Re: DIS: Rules Viewer Fixed

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jul 20, 2020, at 11:36 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hey all,
> 
> I just fixed ruleset-viewer.gaelan.me, which appears to have gotten broken by 
> some reorganization of the ruleset repo. It looks like it might be 
> intermittently running into some GitHub API bug (possibly because you're not 
> supposed to download as much as I am with a single request)—I'll monitor that 
> and look into alternate solutions (like using a git clone instead of their 
> API). Anyway, for the time being, it works.
> 
> Gaelan

This now caches the generated page, so it should be a lot faster and reliable. 
It invalidates the cache in the background if it receives a request more than 
an hour after the last update, so you may need to reload a few times to get the 
latest page if you're the first one to use the viewer after the ruleset gets 
updated.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Rules Viewer Fixed

[omd via agora-discussion]

at 11:36 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion  
 wrote:



Hey all,

I just fixed ruleset-viewer.gaelan.me, which appears to have gotten  
broken by some reorganization of the ruleset repo. It looks like it might  
be intermittently running into some GitHub API bug (possibly because  
you're not supposed to download as much as I am with a single  
request)—I'll monitor that and look into alternate solutions (like using  
a git clone instead of their API). Anyway, for the time being, it works.


Nice.

In case you have time to develop this further, I’d love to have the ability  
to view old versions of rules and diffs between versions.


Admittedly, that’s a big ask.  Ideally there would be history going back  
further than the current Git repo, but getting that requires parsing  
multiple data sources, which are sometimes fragmentary and even  
contradictory.  I speak from experience: in the past, I worked on two  
different tools for this purpose, but I never really completed either of  
them.  Maybe I should actually finish one of them, rather than hoping  
someone will do the job for me… :)  But I’m suggesting it here because I’m  
it fits well with the idea of a ruleset viewer application.

Re: DIS: Rules Viewer Fixed

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jul 20, 2020, at 11:36 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hey all,
> 
> I just fixed ruleset-viewer.gaelan.me, which appears to have gotten broken by 
> some reorganization of the ruleset repo. It looks like it might be 
> intermittently running into some GitHub API bug (possibly because you're not 
> supposed to download as much as I am with a single request)—I'll monitor that 
> and look into alternate solutions (like using a git clone instead of their 
> API). Anyway, for the time being, it works.
> 
> Gaelan

I also just made some CSS updates. It should now be much more usable on a phone 
or other small screen.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Rules Viewer Fixed

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

> On Jul 21, 2020, at 11:46 AM, Falsifian via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> On 2020-07-21 6:37 a.m., Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
>> Oops, the link is (and always has been) agora-ruleset.gaelan.me.
>> Gaelan
>>> On Jul 20, 2020, at 11:36 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hey all,
>>> 
>>> I just fixed ruleset-viewer.gaelan.me, which appears to have gotten broken 
>>> by some reorganization of the ruleset repo. It looks like it might be 
>>> intermittently running into some GitHub API bug (possibly because you're 
>>> not supposed to download as much as I am with a single request)—I'll 
>>> monitor that and look into alternate solutions (like using a git clone 
>>> instead of their API). Anyway, for the time being, it works.
>>> 
>>> Gaelan
> 
> Thanks. Does this generally show the same version of the rules as 
> https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr-fresh.txt ?
> 
> — 
> Falsifian

It uses the data in 
https://github.com/AgoraNomic/ruleset/tree/main/rules_data/rules. That's the 
data source used to generate all formats of the ruleset, so it should never be 
*less* up to date than any other ruleset source. If the H. Rulekeepor updates 
flr-fresh.txt whenever e updates the rules, then yes, they'll be identical.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Rules Viewer Fixed

[Falsifian via agora-discussion]

On 2020-07-21 6:37 a.m., Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:

Oops, the link is (and always has been) agora-ruleset.gaelan.me.

Gaelan


On Jul 20, 2020, at 11:36 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion 
 wrote:

Hey all,

I just fixed ruleset-viewer.gaelan.me, which appears to have gotten broken by 
some reorganization of the ruleset repo. It looks like it might be 
intermittently running into some GitHub API bug (possibly because you're not 
supposed to download as much as I am with a single request)—I'll monitor that 
and look into alternate solutions (like using a git clone instead of their 
API). Anyway, for the time being, it works.

Gaelan


Thanks. Does this generally show the same version of the rules as 
https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr-fresh.txt ?


--
Falsifian

Re: DIS: Rules Viewer Fixed

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

Oops, the link is (and always has been) agora-ruleset.gaelan.me.

Gaelan

> On Jul 20, 2020, at 11:36 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hey all,
> 
> I just fixed ruleset-viewer.gaelan.me, which appears to have gotten broken by 
> some reorganization of the ruleset repo. It looks like it might be 
> intermittently running into some GitHub API bug (possibly because you're not 
> supposed to download as much as I am with a single request)—I'll monitor that 
> and look into alternate solutions (like using a git clone instead of their 
> API). Anyway, for the time being, it works.
> 
> Gaelan

DIS: Rules Viewer Fixed

[Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion]

Hey all,

I just fixed ruleset-viewer.gaelan.me, which appears to have gotten broken by 
some reorganization of the ruleset repo. It looks like it might be 
intermittently running into some GitHub API bug (possibly because you're not 
supposed to download as much as I am with a single request)—I'll monitor that 
and look into alternate solutions (like using a git clone instead of their 
API). Anyway, for the time being, it works.

Gaelan

Re: DIS: Rules confuse me.

[VJ Rada]

Yeah rulekeeping is _very_ hard. The real state of the rules is not as
currently written in the ruleset, which is confusing, but yeah it's
really really hard.

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> The FLR and SLR are sometimes behind because the rule keeper has
> a life.  :).  The "last change" is so players can read the SLR and know
> that proposals numbered after that aren't in there yet, though the "true
> state" of the rules at any given moment includes later stuff.
>
> The assessor is indeed late.  E apologized last week and said e would
> be late, and offered to set up an agency so someone could do it for em
> if they wanted (no one took me up on it).
>
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Trigon wrote:
>> At the time that I'm writing this, the Full Logical Ruleset [1] claims that
>> the most recent change to the ruleset is the adoption of Proposal 7875,
>> "Better Accounting" [2]. This should have modified rules 2496 and 2497, but
>> the text that was proposed to be appended cannot be found. Additionally,
>> Proposal 7873 has not been added anywhere yet, despite the resolution post 
>> [2]
>> stating that it has passed.
>>
>> Additionally, Proposals 7875-7898 [3] were distributed 10 Sept 2017, and the
>> length of the voting period is 7 days, meaning that there should have been a
>> resolution post some time the next week, but there hasn't been one. In fact,
>> the last Assessor post was on the 7th.
>>
>> So, if someone could explain if I'm wrong, I'd appreciate that.
>>
>> [1] https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr.txt
>> [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08264.html
>> [3] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08268.html
>>
>> -- Trigon
>>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Rules confuse me.

[Kerim Aydin]

The FLR and SLR are sometimes behind because the rule keeper has
a life.  :).  The "last change" is so players can read the SLR and know 
that proposals numbered after that aren't in there yet, though the "true
state" of the rules at any given moment includes later stuff.

The assessor is indeed late.  E apologized last week and said e would
be late, and offered to set up an agency so someone could do it for em
if they wanted (no one took me up on it).

On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Trigon wrote:
> At the time that I'm writing this, the Full Logical Ruleset [1] claims that
> the most recent change to the ruleset is the adoption of Proposal 7875,
> "Better Accounting" [2]. This should have modified rules 2496 and 2497, but
> the text that was proposed to be appended cannot be found. Additionally,
> Proposal 7873 has not been added anywhere yet, despite the resolution post [2]
> stating that it has passed.
> 
> Additionally, Proposals 7875-7898 [3] were distributed 10 Sept 2017, and the
> length of the voting period is 7 days, meaning that there should have been a
> resolution post some time the next week, but there hasn't been one. In fact,
> the last Assessor post was on the 7th.
> 
> So, if someone could explain if I'm wrong, I'd appreciate that.
> 
> [1] https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr.txt
> [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08264.html
> [3] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08268.html
> 
> -- Trigon
>

Re: DIS: Rules confuse me.

[VJ Rada]

1. The rules are tissue paper, but Gaelan is the incumbent rulekeepor,
he is the only one who could have an answer
2. Assessing is hard.

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:00 PM, Nic Evans  wrote:
>
>
> On 09/25/17 21:47, Trigon wrote:
>> At the time that I'm writing this, the Full Logical Ruleset [1] claims
>> that the most recent change to the ruleset is the adoption of Proposal
>> 7875, "Better Accounting" [2]. This should have modified rules 2496
>> and 2497, but the text that was proposed to be appended cannot be
>> found. Additionally, Proposal 7873 has not been added anywhere yet,
>> despite the resolution post [2] stating that it has passed.
>
> That's a question for the rulekeepor.
>
>>
>> Additionally, Proposals 7875-7898 [3] were distributed 10 Sept 2017,
>> and the length of the voting period is 7 days, meaning that there
>> should have been a resolution post some time the next week, but there
>> hasn't been one. In fact, the last Assessor post was on the 7th.
>
> I'm behind on those because of travel and the sheer volume of them. In
> general I try to assess within 7-14 days of distribution.
>
>>
>> So, if someone could explain if I'm wrong, I'd appreciate that.
>>
>> [1] https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr.txt
>> [2]
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08264.html
>> [3]
>> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08268.html
>>
>> -- Trigon
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Rules confuse me.

[Nic Evans]

On 09/25/17 21:47, Trigon wrote:
> At the time that I'm writing this, the Full Logical Ruleset [1] claims
> that the most recent change to the ruleset is the adoption of Proposal
> 7875, "Better Accounting" [2]. This should have modified rules 2496
> and 2497, but the text that was proposed to be appended cannot be
> found. Additionally, Proposal 7873 has not been added anywhere yet,
> despite the resolution post [2] stating that it has passed.

That's a question for the rulekeepor.

>
> Additionally, Proposals 7875-7898 [3] were distributed 10 Sept 2017,
> and the length of the voting period is 7 days, meaning that there
> should have been a resolution post some time the next week, but there
> hasn't been one. In fact, the last Assessor post was on the 7th.

I'm behind on those because of travel and the sheer volume of them. In
general I try to assess within 7-14 days of distribution.

>
> So, if someone could explain if I'm wrong, I'd appreciate that.
>
> [1] https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr.txt
> [2]
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08264.html
> [3]
> https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08268.html
>
> -- Trigon




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

DIS: Rules confuse me.

[Trigon]

At the time that I'm writing this, the Full Logical Ruleset [1] claims 
that the most recent change to the ruleset is the adoption of Proposal 
7875, "Better Accounting" [2]. This should have modified rules 2496 and 
2497, but the text that was proposed to be appended cannot be found. 
Additionally, Proposal 7873 has not been added anywhere yet, despite the 
resolution post [2] stating that it has passed.


Additionally, Proposals 7875-7898 [3] were distributed 10 Sept 2017, and 
the length of the voting period is 7 days, meaning that there should 
have been a resolution post some time the next week, but there hasn't 
been one. In fact, the last Assessor post was on the 7th.


So, if someone could explain if I'm wrong, I'd appreciate that.

[1] https://agoranomic.org/ruleset/flr.txt
[2] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08264.html
[3] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/msg08268.html

-- Trigon

DIS: rules?

[Chester Mealer]

On the business thread I noticed there was some talk of harvesting and crops
and what not. I saw no rules for such in the SLR and as a potential player
I'm interested in learning where I can find out more?

It is possible they are referring to some contract or contest, so mainly my
question is does the SLR contain all rules that would apply in the absence
of any contracts or anything like that.


-- 
Chester Mealer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: DIS: rules?

[Elliott Hird]

2008/6/16 Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

 On the business thread I noticed there was some talk of harvesting and crops
 and what not. I saw no rules for such in the SLR and as a potential player
 I'm interested in learning where I can find out more?

 It is possible they are referring to some contract or contest, so mainly my
 question is does the SLR contain all rules that would apply in the absence
 of any contracts or anything like that.


 --
 Chester Mealer
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

I believe it's a contract or something. And yes.

ehird

Re: DIS: rules?

[Ian Kelly]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Chester Mealer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On the business thread I noticed there was some talk of harvesting and crops
 and what not. I saw no rules for such in the SLR and as a potential player
 I'm interested in learning where I can find out more?

It's a contest called the Agoran Agricultural Association.  You can
find the latest publication of the contract in the archives here:
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-June/011128.html

 It is possible they are referring to some contract or contest, so mainly my
 question is does the SLR contain all rules that would apply in the absence
 of any contracts or anything like that.

Yes, there are no secret rules or anything like that.

-root

Re: DIS: rules?

[Elliott Hird]

2008/6/16 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 Yes, there are no secret rules or anything like that.

 -root


private contracts

ehird

Re: DIS: rules?

[Ian Kelly]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 4:58 PM, Elliott Hird
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 2008/6/16 Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
 Yes, there are no secret rules or anything like that.

 -root


 private contracts

Those aren't rules.  They don't apply to anybody who hasn't
specifically agreed to them.

-root

Re: DIS: rules?

[Chester Mealer]

I understand now.

-- 
Chester Mealer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

DIS: Rules as Binding Agreement

[Zefram]

Proposal 5531 (Democratic, AI=3, Interest=2) by Murphy
Rules as Binding Agreement

An interesting attempt at giving Agora a distinctive constitution.
I'd vote FOR this if it were adequately clear and consistent.

   Other persons who participate
  in Agora SHOULD abide by the rules, but do not become party to
  them unless they explicitly intend to do so, e.g. by entering
  into a non-rule contract.

This seems contradictory.  Entering into a non-rule contract does not seem
like explicit intent to be a party to the rules or to obey the rules.
It does involve intent that *the contract* be adjudicated by the rules,
but (so far) that intent can be implicit.

It's also unclear on which other things might make a non-player be a
party to the rules.  An explicit definition of participation in Agora
might help here: maybe some instances of player in the rules should
become participant.  The SHOULD should be replaced by a straight
criterion for being a party to the rules-as-contract.

  An equity case CAN be initiated by any party to the contract
  (or by any person, if the contract is the rules)

I think this extension is not required, given an appropriately extended
membership of the rules-as-contract.

  The members of the bases of the parties to the contract are all
  unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case, unless the
  contract is the rules.
...
  the judgement is in effect as a new binding agreement between
  the parties, acting in conjunction with the original contract.

A judgement in an equity case regarding the rules, then, is a binding
agreement between all participants.  But it's not the rules.  So an
equity case on it can't be judged by any participant.

Change the power of Rule 1742 (Contracts) to 3,

Some flaws in (the wording of) R1742 have shown up in recent months, and
really ought to be fixed before applying it to the rules.  There's been
argument about member and party possibly having different meanings;
they should be explicitly synonymous wrt contracts.  There have also
been cases where we're not clear on whether an agreement was intended
to be a R1742 contract.  There should be an explicit specification of
the degree of formality required to make a R1742 contract.  (I suggest
making it stricter than at present, by requiring that the contract be
written and that it explicitly state that it is intended to be governed
by the rules of Agora.)


[Remaining changes mostly just avoid excluding non-players from
certain general situations.]

Most of this is worth doing even if the proposal as a whole fails.

  All persons are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,
  to be the ambassador.

Interesting rule to interpret under the contract regime.  Under the
current system, the rules regard themselves as absolutely sovereign,
so (for the purposes of Agoran jurisprudence) this requirement would
be binding on absolutely all persons.  Under the contract system that
you proposed, it's binding on players and some non-players, with other
non-players under a SHOULD.  Who do you actually intend it to bind?

I think this provision is a good thought experiment for the partyhood and
bindingness issues discussed earlier.  For the record, when I drafted
that clause I specifically intended it to bind players and no one else
(even active non-player participants).  I thought that controlling
non-players' claims was not necessary, because without playerhood their
claims to ambassadorship would lack credibility.

[For reference, here is Zefram's laundry list of 10/29/07:

 you need a power=3 rule to characterise the ruleset as a contract.

Got that.

 You need to be explicit about who the parties are,

Not explicit enough.

and that has to
 be consistent with the rules that impose obligations on non-players
 and with R101's bill of rights.

Nearly got it.  The explicit participant terminology might sort it.

  You need to review all the
 constitutional and playerhood rules, modifying them to fit the
 contract paradigm.

Many things appropriately broadened.  Seems OK.

 You need to be clear about whether the rules are
 a R1742 contract, and if they are then R1742 probably needs to be
 upmutated quite a bit.

Not explicit, but I think it's reasonably clear that the rules would be
a R1742 contract.

 You need to be clear about the constitutional
 position of equity judgements regarding the rules.

Also not explicitly addressed, and as noted there's a bug in that area.
I think explication would be wise.

 You need to be
 clear about the role of the criminal court within a contract and as
 applied to contracts generally.

Reasonably clear that equity and criminal courts both apply, both to
the rules and to non-rule contracts.

   

Re: DIS: rules vs. proposals

[Zefram]

Kerim Aydin wrote:
Another question for Zefram (or anyone):  You seem to be implying that
non-Rule instruments (proposals) can overrule rules which are implements
of lower power, without changing the rule.

I don't intend to imply that, because I don't think it's the case.
I think the rules categorically take precedence over proposals.
I considered generalising R1482 to all instruments with instrument
mechanics, but decided not to out of caution.  I'd still like to
formalise the capacities of rules and proposals further before making
such a generalisation.

Where I have said a proposal can XYZ, I generally mean that it can
do so by some combination of mechanisms, not necessarily directly.
In particular, a proposal can modify inconvenient rules (and change
them back afterwards), or enact a temporary enabling rule.  I do not
find the use of a temporary rule to be odious, as some here do, which
is one of the reasons why I don't feel any pressure to let proposals
directly take precedence over rules.

It sets up a temporary impossibility according to the Rules definition,
does it stand?

No.  I believe in that case the rule would prevent the proposal from
taking effect.  If the proposal had created a high-power rule, however,
then that rule would be able to set my Teacups in contravention of the
low-power rule.

It's the same situation as an instantaneous proposal
at AI-4 changing an agreement in contradiction to R101?  

Yes, I think so.  Good analogy.

-zefram

Re: DIS: rules vs. proposals

[Zefram]

Kerim Aydin wrote:
But a CFJ on the statement a proposal (in general) can get around
R101 would have to be judged on the current ruleset, and it's
unclear to me whether the judge should judge it using (1) or (2).

There's nothing magical about rule changes that prevents a judge from
considering them as a mechanism.  The unclear bit is whether get around
R101 means do things that the present R101 forbids or do things that
the R101 at the time forbids.  But actually either way I'd judge that
statement TRUE: a proposal clearly *can* get around R101, of any version,
specifically by enacting an enabling rule.

Of course circumvention, as a concept, is not usual fare for a CFJ.
Perhaps that's why you find it odd for judicial reasoning to involve
hypothetical rule changes?

-zefram