Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-18 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 2/17/2019 9:59 PM, James Cook wrote: On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:52, Kerim Aydin wrote: Here are the others since then: > Amended(20) by R2430, 24 May 2017 I don't know what this is - lots of rules have this comment but I can't find the event. It's for cleaning rules. By design, I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread James Cook
Would also add G as coauthor (thanks for help researching history of the rule) and use the proper handle for ais523 (will double-check with earlier email to make sure I have it right). On Mon., Feb. 18, 2019, 00:58 James Cook On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:08, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 2/17/2019

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:52, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Here are the others since then: > > > Amended(20) by R2430, 24 May 2017 > I don't know what this is - lots of rules have this comment but I can't find > the event. It's for cleaning rules. By design, I doubt the change could matter. E.g.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 05:08, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 2/17/2019 7:30 PM, James Cook wrote: > > I'm not familiar with the History of R2124. Do you know which proposal > > added #4, and whether there were any substantial changes to the rule > > after that? > > This was the change that added it: >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin
Here are the others since then: > Amended(20) by R2430, 24 May 2017 I don't know what this is - lots of rules have this comment but I can't find the event. > Amended(21) by P8017 'RTRW Cleanups' (Alexis), 06 Mar 2018 Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by replacing "the Executor of the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, Kerim Aydin wrote: This was the change that added it: Amended(19) by P7815 'Agencies' (Alexis, aranea), 28 Oct 2016 the clause that added it was straightforward: Amend Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) by adding: (4) if the action is to be performed With Notice or

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 2/17/2019 7:30 PM, James Cook wrote: I'm not familiar with the History of R2124. Do you know which proposal added #4, and whether there were any substantial changes to the rule after that? This was the change that added it: > Amended(19) by P7815 'Agencies' (Alexis, aranea), 28 Oct 2016

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 01:00, D Margaux wrote: > > On Feb 17, 2019, at 5:11 PM, James Cook wrote: > > Is it easy to make that a separate proposal from my amendment > > proposal? Or is that complicated to do? > > I think it would make the most sense to do it in one proposal if we could, > right?

DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019, D. Margaux wrote: 5. FORCE GAELAN AND ATMUNN TO SUPPORT GROUP-FILED RECONSIDERATION // only works if intents are not broken I intend with 2 support to move to reconsider the above-called CFJ. I cause ATMunn and Gaelan to support that intent. I move to reconsider that

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread D Margaux
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 5:11 PM, James Cook wrote: > > Is it easy to make that a separate proposal from my amendment > proposal? Or is that complicated to do? I think it would make the most sense to do it in one proposal if we could, right? I’m not sure what the right language would be.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 7:31 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > I'm not clear how your win attempt relies on it though. I understand that > you've arranged matters so that you only win* if intents are broken (because > otherwise the CFJ is eventually judged DISMISS), but not _why_ you've done

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 7:34 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:17 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > Yes you did: (1) the power to assign a judge to a CFJ in the same message > > it's initiated; and (2) the power to personally select who judges a CFJ. > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Madeline
What about making a safety clause that the caller of a CFJ cannot judge it (all else notwithstanding)? On 2019-02-18 06:17, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: On Sunday, February 17, 2019 2:28 PM, D. Margaux wrote: I purposefully didn’t use any of the powers of the Arbitor for this scam. Yes you did:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 15:56 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Ok, are we talking about self-ratifying the fact that a certain Judge > delivered a judgement of FALSE, or self-ratifying a document that > states that the CFJ statement was, in fact, FALSE going forward? (it > sounds like the above

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 2/17/2019 3:49 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 15:43 -0800, Aris Merchant wrote: CFJ findings probably should self-ratify, although they doesn’t really do anything. Ruleset self-ratifications are incredibly dangerous (think of all the scares people would try) so

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Aris Merchant
On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 3:49 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 15:43 -0800, Aris Merchant wrote: > > CFJ findings probably should self-ratify, although they doesn’t really do > > anything. Ruleset self-ratifications are incredibly dangerous

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin
I'm against ratifying the Patent Titles automatically. It's our historical record and there's no harm in fixing using historical records when needed, and patent titles don't have follow-on effects. That said, it's been ratified about - I dunno - every other year manually. I think Aris's

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 15:43 -0800, Aris Merchant wrote: > CFJ findings probably should self-ratify, although they doesn’t really do > anything. Ruleset self-ratifications are incredibly dangerous (think of all > the scares people would try) so we only do them occasionally. We’re about > due for

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk
On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 10:38 +1100, Madeline wrote: > What if we set up these things to self-ratify after, say, a quarter? > That way we know we don't have to dig up years of history if > something does go wrong, but we don't run the risk of getting into > trouble with something important that

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Aris Merchant
CFJ findings probably should self-ratify, although they doesn’t really do anything. Ruleset self-ratifications are incredibly dangerous (think of all the scares people would try) so we only do them occasionally. We’re about due for one now, as it happens. Patent titles are long term state that we

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Madeline
What if we set up these things to self-ratify after, say, a quarter? That way we know we don't have to dig up years of history if something does go wrong, but we don't run the risk of getting into trouble with something important that just gets missed for a couple of weeks? On 2019-02-18

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin
Oh! How could I forget in the current scam - whether Moots or Motions for CFJs worked, which might mean original judgements were still in place. On 2/17/2019 3:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 2/17/2019 2:11 PM, James Cook wrote: Also, isn't most of the game state periodically ratified by

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 2/17/2019 2:11 PM, James Cook wrote: Also, isn't most of the game state periodically ratified by official reports? I don't have a firm grasp of what exactly this messes up, and I haven't looked at the public messages much further back than than the date I registered*. The ruleset doesn't

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 17 Feb 2019 at 14:08, D. Margaux wrote: > Also... if intents are truly broken, that could lead to a lot of havoc in the > gamestate. It would be potentially impossible to sort out. > > Maybe the fix legislation could say something like, “upon enactment of this > proposal, the gamestate

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Madeline
On 2019-02-18 09:00, D. Margaux wrote: On Feb 17, 2019, at 4:54 PM, Madeline wrote: Yo, this doesn't get you a win regardless of what follows because the Win by Paradox rule only works for "a CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game action", which this is not. Arg. Well played,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 4:54 PM, Madeline wrote: > > Yo, this doesn't get you a win regardless of what follows because the Win by > Paradox rule only works for "a CFJ about the legality or possibility of a > game action", which this is not. Arg. Well played, Ruleset, well played.

DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Madeline
Yo, this doesn't get you a win regardless of what follows because the Win by Paradox rule only works for "a CFJ about the legality or possibility of a game action", which this is not. On 2019-02-18 00:08, D. Margaux wrote: Intents may be completely broken, and if they are, then that will

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin
Ah - gotcha. That makes sense. I don't begrudge the win, but you're right, retroactive is pretty much needed here to prevent massive breakages if the whole intent thing has been broken for a while. Retroactive fixes have been used many times when things have turned out to be broken, not just

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > >> On 2/17/2019 11:48 AM, D. Margaux wrote: >> Anyhow, I don’t really expect this PARADOXICAL win (if it becomes a win) to >> be permanent. > > Why wouldn't it be permanent? Nothing takes away the win once the judgement > has been

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 2/17/2019 11:48 AM, D. Margaux wrote: Anyhow, I don’t really expect this PARADOXICAL win (if it becomes a win) to be permanent. Why wouldn't it be permanent? Nothing takes away the win once the judgement has been in place for 7 days, even if the judgement is overturned or overruled

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux
I think maybe there is some confusion about how this scheme is meant to operate. Hopefully this clarifies it: The idea here isn’t to abuse the Arbitor’s power to call or assess votes in moots. The idea is to take advantage of the fact that intents might be broken, so it might be _impossible_

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux
> On Feb 17, 2019, at 2:17 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > Yes you did: (1) the power to assign a judge to a CFJ in the same message > it's initiated; and (2) the power to personally select who judges a CFJ. Nope. I didn’t use any Arbitor power. I used the Prime Minister’s cabinet order

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 2:28 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > I purposefully didn’t use any of the powers of the Arbitor for this scam. Yes you did: (1) the power to assign a judge to a CFJ in the same message it's initiated; and (2) the power to personally select who judges a CFJ. Both of these

DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
On Sunday, February 17, 2019 1:08 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > I call the following CFJ: "This CFJ is FALSE." I intend, with 2 support, to enter the judgement of this CFJ into Moot. I intend to deputise for the Arbitor to initiate the Agoran decision to determine public confidence in the judgement

DIS: Re: BUS: SPOOKY Broken Intent Scam

2019-02-17 Thread D. Margaux
Also... if intents are truly broken, that could lead to a lot of havoc in the gamestate. It would be potentially impossible to sort out. Maybe the fix legislation could say something like, “upon enactment of this proposal, the gamestate is changed to be what it would have been if the list had