Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-18 Thread James Cook
Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in accordance with the rules" in R214. Is there anything wrong with D. Margaux's latest suggestion? I like the fact that it doesn't try to retroactively change the rule's history. (Though the retroactive rule change might be

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Herald] vote for the best Ruleset find

2019-02-18 Thread James Cook
I vote {Gaelan, Telnaior, twg, CuddleBeam}. (Following twg's logic, except bumping twg's up since it would have been pretty grave had it worked. All four are interesting finds.) On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 21:35, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > My vote is {Gaelan, Telnaior, CuddleBeam, twg} - ordered

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-18 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 23:15, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > On Monday, February 18, 2019 11:05 PM, James Cook > wrote: > > Can a proposal designate a change as a convergence? I worry about "in > > accordance with the rules" in R214. > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-18 Thread James Cook
> Thank you for all this work you've put in to fixing this! I would give you > some karma, but I've already used my Notice of Honour for the week, and it's > only Monday so I want to save Corona's in case something truly astonishing > happens later on. It's my pleasure. I'm certainly getting

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Zombie Auction

2019-03-01 Thread James Cook
Did you mean to send that to BUS? On Fri, 1 Mar 2019 at 20:42, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > I bid a coin. > > Gaelan > > > On Mar 1, 2019, at 12:06 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > > > I initiate a zombie auction, with the following lots (each zombie a > > separate lot) ordered as follows (highest-bid

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset: Eighth Week of 2019

2019-03-01 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 04:11, Reuben Staley wrote: > The logical rulesets are very long documents. Lots of times, the rulesets > slip through because of that. Check the archives on agoranomic.com. When I > get around to updating the ruleset site, it'll also be there. I'm sure you mean

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ruleset Ratification

2019-03-02 Thread James Cook
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 at 05:23, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > That said, there is a possible failure state: if every player has at > least 13 Blots, and nobody has any Ribbons, the adoption of a proposal > within four weeks would require someone with fewer Blots than that to > register.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Ruleset Ratification

2019-03-02 Thread James Cook
> Indeed, but I thought I'd point it out so that people were aware. > > In general, rule 1698 triggers should be avoided as much as possible. > The problem is that it (intentionally) defeats Agora's existing > mechanisms for ensuring that we know what the gamestate is; it's better > to have an

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-20 Thread James Cook
> I'd prefer to just repeat the cleanings. Mass changes to the ruleset > are one of the riskiest things you can do in Agora (which is why there > are so many protections preventing them being done by accident). My proposal says "The gamestate is changed...". I assumed that includes the rules,

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [SPOOKY Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8164

2019-02-27 Thread James Cook
It does say "Rule 2124 is amended...". Why wouldn't that happen? I don't think the first paragraph referring to it as "the following amendment" stops it from being an effective part of the proposal on its own.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Victory by Apathy

2019-02-27 Thread James Cook
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2149 > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2150 > > These two judgements distinguish speech acts as being treated > differently than other types of terms-of-art. That landing-on-the-moon judgement was about landing on the moon

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Victory by Apathy

2019-02-27 Thread James Cook
On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 at 03:50, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote: > > > 5. Rule 2465 says: "Upon doing so, the specified players win the game." > > When we talk about "Doing X" for any X, we almost always take X to refer

DIS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset: Eighth Week of 2019

2019-02-27 Thread James Cook
I don't see this message in the public archive at https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/maillist.html or at https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-official@agoranomic.org/maillist.html . Same for Trigon's FLR publication around the same time. Does anyone know why?

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: let's proceed to the second line-item

2019-02-27 Thread James Cook
> Enact a Rule, "Line-item Veto", with the following text: > >The Comptrollor is an imposed office. When the office is vacant, >the ADoP CAN, by announcement, set the Comptrollor to a player >chosen at random from the set of current Officers, excepting any >player

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [SPOOKY Prime Minister] Distribution of Proposal 8164

2019-02-27 Thread James Cook
dment itself? > > -- > Trigon > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019, 21:29 James Cook > > It does say "Rule 2124 is amended...". Why wouldn't that happen? I > > don't think the first paragraph referring to it as "the following > > amendment" stops it from being an effective part of the proposal on > > its own. > >

Re: DIS: AI learning to play "nomic" (with NEAT)

2019-02-21 Thread James Cook
On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 09:50, Cuddle Beam wrote: > For a good while now I've wanted to figure out a way to have little > machine-learning bots play nomic and learn and improve at the game to see > what kind of emergent strategies they develop. Problem is, real nomic is > real fucking complicated

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Victory by Apathy

2019-02-21 Thread James Cook
Hm, that's a good point about capitalization. I'm not really familiar enough with game custom to say. Your idea about raising a real-life banner has got me thinking... Raising a banner is a regulated action (R2125), so even if we assume capitalization doesn't matter, and that you did raise a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-21 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 08:56, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > Maybe you’re right. Either way, you could do any number of > not-quite-ossification things (for instance, proposals authored by anyone > other than you can only amend if the author published the full text of the > proposal 3.5+ weeks ago).

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-21 Thread James Cook
On Fri, 22 Feb 2019 at 02:47, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > On Fri, 2019-02-22 at 02:40 +0000, James Cook wrote: > > That seems to change the meaning of R1698 so that it's no longer > > talking about actual changes to the rules. Is there any precedent > > about wheth

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-21 Thread James Cook
I'm not sure I'm completely following. Does CFJ 1104 support the conclusion that players must hop on one foot? Is the idea that Rule A fails to defer to Rule B because Rule 1030 overrules that attempt at deference? On Thu, 21 Feb 2019 at 18:32, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > This one's been in the FLR

Re: DIS: Re: CFJ 3719

2019-02-21 Thread James Cook
> Here are my initial proto-judgement, but I am definitely open to being > persuaded otherwise: > > * * * > > Caller's arguement depends on the idea that to "Declare Apathy" means > the same thing as to "announce" or "publish apathy." I don't > necessarily agree with that, and so I would judge

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-21 Thread James Cook
hanges that it specifies. > > -twg > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > On Thursday, February 21, 2019 2:47 AM, James Cook > wrote: > > > > I'd prefer to just repeat the cleanings. Mass changes to the ruleset > > > > > are one of the riskiest th

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725

2019-03-08 Thread James Cook
twg's message says the H. Assessor publish the below tally, but I didn't receive any emails containing it, and I can't find it in the public archives. When was that email sent, and to which list? I don't think it has any bearing on the CFJs. I'm just trying to figure out if I'm missing emails.

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3722-3725

2019-03-09 Thread James Cook
On Sat, 9 Mar 2019 at 05:30, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > It was not published, twg is simply referring jokingly to emself, as e is > the Assessor. Oh, that makes sense. But I'm confused by D. Margaux's CFJ that 8164's outcome is ADOPTED, if there was no message attempting to resolve the decision.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: testing collective punishment

2019-02-16 Thread James Cook
On Sat, 16 Feb 2019 at 17:04, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Ok, hopefully last time! > > I withdraw the proposal Ritual Sacrifice from the pool. > > I submit the following proposal, Ritual Sacrifice, AI-1: > > > Create a Rule

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/

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: More Politicking

2019-02-17 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 03:40, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 03:31 +0000, James Cook wrote: > > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 00:31, D. Margaux > > wrote: > > > I submit and pend this proposal: > > > > What does "pend" mean? >

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? > > Thi

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: proto: communications redux

2019-02-17 Thread James Cook
> Enact the following clause (possibly in R859, but there might be > a better place if we don't want to mess with R859): Did you mean 478? I don't see a rule 859. > Amend Rule 2496 (Rewards) by replacing: >by stating how many assets e earns as a result of this action. > with: >by

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 propos

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: More Politicking

2019-02-17 Thread James Cook
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 00:31, D. Margaux wrote: > I submit and pend this proposal: What does "pend" mean?

DIS: Trouble subscribing

2019-02-12 Thread James Cook
I was unable to subscribe jc...@cs.berkeley.edu to the Agora lists (except tue), but was able to subscribe falsifi...@gmail.com. Is this a common problem? It's not a problem for me (assuming you received this message) but thought I'd mention it in case others are having trouble.

DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Birthday

2019-02-12 Thread James Cook
y if more people support than oppose. So > based on that, I think the CFJ is FALSE, and I judge it that way unless there > is something I am missing. > > > On Feb 12, 2019, at 7:52 PM, James Cook wrote: > > > > I register. I go by "Falsifian" in online settings

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Registration and Birthday

2019-02-13 Thread James Cook
re" (as per R217), and it's not clear whether, as a result, > "declare" on it own would mean to publish it, or just say it out loud (i.e. > literally declare it to yourself), or what. So you'd be spot-on with your > arguments in that case. > > -G. > > On 2/12/2

DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-14 Thread James Cook
aelan wins the game by Apathy", but that seems a bit silly. On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 13:32, James Cook wrote: > > I submit a CFJ, specifying: > > "Agora is not Satisfied with an intent to perform an action unless it > is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. In particu

DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-14 Thread James Cook
(Also, how did #4 end up in that rule?) On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 13:38, James Cook wrote: > > If my CFJ is judged true, I welcome any proposal that would avoid > messing up all those past dependent actions. I feel bad depriving > anyone of a well-earned victory. Is there a cle

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-14 Thread James Cook
> The way it should work is for Agora to be satisfied if any of (1) through (4) > are satisfied. That is, Agora is “satisfied” if there were fewer than N > objections and the action was without N objections; OR if there are more than > N supporters and the action was with N support; OR the

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-14 Thread James Cook
be we should clarify that Agoran Satisfaction is an or, and include #4 as "the action is to be performed With Notice". Is that what you're suggesting? On Thu., Feb. 14, 2019, 09:30 D. Margaux > > > On Feb 14, 2019, at 9:27 AM, James Cook wrote: > > > > That woul

DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-14 Thread James Cook
To re-iterate a note I made at the start of all that noise: I recognize we might not be in agreement about how Rule 2124 is supposed to work, but I at least want the current version of my proposal to reflect my own thinking clearly. On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 18:36, James Cook wrote: > >

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-14 Thread James Cook
d suggest staying with forward reasoning by keeping the current > items, except for #4 and the "; and", and adding "if all of the following > are true" that you suggested in an earlier message. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > > On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, James Cook

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-15 Thread James Cook
> I also like this version. > > However, there's another problem: a dangling "it". (This is also in the > present version of the rules, which I noticed during RTRW.) You should > make it clear whether the objectors and supports are to the /intent/, > or to the /action/. (Based on the way the other

DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-15 Thread James Cook
that this change means Rule 2124 no longer defines the notions of Supporter or Objector to an action, only an intent to perform an action. On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 17:57, James Cook wrote: > > I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, > Version 1.1.3) and submit a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: testing collective punishment

2019-02-15 Thread James Cook
Is it clear that a player CAN appease the rule by performing The Ritual? On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 18:14, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > Lmao, I love it. It reminds me of “the button” of Lost. > > On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 16:46, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > > I submit the following Proposal, The Ritual,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-14 Thread James Cook
easoning by keeping the current > items, except for #4 and the "; and", and adding "if all of the following > are true" that you suggested in an earlier message. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > > On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote: > > > Sorry fo

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-14 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 14:48, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 2/14/2019 6:27 AM, James Cook wrote: > > When I stumbled across this, my guess was that at some point, the > > rules were re-arranged so that Rule 1728 is responsible everything > > about Notice, where Rul

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-14 Thread James Cook
4. the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. > > > On 2019-02-15 11:54, James Cook wrote: > > I added the negation because I was worried about interpretations of > > whether "if X then Y" is true. With classical logic, we may interpret > > that as

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Not so fast!

2019-02-14 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 19:05, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and the > > action has no supporters or at least one objector. > > Dumb basic formal logic question that I should really know the answer to: > > If O=0, the ratio S/O is

DIS: Re: BUS: Victory by Apathy

2019-02-19 Thread James Cook
On Tue., Feb. 19, 2019, 23:12 ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 03:56 +, James Cook wrote: > > Apathy. I specify Falsifian and G. > > > > I initiate a Call for Judgement, specifying the statement: "Fal

Re: DIS: doing stuff?

2019-04-08 Thread James Cook
I've just been busy, personally. When I have time I've been meaning to figure out what the rules say about the zombie auction I bid in that never was announced completed, so technically I'm not lacking for something to do. On Mon, 8 Apr 2019 at 19:00, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > ok, are we on pause

Re: DIS: doing stuff?

2019-04-08 Thread James Cook
> In a timely fashion from what? Probably from when the auction ends > (automatically), not from the announcement. So this means you should > have paid, and broke the SHALL by not paying, and the announcement doesn't > affect that at all. But maybe that's wrong. > > And if you pay now, do you

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Election

2019-05-15 Thread James Cook
> As I understand it, you can have an election for > imposed offices, it just can't be imposed on someone who didn't consent. I think you at least need to use the method in R2154(a) which requires 2 support to initiate the election. 2154(b) requires the office to be interim, and the definition of

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

2019-05-27 Thread James Cook
A reminder that my CFJ "the Lost and Found department owns no more than 87 Coins." is still unassigned [0] [0] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2019-May/040375.html

DIS: Weekend court

2019-05-27 Thread James Cook
> It's not related to time of week, it's related to case load. Day court > judges get most of the cases, weekend court judges get occasional cases > now and then. (This is all Arbitor's discretion, thus isn't precisely > defined, and is a system set up by the Arbitor rather than an inherent > part

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

2019-05-27 Thread James Cook
> Hmm. I admit that I am not sure I follow this. But I think we are in > agreement about the ultimate outcome? Yes, I agree that you own no blots. I'm curious to see how H. Judge G. rules on your original CFJ reintroduced by Aris.

Re: DIS: Score Voting

2019-05-25 Thread James Cook
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 to be better. Is there any reason not to > switch to it?

Re: DIS: [Draft] Refactoring IRV

2019-05-25 Thread James Cook
> I intend to propose the following change to rule 955, in place of the current > definition of IRV: > > > The outcome of an Instant Runoff decision is: > > > > a. If a single option has the absolute majority of valid ballots specifying > > it as the first entry on the list, then the outcome is

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 mathe

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 +0000, 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. Mayb

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 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 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 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

DIS: Re: BUS: Take 6

2019-06-02 Thread James Cook
Oops, I guess that was cc-ed to BUS the first time anyway. On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 02:21, James Cook wrote: > > This Time To The Public Forum: > > Welcome! I've added you as "Walker" to the directory; let me know if > you prefer to be referred to some other way. >

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread James Cook
> R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending > the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have > tried to think of a couple of reasons, but neither feels particularly > compelling in the face of your arguments in (7): I'm guessing R1551's complex

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 23:24, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > On Mon, 2019-06-03 at 00:11 +0100, Charles Walker wrote: > > R1551 reads as if it is trying to avoid amending the past, by amending > > the present gamestate with reference to a hypothetical past. I have > > tried to think of a couple

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread James Cook
On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 06:15, Aris Merchant wrote: > I’ve just skimmed this, but it seems to accord very well with my own > understanding of the relevant principles. Your opinion is clear, logical, > well-organized, and generally quite spiffy. From anyone I would consider > this a well-written

DIS: Re: BUS: Take 6

2019-06-02 Thread James Cook
Welcome! I've added you as "Walker" to the directory; let me know if you prefer to be referred to some other way. I grant a welcome package to Walker. On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 20:26, Charles Walker wrote: > > I register. > > -- > Walker

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread James Cook
ed using > > direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that can be > > concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined > > concepts is false does not constitute proof that it is true." > > > > Jason Cobb > > On 6/1/19 11:59 PM, James

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-02 Thread James Cook
r the ratification is intended to > include these facts about the past, which is another way to arrive at > the same clarification. On Mon, 3 Jun 2019 at 03:24, James Cook wrote: > > Thanks. What if I replace the first paragraph of 7A with this: > > > To understand the meani

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Temporary Deputy-ADoP] Initiation of Election for Prime Minister

2019-06-02 Thread James Cook
ger > platform (well, at least I had a platform) and am currently more active. > I’m really confused, TBH. > > -Aris > > On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:30 PM James Cook wrote: > > > In the ongoing election for Prime Minister, I vote [G., Aris]. > > > > On Sun, 2

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] Forbes 500

2019-06-02 Thread James Cook
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

DIS: (Attn omd) mailman.agoranomic.org HTTPS certificate error

2019-06-04 Thread James Cook
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 06:06, omd wrote: > Sorry about this! Despite the "Attn omd" in the subject, my eyes saw > the "DIS:" and jumped over the rest; I was putting off reading Agora > list messages so I didn't see it until now. (Even though you also > added me directly as a recipient, Gmail

Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision

2019-06-04 Thread James Cook
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 05:49, Rebecca wrote: > I suspect that the text is > not clear and therefore the four-part test must be applied. What's the four-part test?

Re: DIS: DMARC bounces (attn Murphy)

2019-06-04 Thread James Cook
On Wed, 15 May 2019 at 20:22, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > Translated to English, this states that the email should not be > considered valid if the Subject fail was modified in transit. Of > course, the Subject of the email actually was modified (by the list > software, inserting the BAK:),

DIS: (Attn omd) mailman.agoranomic.org HTTPS certificate error

2019-05-30 Thread James Cook
When I try to load https://mailman.agoranomic.org/, I see a certificate error: "Firefox detected an issue and did not continue to mailman.agoranomic.org. The website is either misconfigured or your computer clock is set to the wrong time." Firefox won't even let me override the warning:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Deputy-Clorkstronomor] Weekly Report

2019-05-31 Thread James Cook
weeks are explicitly not the default for relative durations, so it’s > self-ratified at this point. > > -Aris > > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 6:08 PM James Cook wrote: > > > On Tue, 21 May 2019 at 10:20, D. Margaux wrote: > > > The below reports are false. The reason for

DIS: What authorizes the Referee to impose the Cold Hand of Justice?

2019-05-31 Thread James Cook
In preparing judgements for CFJs 3726 and 3727, I realized I don't know why the Referee CAN impose the Cold Hand of Justice. R2478 says the investigator SHALL, but not that e CAN. R2557 says that e CAN do so if the rules "authorize" em to, but I don't see any rules authorizing anyone to do so.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: third church of the reformed ritual - post schism

2019-06-07 Thread James Cook
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 14:50, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > > On Fri, 2019-06-07 at 14:44 +, James Cook wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 13:48, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I light a candle. > > > > Does this actually work? > > > > As far as

DIS: Re: BUS: Fwd: third church of the reformed ritual - post schism

2019-06-07 Thread James Cook
On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 at 13:48, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I light a candle. > > [ > 2. Any player CAN "light a candle" by announcement. Lighting a > candle has the effect of the player announcing the following in order: > - "I consent to join the Reformed Church of the Ritual if I haven't >

Re: DIS: DMARC bounces (attn Murphy)

2019-06-06 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 at 02:08, omd wrote: > ...Okay, I've gone ahead and set dmarc_moderation_action to "Munge > From" on all three lists. Changing the From address is annoying > (sorry Murphy), but it only applies to messages from domains with > p=reject DMARC entries, and the alternative is for

DIS: Re: BUS: Helping out

2019-05-29 Thread James Cook
On Thu, 30 May 2019 at 03:39, Rance Bedwell wrote: > I transfer 7 coins to Falsifian in recognition of eir commitment and devotion > to performing the Ritual. > -Rance Thanks! Notice of Honour: +1 Rance, for contributing to our collective duty. -1 D. Margaux, founder of the Church of the

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread James Cook
Wasn't omd's finger-pointing about publishing inaccurate information in the reports? On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:18 Aris Merchant, < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why would the legality of publishing the report matter? > > -Aris > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 5:16

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread James Cook
to be about the legal situation at the time. On Mon., Jun. 3, 2019, 20:23 D. Margaux, wrote: > I think the self ratification makes it retroactively accurate though... > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 8:22 PM James Cook wrote: > > > Wasn't omd's finger-pointing about publishing inac

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread James Cook
t; but the document itself, clearly delineated with {...}, does not contain that past date. So, I'm currently of the opinion that the ratification didn't work after all, and so the fine was EFFECTIVE and D. Margaux still has blots. Or is there some reason to think the intent worked? On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 a

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread James Cook
9 at 8:03 PM James Cook wrote: > > > I think I might have found a problem with my proto-judgements: D. > > Margaux may not have properly announced intent to ratify eir document. > > E said: > > > > > I intend without objection to ratify the following document

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread James Cook
James Cook, wrote: > In the new timeline, it was accurate from the time it was published, but > inaccurate until the time it was published. R2143 says you shall not > publish inaccurate information in an official report, but doesn't comment > on exactly when it should not be inaccurate.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal 8177

2019-06-01 Thread James Cook
> Here are the hypotheticals and my answers: These all make sense to me, though I haven't dug too deeply. I noticed a few things while researching whether ratification can in some sense "change the past". I'll post separately about that, although it looks like the CFJ won't depend on it. >

DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-01 Thread James Cook
Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and forth on 3726 a couple of times. I believe this is due on June 4 at 21:53 UTC. I plan to send it out the next couple of days. This is my judgement of CFJs 3726 and 3727. CFJ 3726 was called by Aris, with the statement: "The

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

2019-06-01 Thread James Cook
> The self-ratifying statements were about the current state at the time > they were published, Looking at judge G.'s "BREAKING NEW EVIDENCE" at the bottom of the judgement, it looks like there actually was a ratification of a document explicitly talking about the past, not just about the current

Re: DIS: What authorizes the Referee to impose the Cold Hand of Justice?

2019-06-01 Thread James Cook
t; > The obvious problem with this whole interpretation is that imposing the > > Cold Hand is a regulated action under Rule 2125; regulated actions CAN be > > performed only by methods explicitly provided by rule; and there is no > > *explicit* mechanism for imposing the Cold Han

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-01 Thread James Cook
Thanks, noted. On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:08, Jason Cobb wrote: > > I will make no claims as to the accuracy of the drafts, but you did forget > a "what" in the wording "D. Margaux calls is later named CFJ 3727." :) > > Jason Cobb > > > On Sa

Re: DIS: Proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-01 Thread James Cook
Oops, thanks, updated. On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 04:45, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > > On Sun, 2 Jun 2019, James Cook wrote: > > > I believe the answers are yes, and so at the end of this message I will > > judge CFJ 3726 TRUE. Before I say why, I'd like explain why there cou

Re: DIS: Plot twist: new proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread James Cook
Also, I wrote some text arguing that D. Margaux is correct about the document self-ratifying itself into being legal. It didn't end up being relevant to my judgement, but I've already written it, so I might as well publish it. (It's similar to the first draft of this section, but I added two

DIS: Plot twist: new proto-judgements of CFJs 3726 and 3727

2019-06-03 Thread James Cook
Based on the recent discussion, here are my revised judgements. This are due fairly soon; I'll probably publish it tomorrow morning in the UTC-4 time zone (so, maybe around 13:00-ish) even though that feels a bit rushed. In case it's not clear, I'm pretty sure D. Margaux has 0 blots now, and

Re: DIS: DMARC bounces (attn Murphy)

2019-06-05 Thread James Cook
> Sure, it would fix the DMARC issue, but it would also make it very hard to > tell at a glance who sent which message. Modern mailers have a lot of > features for that, but they’re all based around the from line. I just checked the way Discourse does it (or did it in October 2018). I see for

Re: DIS: DMARC bounces (attn Murphy)

2019-06-05 Thread James Cook
On Wed., Jun. 5, 2019, 21:03 James Cook, wrote: > > Sure, it would fix the DMARC issue, but it would also make it very hard > to > > tell at a glance who sent which message. Modern mailers have a lot of > > features for that, but they’re all based around the from line. >

DIS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3735 assigned to Falsifian

2019-06-14 Thread James Cook
Proto-judgement: This message contains my judgement of CFJ 3735, called by Baron von Vaderham, with the stament: "There was only one valid bid, namely for 1 coin by CuddleBeam." Caller's arguments == > Trigon bid 2 Mexican pesos. > Mexican pesos are coins. > Valid currency for

  1   2   3   4   >