Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset -- December 7

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 9 Dec 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Dec 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> 
> > What about something like this?
> > 
> >* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. For each office,
> >  this reward can only be claimed for the first weekly report
> >  published in a week and the first monthly report published in a
> >  month.
> 
> That seems clear, although I have a nagging doubt about "what if there's
> something severely wrong with the first one?"

That sounds like the "when is a report so incomplete/out-of-date that it's
not a report?" question that comes up from time to time, but is rare enough
that it can be taken up on a case-by-case basis?  (and I think there's a few 
precedents there).

-G.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset -- December 7

[Ørjan Johansen]

On Sun, 9 Dec 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:


What about something like this?

   * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. For each office,
 this reward can only be claimed for the first weekly report
 published in a week and the first monthly report published in a
 month.


That seems clear, although I have a nagging doubt about "what if there's 
something severely wrong with the first one?"


Greetings,
Ørjan.


-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 6:17 PM, Ørjan Johansen  
wrote:


On Sat, 8 Dec 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:


Unfortunately I believe this fails, because you have already claimed a
reward this week for publication of the SLR (even though the SLR you
claimed the reward for was published last week).


That sounds rather annoying - e basically cannot synchronize the rewards
back without missing a report.

* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. This reward can
only be claimed once per office per week for a weekly report and
once per office per month for a monthly report.

Rephrasing the rule so that it clearly applies the "once per *" to the
timing of the report rather than the claim is a bit awkward. The
following is ambiguous between the current reading and the more flexible
one:

* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. This reward can
only be claimed for one weekly report per office per week
and for one monthly report per office per month.

I think the following should work:

* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. This reward can
only be claimed for one weekly report per office published in a
week and for one monthly report per office published in a month.

Greetings,
Ørjan.

[Narrowly avoid quoting entire ruleset]

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset -- December 7

[Timon Walshe-Grey]

What about something like this?

* Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. For each office,
  this reward can only be claimed for the first weekly report
  published in a week and the first monthly report published in a
  month.

-twg


‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐
On Saturday, December 8, 2018 6:17 PM, Ørjan Johansen  
wrote:

> On Sat, 8 Dec 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately I believe this fails, because you have already claimed a
> > reward this week for publication of the SLR (even though the SLR you
> > claimed the reward for was published last week).
>
> That sounds rather annoying - e basically cannot synchronize the rewards
> back without missing a report.
>
> * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. This reward can
> only be claimed once per office per week for a weekly report and
> once per office per month for a monthly report.
>
> Rephrasing the rule so that it clearly applies the "once per *" to the
> timing of the report rather than the claim is a bit awkward. The
> following is ambiguous between the current reading and the more flexible
> one:
>
> * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. This reward can
> only be claimed for one weekly report per office per week
> and for one monthly report per office per month.
>
> I think the following should work:
>
> * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. This reward can
> only be claimed for one weekly report per office published in a
> week and for one monthly report per office published in a month.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>
> [Narrowly avoid quoting entire ruleset]

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset -- December 7

[Reuben Staley]

Maybe there is a relevant CFJ here? Unfortunately, I most definitely didn't
pay attention too the legal process back then.

--
Trigon

On Sat, Dec 8, 2018, 11:17 Ørjan Johansen  On Sat, 8 Dec 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately I believe this fails, because you have already claimed a
> > reward this week for publication of the SLR (even though the SLR you
> > claimed the reward _for_ was published last week).
>
> That sounds rather annoying - e basically cannot synchronize the rewards
> back without missing a report.
>
> * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. This reward can
>   only be claimed once per office per week for a weekly report and
>   once per office per month for a monthly report.
>
> Rephrasing the rule so that it clearly applies the "once per *" to the
> timing of the _report_ rather than the claim is a bit awkward.  The
> following is ambiguous between the current reading and the more flexible
> one:
>
> * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. This reward can
>   only be claimed for one weekly report per office per week
>   and for one monthly report per office per month.
>
> I think the following should work:
>
> * Publishing a duty-fulfilling report: 5 coins. This reward can
>   only be claimed for one weekly report per office published in a
>   week and for one monthly report per office published in a month.
>
> Greetings,
> Ørjan.
>
> [Narrowly avoid quoting entire ruleset]
>

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

I don't know what I was looking at, I am very sorry, it was my error.

On 11/25/2017 12:37 PM, ATMunn wrote:
> No it doesn't?
>
> Rule 1051/17 (Power=1.0)
> The Rulekeepor
>
>   The Rulekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for
>   maintaining the text of the rules of Agora.
>
>   The Rulekeepor's Weekly report includes the Short Logical Ruleset.
>   The Rulekeepor's Monthly report includes the Full Logical Ruleset.
>
> On 11/25/2017 12:36 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
>> What I mean is that the SLR you published lists it incorrectly as
>> being 105.
>> 
>> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 25, 2017, at 12:35 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 at 12:31 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
>>> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
 CoE: Both the Rulekeepor and Rule Changes have the number 105.
>>>
>>>
>>> The Rulekeepor has ID 1051.
>>

-- 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset

[ATMunn]

No it doesn't?

Rule 1051/17 (Power=1.0)
The Rulekeepor

  The Rulekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for
  maintaining the text of the rules of Agora.

  The Rulekeepor's Weekly report includes the Short Logical Ruleset.
  The Rulekeepor's Monthly report includes the Full Logical Ruleset.

On 11/25/2017 12:36 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:

What I mean is that the SLR you published lists it incorrectly as being 105.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com




On Nov 25, 2017, at 12:35 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 at 12:31 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:


CoE: Both the Rulekeepor and Rule Changes have the number 105.



The Rulekeepor has ID 1051.

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

What I mean is that the SLR you published lists it incorrectly as being 105.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com



> On Nov 25, 2017, at 12:35 PM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 at 12:31 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 
>> CoE: Both the Rulekeepor and Rule Changes have the number 105.
> 
> 
> The Rulekeepor has ID 1051.



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP