Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business

2019-07-28 Thread Aris Merchant
Precedent (or at least game custom) says that you can’t condition an action on whether something is LEGAL. The reason is that SHALLs are often used for things that are hard to calculate (e.g. faking), and so such conditions make the gamestate ambiguous. -Aris On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 9:08 PM

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business

2019-07-28 Thread Jason Cobb
IANAL. Not that this is really relevant, but if there's been severe misconduct in the first trial, then jeopardy never attaches (because the defendant was never "in jeopardy"), and the accused can be retried. Jason Cobb On 7/29/19 12:55 AM, Rebecca wrote: (just as it is in the real life

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business

2019-07-28 Thread Jason Cobb
Really? If the first attempt worked, then the second attempt didn't, so the action was performed exactly once. If the first attempt failed, then the second attempt worked, so the action was performed exactly once. There were no changes to the gamestate between the two attempts, and I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business

2019-07-28 Thread Rebecca
This is actually proof of why double jeopardy attaching on an acquittal is a bad plan in the agoran context (just as it is in the real life consequence in cases of, say, bribing the jurors) On Monday, July 29, 2019, Rebecca wrote: > Someone just point another finger, and assign it to the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business

2019-07-28 Thread Kerim Aydin
Heh - the "if I have not done so already" is conditional on whether your previous conditional worked so you haven't solved your problem... On 7/28/2019 9:59 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: Oh, I didn't know that. If I have not done so already, I temporarily deputise for Referee to perform the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: conducting some business

2019-07-28 Thread Rebecca
Someone just point another finger, and assign it to the arbitor. On Monday, July 29, 2019, Jason Cobb wrote: > I note that the office of Referee is vacant because its former holder (R. > Lee) has ceased to be a player. > > If I CAN do so, and if it is LEGAL for me to do so, I temporarily

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Increased transparency

2019-07-28 Thread Jason Cobb
On 7/28/19 2:09 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:   Magenta (M): When, during Agora's Birthday, a person publicly   acknowledges it, that person qualifies for a Magenta Ribbon. This would mean that a person could never claim a Magenta Ribbon (except in the same message as acknowledgment,

DIS: A dropped proposal

2019-07-28 Thread Jason Cobb
Attn. H. Promotor, G.: This proposal appears to have been dropped: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-July/040851.html I think this has been ratified out of existence, since it was never distributed, and wasn't ever included in the proposal pool. I

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215-8234

2019-07-28 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 7/28/2019 2:29 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: 8226: summary has "Contractual Delimitation" by Aris, text has "Cancelling Proposals" by twg. There is no "Contractual Delimitation" in the text section, and "Cancelling Proposals" does not appear in the summary section. This is a CoE. You know,

DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-28 Thread Jason Cobb
I already withdrew my original proposal, so the first clause is a no-op. Jason Cobb On 7/28/19 2:13 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 12:14 PM Jason Cobb wrote: I submit the following proposal Title: Limited-party contracts AI: 2.5 Text: { Amend Rule 1742 as follows:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Space Rebel Uprising

2019-07-28 Thread Jason Cobb
It does, nch currently is not a player. To get around this, Falsifian has submitted a proposal to re-register em. Jason Cobb On 7/28/19 1:25 PM, Edward Murphy wrote: I deregister. I register. How does this not fall afoul of Rule 869's 30-day wait?

DIS: Re: BUS: Space Rebel Uprising

2019-07-28 Thread Edward Murphy
I deregister. I register. How does this not fall afoul of Rule 869's 30-day wait?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-28 Thread Kerim Aydin
Actually, I think your proposal may be broken. If a contract (once created with 2 people) explicitly allows a third person to join without the consent of the existing parties, it's not clear if your proposed text overrides that or if "agreeing to the contract that allows other people to join

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Three-dimensional space

2019-07-28 Thread Aris Merchant
You say "(0, +1)" when I think you mean "(-1, 0, +1)" -Aris On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 10:56 AM Edward Murphy wrote: > > Proposal: Three-dimensional space > (AI = 1) > > Amend Rule 2588 (Sectors) to read: > >Sectors are entities. Each Sector has an ID number, which is an >ordered

DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Increased transparency

2019-07-28 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
On Sunday, July 28, 2019 6:09 PM, Edward Murphy wrote: > Proposal: Increased transparency > (AI = 3) > > Amend Rule 2438 (Ribbons) by replacing the sections for the relevant > types of ribbons with the following sections: > > Green (G): While the holder of an elected office has held it >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-28 Thread Kerim Aydin
I've been working on a major contract re-write for the last week or so based on what we've found/discussed - I'll publish a proto tomorrow-ish. I don't think we can bolt on to the existing I think it's just better to do a complete re-write. Rough outline: - Better defines agreements as a

DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-28 Thread Timon Walshe-Grey
...which proposal in the affixed message? :P (I know the one you mean but I don't think it's unambiguous enough to satisfy R478.) -twg ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Sunday, July 28, 2019 6:18 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Oops, I sent that half typed. If I haven't submitted the proposal

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-28 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 7/28/2019 12:21 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: What about the "For the purposes of this rule, agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by contract"? That pretty clearly says that if the contract species it, consent isn't necessary. The way you've written it makes it sound (to me

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-28 Thread Aris Merchant
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:52 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On 7/28/2019 12:41 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > Like, forgive me if I'm missing something, but in light of that > > provision I don't see how this could also be broken? > > > > Also, did you ever write that time security proto or come

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-28 Thread Aris Merchant
What about the "For the purposes of this rule, agreement includes both consent and agreement specified by contract"? That pretty clearly says that if the contract species it, consent isn't necessary. -Aris On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:16 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > Actually, I think your proposal

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-28 Thread Aris Merchant
Like, forgive me if I'm missing something, but in light of that provision I don't see how this could also be broken? Also, did you ever write that time security proto or come up with a list of changes that would be satisfactory? -Aris On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 12:21 PM Aris Merchant wrote: > >

DIS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215-8234

2019-07-28 Thread Kerim Aydin
Proposal text for 8224 accidentally in 8225? > 8224 R. Lee 3.0 Remove Inactive Sods! > 8225 twg, Jason Cobb 1.0 Repairing Defeated Spaceships v3 [snip] > // > ID: 8224 > Title: Remove

DIS: Ratification via closed timelike curves (was [proposal] Contract party fixes)

2019-07-28 Thread James Cook
Two responses inline... On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 20:20, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 7/28/2019 1:03 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > > That may be a reasonable point; I know that tends to be a weakness in > > my proposals, although I tried pretty hard not to do it in that one. > > Still, I'm not sure I see a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215-8234

2019-07-28 Thread Aris Merchant
On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 2:38 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On 7/28/2019 2:29 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > 8226: summary has "Contractual Delimitation" by Aris, text has > "Cancelling > > Proposals" by twg. > > > > There is no "Contractual Delimitation" in the text section, and > "Cancelling > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215-8234

2019-07-28 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 7/28/2019 2:49 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > What would be most helpful would be a flat deadline where I wouldn’t be > obliged to deal with anything after that time. Actually I was just contemplating bringing back Pending with the simple method "all proposals in the Proposal Pool become

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8215-8234

2019-07-28 Thread Jason Cobb
On 7/28/19 6:04 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I'm willing to try this voluntarily for Proposals and it might be interesting to broach the idea of requiring Subject format (that we've never done before). Rule 2463 ("Motion of No Confidence") requires a subject line that includes "MOTION OF NO

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-28 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 7/28/2019 12:41 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: > Like, forgive me if I'm missing something, but in light of that > provision I don't see how this could also be broken? > > Also, did you ever write that time security proto or come up with a > list of changes that would be satisfactory? I won't

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-28 Thread Kerim Aydin
On 7/28/2019 1:03 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: That may be a reasonable point; I know that tends to be a weakness in my proposals, although I tried pretty hard not to do it in that one. Still, I'm not sure I see a much simpler codification of our existing precedents, especially given that it has

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Contract party fixes

2019-07-28 Thread Aris Merchant
Okay, I agree that definitely sounds better in the long run. That being said, there isn't any reason to retract my proposal right now, so I'm not going to. -Aris On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 11:57 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I've been working on a major contract re-write for the last week or so >