DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 (Weekly Report)
Trigon wrote: By the way, I found the Kingmaking thread which pushed me over 1000 coins. Thanks, I guess, but I'm really not sure why it was done. I can't find much commentary about it in the Reportor's summaries or the mailing lists themselves. Oh, because I was expecting coins to be repealed soon and thought "well, I've got 500-ish coins, Trigon's got 500-ish coins, may as well do this rather than risk a prisoner's dilemma over it". I missed that you were a zombie until shortly afterward, which then turned it into "welp I just made the next auction more interesting", until that /also/ failed.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 (Weekly Report)
On 4/26/2020 8:26 AM, ais523 wrote: > On Sat, 2020-04-25 at 22:30 -0400, Alexis Hunt wrote: >> On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 16:55, ais523 wrote: >>> Experience from BlogNomic is that many players apparently value >>> causing a win to happen, even if it's some other player that >>> actually gets the win. >>> >> Winning triggers an era change in BN, though, which may be motivation >> enough for some. > > This phenomenon's been observed even in cases when it's clear that an > era change is inevitable regardless, though. (For example, if two > players are each close to winning, there will typically be several > players willing to accept requests from one or the other of the players > to influence which of them wins, even with no obvious compensation.) > Well if it's an ongoing game with rounds, if you're losing one round you might as well have someone owe you a favor (even if just subconsciously) on a future round. (iterated play being what, in a game theory sense, breaks through prisoners' dilemmas in favor of cooperation).
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 (Weekly Report)
On Sat, 2020-04-25 at 22:30 -0400, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: > On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 16:55, ais523 via agora-discussion < > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > Experience from BlogNomic is that many players apparently value > > causing a win to happen, even if it's some other player that > > actually gets the win. > > > Winning triggers an era change in BN, though, which may be motivation > enough for some. This phenomenon's been observed even in cases when it's clear that an era change is inevitable regardless, though. (For example, if two players are each close to winning, there will typically be several players willing to accept requests from one or the other of the players to influence which of them wins, even with no obvious compensation.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 (Weekly Report)
On Sat, 25 Apr 2020 at 16:55, ais523 via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sat, 2020-04-25 at 14:53 -0600, Reuben Staley via agora-business > wrote: > > The following is a Notice of Honour: > > > > +1 PSS for reporting for Treasuror. > > -1 twg for leaving without resigning (I guess). > > > > By the way, I found the Kingmaking thread which pushed me over 1000 > > coins. Thanks, I guess, but I'm really not sure why it was done. I > > can't find much commentary about it in the Reportor's summaries or > > the mailing lists themselves. > > Experience from BlogNomic is that many players apparently value causing > a win to happen, even if it's some other player that actually gets the > win. > > (I'm more mercenary than that; I'm often quite happy to allow a win to > happen, but normally prefer to get something in return. That said, I > typically won't stop a win if its effects on the Speakership, etc., are > to my benefit, even if I don't receive a bribe directly.) > Winning triggers an era change in BN, though, which may be motivation enough for some.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500 (Weekly Report)
On Sat, 2020-04-25 at 14:53 -0600, Reuben Staley via agora-business wrote: > The following is a Notice of Honour: > > +1 PSS for reporting for Treasuror. > -1 twg for leaving without resigning (I guess). > > By the way, I found the Kingmaking thread which pushed me over 1000 > coins. Thanks, I guess, but I'm really not sure why it was done. I > can't find much commentary about it in the Reportor's summaries or > the mailing lists themselves. Experience from BlogNomic is that many players apparently value causing a win to happen, even if it's some other player that actually gets the win. (I'm more mercenary than that; I'm often quite happy to allow a win to happen, but normally prefer to get something in return. That said, I typically won't stop a win if its effects on the Speakership, etc., are to my benefit, even if I don't receive a bribe directly.) -- ais523
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
So it is, thank you - I marked all the zombie auction stuff as "uncertain, revisit later" and never did. Revision forthcoming. -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Friday, February 14, 2020 7:18 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > Also missing my transfer from o: > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-February/042174.html > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 11:16 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org wrote: > > > On 2/14/20 1:31 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-official wrote: > > > > > 1048Jason > > > > > > > CoE: I believe this is missing my transfer from Rance at 0. > > -- > > Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
Jason wrote: > CoE: this leaves out he Payday coins. Sorry. I even remembered it, just confused it with the broken things. Roll on Friday morning. -twg
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
G. wrote: > CoE on coin balances: missing blackjack payments? Oh yes. Somehow it didn't register with me that those were actual game actions. :P Revision forthcoming. -twg
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
On 1/11/2020 8:08 PM, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion wrote: Speaking of which, did the proposal that authorized D. Margaux's victory actually do that? The rules at the moment don't seem to allow victory by proposal, nor are victories self-ratifying any more. FWIW we did ratify the Scroll a couple months back, so the Champion titles are fixed even if the victory isn't. (tho this is why Herald's report isn't self-ratifying, wouldn't be the first time we've gone back a year or two and the last ratification before that was like 2014 I think). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 21:30, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 11:26 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion > wrote: > > > > > > On 1/11/2020 10:53 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:25, Jason Cobb wrote: > > > > > >> I suppose. I was considering keeping them to try to bribe people, but > > >> since they're pretty useless, that would be pointless. I perform the > > >> following action 18 times: { If I have more than 1000 Coins, I pay a > fee > > >> of 1000 Coins to win the game. }. > > >> > > > > > > Possibly too late now, but I think this really shouldn't be > (possibly) 18 > > > wins. I feel quite strongly on this point, since I believe that's more > > > wins than I've had, and I've had to work hard to have the most > instances > > > of Champion. > > > > Er, did you notice that the Scroll has this now: > > Spaaace [...] Jason Cobb (x1000) > > and this: > > Proposal [...] D. Margaux(x501) > > TBH, I'd be for consolidating those and then giving another patent > title that signified that one had found a way to get an infinite > number of wins (I've suggested Infinite Jestor in the past, and > presumably the Herald could mark it Infinite Jestor by Spaaace or the > like). > > -Aris > Infinite wins are boring. They're trivial to achieve in most loophole scams that get you wins. For instance, Jason Cobb could easily have chosen an arbitrarily large number of coins to accumulate, and even chosen to interleave declarations of victory in the event that there had been a reset condition. Any proposal force-through can trivially result in an arbitrary number, as can any dictatorship. Even the current condition for Apathy allows it to be achieved an arbitrary number of times. Speaking of which, did the proposal that authorized D. Margaux's victory actually do that? The rules at the moment don't seem to allow victory by proposal, nor are victories self-ratifying any more. Alexis
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 11:26 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > > On 1/11/2020 10:53 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:25, Jason Cobb wrote: > > > >> I suppose. I was considering keeping them to try to bribe people, but > >> since they're pretty useless, that would be pointless. I perform the > >> following action 18 times: { If I have more than 1000 Coins, I pay a fee > >> of 1000 Coins to win the game. }. > >> > > > > Possibly too late now, but I think this really shouldn't be (possibly) 18 > > wins. I feel quite strongly on this point, since I believe that's more > > wins than I've had, and I've had to work hard to have the most instances > > of Champion. > > Er, did you notice that the Scroll has this now: > Spaaace [...] Jason Cobb (x1000) > and this: > Proposal [...] D. Margaux(x501) TBH, I'd be for consolidating those and then giving another patent title that signified that one had found a way to get an infinite number of wins (I've suggested Infinite Jestor in the past, and presumably the Herald could mark it Infinite Jestor by Spaaace or the like). -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 14:26, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 1/11/2020 10:53 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:25, Jason Cobb wrote: > > > >> I suppose. I was considering keeping them to try to bribe people, but > >> since they're pretty useless, that would be pointless. I perform the > >> following action 18 times: { If I have more than 1000 Coins, I pay a > fee > >> of 1000 Coins to win the game. }. > >> > > > > Possibly too late now, but I think this really shouldn't be (possibly) > 18 > > wins. I feel quite strongly on this point, since I believe that's more > > wins than I've had, and I've had to work hard to have the most instances > > of Champion. > > Er, did you notice that the Scroll has this now: > Spaaace [...] Jason Cobb (x1000) > and this: > Proposal [...] D. Margaux(x501) > > No D:<
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
On 1/11/2020 10:53 AM, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:25, Jason Cobb wrote: > >> I suppose. I was considering keeping them to try to bribe people, but >> since they're pretty useless, that would be pointless. I perform the >> following action 18 times: { If I have more than 1000 Coins, I pay a fee >> of 1000 Coins to win the game. }. >> > > Possibly too late now, but I think this really shouldn't be (possibly) 18 > wins. I feel quite strongly on this point, since I believe that's more > wins than I've had, and I've had to work hard to have the most instances > of Champion. Er, did you notice that the Scroll has this now: Spaaace [...] Jason Cobb (x1000) and this: Proposal [...] D. Margaux(x501)
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
On Sat, 11 Jan 2020 at 13:25, Jason Cobb via agora-business < agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I suppose. I was considering keeping them to try to bribe people, but > since they're pretty useless, that would be pointless. I perform the > following action 18 times: { If I have more than 1000 Coins, I pay a fee > of 1000 Coins to win the game. }. > Possibly too late now, but I think this really shouldn't be (possibly) 18 wins. I feel quite strongly on this point, since I believe that's more wins than I've had, and I've had to work hard to have the most instances of Champion. Alexis
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 at 23:39, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > On Tuesday, November 26, 2019 8:25 PM, James Cook > wrote: > > 10Jacob Arduino > > CoE: Jacob Arduino has no coins because e is no longer a player. Thanks. I'll publish a revision soon. > I intend without objection to declare apathy, specifying all players. I object. -- - Falsifian
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
On Mon, 2 Sep 2019 at 04:40, Jason Cobb wrote: > On 8/26/19 10:38 PM, James Cook wrote: > > > >Forbes 500 > > > > > > Date of this report: 2019-08-27 > > Date of last report: 2019-08-19 > > > Not really an accuracy issue, but 27 August is not in this week, so I'm > not sure that this fulfills your requirement for a weekly report. > > -- > Jason Cobb Agreed. I discovered the error in last week's report while working on this week's still-unpublished report. -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
On behalf of tar I transfer 20 coins to R. Lee On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 2:24 PM James Cook wrote: > On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 23:35, Rebecca wrote: > > I also transfer tar's 20 coins to myself > > Does this work? > > R2466 requires that you "must, in the message in which the action is > performed, uniquely identify the principal and that the action is > being taken on behalf of that person." > > Specifically, you didn't say the action is being taken on behalf of > someone. It's sort of implied, because it's very common to act on > behalf of one's zombie to take eir assets, but I'm not sure that's > enough to meet the requirement. > > -- > - Falsifian > -- >From R. Lee
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 at 23:35, Rebecca wrote: > I also transfer tar's 20 coins to myself Does this work? R2466 requires that you "must, in the message in which the action is performed, uniquely identify the principal and that the action is being taken on behalf of that person." Specifically, you didn't say the action is being taken on behalf of someone. It's sort of implied, because it's very common to act on behalf of one's zombie to take eir assets, but I'm not sure that's enough to meet the requirement. -- - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 20:48, Rance Bedwell wrote: > If you want me to, I will attempt to withdraw the COE. That might make things more interesting, since I don't see a way for you to do it. I might still be able to deny it under Rule 2201; I'm not sure. I don't think it's causing much harm. I'm wondering if I should withdraw my CFJ if we're all in agreement about it. On the one hand, it would save the work of a judge; on the other, if it's really so trivial, it shouldn't take much work to judge. I'll leave it out there unless people think I should withdraw.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
You have persuaded me at least. Also, in this case I chose to send the second email. But if the duplicate email resulted from a technical glitch with no conscious decision involved, it certainly wouldn't seem right or a common sense interpretation to penalize the person. In addition to the arguments you already made, I would put forward that for a duplicate email announcing an action the second one no longer meets the "unambiguously and clearly specified" requirement of Rule 478 if the intent to perform it twice is not explicit. If you want me to, I will attempt to withdraw the COE. -Rance On Wednesday, May 29, 2019, 11:01:24 PM CDT, James Cook wrote: On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 03:34, Rance Bedwell wrote: > I make a COE for this Treasuror's report. I posted two public messages >announcing that I paid 2 coins to Agora. If I had been wise I would have made >the second one conditional upon the + not succeeding. I was not wise, so I >think I should only have 56 coins. CFJ: Rance paid 2 Coins to Agora twice on 2019-05-20. Arguments to follow. I respond to Rance's above CoE by citing the CFJ Arguments: I believe this is FALSE. Rance's second email said "I apologize if this message comes through as a duplicate.", which makes it clear that the first part of that email is a retransmission of the same message, not a new, independent message. I think CFJs 1451 [0] and 1452 [1] are relevant here: in each of those cases, a player sent a single message across multiple emails. The only difference here is that the emails are redundent (repeating the same content) rather than splitting the content across multiple messages. Nothing in Rule 478 says that every email constitutes a message. The fora are a way to send public messages, but I believe we should use common sense (R217) in determining what messages the players sent. [0] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1451 [1] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1452
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
I vaguely seem to recall that there is precedent that payments for something fail entirely if it's impossible for them to achieve that something. Greetings, Ørjan. On Thu, 30 May 2019, James Cook wrote: On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 03:34, Rance Bedwell wrote: I make a COE for this Treasuror's report. I posted two public messages announcing that I paid 2 coins to Agora. If I had been wise I would have made the second one conditional upon the first not succeeding. I was not wise, so I think I should only have 56 coins. CFJ: Rance paid 2 Coins to Agora twice on 2019-05-20. Arguments to follow. I respond to Rance's above CoE by citing the CFJ Arguments: I believe this is FALSE. Rance's second email said "I apologize if this message comes through as a duplicate.", which makes it clear that the first part of that email is a retransmission of the same message, not a new, independent message. I think CFJs 1451 [0] and 1452 [1] are relevant here: in each of those cases, a player sent a single message across multiple emails. The only difference here is that the emails are redundent (repeating the same content) rather than splitting the content across multiple messages. Nothing in Rule 478 says that every email constitutes a message. The fora are a way to send public messages, but I believe we should use common sense (R217) in determining what messages the players sent. [0] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1451 [1] https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1452
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
On 3/5/2019 6:14 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I respond to the CoE by citing the CFJ. (I swear I remember there being a proto floating around at some point to change it so that just the existence of a relevant open CFJ would block self-ratification, instead of having to go through this rigmarole. Wonder what happened to that.) Maybe let a CoE include a connected CFJ, in which case a response might not be mandatory. It's already there, no CoE nor any recordkeepor response required(R2201): A doubt is an explicit public challenge via [...] 1. An inquiry case (I would have had to explicitly identify the Report's error in the CFJ, which I didn't do - sorry about that!)
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: I respond to the CoE by citing the CFJ. (I swear I remember there being a proto floating around at some point to change it so that just the existence of a relevant open CFJ would block self-ratification, instead of having to go through this rigmarole. Wonder what happened to that.) Maybe let a CoE include a connected CFJ, in which case a response might not be mandatory. Without such an explicit connection, such a clause could make a report accidentally not self-ratify because of a CFJ that wasn't even intended (or stated) to be relevant to it, which seems to me like a bad idea. Greetings, Ørjan.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
Oh don't worry about me, it's the only vaguely controversial thing that's happened so far this week so it's pretty easy to keep track of in my head. If it was actually too confusing I'd be docking karma from you myself. :P -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 9:06 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Yeah, to be clear this seems like a fairly simple legislative fix. > However, pursuant to the hash system not working for Spaceships (I > think), I'd worked on a draft of "how to act by hashes" and came up > against questions of retroactivity and evidence. So I'm used the > ambiguity of "stating" in this rule to see if we need to change some > of the action and announcement timing concepts, after CFJ 3714 implied > that something like this would work. It's really a boring bug in > itself, the most that can be done with it AFAICT is to deny oneself > some earnings and annoy the Treasuror... > > Notice of Honour > -1 G. (for testing this in a way that puts burden on the Treasuror) > +1 twg (for having to be the Treasuror) > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 12:57 PM Gaelan Steele g...@canishe.com wrote: > > > Seems like the solution here is to define (in a rule) “by announcement, > > stating…” as requiring the “stating” bit to be part of the public message. > > Gaelan > > > > > On Mar 5, 2019, at 12:48 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote: > > > CFJ, barring twg: G. has earned 5 coins for the Herald's Report of > > > 17-Feb-2019. > > > I plan to provide proof to the judge of the CFJ that a statement > > > containing the required earnings information hashes to the > > > previously-published hash. > > > CFJ 3714 implied fairly strongly that it is not required to state the > > > coins earned "to someone else". It was "stated" in a written form, > > > and the hash of the written form is the proof that I did so at that > > > particular time. CFJ 3714 strongly suggested that "stating it" in > > > Discussion would work, with the only question being the burden of > > > proof that the statement was, in fact, made in some form (since > > > Discussion is visible to others, that satisfies the burden of proof). > > > I don't see how, if Discussion would work (as CFJ 3714 specifically > > > allows), "stating it" to a hash generator with proof that statement > > > was made at that time is any different. > > > I don't think any application would be retroactive, I think it would > > > be "evidence previously unavailable is now revealed". But because I'm > > > interested in that retroactivity question, I haven't provided the > > > original statement text at this point in time. > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:09 AM D. Margaux dmargaux...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 5, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > > > > Yes, I don't see how this is any different from "stating it to > > > > > yourself". Your publication of the hash (if it even is a hash - I see > > > > > no evidence that it's not just a random string of hexadecimal digits) > > > > > didn't meaningfully communicate anything to anyone else. > > > > > > > > Now, the truly interesting question is what happens if G. does give us > > > > the ability to decrypt and it contains the required information. I > > > > think that would not be a retroactive announcement (but maybe it > > > > would...). I do think it meets the lower bar for a “statement” under > > > > CFJ 3714, and therefore would work. > > > > We should probably come up with a legislative fix, because this seems > > > > like a bug that can be scammed somehow.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
Seems like the solution here is to define (in a rule) “by announcement, stating…” as requiring the “stating” bit to be part of the public message. Gaelan > On Mar 5, 2019, at 12:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > CFJ, barring twg: G. has earned 5 coins for the Herald's Report of > 17-Feb-2019. > > I plan to provide proof to the judge of the CFJ that a statement > containing the required earnings information hashes to the > previously-published hash. > > CFJ 3714 implied fairly strongly that it is not required to state the > coins earned "to someone else". It was "stated" in a written form, > and the hash of the written form is the proof that I did so at that > particular time. CFJ 3714 strongly suggested that "stating it" in > Discussion would work, with the only question being the burden of > proof that the statement was, in fact, made in some form (since > Discussion is visible to others, that satisfies the burden of proof). > I don't see how, if Discussion would work (as CFJ 3714 specifically > allows), "stating it" to a hash generator with proof that statement > was made at that time is any different. > > I don't think any application would be retroactive, I think it would > be "evidence previously unavailable is now revealed". But because I'm > interested in that retroactivity question, I haven't provided the > original statement text at this point in time. > > > On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 10:09 AM D. Margaux wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Mar 5, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >>> >>> Yes, I don't see how this is any different from "stating it to yourself". >>> Your publication of the hash (if it even is a hash - I see no evidence that >>> it's not just a random string of hexadecimal digits) didn't meaningfully >>> communicate anything to anyone else. >> >> Now, the truly interesting question is what happens if G. does give us the >> ability to decrypt and it contains the required information. I think that >> would not be a retroactive announcement (but maybe it would...). I do think >> it meets the lower bar for a “statement” under CFJ 3714, and therefore would >> work. >> >> We should probably come up with a legislative fix, because this seems like a >> bug that can be scammed somehow. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
> On Mar 5, 2019, at 1:03 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Yes, I don't see how this is any different from "stating it to yourself". > Your publication of the hash (if it even is a hash - I see no evidence that > it's not just a random string of hexadecimal digits) didn't meaningfully > communicate anything to anyone else. Now, the truly interesting question is what happens if G. does give us the ability to decrypt and it contains the required information. I think that would not be a retroactive announcement (but maybe it would...). I do think it meets the lower bar for a “statement” under CFJ 3714, and therefore would work. We should probably come up with a legislative fix, because this seems like a bug that can be scammed somehow.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
In that message, you didn’t state a number of coins; you stated a hash. Stating a hash is different from stating that-which-was-hashed, I think, at least when the hash cannot readily be decrypted by those to whom the statement is directed. If you said the hash out loud to yourself, or “stated” the underlying text to the computer performing the hashing algorithm, then I think that yields a DISMISS for the same reasons as 3714, at least until you give us information sufficient to decrypt. > On Mar 5, 2019, at 12:41 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > CoE on coin balances: As per the CFJ 3714 judgement, proof that I stated > the number of coins earned for my last-but-one Herald's Report (in a timely > manner for the reward) is found here: > > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-February/040091.html > > [Note: I'm not trying to be annoying about the quanging thing here - > I've been trying to write a general action-by-hash rule for a bit and want > to know if rules need changing wrt standards of evidence and revealing > info and whatnot]. > > >> On 3/5/2019 6:50 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> COIN BALANCES >> >> This section self-ratifies.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
I was starting to be concerned tbh lol. On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:32 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 2/18/2019 12:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada > dada > > dada... > > (that dada thing was meant to be silly, not angry - i realized afterwards > that it sounded kinda shouty like what the dadaists did - sorry). >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
Kinky. On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:33 PM D. Margaux wrote: > I point my toes at G. and cuddle beam for Faking. > > > On Feb 18, 2019, at 3:31 PM, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > > > maah uyntz asee as myself and sunt Dictatorship, also, the game is now > > Ossified and nobody can perform any game actions, having R1698 been > broken > > and whatnot. > > > >> On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 9:10 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >> > >> Dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada > dada > >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada > dada > >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada > dada > >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada > dada > >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada > dada > >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada > dada > >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada > dada > >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada > dada > >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada > dada > >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada > dada > >> dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada > dada > >> dada > >> > >>> On 2/18/2019 11:58 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: > >>> No, I disagree. The point is that quang was a definition in the Agoran > >>> dialect, the same as if the relevant verb had been defined in standard > >>> English (we’ve never made a specific ruling on linguistic > acceptability, > >>> beyond the comprehension of the players). Here, you’re just saying > >>> something and expecting someone to go look it up, without providing a > >>> specific definition. Quang worked because all or most of the players > >>> “already” knew. > >>> > >>> -Aris > >>> > On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:48 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > This is a clear and direct application of Judge Murphy's > interpretation > >> of > the Rewards Rule. If "quang" is allowed to reference a random > cultural > definition, I don't see why referencing something that is directly > contained > in the ruleset ("whatever is necessary to claim a reward") would fail > >> when > we allow this sort of unofficial jargon to succeed. > > In case your CoE denial succeded: > > CoE: The latest Treasuror's Report is missing an > appropriately-claimed > reward for my most recent Herald's Report. > > > > On 2/18/2019 11:41 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > You mean this? > > > > On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:03 PM, Kerim Aydin > >> wrote: > >> On 2/17/2019 1:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >>> Herald’s Weekly report > >>> Date of Last Report: 04 Feb 2018 > >>> Date of This Report: 17 Feb 2019 > >> > >> I state what is necessary to be Rewarded for the above-referenced > report. > > > > I did miss that, yes, but even now I see it I'm not at all clear that > >> it > works - seems to be a case of ISIDTID. > > > > For comparison, I state whatever is necessary to publish a revision > to > the below-referenced report. > > > > -twg > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:17 PM, Kerim Aydin > >> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> CoE: missing my most recent claim of reward for the herald's report > >> (crossed in the mail?) > >> > >>> On 2/18/2019 11:13 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > >>> > >>> Date of this weekly report: 2019-02-18 > >>> Date of last weekly report: 2019-01-29 > > > > > > >> > >> >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
On 2/18/2019 12:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada dada... (that dada thing was meant to be silly, not angry - i realized afterwards that it sounded kinda shouty like what the dadaists did - sorry).
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
> On 2/18/2019 11:41 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: >> I did miss that, yes, but even now I see it I'm not at all clear that it >> works - seems to be a case of ISIDTID. >> >> For comparison, I state whatever is necessary to publish a revision to >> the below-referenced report. Here's a a more careful elaboration: in my case, the "what is necessary to be rewarded" leads directly to the 5 Coin Reward level in the rules for a weekly report, there's really no alternate reference (it's the only way we're really using 'Reward' right now), and it's a direct substitution like "quang". In your case "publishing a revision", it's unclear what the text is: it could be anything.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
No, I disagree. The point is that quang was a definition in the Agoran dialect, the same as if the relevant verb had been defined in standard English (we’ve never made a specific ruling on linguistic acceptability, beyond the comprehension of the players). Here, you’re just saying something and expecting someone to go look it up, without providing a specific definition. Quang worked because all or most of the players “already” knew. -Aris On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 11:48 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > This is a clear and direct application of Judge Murphy's interpretation of > the Rewards Rule. If "quang" is allowed to reference a random cultural > definition, I don't see why referencing something that is directly > contained > in the ruleset ("whatever is necessary to claim a reward") would fail when > we allow this sort of unofficial jargon to succeed. > > In case your CoE denial succeded: > > CoE: The latest Treasuror's Report is missing an appropriately-claimed > reward for my most recent Herald's Report. > > > On 2/18/2019 11:41 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > You mean this? > > > > On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:03 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> On 2/17/2019 1:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> > >>> Herald’s Weekly report > >>> Date of Last Report: 04 Feb 2018 > >>> Date of This Report: 17 Feb 2019 > >> > >> I state what is necessary to be Rewarded for the above-referenced > report. > > > > I did miss that, yes, but even now I see it I'm not at all clear that it > works - seems to be a case of ISIDTID. > > > > For comparison, I state whatever is necessary to publish a revision to > the below-referenced report. > > > > -twg > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Monday, February 18, 2019 7:17 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> CoE: missing my most recent claim of reward for the herald's report > >> (crossed in the mail?) > >> > >> On 2/18/2019 11:13 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > >> > >>> Date of this weekly report: 2019-02-18 > >>> Date of last weekly report: 2019-01-29 > > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
Oh ok, will fix ~Corona On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 7:18 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > CoE: Still off I'm afraid. Zombies should get the May salary (that > includes > 3 Incs) but not the initial 5. (then some people transferred the Incs from > their zombies to themselves when they transferred 'all assets' after May > 1). > > > On Sat, 5 May 2018, Corona wrote: > > > Accepted. Revision: > > > > > > +---++++---+++-- > --++++ > > |Entity > > |Ston|Appl|Corn|Ore|Lmbr|Cotn|Coin|Papr|Fabr|Incs| > > +---++++---+++-- > --++++ > > |ATMunn | 6| 27| 0| 0| 7| 0| 49| 12| 0| > > 8| > > |Aris | 5| 25| 7| 0| 5| 0| 77| 5| 0| > > 8| > > |Corona | 24| 39| 15| 17| 9| 18| 85| 16| 0| > > 8| > > |CuddleBeam | 11| 13| 9| 4| 8| 9| 40| 8| 0| > > 8| > > |G. | 20| 55| 11| 0| 13| 0| 137| 29| 0| > > 8| > > |Gaelan | 14| 23| 2| 6| 2| 0| 37| 8| 0| > > 8| > > |Kenyon | 14| 32| 4| 6| 20| 3| 35| 7| 0| > > 8| > > |Murphy | 5| 25| 4| 0| 8| 0| 60| 9| 0| > > 8| > > |PSS| 0| 5| 0| 0| 0| 0| 10| 2| 0| > > 0| > > |Quazie | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > > 0| > > |Telnaior | 5| 25| 3| 0| 5| 0| 55| 9| 0| > > 0| > > |Trigon | 3| 20| 11| 2| 4| 12| 28| 5| 0| > > 8| > > |VJ Rada| 10| 45| 1| 0| 10| 0| 55| 15| 0| > > 8| > > |nichdel| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > > 0| > > |o | 0| 1| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > > 0| > > |omd| 0| 10| 0| 0| 0| 0| 20| 4| 0| > > 0| > > |Ouri | 0| 5| 0| 0| 0| 0| 14| 2| 0| > > 8| > > |pokes | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > > 0| > > |天火狐 | 5| 25| 0| 0| 5| 0| 40| 9| 0| > 0| > > +---++++---+++-- > --++++ > > |farm at 1,-1 | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > > 0| > > |mine at -1,-1 | 3| 0| 0| 2| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > > 0| > > |mine at 1,1| 3| 0| 0| 2| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > > 0| > > |orchard at -1,1| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > > 0| > > |(Corona’s) mine at 0,2 | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > > 0| > > |(Corona’s) refinery at 1,-2| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > > 0| > > |(Corona’s) orchard at 2,1 | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > > 0| > > |(ATMunn’s) farm at 1,3 | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > > 0| > > |(G.’s) mine at 2,0 | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > > 0| > > |Finger Pointing Workaround | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| > > 0| > > |Agora | 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 179| 0| 0| > > 0| > > +---++++---+++-- > --++++ > > > > The following abbreviations are used in the table above: > > > > Ston = stone > > > > Appl = apples > > > > Lmbr = lumber > > > > Cotn = cotton > > > > Coin = coins > > > > Papr = papers > > > > Fabr = fabric > > > > Incs = incense > > > > > > > > PSS = Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > > > > > > > Recent changes (most recent first, times in UTC, non-self-ratifying): > > > > [Sat May 5 06:05:57] Corona transferred 4 corn to o > > > > [Sat May 5 00:31:09] Trigon pended “be with you” with 1 paper > > > > [Fri May 4 21:31:10] o, being acted on behalf of by G., destroyed 5 > apples > > to move and change a land type > > > > [Fri May 4 21:00:40] ATMunn transferred 5 apples to o > > > > [Fri May 4 18:10:13] G. moved and changed a land type, destroying 5 > apples > > > > [Fri May 4 17:30:58] G. gave o 20 apples and o, being acted on behalf of > by > > G., destroyed 19 apples to start a circumnavigation > > > > [Fri May 4 16:59:20] G. spent 3 coins and 2 lumber to upgrade eir mine to > > rank 2 > > > > [Fri May 4 16:57:01] G. destroyed 5 lumber to build a mine at (2,0) > > > > [Fri May 4 15:22:41] Corona, via Quazie, changed land types, destroying 2 > > corn and 1 apple > > > > [Fri May 4 15:12:53] Corona transferred 4 coins to Agora if e has th e > > highest priority in the current land auction (TRUE) > > > > > > > > [Fri May 4 14:45:54] G. moved around and changed land types, destroying > 10 > > apples > > > > [Fri May 4 13:26:12] ATMunn looted nichdel’s body > > > > [Fri May 4 13:17:06] ATMunn moved around and built a farm, destroying 8 > > apples, 3 lumber and 2 stones > > > > [Thu May 3 21:15:20] VJ Rada caus
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500
On Fri, 4 May 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: > CoE: This report misses that 3 incense were added to Paydays before the May 1 > payday (Proposal 8040). (also, 天火狐 was a zombie when that proposal passed so shouldn't have gotten the 5).