Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Surveyor

[Edward Murphy]

Cuddle Beam wrote:


I also believe that its entirely possible for the rules to be faulty and
be acted upon via those flaws, as per ais523's withdrawal scam, where
the intent was clear, but the result was a mini dictatorship. I doubt
becoming a dictator would be "Treating Agora Right Good Forever", but it
was allowed to happen, without these 'Judge Interventions'. I don't
believe 'Judge Intervention' should apply to supersede the lack of other
arguments to prevent my scam (or any other "scam", really).


This is conflating two types of faulty language. Roughly:

1) A rule is intended or expected by most players to say X, but due to
faulty language, it's ambiguous whether it actually says X or Y. In this
case, Rule 217's "Where the text is ... unclear" favors interpreting it
as X.

2) A rule is intended or expected by most players to say X, but due to
faulty language (possibly intentional on someone's part), it /clearly/
(once the fault is pointed out) actually says Y. In this case, that bit
of Rule 217 doesn't apply; the rule does what it actually says it does,
unless some other rule (e.g. Rule 1698's protection against Agora
becoming ossified) also applies and contradicts it and takes precedence.

ais523's recent withdrawal scam falls into this category. Here's a
similar case from October 2015:

Amend Rule 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) by replacing

  (b) If the decision has an adoption index, then if the strength
  of FOR is greater than the strength of AGAINST, and the
  ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of AGAINST is
  greater than or equal to the decision's adoption index (or
  the strength of AGAINST is zero), then the outcome is
  ADOPTED; otherwise, the outcome is REJECTED.

with

  (b) If the decision has an adoption index, then if the strength
  of FOR is greater than the strength of AGAINST, and the
  ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of AGAINST is
  greater than the decision's adoption index (or
  the strength of AGAINST is zero), then the outcome is
  ADOPTED; otherwise if the strength of FOR is equal to or
  greater than the decisions adoption index and the ration of
  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;
  otherwise, the outcome is REJECTED.

[Give the Assessor the power to break ties, including to get a
majority on a vote or when the voting ratio exactly matches the AI].

What this /actually/ did was enable a scam. Translating the above into
pseudocode to make it clearer:

  if F > A and (F/A > AI or A = 0) then ADOPTED
  else if F >= AI and F/A >= AI then vote collector's choice
  ^^^ not "F >= A" as expected by non-scammers
  else REJECTED

and it was followed up by an AI = 0.2 proposal of basically "omd and
eir cronies get some rewards", which (with only three non-cronies
voting on it) they were able to arrange F=1 A=5 and trigger the
broken tie-breaking clause.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Surveyor

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I agree that an action is required to occult, I just don't believe that a
check is a required action. In my mind, I was thinking of the time as part
of the required state.
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 01:06 Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> On Jul 6, 2017, at 6:46 AM, Alex Smith  wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 01:57 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>
> I CFJ on the statement “I am the Surveyor.”
>
>
> This is likely to be dismissed due to lack of context. What's the
> controversy that might affect whether or not you're the Surveyor?
>
>
> Good catch. I do know better, and I should’ve included caller’s arguments.
> Thanks.
>
> I see that Cuddlebeam has stepped in, for which I thank em. I fully
> endorse eir explanation of the controversial aspect of my CFJ’d statement:
>
> There has been a bit of tumbling, but with people's input, the most recent
> version of my scam goes like this:
>
> ▪ In R2491 we have: "At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least
> one Estate, the Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up
> for auction, by announcement. Each auction ends seven days after it
> begins.". During the "Start of the Month", even if the Surveyor puts just
> the first Estate up to Auction, "if Agora owns at least one Estate" is
> still true. There are still Estates in Agora's ownership even after the
> Surveyor put the first one up to auction. Ergo, it would be required to put
> up yet another Estate. And another, and another, until there are no more
> Estates, during the time it was his duty to do so. This is the obligation I
> deputized for, from *last month's* auctions - The June Auctions - because
> it has "expired more than fourteen days ago".
>
> ▪ I did the deputization and auctions here:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28798.html
>
> ▪ This is my conjecture, but I believe that he has lost the office and
> that I have it now (hence his doubts, I suspect, please let me know if I'm
> wrong and its something else), via R2160: "When a player deputises via
> normal deputisation for an elected office, e becomes the holder of that
> office.". I deputized for the office of Surveyor, so I've now become the
> Surveyor.
>
>
> -o
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Surveyor

[Cuddle Beam]

I am grateful and flattered for your attention given to this Judgement, I
believe discussion like this makes for great gameplay.

Anyway, onto it:

I present the following as counterargument to the argument that "start of
the month" should be an instant or "only one point each month" instead of a
period of time.

R1023 "A requirement to perform an action at an exact instant (e.g. "when
X, Y SHALL Z"), but not "in the same message", is instead interpreted as a
requirement to perform that action in a timely fashion after that instant."

I also believe that its entirely possible for the rules to be faulty and be
acted upon via those flaws, as per ais523's withdrawal scam, where the
intent was clear, but the result was a mini dictatorship. I doubt becoming
a dictator would be "Treating Agora Right Good Forever", but it was allowed
to happen, without these 'Judge Interventions'. I don't believe 'Judge
Intervention' should apply to supersede the lack of other arguments to
prevent my scam (or any other "scam", really).

To put it more poetically: Rules can be flawed. *We* are flawed - but we
*grow* via finding flaws and using them as opportunities to learn, fix and
correct our nomic and understanding to become even stronger next time. I
myself am very flawed, but I deeply appreciate the feedback I get regarding
my flaws, because I can use them to grow - this scam is evidence of that!
Before my scam had many more holes, but now it has strengthened to deserved
a huge wall of text via embracing my flaws and the help to surpass them.
That is definitely something, that is *growth* which I have acquired.

Turning a blind eye to our own errors and needing to resort to dishonesty
in Judgement to protect the ideal that the Rules "should work" even when
they don't stunts our growth as people. As a nomic I believe we should
moves forwards and gathers more intellectual wealth, to become an example
for all other nomics, not hide behind catchphrases to just protect the
would-be ego of Agora.



On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:11 PM, grok (caleb vines) 
wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 6:11 AM, Cuddle Beam  wrote:
> > This is a bit of a mess I've caused to him really, lol. I'll help tidy
> it up
> > a bit so that things are more clear:
> >
> > Gratuitous argument for that CFJ:
> >
> > There has been a bit of tumbling, but with people's input, the most
> recent
> > version of my scam goes like this:
> >
> > ▪ In R2491 we have: "At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least
> one
> > Estate, the Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for
> > auction, by announcement. Each auction ends seven days after it begins.".
> > During the "Start of the Month", even if the Surveyor puts just the first
> > Estate up to Auction, "if Agora owns at least one Estate" is still true.
> > There are still Estates in Agora's ownership even after the Surveyor put
> the
> > first one up to auction. Ergo, it would be required to put up yet another
> > Estate. And another, and another, until there are no more Estates, during
> > the time it was his duty to do so. This is the obligation I deputized
> for,
> > from *last month's* auctions - The June Auctions - because it has
> "expired
> > more than fourteen days ago".
>
> I submit the following as a (responsive) gratuitous argument:
>
> First, background. Let's look at the text of the rule:
>
> "At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one estate, the
> Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for
> auction..."
>
> And let's look at the loop Cuddlebeam suspects exists, and tries to
> use as evidence for eir deuptization:
>
> 1. Agora checks for Estates owned by Agora.
> 2. At least one Estate is owned by Agora. In fact, five are!
> 3. The Surveyor is required to put one Estate up for auction.
> 4. o correctly puts an Estate up for auction, as required.
> 5. Agora checks for Estates owned by Agora.
> 6. At least one Estate is owned by Agora. In fact, four are!
> 7. The Surveyor must put an Estate up for auction, and continue until
> all Estates are up for auction.
>
> I will argue that part 5 of this postulated loop does not happen,
> preventing further events. Additionally, I believe part 6 of this
> postulated loop is fulfilled by part 4. If either of those arguments
> are TRUE, Part 7 (which represents the rest of the loop) never occurs.
> I will also provide arguments why, even arguments against parts 5 and
> 6 of the loop never happen, the Judge should still intervene and vote
> TRUE to treat Agora Right Good Forever.
>
> On part 5 of the loop: I am reasonably convinced that Agora does not
> check the number of Estates owned by Agora more than once.
>
> The first clause of 2491 specifically uses the language "At the start
> of each month." Cuddlebeam's arguments conspicuously leave out the
> word "At," which I believe is a key word. "At" implies that the
> specific mechanism that causes an Estate to come to auction 

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Surveyor

[Cuddle Beam]

R2160: "(...) 3. Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the
aforementioned time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the
deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e intended to
deputise for that office for the purposes of the particular action."

"(iii) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e
intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the particular
action." <- Not this.

"(ii) the aforementioned time limit expired more than fourteen days ago" <-
This.

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Nicholas Evans  wrote:

> You never depitized. You have to announce intent to depitize for occupied
> offices.
>
> On Jul 6, 2017 06:11, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:
>
>> This is a bit of a mess I've caused to him really, lol. I'll help tidy it
>> up a bit so that things are more clear:
>>
>> Gratuitous argument for that CFJ:
>>
>> There has been a bit of tumbling, but with people's input, the most
>> recent version of my scam goes like this:
>>
>> ▪ In R2491 we have: "At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least
>> one Estate, the Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up
>> for auction, by announcement. Each auction ends seven days after it
>> begins.". During the "Start of the Month", even if the Surveyor puts just
>> the first Estate up to Auction, "if Agora owns at least one Estate" is
>> still true. There are still Estates in Agora's ownership even after the
>> Surveyor put the first one up to auction. Ergo, it would be required to put
>> up yet another Estate. And another, and another, until there are no more
>> Estates, during the time it was his duty to do so. This is the obligation I
>> deputized for, from *last month's* auctions - The June Auctions - because
>> it has "expired more than fourteen days ago".
>>
>> ▪ I did the deputization and auctions here: http://www.mail-archive.
>> com/agora-busin...@agoranomic.org/msg28798.html
>>
>> ▪ This is my conjecture, but I believe that he has lost the office and
>> that I have it now (hence his doubts, I suspect, please let me know if I'm
>> wrong and its something else), via R2160: "When a player deputises via
>> normal deputisation for an elected office, e becomes the holder of that
>> office.". I deputized for the office of Surveyor, so I've now become the
>> Surveyor.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Alex Smith 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 01:57 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>> > I CFJ on the statement “I am the Surveyor.”
>>>
>>> This is likely to be dismissed due to lack of context. What's the
>>> controversy that might affect whether or not you're the Surveyor?
>>>
>>> --
>>> ais523
>>>
>>
>>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Surveyor

[Nicholas Evans]

You never depitized. You have to announce intent to depitize for occupied
offices.

On Jul 6, 2017 06:11, "Cuddle Beam"  wrote:

> This is a bit of a mess I've caused to him really, lol. I'll help tidy it
> up a bit so that things are more clear:
>
> Gratuitous argument for that CFJ:
>
> There has been a bit of tumbling, but with people's input, the most recent
> version of my scam goes like this:
>
> ▪ In R2491 we have: "At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least
> one Estate, the Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up
> for auction, by announcement. Each auction ends seven days after it
> begins.". During the "Start of the Month", even if the Surveyor puts just
> the first Estate up to Auction, "if Agora owns at least one Estate" is
> still true. There are still Estates in Agora's ownership even after the
> Surveyor put the first one up to auction. Ergo, it would be required to put
> up yet another Estate. And another, and another, until there are no more
> Estates, during the time it was his duty to do so. This is the obligation I
> deputized for, from *last month's* auctions - The June Auctions - because
> it has "expired more than fourteen days ago".
>
> ▪ I did the deputization and auctions here: http://www.mail-archive.
> com/agora-busin...@agoranomic.org/msg28798.html
>
> ▪ This is my conjecture, but I believe that he has lost the office and
> that I have it now (hence his doubts, I suspect, please let me know if I'm
> wrong and its something else), via R2160: "When a player deputises via
> normal deputisation for an elected office, e becomes the holder of that
> office.". I deputized for the office of Surveyor, so I've now become the
> Surveyor.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Alex Smith 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 01:57 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> > I CFJ on the statement “I am the Surveyor.”
>>
>> This is likely to be dismissed due to lack of context. What's the
>> controversy that might affect whether or not you're the Surveyor?
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Surveyor

[Cuddle Beam]

This is a bit of a mess I've caused to him really, lol. I'll help tidy it
up a bit so that things are more clear:

Gratuitous argument for that CFJ:

There has been a bit of tumbling, but with people's input, the most recent
version of my scam goes like this:

▪ In R2491 we have: "At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one
Estate, the Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for
auction, by announcement. Each auction ends seven days after it begins.".
During the "Start of the Month", even if the Surveyor puts just the first
Estate up to Auction, "if Agora owns at least one Estate" is still true.
There are still Estates in Agora's ownership even after the Surveyor put
the first one up to auction. Ergo, it would be required to put up yet
another Estate. And another, and another, until there are no more Estates,
during the time it was his duty to do so. This is the obligation I
deputized for, from *last month's* auctions - The June Auctions - because
it has "expired more than fourteen days ago".

▪ I did the deputization and auctions here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28798.html

▪ This is my conjecture, but I believe that he has lost the office and that
I have it now (hence his doubts, I suspect, please let me know if I'm wrong
and its something else), via R2160: "When a player deputises via normal
deputisation for an elected office, e becomes the holder of that office.".
I deputized for the office of Surveyor, so I've now become the Surveyor.




On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 01:57 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > I CFJ on the statement “I am the Surveyor.”
>
> This is likely to be dismissed due to lack of context. What's the
> controversy that might affect whether or not you're the Surveyor?
>
> --
> ais523
>

DIS: Re: BUS: [CFJ] Surveyor

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 01:57 -0400, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> I CFJ on the statement “I am the Surveyor.”

This is likely to be dismissed due to lack of context. What's the
controversy that might affect whether or not you're the Surveyor?

-- 
ais523