DIS: Scripts out of order
Hey everyone, My Assessing scripts are out of order so if someone else wants the job, they can take it. Otherwise I'll try to do things manually for a bit, and I should be fine unless activity picks up in the next week or two really heavily. -scshunt
Re: DIS: dealing with disappearing rules?
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 1:30 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: This Rule: Whoever omd has publicly specified should win the game as a result of the proposal Mammon Machine does so upon the enactment of this rule. Then this rule repeals itself. appeared and vanished, so I can't publish it as part of the Ruleset. Any suggestions on how to make it part of the Rules record? -G. In your version control, include a revision with the rule? Skip its ID number? -scshunt
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3452 assigned to scshunt
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 6:01 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: == CFJ 3452 == The text of Rule 1728/33 contains exactly 14 paragraphs. G., why is the presence/absence of a blank line significant here? It's entirely possible to separate paragraphs using indentation. -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Absence
On Aug 16, 2015 6:39 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote: I'll be away for the next three weeks, so I resign Promotor. I'll keep ADoP if that's okay; I'll miss one report deadline, but I don't think one missing ADoP report will be a problem. Of course, feel free to deputise if you disagree. Also, I'm obviously not interested in judging while I'm away. Tailor? -scshunt
Re: DIS: yoyo (attn: Registrar)
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 2:11 AM, Gaelan Steele g...@canishe.com wrote: Groups has support for categories within lists, but it’s a bit weird: Categories may only be set via the web UI, which means you must post a message, then put it in BUS/DIS/OFF afterward via the site. Categories automatically Reply-To the same category. I strongly object to any forum which cannot be used solely by email. -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: A rantlet
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Tanner Swett tannersw...@gmail.com wrote: You know, I'm starting to feel like Agora really isn't the nomic for me. Whenever we're faced with a choice between multiple valid and justifiable interpretations of the rules, we seem to rarely simply go with whichever option is most convenient or intended; we instead interpret the letter of the rules as literally and mechanically as possible. Rule 217 allows and encourages us to apply common sense and the best interests of the game where the rules are ambiguous, but we don't. The resulting messes and risk of failure are undoubtedly fun for some. But for me, not so much. I —the Warrigal There are a number of recent things that you could replying to recently, so it would help if you could pinpoint an example so that I don't defend something you agree with. I think it's worth noting that the text needs to take precedence when there is no ambiguity, however. We follow law in that clear wording cannot be cleverly interpreted so as to undermine its meaning, if its intent is clear. Apart from that, Agora has generally rejected the most insane interpretations of rules, although things are rather in flux right now with a seeming change in Agora's attitude. It's certainly at the least legalistic that it's been since I started playing. Sean
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Prime Minister] Coronation
On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:56 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Mon, 2015-08-10 at 22:51 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote: On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I deputize for the Prime Minister to appoint scshunt to the office of Speaker. I award myself a Red Ribbon, a Platinum Ribbon, and an Ultraviolet Ribbon, and award comex and ais523 Ultraviolet Ribbons. I'm going to hold off on Champion in case there's a judicial case, but the ribbons are time-sensitive so I will leave the Tailor to suffer. Sorry! Ultraviolet is tied to Champion, not to winning. So that portion of the award doesn't work. (A similar situation caught out aranea earlier.) Ah, right. I'll get to it when the Champion awards happen, then. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Where did Win by Paradox go?
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Sat, 1 Aug 2015, Tanner Swett wrote: On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 6:26 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: To this end, the current precedent of switches is: if a move would put part of the game into an indeterminate fate, the move fails. In this case, the play of Not Your Turn would make the cards indeterminate, so the play fails (i.e. Not Your Turn fails to cancel the Discard Picking play). Since the play is impossible, the Not Your Turn is never played and stays in the player's hand. Actually, the precedent is that there is no defined limiting state, so the switch resets to default. This doesn't apply to everything though, only switches, since they specify that the default is used if the switch would otherwise fail to have a value. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Humiliating Reminder Resolution of the Silver Quill Ceremony
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote: I was about to quibble with the logic (but not the tally) because given the unconditional votes listed, the outcome of aranea's vote does not depend on what omd votes. However because of the quorum knife edge, it actually depends on the _fact_ that he voted. Greetings, Ørjan. It does not. The vote, if it failed, would still resolve to PRESENT, which affects the quorum. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Where did Win by Paradox go?
On Aug 1, 2015 12:24, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 1:59 PM, Tanner Swett tannersw...@gmail.com wrote: Rule 2358, which defined Win by Paradox, was present in the ruleset published on 25 August 2013, but absent in the ruleset published on 17 December 2013. I couldn't find any proposals which repealed the rule. So where did it go? Proposal 7609: http://iw.qoid.us/message/%3Calpine.LRH.2.01.1312131214090.30888%40hymn02.u.washington.edu%3E So what happens if a paradox is found, anyway? -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Arbitor] CFJ 3449 assigned to aranea
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote: On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:34:28 -0700 (PDT) Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Tue, 28 Jul 2015, Sean Hunt wrote: I intend, with 2 support, to file a Motion to Reconsider on this case. I support and do so. I haven't changed my opinion on this CFJ. Is there any way to assign another judge to this cause (other than intentionally missing the one-week deadline or deregistering)? A motion to reconsider is just that. It doesn't mean that you need to change your mind, but if you don't, you should elaborate more into why the arguments presented are wrong. If we still disagree after your second judgment, we'll attempt to bring it to Moot. -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Voting for the Silver Quill is now Open
On Jul 29, 2015 16:50, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: CFJ, barring scshunt: The announcement attempting to start Silver Quill voting on or about July 26 did not clearly indicate voting options. Arguments: Historically, it was required to include the set of eligible voters. It was included in the rules that a description of the eligible voters was sufficient. Similarly, I used a description of the eligible options, rather than a complete list. As a side note, while there's a few clear popular options, I do not feel it is fair at all this way - it's too easy for early voters to influence people not wanting to look back through the records. As such, if this decision exists, I Protest this by not contributing to quorum - this is a tainted vote. I already produced a list of eligible proposals, so I must disagree. -scshunt
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: About Proposals 7773 and 7774
Just a note: please vote for these proposals as if they were correct and I'll submit a fixed version later. -scshunt On Jul 29, 2015 16:15, tmanthe2nd . trstnbrd...@gmail.com wrote: I Call for Judgement on this statement. Proposals 7773 and 7774 will have no effect if passed On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 1:11 PM, tmanthe2nd . trstnbrd...@gmail.com wrote: It was CFJ 1625. Where a proposal specifies a rule to amend by both number and title, and the number and title given identify different rules, this constitutes ambiguity that nullifies the attempted rule change. That doesn't refer to when the other rule doesn't exist. But, the rules say, An inconsequential variation in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does. I think this would fall under any other variation. On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Wed, 29 Jul 2015, Tanner Swett wrote: On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:55 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 2:43 AM, tmanthe2nd . trstnbrd...@gmail.com wrote: Proposals 7773 and 7774 gives the wrong ID number for the rule it amends. Rule 2455 does not exist. So, the proposals don't actually do anything. So they do. Nice catch. Though if you ask me, the phrase 'Rule 2455 How to Pend a Proposal' is completely unambiguous. There's absolutely no reasonable doubt as to what the intended meaning of the phrase is, so the error constitutes difference in spelling which does not create an ambiguity in meaning. A CFJ found differently IIRC, but I think in that case the mis-numbering referred accidentally to a different existing rule. As Rulekeepor, I wholly disagree that this is a different in spelling, though it *may* still be clear enough depending what the precedent says...
Re: DIS: secured
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:36 PM, tmanthe2nd . trstnbrd...@gmail.com wrote: So, I'm new here. When I read the rules, I noticed many mentions of things being secured, but I couldn't find a definition for that. What does it mean? See Rule 1688, Power. -scshunt
DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Notes for proposals 7757-7768
On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote:
//
ID: 7758
*Unless* 50% or more of the valid ballots cast FOR this proposal were
submitted in messages containing the word pseudo-acronym, do the
following: {
This option was selected.
Change the title of Rule 2138 to The Associate Director of
Personnel, and amend it to read:
Retitled and amended.
Amend each rule containing the word IADoP, in numerical order, by
replacing it with ADoP.
FAILED to amend (insufficient power) R1006 and R2154. There are no
other instances of IADoP in the Ruleset.
I believe this failure is in dispute, because it may have instead been
power 4, no?
-scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Hear Ye, Hear Ye!
On Jul 21, 2015 14:01, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: no worries! I'll deputize to assign the CFJ if no one jumps into the Arbitor role by tomorrow. -t. I'll revoke the proclamation if it turns out to be wrong. -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Results for Proposal 7757
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 8:49 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: [This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the following proposals. For each decision, the options available to Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!).] CoE: The options for the decision are FOR and AGAINST. ID Author(s) AI Title - 7757+ scshunt1.0 IADoP Titling + is not one of *, x, or !... Oops, copy-pasto. I think that the resolution is unambiguous because I listed it in the text of adopted proposals -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:22 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: (d) If the valid options are ordered lists of preferences, the outcome is decided using instant-runoff voting. In case multiple valid preferences tie for the lowest number of votes at any stage, the vote collector CAN and must, in the announcement of the decision's resolution, select one such preference to eliminate; if, for N 1, all eir possible choices in the next N stages would result in the same set of preferences being eliminated, e need not specify the order of elimination. Is that for some N 1 or for all N 1? Also, in IRV, the tied preferences are all eliminated, rather than breaking the tie. The exception is if all remaining options are tied. Sean
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:10 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:15 AM, Ørjan Johansen oer...@nvg.ntnu.no wrote: I thought (and Wikipedia agrees) that IRV stages without a majority winner (which includes any with a top tie) choose (one or more) losers, not a winner. Ah, yes. Thinko. Honestly, IRV is so well-defined that I don't think we need an explicit explanation of it in the rules. I am out of pends for the week, but H. Promotor, is it possible that we can rush this proposal through once corrected so that it can apply to the Silver Quill? -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] Long Service Awards
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote: On Wed, 15 Jul 2015 16:09:11 -0400 Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: For each player and patent title combination listed below, I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to award that Patent Title to that Player: For service as Promotor: aranea: Three Months Long Service aranea: Six Months Long Service aranea: Nine Months Long Service* * This intent will not be resolved until July 26, and then only if aranea remains Promotor until then. For service as Registrar: woggle: Three Months Long Service woggle: Six Months Long Service woggle: Nine Months Long Service -scshunt I support. -- aranea INEFFECTIVE due to not specifying which of them you support (see CFJ 3342). -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] ZOMBIE NEWS: The Agoran Newspaper: Vol. 2 Issue 1: Jul. 06 - Jul. 12, 2015
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, Sean Hunt wrote: The Agoran Newspaper Vol. 2 Issue 1 Jul. 06 - Jul. 12, 2015 Dear Editor, I thank you for your excellent voting recommendations in your premier issue. Do you think you might apply your *BRAINS* to recommendations (or a shortlist) for the Silver Quill? Sincerely, Vexed with Too Many Choices Stay tuned for our next issue! -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Real proposal: The Resistance
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 7:58 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, Tanner Swett wrote: Proposal, The Resistance, AI 1.5: Create a rule with power 1.5, titled Gothur and Yufel: I'm not voting for any new office without a firm commitment, perhaps proposal-enforced, that the proposer be the officeholder for at least 90 days (unless another is elected). -G. Why not make sure a proposal? I don't think it would necessarily conflict with mine. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Newspaper timing fixes
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 5:38 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote: On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 15:33:59 -0400 Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: [This prevents deputizing for Herald to publish an older newspaper.] This problem applies to all official reports, not only to the Herald. Wasn't there a rule about this in the past? No, it doesn't, because only the Newspaper applies for a specific time. If I publish a given week's report, I also thereby satisfy all outstanding obligations to publish my report by virtue of the fact that they're the same obligation. -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Two things
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: This email contains two --- delimited Messages. This portion, at least, is INEFFECTIVE: A rule can also designate that a part of one public message is considered a public message in its own right. This implies that a player CANNOT do so. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Some proposals
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 8:01 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 3:06 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
wrote:
greater than the decisions adoption index and the ration of
decisions; ratio
the strength of FOR to the strength of AGAINST is equal to
the decision's adoption index, then the vote collector shall
select either ADOPTED or REJECTED as the outcome;
When shall e, within 7 days? And CAN e? In any case, this seems to
contradict the earlier statement that the decision has an outcome as
soon as its voting period ends.
This matches the existing language for elections. I think that the
mechanism to do so is via Rule 208, specifying the outcome in the
resolution. I agree that there is ambiguity in the interim period;
perhaps the simplest way to deal with it.
Also, per discussion with aranea, I intend to deputize for Herald to
initiate a Silver Quill Ceremony for July 14, 2015.
Proposal: Official References (AI=1)
{{{
Enact a new power-1 Rule entitled Official References reading:
Where a rule refers to an office in a way such that, by
necessary implication, it refers to the holder of that office
(including to authorize or forbid an action), it implicitly refers
to the player holding that office. Where there are references to
the past or future, then absent indication to the contrary, the
rule shall be interpreted as referring to the holder of the office
at the time in question. If a rule refers to the current office
or uses similar language, then it refers to the office's present
holder, regardless of its holder at the time in question.
I think the last two sentences could be combined.
Proposal: Centralization (AI=2)
{{{
Amend Rule 1006 (Offices) by replacing:
An imposed office is an office described as such by the rule
defining it. All others are voluntary. A person CANNOT
be made the holder of a voluntary office without eir explicit
or reasonably implied consent. The holder of a voluntary
office CAN resign it by announcement, causing it to become
vacant.
replacing what with what?
erp. thanks.
-scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: IADoP Untitling
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 5:42 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: Proposal: IADoP Untitling I don't like BlogNomic style proposals with a subvoting game in them. -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Retraction
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:49 PM, Gaelan Steele g...@canishe.com wrote: I retract proposal 7756, Into the 21st Century. Did that work? No. A proposal cannot be withdrawn once distributed. It's in the hands of Agora now. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 7756
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Gaelan Steele g...@canishe.com wrote: I also removed the plain-text requirement. This means that HTML table tags work. Which means reports will be unreadable in plain text, because whatever plain-text equivalent the renderer sends in place of table is not going to work. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Herald] Championship
On Jun 30, 2015 5:21 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote: On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 17:15:23 -0400 Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote: I intend to award myself the Patent Title Champion with 2 Agoran Consent. I object. -scshunt May I ask why? Would you prefer Unchampion, or do you think I don't deserve a Patent Title at all? IIRC, last time you expressed preference for Champion (but didn't actually vote for it, presumably by accident). -- aranea No, my preference is for an alternate title. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Fleshing out my previous proto
On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 1:27 AM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Tue, 26 May 2015, Sean Hunt wrote: The Assessor? Just make it clear that re-arranging order of voting results is an acceptable part of gameplay. Maybe a delaying action to give an extra N days before results are required. That was enough power to bargain for a White ribbon anyway... Sounds like a good start. Registrar? I'm blanking on this one. We've really discouraged playing with playerhood/registration. Rulekeepor? Ability to move rules between domains. Possible specific: ability to temporarily move a rule into a Repairs domain (with some gameplay effect). Interesting. I was still going for the idea of a rule being powered in multiple domains at once, but this could work too. Or the Rulekeepor could have a domain that e can adjust power for (and in doing so, still affect precedence). Herald? Ability to start/stop Winning, contests, games. Perhaps an easily-awarded temporary patent title with game effects. -G. One possibility is that the Herald must announce a victory. Thus, in order to win, you must either be Herald or bribe em. The PM wouldn't get a perk here, since control over occupant the office would be perk enough. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Fleshing out my previous proto
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: The Assessor? Registrar? Rulekeepor? Herald? Anyone? Bueller? -scshunt
Re: DIS: Fleshing out my previous proto
On May 26, 2015 12:14, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: Anyone? Bueller? I like the general idea but think we don't have enough gameplay for the perks to be all that rewarding. The intent is to upgrade from perks to significant control. Sean
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3448 assigned to G.
On May 19, 2015 09:50, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 6:01 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Not enough time to read everything. But note that the definition of game applies only when referring to time. It doesn't apply to the game of Agora. I think it's up to the judge to decide which uses of game refer to time. -scshunt
DIS: Fleshing out my previous proto
The Prime Minister appoints officers, and is responsible for ensuring they remain filled and doing their duties. If an official duty remains unfulfilled for more than a week, anyone can deputize but this doesn't take the office away. Unless an officer is censured, they cannot be replaced sooner than two weeks after appointment. The PM has access to each officer's perk on a limited basis. An officer can be censured by Agoran Consent. Censuring the PM results in a General Election call. Censuring any other officer obligates the PM to replace them (shuffles are A.O.K.). Censure is *not* evaluated on a per-office basis. The Speaker is the head of state and presides over the election for Prime Minister, and can be nominated for such. The Speaker cannot be removed from office except by deregistration or upon the (re)election of a PM. This includes voluntarily. Upon the election of a PM, Speaker becomes vacant; the PM must appoint a replacement Speaker. The CotC assigns cases as he chooses. Possibly we should make it so that the judgments can be binding in some regard? PM perk: Once a month, handle a case themselves. The Promotor distributes at least one half, rounded up, of all proposals that were pending at the start of the week, and may pend any number of proposals by announcement. PM perk: Once a week, distribute a proposal. The IADoP sets salaries (currently just the number of pends an officer gets each month). Total salary is limited, probably by number of offices. Salaries can't change more than once a month. PM perk: Can assign a bonus office's worth of salary. The Tailor awards Ribbons, and can, once per month, award or remove a Ribbon created just for them. PM perk: Ribbon for being PM. The Referee assigns cards to rules violators. The PM can Dive once per month, which results in an award of a card. They PM cannot Dive the Speaker. The Assessor? Registrar? Rulekeepor? Herald? -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3448 assigned to G.
On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 6:38 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: CALLER'S ARGUMENTS I believe R101 now takes precedence over 1023. You missed my arguments :) Further elaboration: Rule 217 implies that definitions in equally- or higher-powered rules are binding. The R104 thing is different because it refers to the first game, which is defined by R1023 as being the period of time before the first win. By applying the definition and R101 in concert, it is no longer possible for a player to achieve victory. -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 7747-49
On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote: Oh, sorry, did you actually intend to submit your proposal? I probably misinterpreted the Proto: in your subject then. However, it's debatable whether your submission worked; players can submit proposals by announcement, and R478 (Fora) reads: Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed by announcement, a person performs that action by unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it. You, on the other hand, only wrote Proposal: [...]. I've accepted such submissions in the past, but I'm not sure if I actually have to (or even can). Furthermore, in your case, the Proto: in the subject line did add further ambiguousity. I didn't intend to, but I'm pretty sure I did accidentally all the same. -scshunt
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3447 assigned to scshunt
On May 18, 2015 07:28, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: == CFJ 3447 == Statement: aranea won the game. Caller: aranea Called on: 10 May 2015 11:56:31 GMT is hereby assigned to: Judge:scshunt CALLER'S ARGUMENTS Adoption of proposal 7740 on Wed 15/05/06. == Does anyone have any arguments as to why e didn't? If not, I will judge TRUE. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Domains, Interpretation, Precedence Reform, Fixes
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Wed, 2015-05-13 at 17:31 -0400, Sean Hunt wrote: 3. A Rule with an ID number takes precedence over a Rule with a lesser ID number. Why are you reversing the ID number precedence rule? (In particular, what interaction are you expecting to change?) Rules with lower numbers tend to be more fundamental to the game (because they've been around for longer), and therefore are the ones we'd normally want to win out in order to prevent scams. Error, only. Sean
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proto: Domains, Interpretation, Precedence Reform, Fixes
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Wed, 13 May 2015, Sean Hunt wrote: Enact a new power-3 Rule (Domains): A Domain is a class of concepts, game state, entities, and any other things. There is no restriction as to what can be in a Domain, and one thing can be in multiple Domains. Domains and their contents exist only as defined, possibly by necessary implication, by the rules. Does this mean a player can't be the contents of a domain? (as players have separate existence? Erm, no. The intent is that something can only be defined into a domain; it can't be moved there as a separate ephemeral state. Amend Rule 1688 (Power) to read: For each Domain defined by the rules, each entity has a Power in that Domain, which is a non-negative rational number. An Instrument in a Domain is an entity with positive Power in that Domain. Who tracks it? For Rules, is domain power an essential property with the ruleset, or a side report? I personally pictured a reorg of the SLR where the rule categories become domains, but that's not possible with the everything can have a power in every domain model. This isn't bad, but takes more tracking so it should be specified. The intended model here is that all rules exist only in the Realm, but, by being Instruments in other domains, may have power over other Domains. We would likely want to change various aspects of the rules, such as by saying that a rule can have power 0 in the Realm, and has no effect whatsoever on a Domain in which it has 0 power. Since the rules themselves are in the Realm, a Rule with Realm Power 0 would never be able to amend a rule, unless specifically permitted to do so by a Rule with Realm Power. The primary reason for multiple Domains being allowed is that we might have an action that seems to be equally a part of two Domains. For instance, if two assets exist in different Domains, then under which Domain does a swap of the two fall? By using This is an overly complicated system, probably, but it's A Rule that secures a change, action, or value (hereafter the securing Rule) to a Domain thereby makes it IMPOSSIBLE to perform that change or action, or to set or modify that value, except as allowed by an Instrument with Power in that Domain greater than or equal to the change's Power Threshold. The first step to resolving the conflict is determine into which Domain or Domains the conflict falls (the contested Domains), by considering the concepts, game state, entities, and other things at the nexus of the conflict. When two rules can EACH claim to be part of two domains, figuring out what domain a clause belongs to will be non-trivial. I really like the concept of the nexus of conflict, but this level of flexibility worries me. That's why I worded it to apply to each conflict independently, rather than at a clause level. Going back to the previous example, a Rule which generally allows assets to be swapped does not exist in every domain but, rather, if it conflicts with another rule, that conflict is resolved within the Domains at issue, and the conflict between two Rules may be resolved different when it is applied to things in a different Domain. 4. A Rule takes precedence over a Rule enacted later. This would make enactment date an important quality to put in the SLR, not just hidden in the (created by) section in the FLR. And isn't it duplicative with Rule ID? This is a holdover from the current version of the Rule. Its use appears to be to prevent someone from claiming a Paradox or the like after the Rule is enacted, but before it's assigned an ID number. Further comment: Is it your intent that the current Power P of each rule gets mapped to Realm of Agora-P power? Because I'd argue that this is different enough from old power that you'd default all Rules to realm-0, and then we're really in trouble. For that matter, what happens halfway through this proposal when it actually takes effect... does the proposal lose it's old power ability to change stuff partway through? Careful of that! Good catches. Yes, this is the intent. I'll have to smith some good wording for that. -scshunt
DIS: Proto-proto: powerful offices
Okay, I've got a new idea... what if each of the offices had a significant power associated with them? Running off of G.'s use of discretion as CotC, what if, instead of elections, the Prime Minister appointed people to offices, under certain parameters? Try to make each of the offices sufficiently powerful that people actively want them, because of the power. And make no initial balancing efforts. Sean
DIS: Re: BUS: report cfj
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I CFJ on: aranea is the IADoP. I'll favour this one, with two caveats: - I have already favoured a case and only have time for one. - I promise to do a thorough investigation of the situation. I don't promise a specific outcome. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: report cfj
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote: Therefore, I am the IADoP; if not by successful deputisation, then by the self-ratification of my attempted IADoP report on Sat 2 May. Oh, we didn't. I'll disfavour this case then and pre-emptively favour any case which addresses the substance of the issue. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: report cfj
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Tue, 12 May 2015, Sean Hunt wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 2:04 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I CFJ on: aranea is the IADoP. I'll favour this one, with two caveats: - I have already favoured a case and only have time for one. - I promise to do a thorough investigation of the situation. I don't promise a specific outcome. I'll prioritize this favoring unless you tell me otherwise. Use your discretion however you see fit. I wouldn't want to deny someone else a case that they would like. (when did the IADoP's report stop being self-ratifying? ugh). -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of proposals 7745-46
On May 11, 2015 19:02, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Sun, 2015-05-10 at 13:25 +0200, Luis Ressel wrote: ID Author(s) AI Title --- I vote as follows: 7745* scshunt2.0 Official Functions AGAINST; this implies that if an officer misses last week's report and I take over from them this week, I then have to publish both last week's and this week's reports, which doesn't fit common practice and is kind-of redundant. Clarifying this would be helpful, but I'd rather prefer to 217 it than to have an incorrect clarification. Current practice is that publishing one report fulfills all outstanding obligations to publish reports. My proposal does not change the rules in this regard. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Result for Proposal 7740
On May 8, 2015 6:00 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Fri, 8 May 2015, Henri Bouchard wrote: Text of adopted proposals: === Proposal 7740 (Foo Bar Baz by aranea, AI=1) aranea wins the game. === aranea won the game? Well, no one's claimed otherwise, yet... -G. I believe that aranea has won, but there will be no official record because the rules don't provide for an award of Champion at the moment. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Result for Proposal 7740
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I was waiting a couple days to see if anyone thought it didn't work... I've got some ideas about this point. -G. The only possible rationale I could think of is that the rules specifying how to win the game thereby make it impossible to win the game through any other mechanism, as a standard principle of legal interpretation. But I didn't want to go to the effort of writing up the CFJ and figured someone else would. Sean
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Slightly easier Ribbons
On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Second one was far too easy, people won in a month, and didn't really have to try that hard. Not exactly a bad ending, just not much of a game second time around. -G. Additional context: Thanks to a minor scam to get me one of the ribbons, I managed to actually win twice in a row, about a week apart. Sean
Re: DIS: Proto v2: Organizations
On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote: Title: Organizations AI: 3 Author: ais523 Co-Authors: aranea INEFFECTIVE, see Rule 2350: The author (syn. proposer) of a proposal is the person who submitted it.
DIS: Re: BUS: when did I break the rule?
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: CFJ: A violation of R2446 has occurred this week. I'll favour this case, if Agora will let me impose my particular model of time onto the game. Sean
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: proto: moot fix
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Jonatan Kilhamn wrote: 3. The Cautious CAN resolve the Moot 4 or more days after initiating it, and SHALL do so within 14 days of initiating it. E does so by announcing the selection of a single option of eir choice from among all valid options that received the most (unretracted) Support. In the standard case the Arbitrator is the Cautious, but this is written generally presumably to allow for situations where a person (perhaps the caller, the judge, or some other non-transferrable qualifier) is the Cautious. What then happens if the Cautious deregisters before resolving the Moot? Hmmm. You're right, the layer of indirection makes it unclear whether the responsibility for resolving a Moot sticks with the Person or Office. Agoran decisions handle this explicitly, and we don't have any other long procedural steps right now where it's an issue. I had an idea some years ago of explicitly defining how official duties worked, that would explicitly handle cases like someone coming into office immediately before a deadline. Perhaps it's time to revive that? Also, why the power-3 rule in the proto? -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of proposals 7740-42
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: I submit the following Proposal, Agora Wins Forever, AI-3: -- Amend Rule 101 (The Game of Agora) by appending the following text to the first paragraph: The game may be won, but the game never ends. -- I think this is unnecessary, but I'll explain why after the current batch is resolved. -scshunt
DIS: Proto-proto: Erratic power
I've got an idea which is actually why I rejoined the game: What if erratic rules could override regular rules on certain aspects of the game, as long as they were carefully sealed so as not to be able to affect regular rules? The idea would be to create erratic instruments with erratic power, and these things would override regular rules on some things. Thoughts?
Re: DIS: Emails suck. Long live emails!
On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Sean Hunt wrote: H. Rulekeepor, do you have a website with the latest copy of the rules somewhere? -scshunt Not live. Working on that. Is it helpful, in the meantime, if I just throw current_flr.txt and current_slr.txt on a static page? Or is that no better than email. -G. It is helpful since it's bookmarkable. -scshunt
DIS: Emails suck. Long live emails!
H. Rulekeepor, do you have a website with the latest copy of the rules somewhere? -scshunt
DIS: Re: OFF: [Deputy Herald] The Silver Quill
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Wed, 7 Jan 2015, Kerim Aydin wrote: I intend to deputize for the Herald to initiate a Silver Quill Ceremony. I resign Herald; I can't do its duties for January or February. Sorry :( Sean
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Report Character Width Regulation
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote: I make Proposal: Report Character Width Regulation pending. -Henri Ａｒｅ ｙｏｕ ｓｕｒｅ ｔｈａｔ＇ｓ ａ ｇｏｏｄ ｉｄｅａ？ －ｓｃｓｈｕｎｔ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Rulekeepor's notes on Proposals 7698-7710
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Anyway, my point was not to defend Murphy's argument, but to point out that something turning out indeterminate as a result is not a particularly compelling counterargument. I am inclined to believe that the fact that the result is indeterminate is the indication that there is ambiguity, and thus the rule change must fail. The burden set upon rule changes to be unambiguous is extremely high. I think that it should be interpreted broadly as any ambiguity material to the rule change, not only to its content. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Revised distribution of proposals 7721-24
On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote: Well, I messed up by forgetting the part about the proposal distribution doesn't have anything to do with my report. I'll try and clean up the situation now. No problem. I just needed to CoE to prevent the decisions' existences from self-ratifying. -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Office Salary Fix
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote: I submit this proposal: -- Proposal: Office Salary Fix Author: Henri Adoption Index: 1 Replace is impelled to in Rule 2439 (Office Salary) with SHALL. -- Your proposals were broken all kinds of sideways and this is your fix? :/ -scshunt
Re: DIS: Proposal: Office Salary Fix
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote: What if I changed it to CAN and SHALL? -Henri That would help. You would also need to change Scorekeeper though, to refer to the actual office (now renamed), and you should get rid of the reference to the nomination period, which no longer exists. -scshunt
Re: DIS: no odds offered this week
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote: Testing. Are you all getting this message? When I simply reply to messages I get from the mailing list, my messages don't appear in my inbox, but when I change the subject of the email and reply, I get my message, so I'm confused. -Henri Nope. Not getting it over here. -scshunt
DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of proposals 7711-20
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote: IDAuthor(s) AI Title 7711 omd1.0 Wordplay PRESENT 7712 Murphy 1.0 Full disclosure FOR 7713 Warrigal 3.0 Speedliness FOR 7714 Tiger 1.0 Got tiger AGAINST 7715 Tiger 1.0 I want points AGAINST 7716 Tiger 1.0 Purse split at the seams AGAINST 7717 Tiger 1.0 More points 1 AGAINST 7718 Tiger 1.0 More points 2 AGAINST 7719 Tiger 1.0 More points 3 AGAINST 7720 omd2.0 Kill the zombie FOR -scshunt
DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Elections!!!11
On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 4:59 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: It's been a long time. Some might say we're overdue. But now the WAIT is OVER! I initiate elections for the following offices: First off, there are several VACANCIES to fill! #1: Prime Minister. With minimal duties and an extra vote, this one's a great way to enjoy the high life! #2: Referee. While this office does NOT come with a free wig, you are welcome to wear one as you throw out whatever punishments you see fit! #3: Herald. This pleasantly dusty office was STOLEN from woggle two weeks ago by yours truly. If you vote for anyone but woggle, you should FEEL ASHAMED! [Skipping Promotor because Eritivus was going to deputise.] Next, shaking up a few held offices for your inconvenience! #4: Dungeon Master, current holder ais523, since September 30. This office may hold the key to IMMORTALITY! Or at least DICTATORSHIP! Far more likely, however, is that it has only the powers of the ROLEPLAYER IN CHIEF. Is ais523 willing to carry out these duties in addition to the scam ones? Find out next time in the voting initiation! #5: IADoP, current holder omd, since October 5. In the span of just three weeks, I've ratified TWO people out of office and published NOT A SINGLE accurate initial report! Try competing with that! I nominate myself for IADoP and Prime Minister. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Re: BUS: Province?
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Nich Del Evans nich...@gmail.com wrote: If any characters have successfully arrived in the Province, Pythagorclid the Numerologist stumbles into the province. Here's a brief character sheet: * Knows every digit of Pi (but not their order) * Supernaturally skilled at solving puzzles, but often mistakes normal things for puzzles. * Easily distracted by sequences of numbers. Say, that character sheet reminds me of a puzzle...
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Minister for GNP Evaluation] Weekly GNP Analysis Report
On Oct 23, 2014 4:17 PM, Eritivus eriti...@gmail.com wrote: I guess it might be arguable whether such an embedded message counts for GNP. The MfGNPE's position is that it does not count, since this makes eir job easier. The MfGNPE will make no official comment at this time, but unofficially can confirm that e has, in the past, used GNP measurement devices susceptible to similar errors, and thus that eir previous reports may contain small errors. The MfGNPE's current methods are not susceptible to this sort of error, but may still suffer from other sorts of error. As always, e continues to work to improve the accuracy of eir reports. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister for GNP Evaluation explain to this House why e hates Agorans? -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Brief for Moot on CFJ 3429
On Oct 22, 2014 8:09 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 20:02 -0400, omd wrote: It's from Rule 2141: A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the game generally, and is always taking effect. Oh right. I remember disliking that wording even when it was added, but I got outvoted. Just out of interest, was it designed as a tie-in to a scam (it looks like it could have been)? Or an attempt to improve the rules generally? Because it doesn't make any sense. -- ais523 It was to ensure rules can effect (pun intended) rule changes. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal Competition
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:39 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
wrote:
I CFJ: {{omd withdrew an intent in the quoted message.}}
Arguments: The rules do not specify a mechanism for withdrawing intents.
It was TtDF.
There is nothing saying you can't withdraw an intent to a DF.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3430 assigned to ais523
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 7:24 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: [Nichdel: do you want to be on the list of judges?] CFJ 3430 is hereby assigned to ais523. Arguments: If Rule 2429 does lead to rules having extremely ambiguous meanings, then Rule 217 says: When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takesprecedence.Wherethetextissilent,inconsistent,orunclear,itistobeaugmentedbygamecustom,commonsense,pastjudgements,andconsiderationofthebestinterestsofthegame.Definitionsandprescriptionsintherulesareonlytobeappliedusingdirect,forwardreasoning;inparticular,anabsurditythatcanbeconcludedfromtheassumptionthatastatementaboutrule-definedconceptsisfalsedoesnotconstituteproofthatitistrue.Definitionsinlower-poweredRulesdonotoverrulecommon-senseinterpretationsorcommondefinitionsoftermsinhigher-poweredrules.Rulestothecontrarynotwithstanding,anyrulechangethatwould(1)preventapersonfrominitiatingaformalprocesstoresolvemattersofcontroversy,inthereasonableexpectationthatthecontroversywilltherebyberesolved;or(2)preventapersonfromcausingformalreconsiderationofanyjudicialdeterminationthateshouldbepunished, is wholly void and without effect. Disregarding the absolute nonsense in the middle of the rule, it's clear that the text of rules should just be ignored. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3430 assigned to ais523
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 11:28 PM, Sprocklem sprock...@gmail.com wrote: Also, there were several paragraph breaks that were lost in your adjustment of whitespace. -- Sprocklem You say paragraph breaks. I hear whitespace. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Oh for god's sake, only one person bothers to reply to a dictatorship scam?
On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:06 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote:
I contest the idea that a term such as a reasonably public process
could be interpreted as equivalent to an exact number of hours, as
opposed to looking at the circumstances of each case.
Also, I don't think there has ever been a case where the necessity of
96 hours has been brought up. In every case (all scams), there was no
particular hurry, so players simply waited that long to avoid any
ambiguity.
If we assume that a reasonably public process is an objective
standard that does not depend on the context (such as when the notice
is given, or the nature of the content of the proposed change),
perhaps notwithstanding holidays, then there must be an exact
boundary.
In the past, we have generally agreed that 4 days is sufficient. And
surely 1 second is insufficient.
It also makes no sense that the function is not nondecreasing. We
should never have a situation where waiting longer causes the
reasonably public process to suddenly be unacceptable (certainly not
under 4 days, anyway).
So we have an increasing function whose range is {0, 1} (not
acceptable, acceptable respectively). It's defined on the real line
(viewed as an amount of time). Therefore there must be some boundary
between the acceptable and unacceptable times.
-scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: [Registrar] Corrected Registrar's Report
On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Luis Ressel ara...@aixah.de wrote: I disagree. I also initially thought so when reading that rule some days go. (And wrote down an to-do item to fix it.) But then I discovered that CFJ: [CFJ 2400 (called 6 March 2009): Deputisation is generally treated as if the deputy gained the office immediately before the action, and lost it immediately after.] In my opinion, the rule text is unclear in this aspect, the rule is therefore to be interpreted as the cited CFJ states. That CFJ predates the rule by several years and is no longer applicable. -scshunt -- aranea
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A pact
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:03 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 12:22 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: I will commit to holding exactly one office, of Agora's choice, and to completing its duties on time, provided that all other offices are held and the duties completed on time. So, for about a week? ;p The idea here is that: a) Agora needs people to hold its offices b) Doing one office when other offices aren't being done is no fun c) I don't have time for more than one a) is universally true, I assume that b) applies to everyone else and that c) applies to enough other people, otherwise the offices would be getting done. The Nash equilibrium is that the offices don't get done, which is where we are. If enough people agree to a similar pact, then we can hopefully reach the unstable equilibrium of offices getting done long enough to see new developments. And we may get more players, if everyone is able to commit to just one office. -scshunt
DIS: Re: OFF: [Interstellar Associate Director of Personnel] Election Results: Prime Minister, Promotor, Scorekeepor
- Outcome: | scshunt | - Note that, due to lack of consent, this is ineffective. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3417 assigned to omd
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Tue, 8 Jul 2014, omd wrote: All right. I've been away on vacation - I sincerely apologize for the missing reports - but I guess ten minutes before a judgement deadline is as good a time as any to get back. as it means this judgement will describe an issue related to its own slight lateness :) I commend your dedication, but also note we're still in a Holiday, so you're safe. :) Nope, holiday's over. Agora's Birthday started on June 29th, the Sunday, which means that Agora was in Holiday the entire week of the 23rd up until the 6th. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: bottom's up
On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Mon, 30 Jun 2014, Kerim Aydin wrote: 101. This is the 21st Drinking Game Edition Birthday Nomic of Agora. Well, it's been 35 years since the last time no one showed up to a party of mine. Now I'm bored AND depressed. Sorry. I too am on holiday this week so I do not have time to play.
Re: DIS: now what
On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 3:54 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: ok now I've done my offical duties and I'm sitting bored in three days of meetings so I want to do something here, but nothing's going on... what next... Not much, given that we just entered Holiday. -scshunt
DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] This Week's Penalties
On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: I issue a Green Card to scshunt, for breaching rule 2143 by publishing an inaccurate Scorekeepor report. Green, because the mistake was quickly caught and mostly inconsequential, and seems to have been an honest mistake. I cannot issue a second card to scshunt, but I would for a failure to publish the Herald report last week (e deputised for it, pushing emself into the role, and I haven't noticed em resigning it). As previously mentioned, Herald is monthly. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgment
Not at all. On Jun 19, 2014 1:56 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Thu, 19 Jun 2014, Sean Hunt wrote: Jonatan Kilhamn jonatan.kilh...@gmail.com wrote: On 19 June 2014 03:51, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: The crux of the matter in CFJ 3407 is whether or not (the purported) Rule 2426 is a mechanism for judicial determinations, and is hence prevented from being enacted by (2) in the last paragraph of Rule 217. [...] Accordingly the Court finds that Rule 217 was not engaged in the enactment of Rule 2426, and therefore assigns to CFJ 3407 a judgment of FALSE. -R. H. scshunt, Prime Minister Don't you mean 3413? 3413 (Tiger) Rule 2426 (Cards) exists. Assigned to scshunt. And if you do, don't you mean TRUE? - Tiger, caller Yes on both counts, fortunately the Arbitor's mistake canceled my own. I assign a judgment of TRUE to CFJ 3413 per my arguments. Do you mind if I s/3407/3413/ when I put your arguments in database (when database exists)?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judicial Case: The Three Crimes of Promotor Scshunt
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 10:31 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Hono[u]rable is used to refer to any member of a legislature. When I joined, it was used to address any player formally, on the basis that we were all voting members of a legislative body. I've always hoped it could develop to something like this Australian story that Lindrum told once: Canberra: Madame Speaker, with respect, the Honourable Member from Woolongong has the brains of a sheep! (boos, jeers). Woolongong: Madame Speaker, I demand an apology from my Honourable Colleague from Canberra! Speaker: How does Canberra respond? Canberra: Madame Speaker, I sincerely apologise. The right Honourable Member from Woolongong does NOT have the brains of a sheep! (more boos, jeers). Ah, I apologize for misspeaking on the history. That was what I had been told, and evidently it was incorrect. However, that usage of Honourable is not always correct. In Canada, the title of Honourable is not given to Members of Parliament by default. It is, however, given to Privy Councillors and Senators for life and to some other officeholders (including the Speaker of the House) while in office. Right Honourable is reserved for former Governors-General (being His/Her Excellency in office) and for present and former Prime Ministers and Chief Justices. In the United Kingdom, by contrast, the use of [Right] Honourable is much more widespread.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 7679
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 12:08 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 12:05 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: NumAuthor AI Title 7679 G1 Moving Goalposts CoE: wrong AI - observing miscalculated distribution Argh I give up. I resign Promotor. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals, 7670-7675
On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran Decision of whether to adopt it. In the case of a proposal authored by myself, if it not already in the Proposal Pool, I first submit it. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is also a valid vote). The Proposal Pool is currently empty. You omitted two of my proposals from June 6. Could you add them? -Henri I could, yes. How many times have you pointed this out? -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] This Week's Penalties
On Jun 15, 2014 12:59 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Sat, 14 Jun 2014, Sean Hunt wrote: Incidentally, campaign speech for Herald: I will continue to clean up mistakes made by G. when e was Herald, as well as mistakes made by myself. All candidates are incompetent. IIRC, the list of Patent Titles has not been ratified since at least 2002, when I first held the job. It is probably the oldest record uncertainty in the game. I once awarded a missed Patent Title two years late (original fault wasn't mine I don't think). If elected, I swear to never ratify the thing so it remains an indefinitely uncertain, but also indefinitely living document. -G. I concur. Actually, I think the date last ratified is missing. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] This Week's Penalties
On Jun 15, 2014 1:31 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Sun, 15 Jun 2014, Sean Hunt wrote: I concur. Actually, I think the date last ratified is missing. I remember researching that back when I did the 2-year correction. I'll see if I've got notes somewhere. It's possible I misspoke. Thinking about it, the Report as a whole may have been ratified one one of the many times when the Herald was tracking a currency. -G. IIRC Assets only ratified the asset portion of the report. -scshunt
DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] This Week's Penalties
On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: H. Herald, do you intend to continue tracking the list of Fugitives, or should I do it now that the office of Referee exists? (To players who are unaware, the list of Fugitives covers the list of all persons who dodged a penalty, under any of Agora's many historical penalty rules, by deregistering, and have not since returned and made up for their crimes. The list is unofficial but has been tracked for ages, and such persons are sometimes given penalties under newly introduced penalty systems via proposal.) I have no preference either way. Incidentally, campaign speech for Herald: I will continue to clean up mistakes made by G. when e was Herald, as well as mistakes made by myself. All candidates are incompetent. -scshunt
DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3407 assigned to scshunt
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: [Arbitor's note: scshunt informally favored this case. Good enough for me while I get a system sorted]. My thinking atm is that Cards are extrajudicial and therefore no mechanism for reconsideration need exist. Opinions? -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset
On Jun 7, 2014 11:32 AM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote: CoE: Rule 2138 was amended on 6 May 2014 so that any instance of Interstellar in its text and title was replaced with Interoffice. -Henri I'm voting Henri for IADoP. -Henri
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Winning
On Jun 7, 2014 4:05 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote: Is it required that we always have a win condition? -Henri No. But I am Scorekeepor and Herald because of it, and many recent proposals came about as an attempt to garner points.
DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Offices and Elections
On Jun 7, 2014 1:09 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: Offices and Elections Date of last report: 27 May 14 Date of this report: 7 Jun 14 Office Holder Since Last Election --- Arbitor omd28 Apr 14 7 Apr 14 Assessorscshunt11 Apr 14 3 Jun 14 Herald scshunt12 May 14 3 Jun 14 IADoP omd16 Jan 14 3 Jun 14 Prime Minister [vacant]1 May 14 1 May 14 Promotorscshunt26 Mar 14 3 Jun 14 Referee omd 4 Jun 14 1 May 14 Registrar Henri 18 May 14 3 Jun 14 Rulekeepor omd 4 Feb 14 3 Jun 14 Scorekeepor [vacant]3 Jun 14 3 Jun 14 Speaker*omd 1 May 14 21 Apr 14 CoE: I'm the Scorekeepor. -scshunt
DIS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Nominations? for Assessor, Herald, IADoP, Promotor, Registrar, Rulekeepor, Scorekeepor
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:55 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: As envisioned by P7658's mad scramble for elections after a win, I initiate elections for those offices. Please note that Rule 2154 presently allows election initiation after the nomination period ends, but no longer has any information about what that period entails or how long it lasts. Since this is a dangling reference rather than missing permission (i.e. R217 applies), I intend to take the liberty of interpreting the nomination period as lasting no longer than seven days. In the meantime, feel free to make informal nominations. I nominate myself informally for Promotor and Assessor. -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Possibly Impotent Revenge against Evil Signature Enforcers
I'd take this case. -scshunt On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:34 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: I deputise for the Referee to award a Red Card to Henri for publishing a Registrar's Report without signing eir name at the end. (This is a violation of the first paragraph of R2428, but not the second, as the name is clearly signed in the From field.) However, on review, I'm not sure Rule 2426 (Cards) actually exists: it's clearly a mechanism for judicial determinations, yet has no way for a person to cause formal reconsideration of them, so its enactment was perhaps prevented by Rule 217, last para.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Reminder
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Addendum: otherwise, PRESENT. Interpreted as ineffective due to not specifying that you were changing your vote (though also entirely irrelevant as PRESENT's the default anyway.) -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Reminder
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Jonathan Rouillard jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote: WELL THEN. I submit the same vote as scshunt did on every proposal I haven't voted on that e did vote on. I vote PRESENT on all of the others. And I do mean *all* of the others. Yes, that means you, too. ~ Roujo Interpreting as applying only to decisions in their voting period at the time, and the rest being hyperbole. -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals, 7660-7668
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:47 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: 7668 scshunt 2 The Power of Bureaucracy -0 Interpreting as no vote since I cannot reasonably infer any form of vote from this. -scshunt
DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] The Scroll of Agora
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: Distributor: Steve An error having been discovered: Taral was awarded the Patent Title Distributor by proposal. The next edition of the Scroll will correct this inaccuracy. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: list back up
Hi On May 31, 2014 10:30 PM, com...@gmail.com wrote: Is it still broken, or is everyone just really quiet?
Re: DIS: Voting Period for 7643-7658
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 12:15 AM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: I currently have no plans to violate my obligations. It appears you have done so anyway... No, because all the voting periods were extended due to lack of quorum. I CAN but NEED NOT end the voting periods by announcement, and I have other priorities at the moment. -scshunt
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Reminder
On May 26, 2014 2:03 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote: So why is it bad that I voted on them? -Henri It's not. That's why I didn't issue a humiliating public reminder for you. -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Reminder
On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Sun, 25 May 2014, Sean Hunt wrote: G.'S NOBLE ATTEMPT TO VOTE WAS OFFSET BY HIS INABILITY TO READ MY MANY REDISTRIBUTIONS I hereby vote on the referenced proposals in a conditional manner, with the condition being, if the Assessor can reasonably determine what I meant to vote on and what option, I vote in that manner. Curse you for voting in a manner that will force me to implement conditional votes properly in my scripts. -scshunt
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting Reminder
On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Jonathan Rouillard jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 2:28 AM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: ROUJO NE DÉSERVE PAS L'HONNEUR D'ÊTRE UN JOUEUR D'AGORA! WELL THEN. I submit the same vote as scshunt did on every proposal I haven't voted on that e did vote on. I vote PRESENT on all of the others. And I do mean *all* of the others. Yes, that means you, too. ~ Roujo I'm interpreting this as an unconditional vote copying mine, not a conditional one. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Voting Period for 7643-7658
I currently have no plans to violate my obligations. On May 23, 2014 12:12 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote: If I am not mistaken, the voting period has ended three days ago for Proposals 7643-7658, so the Assessor should end it soon. -Henri
