
> twg+  5c.  2019-01-08 16:38  Reward (Tailor monthly)
> twg+  5c.  2019-01-08 16:38  Reward (Referee weekly)
> twg+  5c.  2019-01-08 16:38  Reward (Treasuror weekly)
> -- time of last report --
> Aris   +  5c.  2019-01-07 07:55  Reward (Promotor weekly)
> twg+ 10c.  2019-01-07 08:16  Transfer from Aris
> Aris   - 10c.  2019-01-07 08:16  Transfer to twg
> D. Margaux +  5c.  2019-01-07 01:06  Reward (Arbitor weekly)
> Murphy +  5c.  2018-01-06 22:30  Reward (ADoP weekly)
> twg+ 10c.  2019-01-06 19:31  Transfer from Aris
> Aris   - 10c.  2019-01-06 19:31  Transfer to twg
> D. Margaux +  5c.  2019-01-01 09:47  Reward (Arbitor weekly)
> V.J. Rada  + 10c.  2019-01-01 00:00  Payday
> twg+ 30c.  2019-01-01 00:00  Payday (Assessor etc.)
> Trigon + 15c.  2019-01-01 00:00  Payday (Rulekeepor)
> 天火狐  + 10c.  2019-01-01 00:00  Payday
> Telnaior   + 10c.  2019-01-01 00:00  Payday
> Tarhalindur+ 10c.  2019-01-01 00:00  Payday
> P.S.S. + 10c.  2019-01-01 00:00  Payday
> pokes  + 10c.  2019-01-01 00:00  Payday
> omd+ 15c.  2019-01-01 00:00  Payday (Distributor)
> nichdel+ 10c.  2019-01-01 00:00  Payday
> Murphy + 15c.  2019-01-01 00:00  Payday (ADoP)
> L. + 10c.  2019-01-01 00:00  Payday
> Jacob Arduino  + 10c.  2019-01-01 00:00  Payday
> Hālian + 10c.  2019-01-01 00:00  Payday
> Gaelan + 10c.  2019-01-01 00:00  Payday
> G. + 15c.  2019-01-01 00:00  Payday (Herald)
> D. Margaux + 20c.  2019-01-01 00:00  Payday (Arbitor, Speaker)
> CuddleBeam + 10c.  2019-01-01 00:00  Payday
> Corona + 10c.  2019-01-01 00:00  Payday
> Aris   + 15c.  2019-01-01 00:00  Payday (Promotor)
> ATMunn + 20c.  2019-01-01 00:00  Payday (P.M., Registrar)
> twg+  5c.  2018-12-29 13:37  Reward (Treasuror weekly)
> twg+  5c.  2018-12-29 13:37  Reward (Referee weekly)
> D. Margaux +  5c.  2018-12-25 22:02  Reward (CFJ 3691)
> D. Margaux +  5c.  2018-12-25 22:02  Reward (CFJ 3690)
> D. Margaux +  5c.  2018-12-24 02:05  Reward (Arbitor weekly)
> G. +  5c.  2018-12-10 00:34  Reward (Herald weekly)
> twg+  5c.  2018-12-10 00:21  Reward (Referee weekly)
> twg+  5c.  2018-12-10 00:21  Reward (Treasuror weekly)
> D. Margaux +  5c.  2018-12-10 00:08  Reward (Arbitor weekly)
> G. +  5c.  2018-12-08 19:19  Reward (Herald weekly)
> ATMunn +  

DIS: [Proto] a fix for proposals that depend on other proposals passing

2019-01-13 Thread Reuben Staley
Please submit revision ideas for this proto-proposal. I'm pretty sure it 
works this way, but I know there are other ways to do it. Also the 
wording is terrible.


Title: Dependent Proposals Draft
Author: Trigon
Coauthors:

Create a rule entitled "Dependent Proposals" with the text:

  If a proposal's text states that it is dependent on one or more
  proposals, it is considered a dependent proposal. The dependencies
  of a dependent proposal are any proposals it is dependent on.

  Dependent proposals must be resolved after all of their
  dependencies. Two proposals cannot have each other listed as
  dependencies.

  If one or more dependencies of a dependent proposal have the
  outcome REJECTED, then the dependent proposal has no effect.

--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset: Second Week of 2019

2019-01-13 Thread Reuben Staley
Indeed it is. I blame the gmail client. I was out of town at that point 
and didn't think I was going to be back in town before the week was up. 
I apologize for this misinformation; it was not intentional. I'm going 
to submit a revision in a few minutes.


On 1/11/19 7:32 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

On Fri, 11 Jan 2019, Reuben Staley wrote:


THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET


I think that's a bit shorter than you intended.

Greetings,
Ørjan.


--
Trigon


Re: DIS: proto-Tournament: Agora - the gathering

2019-01-05 Thread Reuben Staley
This thread is hilarious because I also created a Tournament a while 
back to act as an Arcadia On-the-Go.


I'll leave it up to those who have been active in this conversation to 
debug this, but consider me interested regardless.


On 1/5/19 3:01 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:


Hmm, that's a really good question.  It's not a Rules vs Tournament thing,
this is how Lost and Found Department is used in Rule 2576:
   If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost
   and Found Department.
and there's no further definition of what the Lost and Found Department
actually is (though a couple other sentences about how it works).

If we needed a definition, it would probably look something like:
   If an asset would otherwise lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost
   and Found Department, which is an entity that exists to own assets
   that would otherwise lack an owner.
But is that second clause really needed, or is it a circular statement
that's implicit in the first clause?

Unless we have a CFJ on the subject, I think we've assumed that those
implicit definitions work. Of course, the risk is that (by not putting 
in an

explicit definition) someone could sneak in a power-1 Rule that says "The
Lost and Found Department is defined to be the Player G." or something, but
that's not really a risk for tournament regs (because they can't generally
be changed after the tournament starts).

On 1/5/2019 7:39 AM, ATMunn wrote:

This is very interesting! I would definitely play this.

One question though (and maybe you've already answered this, I haven't
read the other replies) - doesn't the Discard Pile need to be defined?
Or does it not because this is a tournament? If this was made with
rules, I assume it would have to be. But clearly tournament definitions
don't have to be written like rules (as I have now learned).


--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Coauthors deserve something.

2018-12-15 Thread Reuben Staley
No. I don't really actually care about this proposal. I just thought of 
it on a whim and this week was slow.


On 12/15/18 2:56 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

The traditional objection raised against this is that it encourages schemes
where one lists someone as a coauthor in exchange for them doing the same,
or the like. Do you have any ideas about how to stop that from happening?

-Aris

On Sat, Dec 15, 2018 at 12:21 PM Reuben Staley 
wrote:


I submit the following proposal:

-
Title: Sharing the Wealth
Author: Trigon
Coauthors:
AI: 1

Amend rule 2496 "Rewards" by replacing the list element beginning "Being
the author" that reads:

* The following apply to adopted proposals:

  * Being the author: a number of coins equal to ((the total
number of valid ballots cast FOR the decision - the total
number of valid ballots cast AGAINST) times its adoption
index) rounded up.
 * Being listed as a coauthor: the same amount, divided by 2 and
   rounded up.
--
Trigon



--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Birthdays II

2018-12-15 Thread Reuben Staley

I retract the last one and submit this one:

 Title: Happy Birthday To You
 Author: Trigon
 Coauthors: ATMunn
 AI: 1

Enact a new rule entitled "Birthday Gifts", power=1, with the text:
  It is considered to be a player's Agoran Birthday when on the
  Agoran day e registered, if it is also a different Agoran year.
  Exactly once each time it is a player's Agoran Birthday, any other
  player CAN grant em 3 coins by announcement.

  Players SHOULD announce their Agoran Birthdays.

On 12/15/18 2:10 PM, ATMunn wrote:
The first sentence doesn't seem to make sense grammatically. "It is 
considered ... when on the Agoran day e registered, if ..."


On 12/15/2018 3:09 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:

I am not sure if this is better, but whatever.

I submit the following proposal.

Title: Happy Birthday To You
Author: Trigon
Coauthors:
AI: 1

Enact a new rule entitled "Birthday Gifts", power=1, with the text:

   It is considered to be a player's Agoran Birthday when on the
   Agoran day e registered, if it is also a different Agoran year.
   Exactly once each time it is a player's Agoran Birthday, any other
   player CAN grant em 3 coins by announcement.

   Players SHOULD announce their Agoran Birthdays.



--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset -- December 7

2018-12-08 Thread Reuben Staley
Maybe there is a relevant CFJ here? Unfortunately, I most definitely didn't
pay attention too the legal process back then.

--
Trigon

On Sat, Dec 8, 2018, 11:17 Ørjan Johansen  On Sat, 8 Dec 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately I believe this fails, because you have already claimed a
> > reward this week for publication of the SLR (even though the SLR you
> > claimed the reward _for_ was published last week).
>
> That sounds rather annoying - e basically cannot synchronize the rewards
> back without missing a report.
>
> * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. This reward can
>   only be claimed once per office per week for a weekly report and
>   once per office per month for a monthly report.
>
> Rephrasing the rule so that it clearly applies the "once per *" to the
> timing of the _report_ rather than the claim is a bit awkward.  The
> following is ambiguous between the current reading and the more flexible
> one:
>
> * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. This reward can
>   only be claimed for one weekly report per office per week
>   and for one monthly report per office per month.
>
> I think the following should work:
>
> * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. This reward can
>   only be claimed for one weekly report per office published in a
>   week and for one monthly report per office published in a month.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>
> [Narrowly avoid quoting entire ruleset]
>


Re: DIS: [Idea] Agora Weekly

2018-11-30 Thread Reuben Staley

Comments inline

On 11/30/18 5:55 PM, ATMunn wrote:
I had the idea recently to start up a sort of newspaper thing in which, 
every week, I would publish the "paper" every Sunday to 
agora-discussion. It would be formatted kind of like an actual 
newspaper, potentially even with multiple columns and stuff.


Having multiple columns is a cute idea, to be sure, but I think it would 
make it less viewable to anyone not using a fixed-width email client all 
the time.


The paper would include summaries of any major events (namely proposals, 
CFJs) which happened during the last week. There may even be snippets of 
reports in there, like votes or office holdings or whatever.


Ah, like the Agoran Weekly Journal (http://zenith.homelinux.net/awj.php)

From someone who decided to document thousands of proposals at once, I 
can say that the AWJ is very useful for historical document scouting. If 
you decide to do this, I'm sure some Agoran Historian would find it useful.


I could also include some little essays and the like, talking about 
Agoran culture and history, or maybe talk about various rules, as a help 
to newer players. And, of course, anybody else could submit articles if 
e wanted.


That would be useful indeed. You might get more authorship interest if 
you gave out some small amount of coins for submitting articles.


In a nutshell, this is the old Reportor or whatever it was called, but 
better, and not an office.


Yes, Reportor was what it was called. Rule 2446. We repealed it because 
no one was very devoted to the task. If you think you would be, I think 
you should go for it.


Feedback appreciated! I already started working on a Python script to 
help me with the formatting, so it's fairly likely that I will continue 
through and do this.


So, immediately I associated this with three historical mechanics: 
Firstly, the Reportor, which you mentioned; secondly, the AWJ, which I 
mentioned; and thirdly, the Phone Books, which used to be the 
Registrar's report back in 1994.


The Phone Books officially consisted of The White Pages, a list of 
players, active or otherwise and the Blue Pages, a list of Officers. 
However, the Registrar could add whatever the thought would be useful 
otherwise.


Under Ørjan's reign as Registrar, e added a section called The Yellow 
Pages, which consisted of paid advertising space. This brings me to my 
suggestion, and why I brought this up in the first place: you should 
sell ad space in the newspaper, as a fun minigame and also a way to make 
some quick money.


For more information on the Phone Books rule, look at Rule 676 in 
Ørjan's archive.


--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8133-8138

2018-11-25 Thread Reuben Staley
NttPF

--
Trigon

On Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 15:51 Gaelan Steele  Votes below. I’ve decided to start ENDORSing the author instead of voting
> FOR, to allow proposals to be easily killed if a bug is found.
>
> > On Nov 25, 2018, at 2:35 PM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> > quorum is 6, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
> > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
> > conditional votes).
> >
> > IDAuthor(s)   AITitle
> >
> ---
> > 8133  Trigon  1.0   Proposals aren't worth *that* much
>
> ENDORSE Trigon
>
> > 8134  G.  2.0   The judge switch
>
> ENDORSE G
>
> > 8135  twg, D Margaux  2.0   Blot Decay (Reprise)
>
> AGAINST, because I’m not a fan of the gamestate changing “on its own.”
> Personally, I’d make it so that the Ref CAN and SHALL do it weekly, and
> people can do it themselves as well if the Ref fails to. Sorry, probably
> should have brought this up earlier.
>
> > 8136  V.J. Rada   3.0   I hate myself
>
> ENDORSE V.J. Rada. MEMES SUBMISSION: {Create the power-3 rule
> “micro-dictatorship” with text “Gaelan has power 3.”}
>
> > 8137  Aris, twg, Trigon   3.0   Uncorrecting Rewards
>
> PRESENT, because I haven’t bothered to keep track of this mess.
>
> > 8138  twg 2.5   Access to contracts’ assets
>
> ENDORSE two
>
> >
> > The proposal pool is currently empty.
> >
> > The full text of the aforementioned proposal(s) is included below.
> >
> > //
> > ID: 8133
> > Title: Proposals aren't worth *that* much
> > Adoption index: 1.0
> > Author: Trigon
> > Co-authors:
> >
> >
> > Amend rule 2496 by replacing the text "the total strength of all valid
> > ballots", wherever it appears, to "the number of valid ballots".
> >
> > //
> > ID: 8134
> > Title: The judge switch
> > Adoption index: 2.0
> > Author: G.
> > Co-authors:
> >
> >
> > Amend R991 (Calls for Judgement) by replacing the paragraph beginning
> > "When a CFJ has no judge assigned" with the following text:
> >
> >  Judge is an untracked CFJ switch with possible values of any
> >  person or "unassigned" (default).  To "assign" a CFJ to a person
> >  is to flip that CFJ's judge to that person.  To "remove" or
> >  "recuse" a person from a being the judge of a CFJ is to flip that
> >  CFJ's judge from that person to unassigned.
> >
> >  When a CFJ's judge is unassigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any
> >  eligible player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so
> >  in a timely fashion. The players eligible to be assigned as judge
> >  are all active players except the initiator and the person barred
> >  (if any). The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all
> >  interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.
> >  If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to judge
> >  that CFJ CAN assign it to emself Without 3 Objections.
> >
> >
> > [I think all instances of judge assignment/removal work with the
> > above definitions, without further modification].
> >
> > For every CFJ that was assigned to a judge immediately before this
> > proposal took effect, that CFJ's judge switch is flipped to that
> > judge.
> >
> > [Note:  all old cases - however old - are still considered to have
> > their last-assigned judge (judges are not "removed" when a case is
> > closed).  This is true both before and after this proposal].
> >
> > //
> > ID: 8135
> > Title: Blot Decay (Reprise)
> > Adoption index: 2.0
> > Author: twg
> > Co-authors: D Margaux
> >
> >
> > Amend Rule 2555 to replace:
> >
> >  “If a player has neither gained blots nor expunged any blots from emself
> >  in the current Agoran week, e CAN expunge 1 blot from emself by
> >  announcement.”
> >
> > With:
> >
> >  “At the end of each Agoran week, 1 blot is automatically expunged from
> each
> >  impure player who that week had not gained any blots.”
> >
> > //
> > ID: 8136
> > Title: I hate myself
> > Adoption index: 3.0
> > Author: V.J. Rada
> > Co-authors:
> >
> >
> > Rules or Instruments to the contrary notwithstanding, this proposal
> > shall act as though its text is the text submitted to a public forum and
> > clearly marked "Memes submission" by the last person to vote FOR it.
> >
> > //
> > ID: 8137
> > Title: Uncorrecting Rewards
> > Adoption index: 3.0
> > Author: Aris
> > Co-authors: twg, Trigon
> >
> 

DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Weekly Report

2018-11-25 Thread Reuben Staley
CoE: this message is missing:

https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33094.html

--
Trigon

On Sun, Nov 25, 2018, 13:52 Kerim Aydin 
>
> Herald’s Weekly report
>
> Date of Last Report: 16 Nov 2018
> Date of This Report: 25 Nov 2018
>
> KarmaEntity (np=not player)
> -
> +5   twg   <= SHOGUN
> -ABOVE +4 STAND THE SAMURAI
> +2   D. Margaux
> +2   Corona
> +1   Trigon
> +1   ATMunn
> +1   Aris
> +1   Tenhigitsune[1] (zombie)
> -1   Kenyon (np)
> -1   Telnaior (zombie)
> -1   Gaelan
> -2   G.
> -2   Ouri (np)
> -2   CuddleBeam
> -2   Murphy
> -2   V.J. Rada
> -BELOW -4 LIE THE GAMMAS
> <= HONOURLESS WORM
> -
>
> All other entities have 0 Karma (0's included on the list
> indicate an honour change since the last report).
> Notations of player/not-player and zombie status above are
> not complete switch reports, so are not self-ratifying.
> [1] aka 天火狐
>
> Notices of Honour:
>
> D. Margaux (19 Nov 2018)
> +1 twg (spotting errors in Arbitor’s weekly)
> -1 D. Margaux (being careless with CFJ numbers)
>
> [New Week 19-Nov]
>
> Telnaior via Aris (16 Nov 2018)
> -1 twg (rebalancing)
> +1 Gaelan (rebalancing)
>
> Aris (16 Nov 2018)
> -1 twg (rebalancing)
> +1 V.J. Rada (rebalancing)
>
> G. (16 Nov 2018)
> -1 twg (rebalancing)
> +1 Murphy (rebalancing)
>
> [Time of Last Report]
> [New Week 12-Nov]
>
> twg (11 Nov 2018)
> -1 G. (not having properly judged CFJ 3681 yet)
> +1 Sky Fox (being an obedient zombie)
>
> [New Week 05-Nov]
>
> ATMunn (04 Nov 2018)
> -1 twg (rebalancing)
> +1 VJ Rada (rebalancing)
>
> Trigon (01 Nov 2018)
> -1 G. for acting recklessly and not considering eir actions' effects
> +1 Gaelan because why is e at -3 when e hasn't even been here for months?
>
> G.  (31 Oct 2018)
> +1 twg (for reminding us about violet ribbons)
> -1 Trigon (for only awarding a violet ribbon to emself)
>
> [New Week 29-Oct]
>
> [New Week 22-Oct]
>
> D. Margaux (20 Oct 2018)
> twg +1 (Doomsday Clock was a very clever way to blow up the land minigame)
> Murphy -1 (impeding the due course of justice by leaving Arbitor stuff
> undone)
>
> [New Week 15-Oct]
>
> [New Week 08-Oct]
>
> D. Margaux (07 Oct 2018)
> +1 Aris for giving careful consideration to arguments
> -1 D Margaux for persisting in advocating perhaps a tenuous interpretation
> of the rules
>
> Gaelan via Master G. INVALID, NOT FIRST IN WEEK
> -1 twg   (for making someone a zombie who was clearly returning)
> +1 ATMunn (welcome back!
>
> twg (03 Oct 2018)
> +1 D. Margaux (managing to sneak this one past me)
> -1 Kenyon (arbitrarily selected zombie)
>
> Gaelan via Master G. (01 Oct 2018)
> +1 CuddleBeam (for taking the burden G.'s RL bank balance).
> -1 Ouri (more karma decay for zombies)
>
> D. Margaux (02 Oct 2018)
> +1 CuddleBeam for an ingenious pledge
> -1 D Margaux because eir karma is too high
>
> G. (01 Oct 2018)
> +1 twg (for this great addition to the assessor's results)
> -1 Ouri (zombies close to deregistration mean nonzero karma
>   balance in Agora eventually).
>
> [New Week]
>
> twg (30 Sep 2018)
> +1 D. Margaux (fulfilling agreed obligation)
> -1 Telnaior (arbitrarily selected zombie)
>
> Aris (24 Sep 2018)
> -1 G. (unclear communication)
> +1 omd (serving as our Distributor)
>
> Gaelan, via master G. (24 Sep 2018)
> -1 Aris (because Gaelan may or may not feel like it).
> +1 V.J. (or VJ) Rada, because eir name is confusing enough to be
>   listed in two different ways within the Registrar's Report, and
>   I like that.
>
> G. (24 Sep 2018)
> -1 Aris (because really, I feel like it).
> +1 CuddleBeam (because I'm tired of seeing that name at the bottom).
>
> [New Week]
>
> Trigon (23 Sep 2018)
> -1 to D. Margaux for being a manipulator
> +1 to D Margaux for helping debug zombie rules
>
> Aris (23 Sep 2018)
> -1 G. (complaining about proposals being readded while resisting
> any attempt to lower quorum or otherwise resolve the problem of
> them failing quorum)
> +1 D Margaux (helping fix problems by debugging the proposals)
>
> Telnaior, via master Aris (23 Sep 2018)
> -1 D Margaux (manipulating zombies to gain honor)
> +1 nichdel (being mainipulated)
>
> D. Margaux (23 Sep 2018)
> -1 nichdel (having the misfortune of being D. Margaux’s zombie)
> +1 D Margaux (for revealing what might be yet another zombie exploit)
>
> G. (23 Sep 2018)
> -1 Aris (for persisting with group of low-quorum proposals).
> +1 D. Margaux (for finding bugs after several votings).
>
> [New Week]
>
> D. Margaux (15 Sep 2018)
> -1 D. Margaux (misnaming G.)
> +1 G. (being gracious about that misnaming)
>
> [New Week]
>
> G. (9 Sep 2018)
> -1 Trigon (being generally MIA on land)
> +1 D. Margaux (keeping up officer report standards via SJ)
>
> [New Week]
>
> [New Week]
>
> G. 29 Aug 2018
> -1 G (not reading proposals carefully)
> +1 D. Margaux (reading carefully and researching back beyond eir tenure)
>
> twg 26 Aug 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8129, 8131, 8127, 8123-8126, 8128, 8130 and 8132

2018-11-24 Thread Reuben Staley

In the most recent ruleset, I only replaced the "earn", not the "earns".

Someone can CoE it, but in a couple of weeks, Aris' proposal will pass 
and converge the gamestate.


On 11/24/18 11:05 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

On Fri, 23 Nov 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:

Sorry, my mind isn’t getting the semantics of your comment. Could you 
break

down what you mean?


The original rule text contains both the words "earn" and "earns", and 
the latter may be considered a form of the former (the lemma form).


Then the question is, did "earns" get replaced as well?  If (1) no, then 
it is still in the rule (and the provision was buggy).  If yes, did it 
(2) get substituted by the same text, or (3) by a version with a 
suitable -s added for grammatical correctness?  Does this whole thing 
(4) make the triggered provision ambiguous and thus the amendment fails 
completely?


And then for each option above, what happens with your uncorrection 
proposal?  (1) It's fine since "earns" was never replaced.  (2) It will 
turn what used to be "earns" into "earn".  (3) It will leave what used 
to be "earns" as "creates in eir possession".  (4) It's fine but redundant.


Greetings,
Ørjan.


-Aris

On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 11:40 PM Ørjan Johansen  
wrote:



I'm wondering what happens to the word "earns" throughout these changes.
Did it get replaced by the original provision, and if so, does it get
uncorrected back correctly?

Greetings,
Ørjan.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:

Wait, you want the literal opposite of this right? You want to 
switch it

back to “earn”. The problem is that the provision did trigger, and it
shouldn't have. I submit the following proposal:

//
Title: Uncorrecting Rewards
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: twg, Trigon


[
 This is A.I. 3.0 because I don't know what Rule 2496's power is.
 Proposal 8127 "reenacted" it, meaning it acquires the power it had
 when it was originally repealed, but I wasn't around when that
 happened and it's not in the SLR yet.
]

Amend rule 2496 by replacing all instances of the text "create in eir
possession" with the word
"earn".

//

-Aris

On Fri, Nov 23, 2018 at 1:43 PM Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:


You are, of course, correct.

I submit this proposal:

//
ID: 8127
Title: Rephrasing Rewards
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: twg
Co-authors: Trigon


[
  This is A.I. 3.0 because I don't know what Rule 2496's power is.
  Proposal 8127 "reenacted" it, meaning it acquires the power it had
  when it was originally repealed, but I wasn't around when that
  happened and it's not in the SLR yet.
]

Amend rule 2496 by replacing all instances of the word "earn" with
"create in eir possession".

//

Notice of Honour:
-1 twg (allowing eir own moneymaking activities to interfere with the

rest

of the game)
+1 Trigon (suffering eir proposal being mangled by aforementioned
activities)

(I'm virtually certain my "rewards" _do_ work, but I'm astonished

nobody's

CFJed them on principle yet...)

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, November 20, 2018 3:19 AM, Ørjan Johansen <

oer...@nvg.ntnu.no>

wrote:


On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

I resolve the Agoran Decisions to adopt each of Proposals 8129, 
8131,

8127, 8123-8126, 8128, 8130 and 8132, in that order, as follows.


Fiendish. (Assuming this works. People might want to CFJ your double
earnings.) However, I think resolving 8127 before 8126 has another
unfortunate side effect, it causes the last paragraph of 8127 to

trigger:



If a proposal by Trigon has not passed in the same distribution as

this

proposal entitled "High-level asset verbs", amend rule 2496 by

replacing

all instances of the word "earn" with "create in eir possession".


Greetings,
Ørjan.












--
Trigon


Re: DIS: [Meta] Linguistic Experimentation

2018-11-23 Thread Reuben Staley
I would like to congratulate you on (1) being, surprisingly, the second 
person to berate me due to my lack of vowel transliteration knowledge, 
and (2) demonstrating how much of a snerd you yourself are in the process.


On 11/23/18 11:17 PM, Jakob Burgos wrote:

The pronunciations should probably be the following:

* American English /snɝːd/
* Received Pronunciation /snɜːd/

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 8:04 PM Reuben Staley 
wrote:


Instead, how about we adopt the following term:

snerd

* American English /snɚd/
* British English /snəd/

(noun) 1. short for "super nerd"; i.e. "People who know Lojban are snerds"

--
Trigon

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018, 17:41 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote:


I propose to conduct an experiment into the nature of the Agoran
dialect, and specifically how easy it is to change it. I'm planning to
start occasionally sprinkling some Lojban indicators [1] into my
emails. They represent expressions like "yay!", ";)", or "IMO", but
Lojban has many more of them than English. I will gloss most of them,
and guarantee that I will gloss anything that substantially changes
the meaning of a sentence. This isn't an attempt to do an experiment
from the perspective of rules or formal actions (I don't expect to do
anything that causes a CFJ). Instead, I'm just going to start using
some useful expressions and see if any of them become part of standard
Agoran. Of course, I would encourage other interested parties to try
doing the same thing. Does anyone have any objections to this
proposal?

[1]


https://lojban.org/publications/cll/cll_v1.1_xhtml-chapter-chunks/chapter-attitudinals.html


-Aris





--
Trigon


Re: DIS: [Meta] Linguistic Experimentation

2018-11-22 Thread Reuben Staley
Instead, how about we adopt the following term:

snerd

* American English /snɚd/
* British English /snəd/

(noun) 1. short for "super nerd"; i.e. "People who know Lojban are snerds"

--
Trigon

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018, 17:41 Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com wrote:

> I propose to conduct an experiment into the nature of the Agoran
> dialect, and specifically how easy it is to change it. I'm planning to
> start occasionally sprinkling some Lojban indicators [1] into my
> emails. They represent expressions like "yay!", ";)", or "IMO", but
> Lojban has many more of them than English. I will gloss most of them,
> and guarantee that I will gloss anything that substantially changes
> the meaning of a sentence. This isn't an attempt to do an experiment
> from the perspective of rules or formal actions (I don't expect to do
> anything that causes a CFJ). Instead, I'm just going to start using
> some useful expressions and see if any of them become part of standard
> Agoran. Of course, I would encourage other interested parties to try
> doing the same thing. Does anyone have any objections to this
> proposal?
>
> [1]
> https://lojban.org/publications/cll/cll_v1.1_xhtml-chapter-chunks/chapter-attitudinals.html
>
> -Aris
>


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8112-8122

2018-11-15 Thread Reuben Staley
I submitted it at AI-1.5.

--
Trigon

On Thu, Nov 15, 2018, 09:04 Timon Walshe-Grey  Which is carried forward from the Promotor's report, which also lists its
> AI as 1.5 and 3 in different places :P
>
> Can you remember what you originally submitted as its AI, Trigon? (It
> doesn't affect whether or not it passed - only how many coins you earned
> for it.)
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Thursday, November 15, 2018 2:17 AM, Ørjan Johansen 
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 14 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> >
> > > Hold up. That's INEFFECTIVE since the rule it modifies is power 1.5.
> The AI
> > > must have been misreported.
> >
> > Actually Proposal 8116 is probably either right or overpowered - the
> > Assessor's Report says its AI is 1.5 and 3 in different places.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Ørjan.
> >
> > > On 11/14/2018 04:35 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > >
> > > > I award myself an Orange ribbon.
> > > > On 11/11/2018 06:13 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > RIBBONS EARNED IN THIS RESOLUTION
> > > > >
> > > > > ==
> > > > >
> > > > > This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify.
> > > > > PlayerRibbonProposal(s)
> > > > > -------
> > > > > G.Orange8112
> > > > > TrigonOrange8116
> > > > > D. MargauxOrange8119
> > > > > D. MargauxRed   8120
> > > > > G.Red   8121
> > > > > G.Orange8121
> > > > > MurphyRed   8122
> > >
> > > --
> > > Trigon
>
>
>


DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8112-8122

2018-11-14 Thread Reuben Staley
Hold up. That's INEFFECTIVE since the rule it modifies is power 1.5. The 
AI must have been misreported.


On 11/14/2018 04:35 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:

I award myself an Orange ribbon.

On 11/11/2018 06:13 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

RIBBONS EARNED IN THIS RESOLUTION

This section is purely informational and does not self-ratify.

    Player    Ribbon    Proposal(s)
    --    --    ---
    G.    Orange    8112
    Trigon    Orange    8116
    D. Margaux    Orange    8119
    D. Margaux    Red   8120
    G.    Red   8121
    G.    Orange    8121
    Murphy    Red   8122




--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Memes

2018-11-13 Thread Reuben Staley
You could probably enact a rule with a similar text to the quoted 
proposal that amends itself to contain the text of the most current 
Memes submission. That would probably work closer to the way you intended.


On 11/13/2018 08:08 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Rebecca wrote:


I create the following proposal
Title: I hate myself
AI: 3
Text: Rules or Instruments to the contrary notwithstanding, this proposal
shall act as though its text is the text submitted to a public forum and
clearly marked "Memes submission" by the last person to vote FOR it.


I don't think Proposals can take precedence over Rules, regardless of AI.

However, I am not sure that this actually _does_ conflict with any 
Rules, if the Memes submission is written clearly enough. (The second 
last paragraph of Rule 105 seems relevant.)


(Also I don't follow the memesphere so I might be being whooshed about 
something.)


Greetings,
Ørjan.


--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8123-8132

2018-11-11 Thread Reuben Staley

Ah, I see. Never mind, then.

On 11/11/2018 09:17 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

No, it's where you said "Amend Rule 2555 'Blots' by replacing the
paragraph beginning 'To Lefy a Fine' with:". So it doesn't appear in
the amended text. Furthermore, Rule 105 says that an inconsequential
misquotation in an amendment is ignored, so the proposal still works.

-Aris
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 8:09 PM Reuben Staley  wrote:


On 11/11/2018 08:52 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

8126  Trigon  3.0   High-level asset verbs

FOR. Trigon, this is one of the most beautiful changes I've seen since
I became a player. I'm not sure why I find it so elegant, but I do.
There's a typo ("lefy" instead of "levy"), but it's Rule 105
inconsequential.


If this proposal passes, I'll publish an intent to clean it.

--
Trigon


--
Trigon


DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8123-8132

2018-11-11 Thread Reuben Staley

On 11/11/2018 08:52 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

8126  Trigon  3.0   High-level asset verbs

FOR. Trigon, this is one of the most beautiful changes I've seen since
I became a player. I'm not sure why I find it so elegant, but I do.
There's a typo ("lefy" instead of "levy"), but it's Rule 105
inconsequential.


If this proposal passes, I'll publish an intent to clean it.

--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Interest Poll: Rulekeepor's Notes

2018-11-11 Thread Reuben Staley
Indeed; if I published them that would probably be the bulk of it, along 
with the IDs of new rules.


On 11/11/2018 08:32 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

On Sun, 11 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:


Would anyone like me to start publishing Rulekeepor's notes? It's an old
tradition but I'm not going to do it if people don't think it would be 
useful.


If you *do* want me to publish them, tell me what information you 
would like me to include.


As I recall, the most interesting information in those were when the 
Rulekeepor pointed out that a Proposal had not worked as intended.


Greetings,
Ørjan.


--
Trigon


DIS: Interest Poll: Rulekeepor's Notes

2018-11-11 Thread Reuben Staley

Would anyone like me to start publishing Rulekeepor's notes? It's an old
tradition but I'm not going to do it if people don't think it would be 
useful.


If you *do* want me to publish them, tell me what information you would 
like me to include.


Here are a few examples from various Rulekeepors to help you all decide:

ALEXIS, LATE 2017:

https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08651.html
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08688.html
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08706.html

G., MID 2015:

https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07539.html
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07613.html
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07656.html

OMD, LATE 2014:

https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07427.html
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07456.html
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07458.html

WOGGLE, MID 2013:

https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg06926.html
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07017.html
https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg07084.html

--
Trigon


DIS: Re: BUS: Elections

2018-11-11 Thread Reuben Staley
I become a candidate for Rulekeepor.

On Sun, Nov 11, 2018, 11:34 Timon Walshe-Grey  I become a candidate for Referee.
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Sunday, November 11, 2018 6:15 PM, Edward Murphy 
> wrote:
>
> > I initiate an Agoran decision to select the winner of the Prime Minister
> > election.
> >
> > -   Vote Collector is ADoP
> > -   Valid options are ATMunn, D. Margaux, G., Murphy
> > -   Voting method is instant runoff
> >
> > In the above election, I vote for Me.
> >
> > I initiate elections for:
> >
> > -   Arbitor (held interim by D. Margaux since Oct 20)
> > -   Referee (held interim by twg since Nov 1)
> > -   Registrar (held interim by G. since Nov 5)
> > -   Rulekeepor (held interim by Trigon since Oct 14)
>
>
>


Re: DIS: [Promotor] Index Proposalorum

2018-11-11 Thread Reuben Staley
Just so you know, Claims of Error only work on actual reports. This is not
a report, just a quick question about the accuracy of the list. You might
have already known that, but I just wanted to make sure.

On Sun, Nov 11, 2018, 11:13 Gaelan Steele  CoE: there was a typo fix proposal in one of my recent vote emails. I’ll
> try and find it in few.
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Nov 11, 2018, at 12:55 AM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Here's my draft list of proposals. If I'm missing anything, please let
> > me know. Also, all ID numbers are provisional. Thank you!
> >
> > IDAuthor(s)   AITitle
> >
> ---
> > 8123  Gaelan  3.0   Independence
> > 8124  Trigon  1.0   Only proposals should be distributed
> > 8125  Trigon  3.0   Time periods are confusing
> > 8126  Trigon  3.0   High-level asset verbs
> > 8127  Trigon  2.0   Reinstituting Rewards
> > 8128  Trigon  1.0   Happy Birthday To You
> > 8129  twg 2.0   [1]
> >
> > [1] With not very much responsibility comes fewer shinies
> >
> > -Aris
>
>


Re: DIS: FLR (Attn. H. Rulekeepor)

2018-11-08 Thread Reuben Staley
On http://agoranomic.org/ruleset, both the SLR and FLR are equivalent to 
the most recently published version of their respective report. The FLR 
is indeed behind when compared to the SLR, but only because of its 
nature as a monthly report. The FLR on the website is up-to-date with 
the FLR published on October 14. If it makes you feel any better, I'll 
most likely publish an FLR this week.


On 11/08/2018 07:13 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

H. Rulekeepor, would you consider doing a post of the FLR on the website
very time you update the FLR? That way, the FLR won’t be so out of date. I
was just trying to explain the game to some potential players, and this
problem came up. Thank you!

-Aris



--
Trigon


DIS: Re: BUS: Contract Hash

2018-11-05 Thread Reuben Staley
1. I believe this contains no actions, despite the fact that you meant the
contents of this message to be a hash of a contract.
2. There's not really a reason to submit a contract as a hash unless you
sent it privately to someone else and intend to reveal it later, in which
case you would want to say who it is you sent it to.
3. You probably should have included something like "I consent to the
hashed document with the intent that it become a contract"

On Mon, Nov 5, 2018, 12:55 Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> 073e2cd64e36b95a054420a988ea6c37800d09cc
>
> Gaelan
>


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: 3679-80 judgements

2018-11-03 Thread Reuben Staley
You clearly understand my point, though. Since V.J. is referring to a 
pledge that doesn't exist, saying "the pledge above is true" just 
doesn't really mean anything. I wouldn't call them "lies", or "intending 
to mislead" because I don't see any of that in there.


If you want me to change the /terminology/, sure, I will do that, but 
I'm afraid I am rather hidebound in my decision.


On 11/3/2018 11:25 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

On Sat, 3 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:


== Judgement of CFJ 3679 ==

Since, per CFJ 3680, the pledge mentioned does not exist, the statement
affirming the pledge's truthfulness is also INEFFECTIVE. INEFFECTIVE
statements are not lies.


I strongly dislike this argument.  INEFFECTIVE applies to actions, not 
statements.  And surely a statement that knowingly presumes something to 
exist, implies that it does.  (BTW, have you stopped beating your wife?)


Greetings,
Ørjan.



--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3679 and 3680 - judgements

2018-11-03 Thread Reuben Staley

How about "a player CAN object to an intent by announcement"

Then, we could define Without N Objections as "if less than N players 
have objected"


Likewise, "a player CAN support an intent by announcement"

So that With N Support could be defined as "if N or more people have 
supported"


Defining objecting and supporting as *actions* instead of a *state* 
clarifies this quite a bit.


On 11/03/2018 12:41 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote:

I think we’ve had a lot of trouble with determining exactly how objecting and 
supporting work, because unlike many parts of the rules, they are based on some 
announcement having happened in the past instead of the actual state in the 
present. By splitting the act of having objected and the state of being an 
objector, we prevent other things from having to deal with that complexity, and 
we don’t have to deal with situations like that CFJ we just got where it’s not 
clear whether the rule cares about having objected or actually making a valid 
objection—you just have to check the opinion switch.

That said, I do think the switch is a bit awkward—is there a good way to keep 
the “objecting is an announcement that changes state” structure without a 
switch?

Gaelan


On Nov 2, 2018, at 9:37 PM, Aris Merchant  
wrote:

I agree. The fact that a feature exists is not per se a reason to use
it. Gaelan, what advantages do you see in your revised implementation?

-Aris
On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 7:31 PM Reuben Staley  wrote:


Switches? Please no. Switches are multi-purpose, but they are not
all-purpose. I would not vote FOR this proposal. The way we currently
define it already works well enough.

On 11/02/2018 06:07 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:

Huh. A proto:

DEPENDENT ACTIONS

A dependent action is an action that a rule states can be performed by one of 
the following methods:
- Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer. ("Without Objection" is 
shorthand for this method with N = 1.) [removed the cap of 8—there’s no reason for it]
- With N Support, where N is a positive integer. ("With Support" is shorthand 
for this method with N = 1.)
- With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 with a minimum of 1. 
("With Consent" is shorthand for this method with N = 1.)
- With Notice.
- With T Notice, where T is a time period.

A person (the initiator) CAN, by announcement, create an intent (syn. “intend”) 
to perform a dependent action, unambiguously specifying the action and method 
(including the value of N or T, if applicable). The announcement SHALL be made 
conspicuously and without obfuscation; otherwise, it is INEFFECTIVE. 
[Currently, it’s just IMPOSSIBLE to hide an intent. I make it ILLEGAL too—not 
sure it should be.]

If an intent is more than fourteen days old, it ceases to exist.

OPINIONS ON DEPENDENT ACTIONS (new rule. Power?)

Opinion is an untracked [active?] player-intent pair switch, with possible 
values Neutral (default), Supporting, and Objecting. A player CAN flip any of 
eir opinion switches to any value by announcement, except that they CANNOT flip 
it to Supporting or Objecting if it has previously held that value.

For a player to support an intent is for em to flip eir opinion switch for that 
intent to Supporting. A player whose opinion switch for an intent has a value 
of Supporting is said to be a supporter of that intent.
For a player to object to an intent is for em to flip eir opinion switch for 
that intent to Objecting. A player whose opinion switch for an intent has a 
value of Objecting is said to be an objector to that intent.
For a player to withdraw support or objection is for em to flip eir opinion 
switch for that intent to Neutral.

RESOLVING DEPENDENT ACTIONS (retitle 2124, Agoran Satisfaction)

A player (the performer) CAN, by announcement, perform a dependent action for 
which an intent exists, subject to the following conditions:
- If the method is Without N Objections, With N Agoran Consent, or With Notice, 
the intent is at least four days old.
- If the method is With T Notice, the intent is at least T old.
- At least one of the following is true:
   - The performer is the initiator.
   - The initiator was authorized to perform the action due to holding a 
rule-defined position now held by the performer.
   - The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the action depends on 
support, the performer is a supporter of the intent, and the rule authorizing 
the performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it.
- Agora is Satisfied with the intent, as defined below.
- If a set of conditions for the performance of the action was given in the 
announcement of intent to perform the action, all those conditions are met.

Doing so called “resolving” the intent. When an intent is resolved, it ceases 
to exist.

The conditions for Agora to be Satisfied with an intent depend on the method of 
the dependent action:
- Without N 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Quick proposals

2018-11-02 Thread Reuben Staley
Invariably, I have made a mistake in the following proposal. So I'm 
asking for contributions before submitting it.


-
Title: Reinstituting Rewards
AI: 1
Author: Trigon
Coauthors:

[ COMMENT: For those of you who know that I really liked the rewards
  system from last year, this shouldn't come as a surprise. Now that
  there's no minigame, I think we should have a constant source for
  earning coins, so how about we tie it to general participation in the
  game? ]

Repeal Rule 2583 "Earning Coins"

Reenact Rule 2496 "Rewards" and replace its text with:
  A player CAN earn the set of assets associated with a reward
  condition exactly once in a timely fashion each time e fulfills it
  by stating how many assets e earns as a result of this action.

  Below is a list of reward conditions and their associated assets.

  * Being the author of an adopted proposal: a number of coins equal
to ((the total strength of all valid ballots cast FOR the
decision - the total strength of all valid ballots cast AGAINST)
times the adoption index of the result) rounded up.

  * Judging a CFJ that e was assigned to: 5 coins.

  * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. This reward can
only be claimed once per office per week for a weekly report and
once per office per month for a monthly report.

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

If a proposal by Trigon has not passed in the same distribution as this
proposal entitled "High-level asset verbs", amend rule 2496 by replacing
all instances of the word "earn" with "create in eir possession".

On 11/01/2018 07:50 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:

TTttPF

On 11/01/2018 07:49 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:
Once again, Ørjan is correct. I retract my most recently submitted 
proposal and submit the following one:


-
Title: High-level asset verbs
AI: 3
Author: Trigon
Coauthors:

[ COMMENT: This terminology is ripped from the coins rule and applies to
   all assets. I really like this one. ]

Amend Rule 2577 "Asset Actions" by replacing the second paragraph with
the following three paragraphs:
   For an entity to earn an asset is for that asset to be created in
   that entity's possession. To grant an entity an asset is to create
   it in eir possession.

   For an entity to lose an asset is for that asset to be destroyed
   from that entity's possession. To revoke an asset from an entity
   is to destroy it from that entity's possession.

   For entity A to take an asset from entity B is to transfer it from
   entity B to entity A.

Amend Rule 2559 "Paydays" by replacing its text with:
   Whenever a Payday occurs, the following events happen in order:

   1. Each player first earns 10 coins; then

   2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or
  more days in the previous month and no unforgivable fines were
  levied on em for eir conduct in that office during that time,
  that player earns 5 coins.

   The occurrence of Paydays is secured.  At the beginning of each
   month, a Payday occurs.

Amend Rule 2499 "Welcome Packages" by replacing its text with:
   If a player has not received a Welcome Package since e most
   recently registered, any player CAN cause em to receive one by
   announcement.

   When a player receives a Welcome Package, e earns 10 coins.

Amend Rule 2555 "Blots" by replacing the paragraph beginning "To Lefy a
Fine" with:
   To Levy a Fine of N on a person, where N is a positive integer, is
   to grant em N blots. To expunge a blot is to destroy it.

Amend Rule 2583 "Earning Coins" by deleting the paragraph beginning "For
a player to".

On 11/01/2018 07:25 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:


Is this really what you want?

Gaelan

On Nov 1, 2018, at 3:37 PM, Reuben Staley  
wrote:


2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or
    more days in the previous month and no unforgivable fines were
    levied on em for eir conduct in that office during that time,
    each player earns 5 coins


Should probably be "that player earns".  Also I'd like a period at 
the end.


Greetings,
Ørjan.






--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJs 3679 and 3680 - judgements

2018-11-02 Thread Reuben Staley
Switches? Please no. Switches are multi-purpose, but they are not 
all-purpose. I would not vote FOR this proposal. The way we currently 
define it already works well enough.


On 11/02/2018 06:07 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote:

Huh. A proto:

DEPENDENT ACTIONS

A dependent action is an action that a rule states can be performed by one of 
the following methods:
- Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer. ("Without Objection" is 
shorthand for this method with N = 1.) [removed the cap of 8—there’s no reason for it]
- With N Support, where N is a positive integer. ("With Support" is shorthand 
for this method with N = 1.)
- With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 with a minimum of 1. 
("With Consent" is shorthand for this method with N = 1.)
- With Notice.
- With T Notice, where T is a time period.

A person (the initiator) CAN, by announcement, create an intent (syn. “intend”) 
to perform a dependent action, unambiguously specifying the action and method 
(including the value of N or T, if applicable). The announcement SHALL be made 
conspicuously and without obfuscation; otherwise, it is INEFFECTIVE. 
[Currently, it’s just IMPOSSIBLE to hide an intent. I make it ILLEGAL too—not 
sure it should be.]

If an intent is more than fourteen days old, it ceases to exist.

OPINIONS ON DEPENDENT ACTIONS (new rule. Power?)

Opinion is an untracked [active?] player-intent pair switch, with possible 
values Neutral (default), Supporting, and Objecting. A player CAN flip any of 
eir opinion switches to any value by announcement, except that they CANNOT flip 
it to Supporting or Objecting if it has previously held that value.

For a player to support an intent is for em to flip eir opinion switch for that 
intent to Supporting. A player whose opinion switch for an intent has a value 
of Supporting is said to be a supporter of that intent.
For a player to object to an intent is for em to flip eir opinion switch for 
that intent to Objecting. A player whose opinion switch for an intent has a 
value of Objecting is said to be an objector to that intent.
For a player to withdraw support or objection is for em to flip eir opinion 
switch for that intent to Neutral.

RESOLVING DEPENDENT ACTIONS (retitle 2124, Agoran Satisfaction)

A player (the performer) CAN, by announcement, perform a dependent action for 
which an intent exists, subject to the following conditions:
- If the method is Without N Objections, With N Agoran Consent, or With Notice, 
the intent is at least four days old.
- If the method is With T Notice, the intent is at least T old.
- At least one of the following is true:
   - The performer is the initiator.
   - The initiator was authorized to perform the action due to holding a 
rule-defined position now held by the performer.
   - The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the action depends on 
support, the performer is a supporter of the intent, and the rule authorizing 
the performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it.
- Agora is Satisfied with the intent, as defined below.
- If a set of conditions for the performance of the action was given in the 
announcement of intent to perform the action, all those conditions are met.

Doing so called “resolving” the intent. When an intent is resolved, it ceases 
to exist.

The conditions for Agora to be Satisfied with an intent depend on the method of 
the dependent action:
- Without N Objections: Agora is satisfied with the intent if it has fewer than 
N objectors;
- With N support: Agora is satisfied with the intent if it has N or more 
supporters; and
- With N Agoran Consent: Agora is satisfied with the intent if the ratio of 
supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the action has at least one 
supporter and no objectors.
- With Notice or With T Notice: Agora is always Satisfied with the intent.

This shouldn’t change any function—I just changed some things to take advantage 
of modern Agoran concepts.
Gaelan



On Nov 2, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:



I think it's just long, long history combined with "it generally works, has
gone through a lot of CFJs, and messing with Objections is dangerous" so
no one's dared/bothered with a big refactor.

That's not bad or good, just no one has tackled it since - I just checked -
1999, when it first came to have this general procedure (it may have been
in keeping with rule style in 1999, I dunno).

If we dig into it there may be some good reasons to keep some of the things
"weird", but the whole structure isn't sacred or anything (I think!)

On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:

Is there a reason the dependent action rules are so weird? Seems like they
need a refactor to use more “normal” mechanisms.

Gaelan


On Nov 2, 2018, at 10:45 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:



[The easy one first]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, D. Margaux wrote:

I CFJ barring twg: “If in the last 48 hours the Speaker has objected to
any announced intents to Demand Resignation, then 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Quick proposals

2018-11-01 Thread Reuben Staley
Once again, Ørjan is correct. I retract my most recently submitted 
proposal and submit the following one:


-
Title: High-level asset verbs
AI: 3
Author: Trigon
Coauthors:

[ COMMENT: This terminology is ripped from the coins rule and applies to
  all assets. I really like this one. ]

Amend Rule 2577 "Asset Actions" by replacing the second paragraph with
the following three paragraphs:
  For an entity to earn an asset is for that asset to be created in
  that entity's possession. To grant an entity an asset is to create
  it in eir possession.

  For an entity to lose an asset is for that asset to be destroyed
  from that entity's possession. To revoke an asset from an entity
  is to destroy it from that entity's possession.

  For entity A to take an asset from entity B is to transfer it from
  entity B to entity A.

Amend Rule 2559 "Paydays" by replacing its text with:
  Whenever a Payday occurs, the following events happen in order:

  1. Each player first earns 10 coins; then

  2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or
 more days in the previous month and no unforgivable fines were
 levied on em for eir conduct in that office during that time,
 that player earns 5 coins.

  The occurrence of Paydays is secured.  At the beginning of each
  month, a Payday occurs.

Amend Rule 2499 "Welcome Packages" by replacing its text with:
  If a player has not received a Welcome Package since e most
  recently registered, any player CAN cause em to receive one by
  announcement.

  When a player receives a Welcome Package, e earns 10 coins.

Amend Rule 2555 "Blots" by replacing the paragraph beginning "To Lefy a
Fine" with:
  To Levy a Fine of N on a person, where N is a positive integer, is
  to grant em N blots. To expunge a blot is to destroy it.

Amend Rule 2583 "Earning Coins" by deleting the paragraph beginning "For
a player to".

On 11/01/2018 07:25 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:

On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:


Is this really what you want?

Gaelan

On Nov 1, 2018, at 3:37 PM, Reuben Staley  
wrote:


2. For each office, if a single player held that office for 16 or
    more days in the previous month and no unforgivable fines were
    levied on em for eir conduct in that office during that time,
    each player earns 5 coins


Should probably be "that player earns".  Also I'd like a period at the end.

Greetings,
Ørjan.


--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Deputisation

2018-11-01 Thread Reuben Staley
You and Cuddles both have an unbelievable track record of ridiculous 
CFJs called because of your actions.


On 11/01/2018 03:37 PM, Rebecca wrote:

I pledge that I am indeed a 26-year-old woman named Jenny Johnson.

The pledge I made above is true.

I point a finger at myself for oathbreaking and faking.

On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 8:34 AM ATMunn  wrote:


I'm not going to do it, but now I kind of want to intentionally break a
minor rule just to see what apology words I have to use.

On 11/1/2018 11:43 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:

Nobody else having expressed interest, I deputise for the Referee to

Impose the Cold Hand of Justice by levying a fine of 1 blot on CuddleBeam
for violating Rule 2471/1, "No Faking". This has been reduced from the base
value of 2 blots because eir action was utterly inconsequential.


This violation is forgivable. CuddleBeam CAN, in a timely fashion,

expunge 1 blot from emself by publishing a formal apology of at least 200
words containing the words "appalling", "self-flagellation", "debased",
"transgression" and "aardvark", explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and
ardent desire for self-improvement.


-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:36 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey 

wrote:



Speaking of which, the Treasuror workload has got much smaller with

Delenda Est, so I'm happy to take on Referee if nobody else expresses
interest in the next day or two.


-twg

‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 10:23 PM, D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com

wrote:



I point my finger at Cuddle Beam for violating No Faking by attempting

an action e knew to be INEFFECTIVE in the message below.



On Oct 28, 2018, at 6:42 PM, Cuddle Beam cuddleb...@gmail.com wrote:
I award myself a Platinum ribbon.


On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 11:00 PM Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red

wrote:

I grant permission for any person except D. Margaux to act on my

behalf to

Demand Resignation from D. Margaux within the next 7 days or until I
publicly revoke this permission, and provided that my so Demanding is
neither ILLEGAL nor INEFFECTIVE.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 9:55 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red
wrote:


I intend to Demand Resignation from D. Margaux.
-twg
‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Sunday, October 28, 2018 8:32 PM, D. Margaux

dmargaux...@gmail.com

wrote:


I was going to wait at least the full 48 hours before doing this,

but

I think I’ve come up with a fun scam and I also think I am

laureled from

the Round Robin win (we will see what Trigon says in the CFJ)...

so:



I deputise for Prime Minister to appoint myself Speaker.
I award myself a Platinum ribbon.










--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: salary equalisation

2018-11-01 Thread Reuben Staley
That really wasn't the point to take away from that message, but okay.

On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 11:39 ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 2018-11-01 at 11:37 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > Even simpler: players can submit proposals but a different person has
> > to pend them, after checking for mistakes. Oh, and it has to be an
> > active player.
>
> Given that pending isn't in the rules at the moment, the dependent
> action version is likely simpler.
>
> Pending is /safer/, though, because it allows the proposal to be
> validly distributed even if the pending went wrong, meaning less
> uncertainty about the gamestate if the Promotor makes a mistake.
>
> --
> ais523
>
>


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: salary equalisation

2018-11-01 Thread Reuben Staley
Even simpler: players can submit proposals but a different person has to
pend them, after checking for mistakes. Oh, and it has to be an active
player.

On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 11:32 Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> Proto: create proposals with 1 support. Supporter SHOULD check the
> proposal against [list of common mistakes we keep somewhere]
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Nov 1, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > When I wrote Paydays (I think I drafted that text), I purposefully wanted
> > Speaker to be a sinecure with a salary, as a perk for winning.
> >
> > Aside:  I really hate the lack of pending, and just plopping proposals in
> > the pool without review (including mine).   Watching the proposals in the
> > last couple weeks has really just turned me off trying to participate in
> > that process.  YMMV.
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, 1 Nov 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> >> Hold up, were you even around when we had shinies? Are you just an
> Agoran
> >> History nerd? This seems like a mistake only a person who joined before
> >> your time cold have committed.
> >>
> >> On Nov 1, 2018 10:30, "Timon Walshe-Grey"  wrote:
> >>
> >> I submit the following proposal:
> >>
> >> //
> >> Title: With not very much responsibility comes fewer shinies
> >> Adoption index: 2.0
> >> Author: twg
> >> Co-authors:
> >>
> >> Amend rule 2559, "Paydays", by changing the text "For each office" to
> >> "For each office that has official duties".
> >>
> >> //
> >>
> >>
> >> -twg
> >>
> >
>
>


DIS: Re: BUS: salary equalisation

2018-11-01 Thread Reuben Staley
Hold up, were you even around when we had shinies? Are you just an Agoran
History nerd? This seems like a mistake only a person who joined before
your time cold have committed.

On Nov 1, 2018 10:30, "Timon Walshe-Grey"  wrote:

I submit the following proposal:

//
Title: With not very much responsibility comes fewer shinies
Adoption index: 2.0
Author: twg
Co-authors:

Amend rule 2559, "Paydays", by changing the text "For each office" to
"For each office that has official duties".

//


-twg


DIS: Re: BUS: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8112-8122

2018-11-01 Thread Reuben Staley
It's cool that you want to vote again, but you unfortunately have voting
strength 0 since you have 3 or more blots.

On another note, you're a zombie so if you intend to seriously get back
into the game, you should probably flip your matter switch.

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 16:10 Rebecca  wrote:

> Votes inline
> IDAuthor(s)   AITitle
> ---
> 8112  G., ATMunn  1.0   The Middle Way
> FOR
> 8113  Trigon  1.0   Auction cleanup
> AGAINST
> 8114  Trigon, twg, G. 1.0   Free auctions 2
> FOR
> 8115  Aris, Trigon1.5   Heraldic uncertainty
> FOR
> 8116  Trigon, D Margaux   1.5   Control-C, Control-V
> FOR lol
> 8117  D Margaux, twg  2.0   Fix for Uncertain Laurelings
> FOR
> 8118  G.  2.0   Laurels Last Longer
> AGAINST! Being guaranteed speaker when you win most recently is an
> important incentive to do scams after other people etc
> 8119  D Margaux   2.0   Criminal Justice Adjustments Act
> FOR lol. I wrote most of this rule, this is like that but if I could be
> bothered to format correctly.
> 8120  D Margaux   2.0   Blot Decay
> AGAINST
> 8121  G.  3.0   Retroactive Documents
> Ratification is a sham anyway FOR
> 8122  Murphy  3.0   Middle of the road
> AGAINST. I don't know the context for this but it's way simpler and better
> for everyone to have one vote.
>
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 3:56 AM Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
>
> > CoE: I believe Quorum is 5. The most recently resolved proposal was
> > Proposal 8110, which had 7 valid ballots. 7 * 2/3 = 4.67 which rounds to
> 5.
> >
> > -twg
> >
> >
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > On Monday, October 29, 2018 1:16 AM, Aris Merchant <
> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> > > Decision of whether to adopt it, and removing it from the proposal
> > > pool. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
> > > quorum is 6, the voting method is AI-majority, and the valid
> > > options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote, as are
> > > conditional votes).
> > >
> > > ID Author(s) AI Title
> > >
> > >
> >
> --
> > >
> > > 8112 G., ATMunn 1.0 The Middle Way
> > > 8113 Trigon 1.0 Auction cleanup
> > > 8114 Trigon, twg, G. 1.0 Free auctions 2
> > > 8115 Aris, Trigon 1.5 Heraldic uncertainty
> > > 8116 Trigon, D Margaux 1.5 Control-C, Control-V
> > > 8117 D Margaux, twg 2.0 Fix for Uncertain Laurelings
> > > 8118 G. 2.0 Laurels Last Longer
> > > 8119 D Margaux 2.0 Criminal Justice Adjustments Act
> > > 8120 D Margaux 2.0 Blot Decay
> > > 8121 G. 3.0 Retroactive Documents
> > > 8122 Murphy 3.0 Middle of the road
> > >
> > > The proposal pool is currently empty.
> > >
> > > The full text of the aforementioned proposals is included below.
> > >
> > > //
> > > ID: 8112
> > > Title: The Middle Way
> > > Adoption index: 1.0
> > > Author: G.
> > > Co-authors: ATMunn
> > >
> > > Amend Rule 2510 (Such is Karma) by replacing the list in which the list
> > > items are delimited with the - symbol with the following list:
> > >
> > > -   Any player with a karma of 5 or greater is a Samurai.
> > > -   Any player with a karma of -5 or less is an Gamma.
> > > -   The Samurai with the highest karma (if any) is the Shogun.
> > > -   The Gamma with the lowest karma (if any) is the Honourless
> > > Worm.
> > >
> > > [By replacing 'player' with 'Samurai' and 'Gamma' in the last two
> > > list items, you can't get Shogun/Worm unless you've cleared a basic
> > > barrier - right now you could be a Worm even if your karma isn't
> > > all that low].
> > >
> > >
> >  //
> > > ID: 8113
> > > Title: Auction cleanup
> > > Adoption index: 1.0
> > > Author: Trigon
> > > Co-authors:
> > >
> > > [ Comment: I noticed that there are an entire eight rules defining
> > > auctions and I thought that was a bit excessive. Oh, we also
> missed a
> > > few sentences about contracts initiating auctions so this removes
> > > them. This contains no functional changes but it makes the rules
> > > defining auctions less cumbersome. ]
> > >
> > > Amend rule 2545 'Auctions' to read:
> > >
> > > An Auction is a way for entities to give away items in exchange
> > > for a currency. Any rule CAN permit or require Auctions to be
> > > initiated.
> > >
> > > Each 

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Reminder to claim violet ribbons

2018-11-01 Thread Reuben Staley
Actually, that's false. You don't have to award yourself five ribbons to
get Transparent, you just have to meet the qualifications.

On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 01:45 Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

> No way to take it back now, but for future reference, awarding someone a
> (non-grey) ribbon against eir will is not necessarily a boon, because it
> makes it marginally more difficult to qualify for a transparent ribbon in
> the future. You already have one, but ATMunn and Corona don't. (Nor does
> Trigon but presumably e knows what e's doing.)
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Thursday, November 1, 2018 5:46 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Oh foo, I award a Violet ribbon to each of the below-indicated persons
> > who doesn't have one yet.
> >
> > Notice of Honour
> > +1 twg (reminding us)
> > -1 Trigon (a little less helpful then twg here :P )
> >
> > On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> >
> > > Technically, any player can award any other player a ribbon e has
> earned.
> > > I'm not going to do that, though. I award myself a Violet Ribbon.
> > > On 10/30/2018 02:08 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > >
> > > > The following players earned Violet Ribbons for participating in
> PAoaM and
> > > > can still claim them up until Saturday:
> > > > ATMunn
> > > > Corona
> > > > G.
> > > > Trigon
> > > > (I internally debated with myself about whether to remind you, but my
> > > > fairness-loving side won out.)
> > > > -twg
> > >
> > > --
> > > Trigon
>
>
>


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Quick proposals

2018-11-01 Thread Reuben Staley
Retracting doesn't un-pend it, it removes it from the proposal pool. See
rule 2350, the last paragraph:

"The author of a proposal in the Proposal Pool CAN remove (syn. retract,
withdraw) it from the Pool by announcement."

On Thu, Nov 1, 2018, 00:17 Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> Pending’s gone, so can you retract?
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Oct 31, 2018, at 10:41 PM, Reuben Staley 
> wrote:
> >
> > Right you are, Ørjan. I retract the two proposals I have most recently
> submitted and instead submit the following two:
> >
> > -
> > Title: Only proposals should be distributed
> > AI: 1
> > Author: Trigon
> > Coauthors:
> >
> > [ COMMENT: This was pretty useless back in the day and it still is. If
> >  someone decides they need this mechanic for anything, just reenact
> >  it. ]
> >
> > Repeal Rule 2515 "Distributing Assets".
> >
> > -
> > Title: Time periods are confusing
> > AI: 3
> > Author: Trigon
> > Coauthors:
> >
> > [ COMMENT: The current way is a really roundabout way of doing it, in my
> >  opinion. I'm not sure if this is any better, to be honest, but
> >  I think it has some merit. ]
> >
> > Amend Rule 1728 "Dependent Actions" by:
> >   replacing the following:
> >  2. If the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N
> > Agoran Consent, or With Notice, if the intent was announced at
> > least 4 days earlier
> >
> >  3. If the action is to be performed With T Notice, if the intent
> > was announced at least T earlier.
> >   with:
> >  2. The intent was announced at least T earlier. If T is undefined,
> > it is instead considered to be 4 days if the action is not With
> > N Support; otherwise 0 days.
> >   and by renumbering the list accordingly.
> >
> >> On 10/31/2018 07:42 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2018, Reuben Staley wrote:
> >>> Repeal Rule 2505 "Distributing Assets".
> >> That should be 2515.
> >>> Amend Rule 1728 "Dependent Actions" by:
> >>>replacing the following:
> >>>   2. If the action is to be performed Without N Objections, With N
> >>>  Agoran Consent, or With Notice, if the intent was announced at
> >>>  least 4 days earlier
> >>>
> >>>   3. If the action is to be performed With T Notice, if the intent
> >>>  was announced at least T earlier.
> >>>with:
> >>>   2. The intent was announced at least T earlier. If T is
> undefined,
> >>>  it is instead considered to be 4 days.
> >>>and by renumbering the list accordingly.
> >> Currently there is no delay for With N Support.
> >> Greetings,
> >> Ørjan.
> >
> > --
> > Trigon
>
>


Re: DIS: Because I'm new like that

2018-10-31 Thread Reuben Staley
Hi, I'm the Rulekeepor. I organized the Rulesets. I will admit that the
textual Rulesets are not the very convenient. That's why I didn't join
Agora earlier, in fact. Eventually, I'm going to attempt to make an
interactive Ruleset, but I haven't even started working on the code to
generate that.

For the time being, I tried to put all the important rules at the top. In
each section heading, I also tried to include how important it is.

How about some assigned reading?

The Players section isn't that relevant at the moment, since you've already
registered. Read all of Common Definitions; those terms are used all over
in the Ruleset. If you want to write Proposals, read that section. Read the
section on Justice. Assets is also important, and so is Economics.

Other than that, just read the rules when you find them necessary. An
all-encompassing knowledge of the rules is impractical and unnecessary.

Additionally, don't be afraid to ask. All of us have spent an inordinate
amount of time messing with these rules, so we can't help.

Hope this helps!

On Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 09:43 Aharon Zingman  wrote:

> Is there a summary of the rules? I'm trying to read the whole SLR but it's
> about as concise as the US tax code.
>
> --
> This is a student email account managed by the
> Iowa City Community School
> District.
>


DIS: Re: BUS: Cleaning CFJ spellings

2018-10-31 Thread Reuben Staley
Having recieved no objection, I do so.

Also, I intend to clean Rule 2350 "Proposals" by replacing all
instances of "nether" with "neither"
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 3:35 PM Reuben Staley  wrote:
>
> I intend, without objection, to clean Rule 991 by replacing all instances
> of the word "Judgment" with "Judgement"
>
> --
> Trigon



-- 
Trigon


Re: DIS: Attn. Trigon (Re: BUS: CFJ 3672 reassigned and new CFJ issued)

2018-10-29 Thread Reuben Staley
Okay, this is very confusing. Can someone give me a short description of 
what happened and what I need to do now? Should I just publish the 
judgement for 3671-3 that I was already planning on publishing?


On 10/29/2018 11:16 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:



I think the critical question here is to Trigon.  If Trigon's
judgement is TRUE and reasonable enough not to trigger appeal,
then all is fine - D. Margaux happened to deliver it first, but
the arguments came from a neutral source (since D. Margaux, in
eir judgement attempt, explicitly deferred to Trigon's arguments).

If Trigon would find that D. Margaux is not laureled, then it's
fine too:  all of D. Margaux attempts failed (e didn't become
Speaker, and e didn't assign the case to emself).

I'm not seeing PARADOX results or anything more complicated than
that - am I missing something there?

On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote:

 From the Arbitor’s Weekly:


3672 called 15 October 2018 by D. Margaux, assigned to Trigon 20
October 2018: "Trigon, twg, D. Margaux, G., and L could win the game
by announcement under rule 2580 on the Effective Date after the
expungement of Trigon's blot."


I issue a cabinet order of certiorari to assign CFJ 3672 to myself.

I judge CFJ 3672 TRUE for the reasons described in the arguements of Trigon and 
myself copied in the emails below.

I CFJ this statement: “D. Margaux’s attempt in this message to assign CFJ 3672 
to emself was EFFECTIVE.”

Arguments regarding that new CFJ:

This CFJ depends on whether I was able to deputise for Prime Minister to 
appoint myself Speaker.  Assuming I were laureled, I believe I could do that, 
because (1) no speaker had been appointed since the Left/Right wins that had 
occurred on October 1, (2) the Deputisation Rule is higher powered than Office 
Incompatibilities Rule, and (3) game precedent seems to recognize this because 
earlier this year G. deputised for PM to appoint emself speaker.

So the next question is, am I laureled? I was the last player to announce 
victory by Round Robin, which is also the last time anyone attempted to win 
(except for my later failed attempt to win by apathy).  Therefore, I am 
laureled, if and only if I was eligible to win by Round Robin.

Was I eligible to win by Round Robin? That is the question presented in CFJ 
3672, which I attempted to assign to myself by certiorari. I believe the answer 
is TRUE, and I was eligible, for the reasons described below.

However, if Trigon disagrees with that and attempts to give a FALSE judgement 
to CFJ 3672, and if that judgement is not overturned by moot or 
reconsideration, then the judgement in this new CFJ might be PARADOXICAL! 
Otherwise, I think it is TRUE.


On Oct 11, 2018, at 11:06 PM, Reuben Staley  wrote:

Perhaps we could call a CFJ about the set vs. individual interpretations and 
then, if set is chosen, we could call another one about clusivity.

A potential wording for the first would be "All players could have won by announcement under 
rule 2580" and one for the second could be "VJ Rada, D Margaux, PSS, and G. could have 
won by announcement under rule 2580"? I don't know. I only really started paying attention to 
the CFJ system once I started making new annotations.

And, for the record, I thought the same as you with regard to interpretations.


On 10/11/2018 08:28 AM, D Margaux wrote:
I think this is an admirably clear way to put it.  I personally had in mind the 
set/inclusive interpretation.
The “individual” interpretation would make each slate’s winning chances depend 
in part upon which slates happen to have impure players. That seems undesirable 
to me, because the players were randomly assigned, and the fun of the proposal 
isn’t really advanced by treating players differently based on the happenstance 
of where impure players are assigned.
In some cases (such as the one here), applying the set/exclusive interpretation 
might run afoul of the No Cretans rule. In particular, here, the Rule says (i) 
A CAN win unless B and (ii) B CAN win unless C. Under a set/exclusive 
interpretation, I think (i) and (ii) are in conflict with respect to whether 
the (A,B) players can win. As a result, because (ii) comes after (i), I think 
applying No Cretans means that (A, B) should win then too.
What do people think is the clearest way to CFJ this? A very simple CFJ like, 
“At least one player won by Round Robin,” might give a judge the opportunity to 
opine more broadly about who actually won.

On Oct 9, 2018, at 9:29 PM, Reuben Staley  wrote:

I understand more theories are the last thing we probably need right now but oh 
well.

Let me make a chart for reference.

A and B   B and C   C and A
- - -
VJ Rada   L.Cuddles
Margaux   CoronaAris
PSS   TrigonMurphy
G.twg   ATMunn

In the rule "Round Robin", it is stated that Slate A players cannot win if 
Slate B players can.

One interpretation (the "set"

Re: DIS: [Promotor] Index Proposalorum

2018-10-28 Thread Reuben Staley
It wasn't.

On Sun, Oct 28, 2018, 03:00 Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:

> "Trust no one" has already been adopted as Proposal 8105. Of course that
> doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't accidentally submitted again!
>
> -twg
>
>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Sunday, October 28, 2018 7:11 AM, Aris Merchant <
> thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Does this list of proposals look complete and accurate to you all?
> > Thanks in advance!
> >
> > 8112 Trigon 0.5 Trust no one
> > 8113 Trigon 1.5 Heraldic uncertainty
> > 8114 G., ATMunn 1.0 The Middle Way
> > 8115 Trigon 1.0 Auction cleanup
> > 8116 Trigon 1.0 Free auctions 2
> > 8117 Trigon, D Margaux 1.5 Control-C, Control-V
> > 8119 G. 3.0 Retroactive Documents
> > 8120 G. 2.0 Fix for Uncertain Laurelings
> > 8121 G. 2.0 Laurels Last Longer
> > 8122 D Margaux 2.0 Criminal Justice Adjustments Act
> > 8123 Murphy 3.0 Middle of the road
> > 8124 D Margaux 2.0 Blot Decay
> >
> > -Aris
>
>
>


Re: DIS: Since we're doing fancy contracts...

2018-10-27 Thread Reuben Staley
It was decided the current system was too complicated for how many use
cases it was applicable in do Aris made proposals to simplify it and get
rid of the Notary. They are now meant to be more short-term and to serve a
single purpose.

On Sat, Oct 27, 2018, 21:18 Gaelan Steele  wrote:

> (Recent) history question: why did contracts stop being entities that show
> up in a report?
>
> Gaelan
>
> > On Oct 27, 2018, at 5:15 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> >
> > ...here's another idea I've been toying with for a while:
> >
> >
> > This document is a contract between twg (the "Game Master" or "GM") and
> one or more other parties (the "Competitors"). Any player can become a
> Competitor and any Competitor can cease to be a party to this contract. The
> GM cannot cease to be a party.
> >
> > The text of this document is divided into two sections: the "Immutable
> Rules" and the "Mutable Rules". The Immutable Rules are the portion of the
> text up to and including the first paragraph, other than this one, that
> contains the phrase "The Mutable Rules begin here." The Mutable Rules are
> the portion of the text that is not the Immutable Rules.
> >
> > The GM SHALL make reasonable efforts to ensure that e remains in
> possession of a full and complete copy of this document, and that its
> contents are not deleted, destroyed, corrupted, stolen, irreversibly
> encrypted, or otherwise placed beyond eir capability to read. The GM SHALL
> NOT disclose substantial portions of the Mutable Rules to other players,
> except that should a player Point eir Finger citing an alleged failure to
> act in accordance with this contract, the GM MAY and SHOULD privately
> disclose portions of the Mutable Rules to the investigator of that Finger
> Pointing, as necessary for the investigator to perform eir investigation.
> The GM is ENCOURAGED to maintain a public version of this document that has
> each paragraph of the Mutable Rules replaced by its SHA-512 hash.
> >
> > Any party to this contract CAN, With Agoran Consent from Competitors and
> Without Objection from the GM, modify this contract by altering the
> Immutable Rules.  The GM SHOULD NOT object to an announcement of intent to
> modify this contract unless e believes that the modification would be
> significantly detrimental to its correct functioning.
> >
> > Any party to this contract CAN, With Agoran Consent from Competitors,
> modify this contract by performing any number of the following alterations,
> in a specific order, to the Mutable Rules:
> > - Adding, at a specific position of eir choice, a paragraph whose text
> has been disclosed to the GM and whose text has been uniquely identified
> (for example, by means of a SHA-512 hash) as part of the announcement of
> intent to modify the contract.
> > - Removing a specific paragraph.
> > - Replacing all occurrences of a specific word or phrase with a
> different specific word or phrase.
> >
> > The Mutable Rules begin here.
> >
> >
> > -twg
>
>


Re: DIS: Fwd: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8090-8093

2018-10-24 Thread Reuben Staley
I must have missed that one. It's included now.

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 19:01 D. Margaux  wrote:

> I think the current ruleset is missing the amendment from proposal 8090
> below. Just wanted to flag for the next FLR/SLR.
>
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Timon Walshe-Grey 
> Date: Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 4:41 AM
> Subject: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8090-8093
> To: agora-offic...@agoranomic.org 
>
>
> I resolve the Agoran Decisions to adopt Proposals 8090-8093 as follows.
>
> -twg
>
>
> SUMMARY
> 
>
> ID Author(s)  TitleResult
> 
> 8090   D. Margaux Shenanigans For INEFFECTIVE... (v2)  ADOPTED
> 8091   Murphy, Ørjan  Slow your quorum v1.1REJECTED
> 8092   twgYet Another Economics Patch  ADOPTED
> 8093   Aris   Proposal Re-insertionADOPTED
>
>
> TALLY OF VOTES
> 
>
>+++++
>|8090|8091|8092|8093|
> +--+++++
> |Aris  | FF | AA | FF | FF |
> |D. Margaux| F  | P  | A  | F  |
> |G.| F  | A  | F  | A  |
> |Murphy|||||
> |Trigon| F  | P  | F  | F  |
> |twg   | F  | F  | F  | F  |
> +--+++++
> |nichdel   | F  | P  | A  | F  |
> |Telnaior  | F  | A  | F  | F  |
> +--+++++
> |FOR   | 8  | 1  | 6  | 7  |
> |AGAINST   | 0  | 4  | 2  | 1  |
> |AI| 1.7| 2.0| 1.0| 1.0|
> |Ballots   | 8  | 8  | 8  | 8  |
> |Quorum| 4  | 4  | 4  | 4  |
> |Resolved  |ADO.|REJ.|ADO.|ADO.|
> +--+++++
>
> Quorum on Agoran Decisions is now 6 except where otherwise stated.
>
>
> TEXT OF ADOPTED PROPOSALS
> 
>
> //
> ID: 8090
> Title: Shenanigans For INEFFECTIVE Fines (v2)
> Adoption index: 1.7
> Author: D Margaux
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend Rule 2478 to replace this text:
>
> “or that it would be ILLEGAL to levy a fine for it”
>
>
> with this text:
>
> “or that it would be ILLEGAL or INEFFECTIVE to levy a fine for it”
>
> //
> ID: 8092
> Title: Yet Another Economics Patch
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: twg
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Amend rule 2499, "Welcome Packages", by removing the list item
> "5 incense" and renumbering the other list items appropriately.
>
> Destroy all incense.
>
> //
> ID: 8093
> Title: Proposal Re-insertion
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors:
>
>
> Add each proposal that has been resolved as FAILED QUORUM since the
> beginning
> of August, 2018, to the proposal pool; then, make each of them pending.
>
> //
>
> --
> D. Margaux
>


DIS: Re: BUS: I intend to win by apathy without objection

2018-10-23 Thread Reuben Staley
CFJ 1631 decided that subject lines are inconsequential and that intents
must be announced in the body.

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 11:10 D. Margaux  wrote:

> I object to the subject line of twg’s email of 1:00 PM EST in case it is
> an intent.
>
>  I object to the subject line of this message that I am currently sending,
> and I state that I do not actually intend anything by it, and that the
> subject line is merely carried over from prior emails.
>
> And I object to each and every intent anyone has stated at any point in
> the last 12 hours.
>
>
> > On Oct 23, 2018, at 1:00 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> >
> > I object, in case everyone else's unconventional methods failed.
> >
> > -twg
> >
> >
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> >> On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 3:06 AM, Rebecca 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Because everyone else is doing it i do the action incorporated in the
> title
> >> for memes
> >>
> >>
> --
> >>
> >> From V.J. Rada
> >
> >
>


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: I intend to win by apathy without objection AND I OBJECT

2018-10-23 Thread Reuben Staley
Perhaps e is announcing an intent to change eir position on everything,
including, for example, eir player status.

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018, 11:06 D. Margaux  wrote:

>
>
> > On Oct 23, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey  wrote:
> >
> > I Point my Finger at G. for violating Rule 2471/1, "No Faking", by
> publishing the patently false statement in the quoted message. There are
> clearly many things that e does not object to - for example, eir status as
> a player of Agora, which e could easily remedy by deregistering.
>
> Very interesting! Tentatively, I think this does not violate No Faking for
> two reasons:
>
> (1) It doesn’t appear to be made with intent to deceive.
>
> (2) “objecting” is not a statement of fact, but a speech-act in the game.
> It’s not obvious to me that such speech-actions, if knowingly falsely made,
> are “statements” and “lies” under Rule 2471.  A statement is a proposition
> with a truth value; “I object” is a game action that may be EFFECTIVE or
> not to achieve a game outcome.
>
> Those are just my initial and very tentative thoughts. Happy to consider
> any arguments anyone else has before deciding.


DIS: Re: BUS: These declarations of apathy are getting ridiculous

2018-10-21 Thread Reuben Staley
I sent this 8 hours ago. My email is not functioning normally today.

On Sun, Oct 21, 2018, 18:50 Reuben Staley  wrote:

> I consent to the following document with the intiention that it become a
> contract:
>
> {
>
> Any player who consents to be bound by this contract CAN become a party
> by announcement.
>
> Every day at 0:00 UTC, this contract acts on behalf of all its parties
> to object to each intent to declare apathy.
>
> }
>
>
> --
> Trigon
>


Re: DIS: Re: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset

2018-10-21 Thread Reuben Staley
I just barely got it too. I wanted to make sure I wasn't the only one who
didn't get it. I assumed it just got delayed.

On Sun, Oct 21, 2018, 18:16 Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Mon, 2018-10-22 at 01:10 +0100, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Sun, 2018-10-21 at 18:03 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
> > > I sent this 45 minutes ago, did anyone get it? Also, my commits
> > > aren't showing up on the repository; can anyone tell me why that
> > > is?
> >
> > I didn't get it.
>
> I just received it. Presumably it just got delayed somewhere. (Email is
> not actually a real-time communication protocol; it's just that modern
> mailservers tend to be so fast that there are rarely delivery delays.)
>
> --
> ais523
>
>


DIS: Re: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset

2018-10-21 Thread Reuben Staley
I sent this 45 minutes ago, did anyone get it? Also, my commits aren't 
showing up on the repository; can anyone tell me why that is?


On 10/21/2018 05:15 PM, Reuben Staley wrote:

THE SHORT LOGICAL RULESET

These rulesets are also online at http://agoranomic.org/ruleset/

Date of last report: 14 Oct 2018

Number of rules currently enacted: 144

Most recent change to this ruleset: Rule 2580 repeals itself, 10 Oct
    2018

Highest ID'd rule in this ruleset: 2579
Highest ID'd Proposal Passed: 8102
Highest ID'd Rule Enacted: 2580
[snip]

--
Trigon


Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Deputy] Arbitor Assignments

2018-10-20 Thread Reuben Staley
The last Arbitor report has a list of relevant messages

On Sat, Oct 20, 2018, 18:46 ATMunn  wrote:

> Where do I need to look for the related messages for my CFJs?
>
> On 10/20/2018 9:05 AM, D. Margaux wrote:
> > I think I got all of the unassigned CFJs here. Hope I am doing this
> right;
> > please let me know if I made a mistake.
> >
> > First, per my previously announced intent, I deputise for Arbitor to
> assign
> > CFJ 3667 as described below.
> >
> > Then I take the other actions in the message below. (So, the actions are
> > executed out of order, but that shouldn’t matter.)
> >
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> > I reassign CFJ 3652 to Murphy.
> >
> > I reassign CFJs 3665 and 3666 to ATMunn.
> >
> > *
> >
> > On 2 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> >
> >> I withdraw the CFJ that I initiated earlier today, and instead CFJ
> >> (barring twg): “The contract between D. Margaux and G. transferred
> >> at least one coin to D. Margaux.”
> >
> > I withdraw this CFJ before assigning it to any judge. It’s probably a
> moot
> > point; not really worth a CFJ anymore. And probably this needs to be
> > decided to render a decision on CFJ 3670 anyway.
> >
> > *
> >
> > On 3 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> >
> >> CFJ barring Aris: “D. Margaux’s declaration of apathy
> >> in this message was EFFECTIVE.”
> >
> > This is CFJ 3667.  I assign it to G.
> >
> > *
> >
> > On 4 Oct 2018, Aris wrote:
> >
> >> I CFJ, barring CuddleBeam, "Committing a Crime is per se prohibited by
> >> law". I CFJ, barring CuddleBeam, "Oatbreaking is per se prohibited by
> >> law".
> >
> >> 'I retract the aforementioned CFJ, and submit in lieu thereof the CFJ
> >> "Oathbreaking is per se prohibited by law".
> >
> > These are CFJs 3668 and 3669.  I assign them to D. Margaux.
> >
> > *
> >
> > On 12 Oct 2018, twg wrote:
> >
> >> I CFJ, barring G.: "In the quoted message, G. transferred at least 1
> coin
> >> from the Lost and Found Department to emself." I note for the Arbitor's
> >> benefit that D. Margaux is also an interested party.
> >
> > This is CFJ is 3670.  I assign it to Trigon.
> >
> > *
> >
> > On 15 Oct 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> >
> >> I CFJ the following three statements, and suggest to the Arbitor that
> they
> >> should probably be assigned to the same judge:
> >>
> >> 1. “All pure active players could have won by announcement on the
> > Effective
> >> Date under rule 2580”
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> 2. “Trigon, twg, D. Margaux, G., and L could win the game by
> announcement
> >> under rule 2580 on the Effective Date after the expungement of Trigon’s
> >> blot”
> >>
> >> and
> >>
> >> 3. “Trigon, twg, and L won the game on the Effective Date under rule
> 2580”
> >
> > These are CFJs 3671, 3672, and 3673. I assign them to Trigon.
> >
> > *
> >
> > On 15 Oct 2018, twg wrote:
> >
> >> CFJ, barring G.: "In the quoted message, G. objected to at least one
> >> intent to perform a dependent action."
> >
> > This is CFJ 3674. I assign it to Aris.
> >
> > *
> >
>


  1   2   3   4   5   >