Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

2019-06-02 Thread Jason Cobb
One issue with that interpretation might be that "to flip" is a term of art. Jason Cobb On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 9:19 PM Rebecca wrote: > I wonder if imminence if not defined as a term of art just bears its > ordinary meaning; i.e, nobody can change " > the stat

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

2019-06-02 Thread Jason Cobb
ems to run afoul of Rule 217: "Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied 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 tru

DIS: Re: BUS: Whoops

2019-06-02 Thread Jason Cobb
Well, this should be fun :) On 6/2/19 10:38 PM, James Cook wrote: I Point my Finger at every player, in the following order: omd, Aris, Gaelan, G., Cuddle Beam, Trigon, Murphy, ATMunn, twg, D. Margaux, Jacob Arduino, Falsifian, Bernie, Rance, o, Jason Cobb, Walker, PSS, Corona, V.J. Rada

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

2019-06-02 Thread Jason Cobb
fined concepts is false does not constitute proof that it is true." Jason Cobb On 6/1/19 11:59 PM, James Cook wrote: 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

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

2019-06-02 Thread Jason Cobb
, both messages failed to initiate an election under Rule 104. —— [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33821.html [2] https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg33823.html -- Trigon -- Jason Cobb

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

2019-06-02 Thread Jason Cobb
Ah, sorry, this should have been a direct reply to the main message, not a reply to Charles Walker. On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:20 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > I'm very new, so please take this with a massive pile of salt. > > You write: > "In both cases, if the gamestate did not in

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

2019-06-02 Thread Jason Cobb
efined as a term of art just bears its ordinary meaning; i.e, nobody can change " the state or fact of being about to happen" of a proposal if a festival happens. Presumably that would prohibit non-festive players from removing proposals somehow? On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:52 AM J

DIS: On Cleanliness

2019-06-04 Thread Jason Cobb
Given that Rule 2221 ("Cleanliness") permits correcting the capitalization of a rule, would that, for example, permit changing a rule from saying "shall" to "SHALL" (or vice versa)? Note: I'm not planning anything, the question just crossed my mind. -- Jason Cobb

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

2019-06-03 Thread Jason Cobb
Ah, sorry, I just checked, and I registered 90 minutes too late to vote in this election. Probably for the best anyway as I still don't really know who people are. Jason Cobb On 6/3/19 2:10 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: I'm happy to! My platform was that I was working to resolve the inactivity

DIS: Re: BUS: Right Action

2019-06-06 Thread Jason Cobb
Thank you, but why? On 6/6/19 11:13 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: I pay 12 coins to Jason Cobb. I pay 4 coins to V.J Rada. I pay 4 coins to Walker. -o

DIS: Agreement to Contracts

2019-06-07 Thread Jason Cobb
this contract is given when an Officer publishes a weekly or monthly report that is required by the Rules. [...] } Obviously I would continue on to do something evil. Again, I'm sure there's a CFJ or a part of the Rules I am missing, but I haven't found it yet. Thanks, Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Agreement to Contracts

2019-06-07 Thread Jason Cobb
willful consent/agreement means evidence that you're invoking consent on purpose, not as an accidental/redirected result of doing something else." On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 10:53 AM Jason Cobb wrote: Here's another newbie-ish question, since I'm sure someone has tried something like this before

DIS: Overpowered Deputies

2019-06-08 Thread Jason Cobb
into the office, which Rule 2472 cannot prevent. The other requirements trivially do not help. I think this is unlikely to be considered a severe vulnerability, but it appears to be a vulnerability to me. Thoughts? -- Jason Cobb

DIS: The Ritual

2019-06-01 Thread Jason Cobb
n in context, there is no specific Entity or document that can violate the rule. I see a few possible interpretations: that Agora itself would violate the rule, that each individual Player would violate the rule, or perhaps the Rule simply fails to identify a violator at all. Any thoughts? Thanks, Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: The Ritual

2019-06-01 Thread Jason Cobb
Interesting. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens, then. Thanks for the help! Jason Cobb On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 10:51 PM Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > This is indeed a tad confusing. The Ritual was explicitly designed as an > expire

DIS: How are Rule ID Numbers assigned?

2019-06-01 Thread Jason Cobb
to be a way of assigning ID numbers specified in the rules, thus giving the Rulekeepor some (small) amount of say in the application of the rules. Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: How are Rule ID Numbers assigned?

2019-06-01 Thread Jason Cobb
Wow. Thank you all for the quick replies. I really was not expecting it that quickly. That all makes sense, thank you. Jason Cobb On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 9:14 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Sat, 2019-06-01 at 18:09 -0700, Aris Merch

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

2019-06-01 Thread Jason Cobb
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 Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 11:59 PM James Cook wrote: > Comments welcome. Sorry that it's so long. I went back and f

Re: DIS: Fake Zombies

2019-06-03 Thread Jason Cobb
actly one Citizenship switch is that, by creating accounts stating intent to "register", you are asserting that your Citizenship is currently set to "Unregistered". This would likely constitute a lie under Rule 2471 ("No Faking"). Jason Cobb On 6/4/19 12:07 AM, Ber

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

2019-06-03 Thread Jason Cobb
Gah, sorry D. Margaux. Forwarded Message Subject:Re: DIS: [Referee] Ritual Finger Pointing Proto-Decision Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2019 00:30:06 -0400 From: Jason Cobb To: D. Margaux I'll point out that in that example, both parties were each committing

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: comptrollor nerf

2019-06-06 Thread Jason Cobb
y the changes that it specifies. On Thu, Jun 6, 2019 at 9:40 AM Jason Cobb wrote: Fogive me if I misunderstand, but isn't the power of a proposal 0 unless and until the Decision about it results in ADOPTED? Thus, during the voting period, the Comptrollor would still have higher power than the

DIS: Re: BUS: comptrollor nerf

2019-06-06 Thread Jason Cobb
Fogive me if I misunderstand, but isn't the power of a proposal 0 unless and until the Decision about it results in ADOPTED? Thus, during the voting period, the Comptrollor would still have higher power than the proposal, fulfilling the requirements of Rule 2140. On 6/6/19 12:15 PM, Kerim

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Intent to Become a Player

2019-06-02 Thread Jason Cobb
Thanks :) Jason Cobb On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 10:30 AM ATMunn wrote: > Welcome to Agora, Jason Cobb! > > On 6/1/2019 10:02 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: > > I declare my intent to become a Player. > > > > Jason Cobb > > >

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

2019-06-02 Thread Jason Cobb
That makes sense. Thank you. Sorry for all the questions, I obviously haven't been interpreting these rules for as long as you :) Jason Cobb On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 12:49 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 12:40 -0400, Jason Cobb wrot

DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

2019-06-02 Thread Jason Cobb
Are my text-searching skills failing me, or did this Rule just get left behind in a previous update? Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

2019-06-02 Thread Jason Cobb
Correction, Rule 2481, point 2, not point 3. Jason Cobb On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 11:57 AM Jason Cobb wrote: > Hey, another newbie question for you all. > > Rule 2481, point 3 reads: "Non-Festive players cannot flip the Imminence of > any proposal;". However, a simple tex

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

2019-06-02 Thread Jason Cobb
Thanks, that's an interesting history. I suppose this would be an issue easy to fix (by just striking the bullet point), right? Jason Cobb On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 12:05 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 2019-06-02 at 11:57 -0400, Jason Cobb wrote

Re: DIS: Rule 2481: "Imminence"?

2019-06-02 Thread Jason Cobb
So I gather that if a Rule refers to an Entity that was previously defined by the rules, but no longer is, that section of the Rule just has no effect? Is that correct? Jason Cobb On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 12:16 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk < ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Sun, 2

Re: DIS: Idea: Notice and comment

2019-06-14 Thread Jason Cobb
Would such a section become precedent just as the normal part of a judgment would, or would it be purely informational? Jason Cobb On 6/14/19 9:54 PM, James Cook wrote: On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 at 01:13, omd wrote: On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 5:58 PM James Cook wrote: Requiring notice and comment

DIS: [idea] Agora owning Blots

2019-06-14 Thread Jason Cobb
into Blots for each individual Player (probably at a very reduced ratio). I'm sure you all could be more creative than me :). Anyway, this is obviously just an idea (maybe not even a good idea), and I would love feedback. Thanks! :) -- Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Regulated Actions

2019-06-14 Thread Jason Cobb
> Telling someone that they aren’t allowed to do something does limit there ability to do it Did you mean that it _doesn't_ limit their ability to do it? Jason Cobb On 6/15/19 12:25 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: I think you’re misunderstanding what the word “limit” means (or at least what i

Re: DIS: report reward fixes

2019-06-14 Thread Jason Cobb
-official/2019-February/012775.html [1]: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2019-February/012795.html Jason Cobb On 6/14/19 6:48 PM, D. Margaux wrote: On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 6:39 PM omd wrote: Perhaps simplify to something like: * Publishing

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-16 Thread Jason Cobb
I like it. It seems to be a direct logical consequence of the judgment (although this might get you an IRRELEVANT judgment). Jason Cobb On 6/16/19 5:09 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: On 6/16/2019 1:45 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: My judgement is as follows: When a player "SHALL NOT" perform

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-16 Thread Jason Cobb
125 ("Regulated Actions") { A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the Rules,and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules for performing the given action. The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions. } Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-16 Thread Jason Cobb
performed as described by the Rules,and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules for performing the given action. } Jason Cobb On 6/16/19 9:11 PM, Rebecca wrote: But it's a truism that the rules only regulate what they regulate, we don't need a special rule to say what

Re: DIS: unregulation

2019-06-16 Thread Jason Cobb
rs to, say, perform the Ritual, without allowing it to say that the Ritual can be performed by doing something else, like, say, sending a public message. - As currently, contracts can create requirements upon players that the Rules will enforce on the parties only. Jason Cobb On 6/16/

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-16 Thread Jason Cobb
Simply striking the last sentence of the Rule would suffice... Jason Cobb On 6/16/19 7:28 PM, Rebecca wrote: G., I strongly suspect, very strongly, that there is a body of precedent on regulated actions. Do you know anything about that before we get too hasty? I create and pend the below

Re: DIS: unregulation

2019-06-16 Thread Jason Cobb
"prohibited or regulated by the Rules" through the requirement for some people to follow the contract, thus taking away everyone's right to breathe in the Rules. Note that I could be wrong about the above, especially if there is CFJ precedent about this language. Jason Cobb On 6/

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3736 assigned to omd

2019-06-16 Thread Jason Cobb
Well that screws up my Oathbreaking CFJ *grumble grumble*. Jason Cobb On 6/17/19 12:43 AM, omd wrote: On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:31 PM omd wrote: On Sun, Jun 16, 2019 at 10:24 PM Aris Merchant wrote: I intend with 2 support to group-file a motion to reconsider. This ruling suggests

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on recordkeepors

2019-06-16 Thread Jason Cobb
I meant to ask about that. Is there a reason all of these terms use the "-or" suffix even when normal English would use "-er"? Jason Cobb On 6/17/19 1:04 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Mon, 2019-06-17 at 00:58 -0400, omd wrote: CFJ: In Rule 2125, "requ

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187

2019-06-15 Thread Jason Cobb
Any particular reason you are against 8182? I meant it as a simple bugfix. Jason Cobb On 6/15/19 12:26 PM, Charles Walker wrote: I vote as follows: 8180 Trigon, D Margaux 1.0 Paying our Assessor FOR 8181 D Margaux, [1]1.7 Referee CAN Impose Fines (v1.1) AGAINST 8182

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots

2019-06-10 Thread Jason Cobb
I would personally argue that a proposal does not need to take effect in order to simply _describe_ permisibility of an action, and thus this rule would delegate to all such proposals, even those not yet adopted or those explicitly voted down. Jason Cobb On 6/10/19 8:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots

2019-06-10 Thread Jason Cobb
at wording captured by the Rule? The authorizing Instrument would be the Rule, giving it power to do secured changes. The Rule explicitly delegates to the proposal, thus effectively giving it the entire power of the Rule to destroy assets. Jason Cobb On 6/10/19 3:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Inte

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots

2019-06-10 Thread Jason Cobb
I'm sorry, but I keep hearing this and I don't know what it means. Does it mean that you wish to be the Judge? Jason Cobb On 6/10/19 8:53 PM, Rebecca wrote: i favor this one On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 10:28 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: On general principle - yep! The Rules can delegate to other

Re: DIS: Overpowered Deputies

2019-06-09 Thread Jason Cobb
I could maybe see some shenanigans with being able to act as both Referee and Arbitor but, as you said, probably nothing too serious. Jason Cobb On 6/9/19 6:48 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: It's a known scam, it's been used a few times where someone deputizes for PM to appoint emself to be new

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots

2019-06-11 Thread Jason Cobb
I was suggesting a problem with G.'s suggested wording: "except as described by a proposal or rule". I think with the current wording, you're right, although it does prevent players from destroying eir own blots, which is what the CFJ is about. Jason Cobb On 6/11/19 4:41 AM, Ti

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots

2019-06-11 Thread Jason Cobb
I was thinking something more like "except as explicitly specified by the asset's backing document", since restricting it to Instruments would prevent a contract from destroying its own indestructible assets. Jason Cobb On 6/11/19 12:42 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Tue,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ on Blots

2019-06-11 Thread Jason Cobb
'll submit an actual proposal soon. Jason Cobb On 6/11/19 12:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: That works nicely, because "the Rules" as a backing document already specifies how Proposals change things, so that's covered. On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 9:52 AM Jason Cobb wrote: I was thinki

DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ: Can The Ritual be banished?

2019-06-09 Thread Jason Cobb
There's no such thing as a Call for *Justice*.  :) Jason Cobb On 6/9/19 7:49 PM, Rance Bedwell wrote: I want to attempt to banish The Ritual, but I do not believe it is currently possible to do so. For this reason I Call For Justice for this statement: "The value of N Agoran Co

Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report

2019-06-18 Thread Jason Cobb
Well, not that anything will actually happen :P Jason Cobb On 6/18/19 12:03 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: I point my finger at D. Margaux for the Crime of Making My Eyes Bleed. Jason Cobb On 6/18/19 8:25 AM, Rebecca wrote: As I said, per the revised version of that CFJ, the referee CAN impose

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Breaking an Oath

2019-06-18 Thread Jason Cobb
CFJ 3736, I would love to hear it ;). Jason Cobb On 6/18/19 8:13 AM, D. Margaux wrote: As stated, this CFJ is trivially FALSE because no fine CAN be imposed for anything. Maybe there is a different way to pose the CFJ that would be PARADOXICAL though? On Jun 16, 2019, at 1:25 AM, Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-17 Thread Jason Cobb
Sorry, by the contract not prohibiting breathing, I meant that the contract can say it prohibits breathing all it wants, but the Rules will not _enforce_ criminal liability for violations of that, thus the Rules wouldn't proscribe breathing. Jason Cobb On 6/17/19 2:29 PM, Reuben Staley wrote

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-17 Thread Jason Cobb
I suppose that makes sense. Though that does make me wonder if contracts can specify a crime other than a Class 2 Crime, since this clause doesn't say otherwise. Jason Cobb On 6/17/19 3:45 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I think V.J. Rada had it right - the Rules don't punish breathing, they punish

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-18 Thread Jason Cobb
reath would violate this wording, making it a Class 2 crime. The CFJ is, effectively, whether or not the regulated actions rule "reaches into the contract", as G. put it. So, is there any textual or precedent basis for asserting whether or not the Rules "reach into the contract

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making an Oath

2019-06-18 Thread Jason Cobb
I don't think you can interpret as establishing criminal liability, since it says "shall" and Rule 2152 ("Mother, may I?") specifically requires all capitals ("SHALL"). Jason Cobb On 6/18/19 8:42 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: On Jun 16, 2019, at 12:46 AM, Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Agoran Directory

2019-06-18 Thread Jason Cobb
Yeah, it was that heading. Jason Cobb On 6/18/19 2:01 AM, James Cook wrote: On Tue, 18 Jun 2019 at 05:56, Jason Cobb wrote: I point my finger at Falsifian for the Crime of Making My Eyes Bleed. [Yes this is silly, but the rule (Rule 2143) is silly.] Jason Cobb Sorry about that! Do you

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report (rev. 1)

2019-06-17 Thread Jason Cobb
It would appear so, my apologies. Jason Cobb On 6/18/19 1:47 AM, James Cook wrote: On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 05:04, Jason Cobb wrote: (This means that Corona was not a player from ~10 June to ~13 June because ratification.) I don't think the "fugitive" vs. "player" distin

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

2019-06-17 Thread Jason Cobb
Not to the public forum Jason Cobb On 6/17/19 8:09 AM, Rebecca wrote: CoE: there is no astronomor or clork post te sidegame suspension act On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 7:18 PM Edward Murphy wrote: =Metareport= You can find an up-to-date version of this report at http

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Making an Oath

2019-06-18 Thread Jason Cobb
I just wanted to make an easy to break pledge :( Jason Cobb On 6/18/19 9:20 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: On Jun 18, 2019, at 9:11 PM, Rebecca wrote: There is a directly on point CFJ in re pledges and that "no prohibition" clause, that being 3538. For anyone else interested, the ar

Re: DIS: Proto: Deregulation, but less so

2019-06-22 Thread Jason Cobb
Looking at this again, if the Rules state that doing something is a crime (such as lying in a public message), then that arguably alters the Rules-defined "state" of whether or not they are guilty of a crime. Is this a valid reading, and is this intended? Jason Cobb On 6/22/19 1:

Re: DIS: Proto: Deregulation, but less so

2019-06-22 Thread Jason Cobb
Clarification: performing the action arguably alters the Rules-defined "state"... Jason Cobb On 6/22/19 12:58 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: Looking at this again, if the Rules state that doing something is a crime (such as lying in a public message), then that arguably alters the Rul

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Fixing pledges

2019-06-25 Thread Jason Cobb
the pledge operates for 60 days. It is IMPOSSIBLE to commit the crime of Oathbreaking multiple times for a single pledge; breaking a single pledge multiple times constitutes a single crime. } I'll withdraw the old one and submit this soon. Jason Cobb On 6/25/19 2:19 AM, James Cook wrote:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8188-8195

2019-06-25 Thread Jason Cobb
It happens :). We at least get some interesting precedent out of it. And you might have stopped G. and ais523 from doing crazy stuff. Jason Cobb On 6/25/19 1:23 AM, James Cook wrote: CFJ: "There exists a proposal with the title 'It's caused enough trouble already' and with a valid ado

DIS: Re: BUS: For real this time [intent(s) to banish the Ritual]

2019-06-25 Thread Jason Cobb
So, what about the ones where you both supported and objected (like X=2.1)? Are you both a Supporter and Objector, because I don't see anything in the dependent action rules that says you can't do both? Jason Cobb On 6/25/19 11:49 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: For each number X that is an integral

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: For real this time [intent(s) to banish the Ritual]

2019-06-25 Thread Jason Cobb
If this is going to be a problem, I could just write a quick script to write out all of the intents for me... Jason Cobb On 6/25/19 2:02 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: Oh sure why not. I CFJ: Jason Cobb made an announcement of intent to banish the Ritual with 2.1 Agoran Consent that meets

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187

2019-06-12 Thread Jason Cobb
Why do people not like OUGHT? I get the issue with contractions, not really OUGHT, though. Jason Cobb On 6/12/19 2:03 PM, D. Margaux wrote: I vote and cause L to vote as follows: 8180 Trigon, D Margaux 1.0 Paying our Assessor FOR 8181 D Margaux, [1]1.7 Referee CAN Impose

Re: DIS: Idea: Notice and comment

2019-06-13 Thread Jason Cobb
. Perhaps a solution would be to permit judges to award Coins (or some other asset) to people who submit helpful arguments (or counterarguments during the comment period, in the system you describe)? Although I worry that that might create perverse incentives. Jason Cobb On 6/13/19 5:15 PM, omd

DIS: Re: BUS: Oh, and [Attn. Arbitor]

2019-06-13 Thread Jason Cobb
I'm sorry, what does this mean? Jason Cobb On 6/13/19 5:22 PM, omd wrote: I sit up.

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Referee] Weekly Report

2019-06-12 Thread Jason Cobb
So does this just mean that you will publish an updated report after the resolution of the CFJ? Can this self-ratify before the CFJ gets a judgment? Jason Cobb On 6/12/19 4:35 PM, D. Margaux wrote: I resolve this by reference to CFJ 3734 On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 4:24 PM Jason Cobb wrote

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8180-8187

2019-06-12 Thread Jason Cobb
That seems like a reasonable distinction to me, at least. Jason Cobb On 6/12/19 2:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote: To my ear, "ought" means something slightly different from "should." I would have thought that "ought" means that something is required from a moral per

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-17 Thread Jason Cobb
Whoops, modify both of those statements to only apply in the hypothetical. Jason Cobb On 6/17/19 2:20 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: You have two options that I can see (without being guilty of a crime). Either - Breathing is a regulated action, or - The contract does not prohibit breathing. Jason

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-17 Thread Jason Cobb
You have two options that I can see (without being guilty of a crime). Either - Breathing is a regulated action, or - The contract does not prohibit breathing. Jason Cobb On 6/17/19 2:20 PM, Reuben Staley wrote: Ah, indeed! So we have our conflict. I SHALL NOT interpret the rules so

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform

2019-06-19 Thread Jason Cobb
Hmm I just realized that I would have to change more wording in order to allow fines. Jason Cobb On 6/19/19 4:17 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: Here's a proto-proposal. This fleshes out some ideas I mentioned in G.'s "unregulation" thread. This is mostly brought on by the recent issues over

DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform

2019-06-19 Thread Jason Cobb
rement mechanism. A requirement-creating entity CAN define an investigator for Finger Pointing that it authorizes. If it does so, this overrides the default investigator specified by the Rules, if any. } -- Jason Cobb

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform

2019-06-19 Thread Jason Cobb
Maybe "binding"? "Contracts are binding", "Regulations are binding". "An entity is binding if and only if..." Jason Cobb On 6/19/19 11:37 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: I would suggest "regulating", but I feel like that could easily get confused wi

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform

2019-06-19 Thread Jason Cobb
I would suggest "regulating", but I feel like that could easily get confused with regulations. Jason Cobb On 6/19/19 11:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: I'd personally create a shorter word for "requirement-creating entity". I'm not sure what it should be, but there has to

Re: Fwd: Re: DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform

2019-06-19 Thread Jason Cobb
I thought of that, but that looks a lot like the name of an office. Also gets pretty close to "regulations". Jason Cobb On 6/20/19 12:09 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: Aris wrote: I'd personally create a shorter word for "requirement-creating entity". I'm not sure what it shou

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform

2019-06-19 Thread Jason Cobb
o massive is that you*tried* (and quite possibly failed, because anticipating every possible consequence in advance is basically impossible) to deal with all of the necessary consequences. Correction: definitely did fail. Pretty quickly after I submitted it, I thought up some pretty bad log

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform

2019-06-19 Thread Jason Cobb
The purpose of Oaths isn't to define new actions, and the Rules define the crime of Oathbreaking. Jason Cobb On 6/19/19 11:51 PM, Rebecca wrote: Basically I like this proposal, which is good (although Oaths should also be binding, right?) but I can't vote for it unless it slashes and burns

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform

2019-06-19 Thread Jason Cobb
ied in the entity for performing the given action. The entity SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe actions that are not regulated by it. An action is game-defined if and only if it is a regulated action of some requirement-creating entity. Retitle Rule 2125 to "Requirement-Cr

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform

2019-06-19 Thread Jason Cobb
That would require rewriting the tournaments wording, and it's kind of close to the Birthday tournament to be doing that. Jason Cobb On 6/19/19 11:38 PM, Rebecca wrote: what if you repeal regulations and change regulations to mean this On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 1:38 PM Jason Cobb wrote: I

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform

2019-06-19 Thread Jason Cobb
Okay, I've updated my local draft of it to use "binding". Jason Cobb On 6/19/19 11:52 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: That actually makes a lot of sense, logically. The term binding is only used in a few places in the rules, and, at a glance, I don't think any of them would conflict with th

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform

2019-06-19 Thread Jason Cobb
xplicit about what it means to define something, I feel like that should include gamestate in addition to actions. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. What would it mean to define the gamestate? Unless you mean the term "gamestate" itself? Jason Cobb On 6/20/19 12:26 AM, o

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-20 Thread Jason Cobb
anomic.org/msg26252.html Jason Cobb On 6/20/19 11:59 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: lol.  I just noticed that "The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions" can be directly interpreted as proscribing unregulated actions. (because "interpreting rule

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-20 Thread Jason Cobb
Why would this go to moot when we could just endlessly group-file motions to reconsider? Jason Cobb On 6/20/19 11:31 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: I feel like we're hitting a binary decision point with a split group of players so I'm guessing this is Moot-bound regardless (FWIW, I'm with R. Lee

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3737: non-binding agoran decision

2019-06-20 Thread Jason Cobb
Also not really something we can force upon em... Jason Cobb On 6/21/19 1:10 AM, Reuben Staley wrote: Recuse D. Margaux? What good would that do? On 6/20/19 10:47 PM, omd wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:37 PM Rebecca wrote: I would like us all to informally vote TRUE, FALSE, PARADOXICAL

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-21 Thread Jason Cobb
tions, I judge PARADOXICAL." I don't think that this judgment reads into the record that the Rules proscribe any unregulated action. Jason Cobb On 6/20/19 11:24 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: Yeah, I’d agree with that. It doesn’t seem like that’s what the judge is doing though. The j

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-20 Thread Jason Cobb
Hey, I do not object to being granted a win by paradox :P. Jason Cobb On 6/20/19 8:49 PM, Rebecca wrote: I agree with omd. Once again, the only good solution is to follow my interpretation of the word "limit". Additionally, I strongly object to whoever called this CFJ being gra

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3737: non-binding agoran decision

2019-06-20 Thread Jason Cobb
Mumbles something about instant-runoff only working for entities and voting [Rule 2125, Agora, G., Aris, Corona]. Jason Cobb On 6/21/19 12:38 AM, Aris Merchant wrote: If we’re doing this, it should be instant runoff. -Aris On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 9:37 PM Rebecca wrote: I would like us

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-20 Thread Jason Cobb
That's the definition of "limit" as a noun, not a verb. Rule 2125 clearly uses it as a verb. Jason Cobb On 6/20/19 10:28 PM, Rebecca wrote: Limit, the first definition off of google "a point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or pass." do

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-20 Thread Jason Cobb
I think to consider a forbidden interpretation and then explicitly reject it probably would not run afoul of this SHALL NOT. Jason Cobb On 6/20/19 7:56 PM, omd wrote: On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 4:58 AM D. Margaux wrote: In my opinion, this case is logically undecidable because the facts

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-20 Thread Jason Cobb
t helpful for anyone, but I haven't been broken of my idealism yet. Jason Cobb On 6/20/19 11:41 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: I’m for this solution. Moots are kinda lousy at consensus building, due to the limited number of voting options. -Aris On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 8:39 PM Rebecca wrote: why don't we

DIS: Re: BUS: Judgement of CFJ 3737

2019-06-21 Thread Jason Cobb
s to which I am not party to be regulated for me. Therefore, the flipping of the judge switch of CFJ X would NOT be regulated for me, and the Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted to proscribe it. I really hope that my reasoning is flawed in some way because, otherwise, this is a disturbing precedent. Please

Re: DIS: [proto] Regulated actions reform

2019-06-21 Thread Jason Cobb
eted so as to proscribe actions that are not regulated by it. An action is game-defined if and only if it is a regulated action of some binding entity. Retitle Rule 2125 to "Binding Entities". Set the power of Rule 2125 to 3.1. } Jason Cobb On 6/19/19 9:08 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

2019-06-21 Thread Jason Cobb
There should likely at least be a reference to recordkeepor information. If this gets included, could your proposal clearly resolve CFJ 3740 in the new Ruleset, please? Jason Cobb On 6/22/19 12:26 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 21:20 -0700, omd wrote: Proposal

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

2019-06-21 Thread Jason Cobb
esn't help in this proposal. Jason Cobb On 6/22/19 12:26 AM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: On Fri, 2019-06-21 at 21:20 -0700, omd wrote: Proposal: Deregulation (AI=3) Repeal Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions"). Amend Rule 2152 ("Mother, May I?") by appending after

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: Deregulation

2019-06-21 Thread Jason Cobb
ined", arguably contracts are part of the game, and contracts can define actions, and thus actions defined by contracts are "game-defined". Jason Cobb On 6/22/19 12:43 AM, omd wrote: On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:33 PM Jason Cobb wrote: This leaves it undefined what a game-def

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Regulated actions reform

2019-06-21 Thread Jason Cobb
Thanks! Responses inline. Jason Cobb On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:03 PM Jason Cobb wrote: Contracts CAN define new actions. These actions CAN only be sequences of actions that are game-defined, but may include conditionals, repetition, and other similar constructs

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] Regulated actions reform

2019-06-21 Thread Jason Cobb
I think it's okay, given that that clause has an explicit "To the extent specified by the Rules". Jason Cobb On 6/22/19 1:00 AM, omd wrote: On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:55 PM Jason Cobb wrote: Contracts CAN require or forbid actions that are defined in oth

Re: DIS: Proto: Deregulation, but less so

2019-06-21 Thread Jason Cobb
ot;distributing a proposal". Jason Cobb On 6/22/19 1:50 AM, omd wrote: Proto: Deregulation, but less so Amend Rule 2125 ("Regulated Actions") to read: An action is regulated if it: (a) consists of altering Rules-defined state (e.g. the act of flipping a Cit

  1   2   3   4   >