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

[Cuddle Beam via agora-discussion]

I am pretty annoyed that nch did the exact same scam I was aiming for (I
was co-conspiring with two other players for days to pull it off but it
didn't get off the ground before nch's attempt at the exact same thing...).

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 8:05 AM omd via agora-business <
agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:

> > On Jun 29, 2020, at 6:51 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business <
> agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Notice of Honour
> > +1 nch (for a good week of play, between scam [sigh] and cfj)
> > -1 G. (for bugging the promotor about reports)
>
> Notice of Honour
> +1 G. (for being a good sport)
> -1 omd (for not judging a CFJ last time I went inactive)
>

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

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion]

On 6/21/20 4:08 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote:
> 
> On 6/21/2020 1:05 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>
>> On 6/21/2020 12:45 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>>> -5 Falsifian <= HONOURLESS WORM
>>
>> 1.  This ain't right.
> 
> Erm, since I just sent the above to Business for the NoH, does the above
> qualify as a CoE (accidental of course).  :)
> 

Given the context and lack of specification, I'm interpreting it as not
one, but I appreciate the sentiment.

-- 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth

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

[Aris Merchant]

On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 6:45 PM Nch  wrote:

>
> ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> On Sunday, October 20, 2019 8:43 PM, Nch  wrote:
>
> > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
> > On Sunday, October 20, 2019 5:01 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@uw.edu wrote:
> >
> > > Herald's Weekly report
> > > Date of Last Report: 06 Oct 2019
> > > Date of This Report: 20 Oct 2019
> > > Karma Entity
> > > +6 Aris <= SHOGUN
> > > +5 G.
> > > - ABOVE +4 STAND THE SAMURAI
> > > +3 Trigon
> > > +3 twg
> > > +1 Falsifian
> > > +1 Jason Cobb
> > > 00 Agora
> > > -1 omd
> > > -1 nch
> >
> > Oh, honour is a person switch.
> >
> > +1 nch because new starts should be fresh starts, right?
> > -1 Aris because no one Agoran should have all that power.
>
> TTttPF, and the above is a notice of honour if that was not clear.
>

I’m afraid you can’t give honor to yourself. Now, if you wanted to reverse
the direction of the transaction, that would be another story...

(The last bit is a joke, for the record.)

-Aris

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

[Gaelan Steele]

Isn’t this ISIDTID?

> On Feb 18, 2019, at 11:03 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/17/2019 1:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> Herald’s Weekly report
>> Date of Last Report: 04 Feb 2018
>> Date of This Report: 17 Feb 2019
> 
> I state what is necessary to be Rewarded for the above-referenced report.
> 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

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

[Kerim Aydin]

I think R217 should say that every person CAN always call 2 CFJs
free per week, no matter what.  And get rid of AP.

On Mon, 11 Dec 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 01:07 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > Another argument in favour of making CFJ calls less fundamentally
> > conditional.
> 
> Perhaps we should pragmatise CFJs? If you call them, they always go
> through unless explicitly refused by the Arbitor for not having
> payment.
> 
> This would allow "public interest" CFJs to be called for free, too, so
> long as the Arbitor was on board.
> 
> -- 
> ais523
>

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

[Alex Smith]

On Sun, 2017-12-10 at 20:17 -0500, ATMunn wrote:
> On 12/10/2017 8:12 PM, Alex Smith wrote:
> > On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 01:07 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > > Another argument in favour of making CFJ calls less fundamentally
> > > conditional.
> > 
> > Perhaps we should pragmatise CFJs? If you call them, they always go
> > through unless explicitly refused by the Arbitor for not having
> > payment.
> > 
> > This would allow "public interest" CFJs to be called for free, too,
> > so long as the Arbitor was on board.
> What if the Arbitor just refused all CFJs? Or none of them?

They wouldn't be able to refuse a case that had been paid for
correctly.

-- 
ais523 

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

[Alexis Hunt]

This is how excess cases work, presumably for this exact reason.

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017, 20:13 Alex Smith,  wrote:

> On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 01:07 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> > Another argument in favour of making CFJ calls less fundamentally
> > conditional.
>
> Perhaps we should pragmatise CFJs? If you call them, they always go
> through unless explicitly refused by the Arbitor for not having
> payment.
>
> This would allow "public interest" CFJs to be called for free, too, so
> long as the Arbitor was on board.
>
> --
> ais523
>

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

[ATMunn]

What if the Arbitor just refused all CFJs? Or none of them?

On 12/10/2017 8:12 PM, Alex Smith wrote:

On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 01:07 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:

Another argument in favour of making CFJ calls less fundamentally
conditional.


Perhaps we should pragmatise CFJs? If you call them, they always go
through unless explicitly refused by the Arbitor for not having
payment.

This would allow "public interest" CFJs to be called for free, too, so
long as the Arbitor was on board.

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

[Alex Smith]

On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 01:07 +, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> Another argument in favour of making CFJ calls less fundamentally
> conditional.

Perhaps we should pragmatise CFJs? If you call them, they always go
through unless explicitly refused by the Arbitor for not having
payment.

This would allow "public interest" CFJs to be called for free, too, so
long as the Arbitor was on board.

-- 
ais523

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

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017, 19:50 Alex Smith,  wrote:

> On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 00:17 +, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > If this proposal is not already pending, I pend it for 1 AP.
> This works as intended even without the conditional, under our current
> rulings; you can't pay to pend a proposal if it's already pending.
>
> > If I have not already done so, I call this case for 5 shinies.
> This is the one I'm most sympathetic to out of your three examples;
> charging for CFJs does give a reason to not just unconditionally call
> it the "potentially second time".
>

Another argument in favour of making CFJ calls less fundamentally
conditional.

>
> > If Alexis has been awarded a card, I point my finger at the Referee.
> This is an abuse of conditionals IMO. You're basically saying "I accuse
> the Referee, if and only if e actually committed the crime". In other
> words, it's an attempt to get out of being held liable for a false
> accusation by making it only if it's true, and while still causing
> people to do all the work required to respond to the accusation
> (because they need to determine if it's true or not to determine
> whether you made it).
>
> --
> ais523
>

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

[Alex Smith]

On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 00:17 +, Aris Merchant wrote:
> If this proposal is not already pending, I pend it for 1 AP.
This works as intended even without the conditional, under our current
rulings; you can't pay to pend a proposal if it's already pending.

> If I have not already done so, I call this case for 5 shinies.
This is the one I'm most sympathetic to out of your three examples;
charging for CFJs does give a reason to not just unconditionally call
it the "potentially second time".

> If Alexis has been awarded a card, I point my finger at the Referee.
This is an abuse of conditionals IMO. You're basically saying "I accuse
the Referee, if and only if e actually committed the crime". In other
words, it's an attempt to get out of being held liable for a false
accusation by making it only if it's true, and while still causing
people to do all the work required to respond to the accusation
(because they need to determine if it's true or not to determine
whether you made it).

-- 
ais523

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

[Aris Merchant]

If this proposal is not already pending, I pend it for 1 AP. If I have not
already done so, I call this case for 5 shinies. If Alexis has been awarded
a card, I point my finger at the Referee.

-Aris

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 4:13 PM ATMunn  wrote:

> What would be an example of a "basic" conditional action?
>
> On 12/10/2017 7:04 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 4:00 PM Alex Smith 
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 10:55 +1100, Madeline wrote:
> >>> On 2017-12-11 03:54, Corona wrote:
>  I cause ACU to transfer to me 5-(no. of Agora's shinies) shinies,
>  destroying ten times that number of bills.
> >>> "Number of Agora's shinies" isn't something I'm expected to know. ;_;
> >>
> >> It strikes me that it might be a good idea to just ban conditional
> >> actions altogether (via proposal), apart from conditional voting (which
> >> is separate in the rules anyway, and has proven to be helpful as an
> >> anti-game-theory measure).
> >>
> >> Right now they're mostly being used as a way to push work from players
> >> onto officers, which is not really a good thing given how hard office
> >> work can be.
> >>
> >> When we used to do an action that might fail, we just did it (and then
> >> stated the circumstances under which it would fail). At least then
> >> messing around with potentially failing actions had some sort of risk
> >> for the person who was doing it, encouraging them to verify that it
> >> worked beforehand.
> >>
> >> --
> >> ais523
> >
> >
> >
> >> I would strongly oppose a flat ban on conditional actions. Hopefully the
> > judicial system can work out something reasonable, and if not I'm sure we
> > can legislate some restrictions. Basic conditional actions are useful,
> > although I agree that the trend towards "I just don't want to do work" is
> > worrying.
> >
> > -Aris
> >
>

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

[ATMunn]

What would be an example of a "basic" conditional action?

On 12/10/2017 7:04 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 4:00 PM Alex Smith  wrote:


On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 10:55 +1100, Madeline wrote:

On 2017-12-11 03:54, Corona wrote:

I cause ACU to transfer to me 5-(no. of Agora's shinies) shinies,
destroying ten times that number of bills.

"Number of Agora's shinies" isn't something I'm expected to know. ;_;


It strikes me that it might be a good idea to just ban conditional
actions altogether (via proposal), apart from conditional voting (which
is separate in the rules anyway, and has proven to be helpful as an
anti-game-theory measure).

Right now they're mostly being used as a way to push work from players
onto officers, which is not really a good thing given how hard office
work can be.

When we used to do an action that might fail, we just did it (and then
stated the circumstances under which it would fail). At least then
messing around with potentially failing actions had some sort of risk
for the person who was doing it, encouraging them to verify that it
worked beforehand.

--
ais523





I would strongly oppose a flat ban on conditional actions. Hopefully the

judicial system can work out something reasonable, and if not I'm sure we
can legislate some restrictions. Basic conditional actions are useful,
although I agree that the trend towards "I just don't want to do work" is
worrying.

-Aris

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

[Alex Smith]

On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 10:55 +1100, Madeline wrote:
> On 2017-12-11 03:54, Corona wrote:
> > I cause ACU to transfer to me 5-(no. of Agora's shinies) shinies,
> > destroying ten times that number of bills.
> "Number of Agora's shinies" isn't something I'm expected to know. ;_;

It strikes me that it might be a good idea to just ban conditional
actions altogether (via proposal), apart from conditional voting (which
is separate in the rules anyway, and has proven to be helpful as an
anti-game-theory measure).

Right now they're mostly being used as a way to push work from players
onto officers, which is not really a good thing given how hard office
work can be.

When we used to do an action that might fail, we just did it (and then
stated the circumstances under which it would fail). At least then
messing around with potentially failing actions had some sort of risk
for the person who was doing it, encouraging them to verify that it
worked beforehand.

-- 
ais523

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

[Aris Merchant]

On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 4:00 PM Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Mon, 2017-12-11 at 10:55 +1100, Madeline wrote:
> > On 2017-12-11 03:54, Corona wrote:
> > > I cause ACU to transfer to me 5-(no. of Agora's shinies) shinies,
> > > destroying ten times that number of bills.
> > "Number of Agora's shinies" isn't something I'm expected to know. ;_;
>
> It strikes me that it might be a good idea to just ban conditional
> actions altogether (via proposal), apart from conditional voting (which
> is separate in the rules anyway, and has proven to be helpful as an
> anti-game-theory measure).
>
> Right now they're mostly being used as a way to push work from players
> onto officers, which is not really a good thing given how hard office
> work can be.
>
> When we used to do an action that might fail, we just did it (and then
> stated the circumstances under which it would fail). At least then
> messing around with potentially failing actions had some sort of risk
> for the person who was doing it, encouraging them to verify that it
> worked beforehand.
>
> --
> ais523



> I would strongly oppose a flat ban on conditional actions. Hopefully the
judicial system can work out something reasonable, and if not I'm sure we
can legislate some restrictions. Basic conditional actions are useful,
although I agree that the trend towards "I just don't want to do work" is
worrying.

-Aris

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

[Madeline]

"Number of Agora's shinies" isn't something I'm expected to know. ;_;

On 2017-12-11 03:54, Corona wrote:

I cause ACU to transfer to me 5-(no. of Agora's shinies) shinies,
destroying ten times that number of bills.

Then, I spend those shinies on gaining favor with the Party holding
Economy, and then I claim my reward for the Weekly Herald Report.

On 12/10/17, Corona  wrote:

As Herald I publish the following weekly report:

Court:

KarmaEntity
-
SAMURAI
-
+4   ATMunn <-- SHOGUN
+3   o
+3   Alexis
+3   Telnaior
+3   G.
+2   Trigon
+2   Aris
+1   天火狐
-1   Quazie
-1   omd
-1   Bayushi
-2   ProofTechnique
-2   Murphy
-2   Ienpw III
-2   Gaelan
-4   CuddleBeam
-6   V.J. Rada <-- HONOURLESS WORM
-
GAMMAS
-
KarmaEntity


All other entities have 0 Karma.

---
Notices of Honour:

Corona (28 Nov 2017)
-1 Corona (not giving karma to Alexis instead, intent to bribe)
+1 VJ Rada (has given Corona shinies, balancing eir karma)

o (27 Nov 2017)
-1 o (spending too long at the top of the list)
+1 CuddleBeam (having been duly chastened)

Alexis (27 Nov 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (generally poor sportsmanship)
+1 Telnaior (stepping up as Clork)

PSS (27 Nov 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (disrespecting others, the game and sportsmanship)
+1 Aris (encouraging civility)

G. (27 Nov 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (bad officing)
+1 ATMunn (being a good sport about ribbons)

ATMunn (28 Nov 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (bad ADoP, bad officer, bad Agoran)
+1 G. (good long-term player who know's what e's doing)

Telnaior (28 Nov 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (intentionally causing trouble several times)
+1 Corona (cool newbie)

[New Week]

PSS (20 Nov 2017)
-1 nichdel (for inactivity)
+1 ATMunn (for improving upon ADoP report)

[New Week]

ATMunn (16 Nov 2017)
-1 ATMunn (pushing boundaries of karma)
+1 G. (pushing boundaries of karma)

V.J. Rada 15 Nov 2017)
-1 Quazie (for inactivity)
+1 Alexis (innovative timely rulekeepor)

Telnaior (15 Nov 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (being a contrarian)
+1 Alexis (Telnaior's favourite large proposal)

[Last Report Wed Nov 15]
[New Week]

G. (12 Nov 2017)
-1 天火狐 (for a low-effort newspaper report).
+1 omd (for quick response to Distributor directives).

ATMunn (6 Nov 2017)
-1 ATMunn (for forgetting to state quorum on Decision initiations).
+1 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus (for putting up with such mistakes).


[New Week]


G. (3 Nov 17)
-1 Murphy (for being a near-Zombie).
+1 Alexis (for putting the time into this thesis).

ATMunn (30 Oct 2017)
-1 omd (can't think of anyone else to lose karma and e is inactive).
+1 Trigon (for seeming to do really well so far at publishing rulesets).

Alexis (30 Oct 2017)
-1 Alexis (for introducing such a silly pedantic bug into the ruleset).
+1 ATMunn (for putting up with it).

Telnaior (30 Oct 2017)
-1 CuddleBeam (for attempting to game the karma system).
+1 Aris (for putting in a valiant effort as Promotor during busy period).

V.J. Rada (30 Oct 2017)
-1 Bayushi (for inactivity).
+1 Alexis (for having to judge my stupid cfjs).


[New Week]


Telnaior (29 Oct 2017)
-1 ProofTechnique (for not existing but having more karma than other
inactives).
+1 天火狐 (for creating a very cool contract).

o (27 Oct 17)
-1 CuddleBeam (for generally being contrarian)
+1 G. (for producing a magnificent judgement)

Alexis (25 Oct 17)
-1 CuddleBeam (for objecting to deregistration making karma-sinks)
+1 nichdel (for jumping right back in)

PSS (25 Oct 17)
-1 CuddleBeam (for confusing nichdel and being a contrarian)
+1 天火狐 (for being a fun player and pushing boundaries with language)

Nichdel (25 Oct 17)
-1 PSS (for being a contrarian)
+1 o (for being the best at what e does)

Trigon (25 Oct 17)
-1 Ienpw III (for being inactive)
+1 ATMunn (for being a fantastic active new player)

ATMunn (25 Oct 17)
-1 Ienpw III (for being inactive)
+1 o (for being honest, hardworking and generally awesome player)

Aris (25 Oct 17)
-1 ProofTechnique (for being inactive)
+1 Trigon (for being a new active player)

V.J. Rada (25 Oct 17)
-1 omd (for being inactive)
+1 Telnaior (cool that V.J. Rada brought em back and being clever)

G. (24 Oct 17)
-1 V.J. Rada (making a deputization mess)
+1 o (for being the one to clean up messes)


[New Week]


Telnaior (22 Oct 17)
-1 Gaelan (for slack Rulekeeping)
+1 Alexis (for being helpful)

Alexis (22 Oct 17)
-1 CuddleBeam (for blocking deregistrations of inactives)
+1 Telnaior (for coming back with vigour)

V.J. Rada (22 Oct 17)
-1 Murphy (being inactive)
+1 ATMunn (for being a good player, and proposals)

G. (22 Oct 2017)
-1 V.J. Rada (random choice), +1 ATMunn (good first proposal).


~Corona

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

[ais523]

On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 20:33 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
   DISCLAIMER: The below is based on the interpretation that ehird was
   not a Rebel; CFJ 2897's judgment is ambiguous and under
   reconsideration.  If it is determined that e was a Rebel, ehird was
   the 5th Rebel, Wooble was the 6th Rebel, and the Rebellion succeeded,
   reordering the List.
 
 I transfer a prop from ais523 (for ridiculously drawing this out) to
 Murphy (for the excellent multi-game-state tracking).  -G.

I'm having problems with the CFJ in question. The problem is that game
custom and past CFJs give a strong indication that ehird's attempt
failed; but the rules, to me, give a weak indication that it succeeded,
and they take precedence. (As far as I can tell, subject lines are sent
via the fora along with the rest of the message, and the only thing that
could cause that to /not/ take an action is if it's too ambiguous to
succeed. Hidden email headers are one thing, where there's ambiguity
caused by the fact that people might not see the header in question, but
with a plainly visible header like the subject line, in a situation
where the subject line is clearly deliberately changed to take a message
(e.g. because it's a reply to another message and has been deliberately
edited, like it was in ehird's case), I can't see a rules-based reason
to disallow it.

Additionally, I don't see why everyone's annoyed with me for not judging
this sooner. For one thing, it's II 0 and thus, by definition,
uninteresting and unimportant. For another thing, CFJ judgements are not
definitive. A judgement in this matter is entirely useless if it turns
out to be incorrect. Sure, I could just say TRUE or FALSE with some
reasonable reasoning (which I did!), but that doesn't mean that the
verdict is necessarily platonically correct. If you want certainty about
the gamestate, I suggest you sort it out pragmatically, via urgent
proposal or ratification or whatever; attempting to deduce the platonic
gamestate in a situation as balanced as this is fraught with danger, due
to the chance of getting the wrong result.

-- 
ais523

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

[Kerim Aydin]

On Tue, 23 Nov 2010, ais523 wrote:
  Additionally, I don't see why everyone's annoyed with me for not judging
  this sooner.

My apologies; when you set up your subject-line trick you indicated you
were pretty sure it was true, so I thought you had a judgement all thought
out and set and were merely delaying it.  -G.

ps.  I think it was a good judgement pointing out that the message was
pretty clear and pointing out the error in custom and precedent versus
rules support.

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

[Elliott Hird]

I didn't modify the subject line when I replied, fwiw.