Re: DIS: Score Voting

2019-05-26 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 26 May 2019 at 01:20, James Cook wrote: > On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 22:20, Bernie Brackett wrote: > > it feels like there's a discussion going on involving what exactly single > > transferable vote means, so I feel like I should bring up that Score Voting > > has mathematically been proven

Re: DIS: [Draft] Refactoring IRV

2019-05-26 Thread James Cook
On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 21:33, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > On Sat, 2019-05-25 at 21:24 +, James Cook wrote: > > I couldn't resist making my own attempt. It's a lot wordier than > > yours, unfortunately, but it addresses these points and omd's first > > point. Maybe there's some middle

DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)

2019-05-26 Thread D. Margaux
It may be worthwhile to wait a couple days. If the reports self-ratify without any claim of error, then the information therein will be retroactively accurate... I think? > On May 25, 2019, at 9:31 PM, Aris Merchant > wrote: > > I accept. I'll have to read up on the relevant rules, and I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)

2019-05-26 Thread Aris Merchant
I don’t know what the implication of that is for the sentencing, but I don’t think I’m going to wait. I’d prefer to resolve it now and avoid the ambiguity. Why did you use self-ratification, rather than something else like ratification without objection? -Aris On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 2:09 PM D.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)

2019-05-26 Thread D. Margaux
I was concerned that ratification without objection might inadvertently break something outside of those subgames. In contrast, issuing blank Clork and Astronomor reports would not risk causing something to break outside those games. It would be self-contained. On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 5:12 PM

Re: DIS: Ruleset history error

2019-05-26 Thread omd
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 3:19 PM Reuben Staley wrote: > Having looked into the matter further, I can safely say that mistakes > were indeed made. The following is my analysis. Thanks for looking into it :) I... never realized that Alexis (aka alercah) was the same person as scshunt, despite

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)

2019-05-26 Thread omd
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 2:09 PM D. Margaux wrote: > It may be worthwhile to wait a couple days. If the reports self-ratify > without any claim of error, then the information therein will be > retroactively accurate... I think? Ratification changes the gamestate to what it would be if the

Re: DIS: Ruleset history error

2019-05-26 Thread Reuben Staley
Having looked into the matter further, I can safely say that mistakes were indeed made. The following is my analysis. On 5/25/19 3:52 PM, omd wrote: Just a quick note - The FLR credits Proposal 7778 (in various places) as: Amended(21) by P7778 'Instant Runoff Improved' (Alexis), 14 Aug 2014

DIS: Re: BUS: Ceci n'est pas un zombi

2019-05-26 Thread James Cook
It's good to have you back, twg! Any time you want to be Treasuror again, I'm happy to give that back.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)

2019-05-26 Thread Aris Merchant
Falsifian, would you by any chance be interested in joining a court and/or judging this case? It’s one of the Arbitor’s unofficial responsibilities to make sure newer players have an opportunity to judge cases, since it’s a good way to get more involved in gameplay. -Aris On Sun, May 26, 2019 at

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)

2019-05-26 Thread D. Margaux
> On May 26, 2019, at 7:41 PM, James Cook wrote: > > > Unsolicited thoughts: > > I think you've convinced me that your ratification changed the > gamestate so that you own zero blots, but I think your CFJ should be > judged TRUE, i.e. Aris's attempt was EFFECTIVE. > I respectfully

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)

2019-05-26 Thread omd
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 5:49 PM D. Margaux wrote: > and, therefore, any attempt to impose a fine was retroactively INEFFECTIVE. ...wow, that's strange. Why the heck is rule 2531 designed to make the gamestate (whether fines are EFFECTIVE, and thus indirectly people's voting power) depend on so

DIS: Re: BUS: Wait, what? How many of these clauses are there?

2019-05-26 Thread D. Margaux
I think the statement in the proposal is paradoxical, and therefore the CFJ is perhaps FALSE (because the statement in the proposal is not necessarily false?). On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 9:30 PM omd wrote: > I pledge not to create any proposals containing false statements for > the next week. > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)

2019-05-26 Thread James Cook
> When a CFJ about past effectiveness is called, in reality, the player > who's being the judge presumably sits down and tries to work out: > R(now, [at the time the CFJ was called, action A was EFFECTIVE]). We > have to wrap that in R(...) because "EFFECTIVE" doesn't really mean > anything

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)

2019-05-26 Thread D. Margaux
> On May 26, 2019, at 5:37 PM, omd wrote: > > Ratification changes the gamestate to what it would be if the report > had been accurate... but it doesn't *literally* make it retroactively > accurate, so it doesn't change whether there was a rule violation. Why not? Part of the gamestate is

DIS: Re: BUS: Intent Proposal

2019-05-26 Thread Aris Merchant
Maybe try “does not appear to have known”? Otherwise, the gamestate depends on someone’s actual mental state, which is impossible to determine given the limits of current technology. -Aris On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 4:24 PM D. Margaux wrote: > Crap. > > I withdraw that proposal. I resubmit it

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)

2019-05-26 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 26 May 2019 at 22:26, D. Margaux wrote: > > On May 26, 2019, at 5:37 PM, omd wrote: > > > > Ratification changes the gamestate to what it would be if the report > > had been accurate... but it doesn't *literally* make it retroactively > > accurate, so it doesn't change whether there was

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)

2019-05-26 Thread omd
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 4:41 PM James Cook wrote: > For (a): I think it depends what "gamestate" means. It's never really > defined. But personally I was assuming the gamestate covers all the > facts invented by the rules, and not realities, e.g. what happened in > the past. But I'm not sure

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)

2019-05-26 Thread D. Margaux
> On May 26, 2019, at 8:51 PM, omd wrote: > > I searched the archives a bit, and the situation seems to be more > complex than I remembered. > > In CFJ 3337, G. ruled that statements about the past *could* be > ratified, but that it wasn't in that particular case because the scope > of what

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)

2019-05-26 Thread James Cook
> I think G.’s judgement in that CFJ is correct (if I understand it right). > > G.’s decision says that when a report self-ratifies, it does not change > anything about the gamestate immediately prior to the publication of the > report. That makes sense to me. However, self-ratification CAN

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Referee] Recusal (attn H. Arbitor)

2019-05-26 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 27 May 2019 at 00:38, Aris Merchant wrote: > Falsifian, would you by any chance be interested in joining a court and/or > judging this case? It’s one of the Arbitor’s unofficial responsibilities to > make sure newer players have an opportunity to judge cases, since it’s a > good way to

Re: DIS: Score Voting

2019-05-26 Thread omd
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 3:20 PM Bernie Brackett wrote: > it feels like there's a discussion going on involving what exactly single > transferable vote means, so I feel like I should bring up that Score Voting > has mathematically been proven to be better. Is there any reason not to > switch to

Re: DIS: Score Voting

2019-05-26 Thread Bernie Brackett
If everyone votes strategically, then it's still an okay voting system. The source for proof that it's the best is this image: Which I found is from this: https://www.electionscience.org/library/tactical-voting-basics/ despite me first finding it here: https://ncase.me/ballot/ On Sun, May 26,