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

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Oct 5, 2017, at 1:40 AM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> " Date of last report: Tue, 26 Sep 2017"
> 
> This is wrong, although it doesn't matter.

Is it? The last correct report, up to information known at the time of 
publication, was on that date. I actually picked that intentionally to 
acknowledge that this is not a new report, but a revision (plus time slew) of 
the previous report.

That’s not to say I think you’re _wrong_, and I didn’t do that consistently 
throughout the report - the events list still shows the “Last Report” line as 
if the Oct 3 report happened.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

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

[Owen Jacobson]

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 8:20 AM Aris Merchant 
 wrote:

> CoE: I think I bought a stamp a few weeks ago when everything was cheap.

You did, on Sept. 5th.

2017-09-04 ! Aris created a stamp
Agora   4 Shinies
Player:Aris-4 Shinies
Player:Aris:Stamps:Aris 1 Stamps
Stamps:Aris-1 Stamps

That stamp is missing from the report because I had believed it to have been 
subsequently destroyed on Sept 7th.

2017-09-07 ! Gaelan destroyed all Stamps
   Player:Aris-1 Aris_Stamps=  0 
Aris_Stamps
   Stamps:Aris 1 Aris_Stamps=  0 
Aris_Stamps

However, PSS’ judgement on CFJ 3561 affects that. I’ll accept this CFJ formally 
in a moment, once I’m sure I’ve corrected for that change.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[VJ Rada]

I made Gaelan give them to you with an agency of his.

On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 1:47 PM, Rubin Stacy  wrote:
> Where'd I get twenty shinies?
>
> --
> Trigon
> --
>
> On Oct 3, 2017 7:35 PM, "Owen Jacobson"  wrote:
>>
>>  864 Shinies  Player
>>   51 ShiniesATMunn
>>   70 ShiniesAlexis
>>   12 ShiniesAris
>>   65 ShiniesCuddleBeam
>>   26 ShiniesG.
>>8 ShiniesGaelan
>>   50 ShiniesIenpw III
>>   50 ShiniesK
>>   50 ShiniesMurphy
>>   93 ShiniesPublius Scribonius Scholasticus
>>   50 ShiniesQuazie
>>   20 ShiniesTrigon
>>   61 ShiniesV.J Rada
>>   50 Shiniesbayushi
>>   17 Shiniesnichdel
>>   86 Shinieso
>>   50 Shiniesomd
>>   55 Shinies天火狐



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

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

[ATMunn .]

I paid Agora 17 shinies earlier today. You probably missed it.

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:26 PM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:

>
> > On Sep 26, 2017, at 6:28 PM, Trigon  wrote:
> >
> > I'd love to contribute to the economic stabilization; however, being a
> shiniless scrub, I cannot. I extend thanks to everyone who is involved in
> this effort.
>
> As it happens, there are now enough Shinies in Agora’s account that you
> could, if you felt like it, claim a welcome package (rule 2499 describes
> how).
>
> As of this message, balances are as follows:
>
>  137 Shinies  Agora
>1 Shinies  Organization
>1 ShiniesASaAA
>  862 Shinies  Player
>   51 ShiniesATMunn
>   12 ShiniesAris
>   65 ShiniesCuddleBeam
>   30 ShiniesG.
>   46 ShiniesGaelan
>   50 ShiniesIenpw III
>   50 ShiniesK
>   50 ShiniesMurphy
>   94 ShiniesPublius Scribonius Scholasticus
>   50 ShiniesQuazie
>   61 ShiniesV.J Rada
>   50 Shiniesbayushi
>   49 Shiniesgrok
>   12 Shiniesnichdel
>   87 Shinieso
>   50 Shiniesomd
>   55 Shinies天火狐
>
> (This information is not a report and does not self-ratify, but it’s
> probably correct. It comes from the same place my reports do.)
>
> -o
>
>

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

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 26, 2017, at 6:28 PM, Trigon  wrote:
> 
> I'd love to contribute to the economic stabilization; however, being a 
> shiniless scrub, I cannot. I extend thanks to everyone who is involved in 
> this effort.

As it happens, there are now enough Shinies in Agora’s account that you could, 
if you felt like it, claim a welcome package (rule 2499 describes how).

As of this message, balances are as follows:

 137 Shinies  Agora
   1 Shinies  Organization
   1 ShiniesASaAA
 862 Shinies  Player
  51 ShiniesATMunn
  12 ShiniesAris
  65 ShiniesCuddleBeam
  30 ShiniesG.
  46 ShiniesGaelan
  50 ShiniesIenpw III
  50 ShiniesK
  50 ShiniesMurphy
  94 ShiniesPublius Scribonius Scholasticus
  50 ShiniesQuazie
  61 ShiniesV.J Rada
  50 Shiniesbayushi
  49 Shiniesgrok
  12 Shiniesnichdel
  87 Shinieso
  50 Shiniesomd
  55 Shinies天火狐

(This information is not a report and does not self-ratify, but it’s probably 
correct. It comes from the same place my reports do.)

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

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

[Owen Jacobson]

Try this on a public forum.

However, the spirit of your generosity is very much appreciated.

-o

> On Sep 26, 2017, at 6:11 PM, ATMunn .  wrote:
> 
> I currently have 51 shinies.
> I give Agora 17 shinies.
> 
> [I really have nothing better to do with them anyways, so I might as well 
> help out.]




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

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

[Trigon]

I'd love to contribute to the economic stabilization; however, being a 
shiniless scrub, I cannot. I extend thanks to everyone who is involved 
in this effort.


On 9/25/2017 10:41 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:



On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:

* The reward for authoring or pending a successful proposal pended with shinies 
is 1 sh.


Ok, so as much as I understand the assessor's lateness, I suspect it cost me
personally a fair purse of shinies.  I'm at the point where I'm ready to call 
the
entire wildly-adjusting and oscillating"system" frustrating guesswork and
gambling to tune out of it entirely, voting to just keep AP and be happy with
a couple actions a week.


Economic reform goals:

1. Keep everything stable. I'd say we also need to keep things
interesting, but frankly everyone could use a bit of boringness right
now. This is impacting the workloads of several officers (meaning we
have to do our work in bursts) and is ruining stability and financial
planing. IMHO, this is is also the biggest flaw in at least two
proposals, Shiny Weather and Hot Potato, which would both actually
reduce stability in the markets.

2. Keep Agora solvent. Another major flaw in most financial proposals.
At least half of any wealth from taxes should go to Agora. Yes, that's
right, half. I know this is going to be unpopular, but wealth
redistribution will not actually create a good financial system unless
rule based rewards work. This is the upside of "print money" style
proposals, which people vote against primarily because they're
applying too much real world economics (not that people need to vote
for them, see the next sentence, but I think they vote against for the
wrong reasons). The disadvantage of that kind of proposal is that
they're short term fixes that don't solve the underlying problem. I'm
starting to think that a two tier tax might be best. A wealth
redistribution tax would be placed on the rich, while a public tax
would be levied on all but the poor.

3. Redistribute wealth. Yeah, this is third. No, that isn't a mistake.
Every self-respecting economic reform proposal does this, but it's
actually rather pointless without the other two. Until those happen,
shines aren't a stable form of value.

Temporary fix (mandatory charity): I have 48 shinies. I pay Agora 16
shines. All players, but especially o and P.S.S SHOULD give Agora 1/3
of their shinies, receiving nothing in exchange. I pledge to publish a
list of who has and has not done so. I also pledge that if I judge the
response of the community to be insufficient, I will submit and pend a
proposal levying a tax upon all players.

-Aris

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

[Nic Evans]

On 09/25/2017 11:55 PM, Aris Merchant wrote:
I will issue everyone who does this a trust token (all at once, with 
my charity report) and will try to think of a more substantial token 
of gratitude. Thank you.


-Aris

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:53 PM VJ Rada > wrote:


I have like 62 I think? I give Agora 20 shinies.

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Aris Merchant
> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Kerim Aydin
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>> * The reward for authoring or pending a successful proposal
pended with shinies is 1 sh.
>>
>> Ok, so as much as I understand the assessor's lateness, I
suspect it cost me
>> personally a fair purse of shinies.  I'm at the point where I'm
ready to call the
>> entire wildly-adjusting and oscillating"system" frustrating
guesswork and
>> gambling to tune out of it entirely, voting to just keep AP and
be happy with
>> a couple actions a week.
>
> Economic reform goals:
>
> 1. Keep everything stable. I'd say we also need to keep things
> interesting, but frankly everyone could use a bit of boringness
right
> now. This is impacting the workloads of several officers (meaning we
> have to do our work in bursts) and is ruining stability and
financial
> planing. IMHO, this is is also the biggest flaw in at least two
> proposals, Shiny Weather and Hot Potato, which would both actually
> reduce stability in the markets.
>
> 2. Keep Agora solvent. Another major flaw in most financial
proposals.
> At least half of any wealth from taxes should go to Agora. Yes,
that's
> right, half. I know this is going to be unpopular, but wealth
> redistribution will not actually create a good financial system
unless
> rule based rewards work. This is the upside of "print money" style
> proposals, which people vote against primarily because they're
> applying too much real world economics (not that people need to vote
> for them, see the next sentence, but I think they vote against
for the
> wrong reasons). The disadvantage of that kind of proposal is that
> they're short term fixes that don't solve the underlying
problem. I'm
> starting to think that a two tier tax might be best. A wealth
> redistribution tax would be placed on the rich, while a public tax
> would be levied on all but the poor.
>
> 3. Redistribute wealth. Yeah, this is third. No, that isn't a
mistake.
> Every self-respecting economic reform proposal does this, but it's
> actually rather pointless without the other two. Until those happen,
> shines aren't a stable form of value.
>
> Temporary fix (mandatory charity): I have 48 shinies. I pay Agora 16
> shines. All players, but especially o and P.S.S SHOULD give
Agora 1/3
> of their shinies, receiving nothing in exchange. I pledge to
publish a
> list of who has and has not done so. I also pledge that if I
judge the
> response of the community to be insufficient, I will submit and
pend a
> proposal levying a tax upon all players.
>
> -Aris



--
From V.J. Rada

As the player with the lowest sh count, I'm abstaining from this if it's 
alright.

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

[ATMunn .]

I currently have 51 shinies.
I give Agora 17 shinies.

[I really have nothing better to do with them anyways, so I might as well
help out.]

On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 6:54 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> Per random.org, I give Agora 13 shinies.
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
> p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Gaelan Steele  wrote:
> >
> > I throw 23 shinies at Agora.
> >
> > Gaelan
> >
> >> On Sep 25, 2017, at 9:41 PM, Aris Merchant  gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
>  On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>  * The reward for authoring or pending a successful proposal pended
> with shinies is 1 sh.
> >>>
> >>> Ok, so as much as I understand the assessor's lateness, I suspect it
> cost me
> >>> personally a fair purse of shinies.  I'm at the point where I'm ready
> to call the
> >>> entire wildly-adjusting and oscillating"system" frustrating guesswork
> and
> >>> gambling to tune out of it entirely, voting to just keep AP and be
> happy with
> >>> a couple actions a week.
> >>
> >> Economic reform goals:
> >>
> >> 1. Keep everything stable. I'd say we also need to keep things
> >> interesting, but frankly everyone could use a bit of boringness right
> >> now. This is impacting the workloads of several officers (meaning we
> >> have to do our work in bursts) and is ruining stability and financial
> >> planing. IMHO, this is is also the biggest flaw in at least two
> >> proposals, Shiny Weather and Hot Potato, which would both actually
> >> reduce stability in the markets.
> >>
> >> 2. Keep Agora solvent. Another major flaw in most financial proposals.
> >> At least half of any wealth from taxes should go to Agora. Yes, that's
> >> right, half. I know this is going to be unpopular, but wealth
> >> redistribution will not actually create a good financial system unless
> >> rule based rewards work. This is the upside of "print money" style
> >> proposals, which people vote against primarily because they're
> >> applying too much real world economics (not that people need to vote
> >> for them, see the next sentence, but I think they vote against for the
> >> wrong reasons). The disadvantage of that kind of proposal is that
> >> they're short term fixes that don't solve the underlying problem. I'm
> >> starting to think that a two tier tax might be best. A wealth
> >> redistribution tax would be placed on the rich, while a public tax
> >> would be levied on all but the poor.
> >>
> >> 3. Redistribute wealth. Yeah, this is third. No, that isn't a mistake.
> >> Every self-respecting economic reform proposal does this, but it's
> >> actually rather pointless without the other two. Until those happen,
> >> shines aren't a stable form of value.
> >>
> >> Temporary fix (mandatory charity): I have 48 shinies. I pay Agora 16
> >> shines. All players, but especially o and P.S.S SHOULD give Agora 1/3
> >> of their shinies, receiving nothing in exchange. I pledge to publish a
> >> list of who has and has not done so. I also pledge that if I judge the
> >> response of the community to be insufficient, I will submit and pend a
> >> proposal levying a tax upon all players.
> >>
> >> -Aris
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Basically, with the current system, it's trading shinies around to see what 
happens.

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



> On Sep 26, 2017, at 12:25 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Sep 25, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>> * The reward for authoring or pending a successful proposal pended with 
>>> shinies is 1 sh.
>> 
>> Ok, so as much as I understand the assessor's lateness, I suspect it cost me
>> personally a fair purse of shinies.  I'm at the point where I'm ready to 
>> call the
>> entire wildly-adjusting and oscillating"system" frustrating guesswork and
>> gambling to tune out of it entirely, voting to just keep AP and be happy with
>> a couple actions a week.
> 
> 
> ID Author(s) AI   TitlePender  Pend fee
> ---
> 7901*  o, [1]3.0  Make Your Home Shine o   6 sh.
> 7879*  o, Aris   1.0  You can take it with you o   1 sh.
> 7880*  o 1.0  Agency Typo Fix  o   1 sh.
> 7881*  o, [2]1.0  Stamp CAN Patch  o   1 sh.
> 7882*  o, K, ais523  1.0  Welcome Package CAN Patcho   1 sh.
> 7885*  o, [3]3.0  Restraining Bolt o   1 sh.
> 7888*  o, V.J Rada   3.1  BILLY MAYS HERE  o   1 sh.
> 
> I share your pain.
> 
> It’s something of a moot point for now. I expect to return a big chunk of my 
> Shinies to the pool sometime in the next two weeks, but until PSS and I let 
> go of our assets, Agora’s broke. Even if either of us were to be eligible for 
> a large payday due to FV fluctuations, I think it’d be impossible for us to 
> collect. It’s not gambling if it never pays out…
> 
> -o
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

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

[Aris Merchant]

I will issue everyone who does this a trust token (all at once, with my
charity report) and will try to think of a more substantial token of
gratitude. Thank you.

-Aris

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:53 PM VJ Rada  wrote:

> I have like 62 I think? I give Agora 20 shinies.
>
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Aris Merchant
>  wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> >>> * The reward for authoring or pending a successful proposal pended
> with shinies is 1 sh.
> >>
> >> Ok, so as much as I understand the assessor's lateness, I suspect it
> cost me
> >> personally a fair purse of shinies.  I'm at the point where I'm ready
> to call the
> >> entire wildly-adjusting and oscillating"system" frustrating guesswork
> and
> >> gambling to tune out of it entirely, voting to just keep AP and be
> happy with
> >> a couple actions a week.
> >
> > Economic reform goals:
> >
> > 1. Keep everything stable. I'd say we also need to keep things
> > interesting, but frankly everyone could use a bit of boringness right
> > now. This is impacting the workloads of several officers (meaning we
> > have to do our work in bursts) and is ruining stability and financial
> > planing. IMHO, this is is also the biggest flaw in at least two
> > proposals, Shiny Weather and Hot Potato, which would both actually
> > reduce stability in the markets.
> >
> > 2. Keep Agora solvent. Another major flaw in most financial proposals.
> > At least half of any wealth from taxes should go to Agora. Yes, that's
> > right, half. I know this is going to be unpopular, but wealth
> > redistribution will not actually create a good financial system unless
> > rule based rewards work. This is the upside of "print money" style
> > proposals, which people vote against primarily because they're
> > applying too much real world economics (not that people need to vote
> > for them, see the next sentence, but I think they vote against for the
> > wrong reasons). The disadvantage of that kind of proposal is that
> > they're short term fixes that don't solve the underlying problem. I'm
> > starting to think that a two tier tax might be best. A wealth
> > redistribution tax would be placed on the rich, while a public tax
> > would be levied on all but the poor.
> >
> > 3. Redistribute wealth. Yeah, this is third. No, that isn't a mistake.
> > Every self-respecting economic reform proposal does this, but it's
> > actually rather pointless without the other two. Until those happen,
> > shines aren't a stable form of value.
> >
> > Temporary fix (mandatory charity): I have 48 shinies. I pay Agora 16
> > shines. All players, but especially o and P.S.S SHOULD give Agora 1/3
> > of their shinies, receiving nothing in exchange. I pledge to publish a
> > list of who has and has not done so. I also pledge that if I judge the
> > response of the community to be insufficient, I will submit and pend a
> > proposal levying a tax upon all players.
> >
> > -Aris
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 25, 2017, at 11:50 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> * The reward for authoring or pending a successful proposal pended with 
>> shinies is 1 sh.
> 
> Ok, so as much as I understand the assessor's lateness, I suspect it cost me
> personally a fair purse of shinies.  I'm at the point where I'm ready to call 
> the
> entire wildly-adjusting and oscillating"system" frustrating guesswork and
> gambling to tune out of it entirely, voting to just keep AP and be happy with
> a couple actions a week.


ID Author(s) AI   TitlePender  Pend fee
---
7901*  o, [1]3.0  Make Your Home Shine o   6 sh.
7879*  o, Aris   1.0  You can take it with you o   1 sh.
7880*  o 1.0  Agency Typo Fix  o   1 sh.
7881*  o, [2]1.0  Stamp CAN Patch  o   1 sh.
7882*  o, K, ais523  1.0  Welcome Package CAN Patcho   1 sh.
7885*  o, [3]3.0  Restraining Bolt o   1 sh.
7888*  o, V.J Rada   3.1  BILLY MAYS HERE  o   1 sh.

I share your pain.

It’s something of a moot point for now. I expect to return a big chunk of my 
Shinies to the pool sometime in the next two weeks, but until PSS and I let go 
of our assets, Agora’s broke. Even if either of us were to be eligible for a 
large payday due to FV fluctuations, I think it’d be impossible for us to 
collect. It’s not gambling if it never pays out…

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Kerim Aydin]

On Mon, 19 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote: 
> I should note that (mostly in honour of Bucky) I've been intentionally
> trying to increase the ability of nonplayers to be able to participate

I may or may not have been doing so over the past couple years in honor
of a different non-player.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Alex Smith]

On Sat, 2017-06-17 at 14:45 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> It's my impression that in the last 3-4 years, the number of places
> the rules say "person" instead of "player" has crept up (I haven't
> done a count or anything).  That was a lot of slow-play time, so a
> lot of the things that have been changed that way haven't been tested
> at all.  So in that sense, the interactions with non-players is all
> "new territory" right now. It might be good to scale back.
> 
> The things non-players will always need to be able to do:
>    - register (duh), and therefore make announcements.
>    - call CFJs.  There have been cases in the past where players have
>  been deregistered or punished illegally (or playerhood uncertain),
>  so non-players need to be able to defend themselves against that.
> 
> There are some bits of status that shouldn't be erased on 
> deregistration:
>    - Patent titles
>    - Ribbons (though, I'd say remove the ability for non-players to
>  earn them).

I should note that (mostly in honour of Bucky) I've been intentionally
trying to increase the ability of nonplayers to be able to participate
(this explains why nonplayers can earn Ribbons, and why the number of
rules dealing with them has increased over time). Incidentally, the
current registration rule is what finally drove Bucky off; e was
worried that something e sent to the lists might end up registering em
by accident.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Aris Merchant]

On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 8:41 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I can't claim that the clause in the current ruleset is the direct lineage
>> from that ancient scam, but I think that since then, there's always been
>> something high-powered and explicit in the rules that a person must give
>> informed consent to be considered part of any agreement.
>
> Maybe more useful than going all the way back to the Mousetrap for rules
> interpretation, the current clause came from when we had a "Bill of Rights"
> in Rule 101.  It included this Right:
>
> iii. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to
>  a binding agreement.  The absence of a person's explicit,
>  willful consent shall be considered a refusal.
>
> and this is how it handled player/non-player questions:
>
> vii. Every player has the right to deregister; e may continue
>  to accrue obligations and penalties after deregistration
>  but, if e wishes to ignore the game, such penalties shall
>  not unduly harass em.
>
> The current language on binding agreements rather conflates these two ideas,
> maybe the current situation shows that it conflates them too much!
>
>
>

I'm not sure I believe that the current rules apply in this way. It is
(as I understand it) a longstanding precedent that involved
non-players are bound to obey the rules (Rule 101, as interpreted by
CFJ 1709). I'm not sure that we have all the language that lead to
parts of that ruling now, but we also lack some of the language that
wayed against it. I believe the decision was well thought out,
considering such values as meta-rules and the interests of the game in
addition to the applicable rules. All in all, I suggest we follow
tradition and precedent over trying to reinterpret things ourselves.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I can't claim that the clause in the current ruleset is the direct lineage 
> from that ancient scam, but I think that since then, there's always been
> something high-powered and explicit in the rules that a person must give
> informed consent to be considered part of any agreement.

Maybe more useful than going all the way back to the Mousetrap for rules
interpretation, the current clause came from when we had a "Bill of Rights" 
in Rule 101.  It included this Right:

iii. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to
 a binding agreement.  The absence of a person's explicit,
 willful consent shall be considered a refusal.

and this is how it handled player/non-player questions:

vii. Every player has the right to deregister; e may continue
 to accrue obligations and penalties after deregistration
 but, if e wishes to ignore the game, such penalties shall
 not unduly harass em.

The current language on binding agreements rather conflates these two ideas,
maybe the current situation shows that it conflates them too much!

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > On Jun 18, 2017, at 11:01 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> > 
> > On Sun, 18 Jun 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> >> I tend to treat the rule about consent as an informative observation about
> >> the nature of Agora, and not as a normative part of the rules. It 
> >> memorializes
> >> the observation that we all agree that Agora Is A Game, and that playing is
> >> voluntary. We recognize that any rules which purport to bind people without
> >> their consent are ineffective, but it’s not the rule that makes that true.
> > 
> > The purpose of that clause is direct: to prevent and block mousetraps, so
> > that it forbids Agoran courts from enforcing mousetrap agreements,
> > both for players and non-players.  It's not a historical observation at all,
> > but serves a very real protective purpose.  It prevents a player from being
> > penalized with Agoran markers of shame (cards and the like), so it should
> > do the same for non-players, even if the non-Agorans wouldn't "care".
> 
> The term “mousetrap” appears to be unique to Agora, as far as I can find on 
> Google - at any rate, I’m not sure I follow the metaphor. What’s a mousetrap, 
> in this context?

Oh, sorry!  I saw the term used here recently by a couple others so thought it
was still commonly known.  A Mousetrap is a contract that binds people to it
without their consent.  In an early version of agreement rules, a loophole 
allowed a secret contract to be made, potentially allowing players to become 
parties to the contract (and be punished for breaking it) without them even
knowing the contract existed until they were told they'd broken it.

The scam that created it was the Mousetrap scam:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?818

I can't claim that the clause in the current ruleset is the direct lineage 
from that ancient scam, but I think that since then, there's always been
something high-powered and explicit in the rules that a person must give
informed consent to be considered part of any agreement.  Most of the time the
clause has been used, it has referred to protecting players from being joined
into various flavors of sub-agreements against their will, not the agreement
to abide by the Rules as a whole.  But it's a very real protection meant to
block punishments from being applied.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Jun 18, 2017, at 11:01 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>> I tend to treat the rule about consent as an informative observation about
>> the nature of Agora, and not as a normative part of the rules. It 
>> memorializes
>> the observation that we all agree that Agora Is A Game, and that playing is
>> voluntary. We recognize that any rules which purport to bind people without
>> their consent are ineffective, but it’s not the rule that makes that true.
> 
> The purpose of that clause is direct: to prevent and block mousetraps, so
> that it forbids Agoran courts from enforcing mousetrap agreements,
> both for players and non-players.  It's not a historical observation at all,
> but serves a very real protective purpose.  It prevents a player from being
> penalized with Agoran markers of shame (cards and the like), so it should
> do the same for non-players, even if the non-Agorans wouldn't "care".

The term “mousetrap” appears to be unique to Agora, as far as I can find on 
Google - at any rate, I’m not sure I follow the metaphor. What’s a mousetrap, 
in this context?

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> I tend to treat the rule about consent as an informative observation about
> the nature of Agora, and not as a normative part of the rules. It memorializes
> the observation that we all agree that Agora Is A Game, and that playing is 
> voluntary. We recognize that any rules which purport to bind people without 
> their consent are ineffective, but it’s not the rule that makes that true.

The purpose of that clause is direct: to prevent and block mousetraps, so
that it forbids Agoran courts from enforcing mousetrap agreements,
both for players and non-players.  It's not a historical observation at all,
but serves a very real protective purpose.  It prevents a player from being
penalized with Agoran markers of shame (cards and the like), so it should
do the same for non-players, even if the non-Agorans wouldn't "care".

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sun, 18 Jun 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> * If you pledge to do a thing, then Agorans can evaluate whether you
> have broken your pledge or not, regardless of your consent.
>
> * The Referee can (maybe; see the other arm of this thread) issue 
> you a card, regardless of your consent.
> 
> * Other players can apply the consequences of that card to the game, 
> regardless of your consent.
> 
> * Other people can change their personal opinions of you based on 
> your actions, regardless of your consent.

> I can’t see any contradictions that might arise if we treated a 
> pledge from a non-consenting non-player as an Agoran pledge.

The standard definition we've used in the past is that a pledge is a
type of agreement, and agreements can't be held as binding without
consent.  So it's a direct contradiction with R869, if you stick with
that definition for 'pledge'.  (I'm not saying you have to stick with
it, I'm just elucidating the counterargument based on what's been used
in the past).

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Jun 17, 2017, at 5:49 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
>>> 6.  If a non-player publicly pledges but says e isn't being bound by the 
>>> rules,
>>>   is it a R2450 Agoran pledge, or a non-enforceable non-Agoran pledge?
>> 
>> 7. It is not necessary that someone be bound to the rules in order for them 
>> to
>> participate in the game in rule-mediated ways. Supposing for a moment that 
>> someone
>> who does not consent to the rules somehow nonetheless comes to be able to 
>> cast a
>> ballot on an Agoran Decision [...]
> 
> No argument there, the question is specific to Pledges, and whether treating
> a non-player's pledge as an Agoran pledge breaks R869's "The Rules CANNOT
> otherwise bind a person to abide by any agreement without that person's 
> willful
> consent.”

I can’t see any point at which the question of consent enters into handling 
your pledge, because I can see no way in which any other person's response to a 
broken pledge has anything to do with the pledgor’s consent.

* If you pledge to do a thing, then Agorans can evaluate whether you have 
broken your pledge or not, regardless of your consent.

* The Referee can (maybe; see the other arm of this thread) issue you a card, 
regardless of your consent.

* Other players can apply the consequences of that card to the game, regardless 
of your consent.

* Other people can change their personal opinions of you based on your actions, 
regardless of your consent.

I can’t see any contradictions that might arise if we treated a pledge from a 
non-consenting non-player as an Agoran pledge.

However, as a purely practical matter, it may be better to ignore pledges from 
non-players until such time as they become players, as no rule-imposed penalty 
has any meaning to someone who isn’t bound by the rules. Even if we made it 
against the rules for a pledge-breaker to post to the public forum other than 
to apologize, or added some consequence which imposed a duty on the 
pledge-breaker, all we can meaningfully do if you were to break those rules 
would be to issue you more cards. In principle, we could banish you outright by 
taking technical measures to prevent your messages from reaching any public 
forum - but as you’re not bound by the rules I don’t think that would have 
meaning for you, either.

I tend to treat the rule about consent as an informative observation about the 
nature of Agora, and not as a normative part of the rules. It memorializes the 
observation that we all agree that Agora Is A Game, and that playing is 
voluntary. We recognize that any rules which purport to bind people without 
their consent are ineffective, but it’s not the rule that makes that true.

I suppose that if circumstances were such that Agora’s rules were a form of 
legislation or regulation, rather than the rules of an interesting game, the 
clause about consent might take on more importance. If we were to hold an Agora 
Convention, we might want to mitigate the consent clause to allow, for example, 
the forcible removal of people from the Convention grounds by duly-appointed 
law enforcement officers or Convention security personnel based on violations 
of rules (or - hat tip to Aris - regulations). If we had a critical mass of 
players such that Agora was in effect a tiny polity then our attitude towards 
consent would inform others’ perspective on the Agoran rule-making process’ 
legitimacy for governing that polity. However, these are extreme scenarios, 
given the nature of the game today.

I intend to submit a derivative of this message, based on feedback and possibly 
with some extensions, to the public forum in pursuit of an A.N. degree, because 
I think the question of consent is deeply intertwined with the nature of Agora 
and that having some scholarly works on the subject might be of value to future 
players. Thoughts?

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> > 6.  If a non-player publicly pledges but says e isn't being bound by the 
> > rules,
> > is it a R2450 Agoran pledge, or a non-enforceable non-Agoran pledge?
> 
> 7. It is not necessary that someone be bound to the rules in order for them 
> to 
> participate in the game in rule-mediated ways. Supposing for a moment that 
> someone
> who does not consent to the rules somehow nonetheless comes to be able to 
> cast a 
> ballot on an Agoran Decision [...]

No argument there, the question is specific to Pledges, and whether treating
a non-player's pledge as an Agoran pledge breaks R869's "The Rules CANNOT 
otherwise bind a person to abide by any agreement without that person's willful
consent."

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote:
> One possible Agoran solution - to both questions - would be a high-
> Power rule whose effect is to nullify game actions (for some suitable 
> definition thereof) made by non-players. I was discussing this whole
> affair with my fiancée this evening and her stance is that the idea 
> that a non-player can play the game is inherently contradictory, and 
> that the confluence of rules that allows it regardless is, if not
> broken, then at least highly suspect.

It's my impression that in the last 3-4 years, the number of places
the rules say "person" instead of "player" has crept up (I haven't
done a count or anything).  That was a lot of slow-play time, so a
lot of the things that have been changed that way haven't been tested
at all.  So in that sense, the interactions with non-players is all
"new territory" right now. It might be good to scale back.

The things non-players will always need to be able to do:
   - register (duh), and therefore make announcements.
   - call CFJs.  There have been cases in the past where players have
 been deregistered or punished illegally (or playerhood uncertain),
 so non-players need to be able to defend themselves against that.

There are some bits of status that shouldn't be erased on 
deregistration:
   - Patent titles
   - Ribbons (though, I'd say remove the ability for non-players to
 earn them).

- The ability of documents to self-ratify, regardless of who posts them,
is a protective feature (if everyone's ever accidentally deregistered
at once - I think that came close to happening at least once - you'd
want to ratify someone back into the game to save it).

- I'm torn on allowing non-players to win - I think we should cut down
on methods (e.g. remove ribbon earning) but a non-player win would be
quite difficult, especially if you cut down other non-player things,
so it might be a prize worth keeping in reach.

- Agencies are interesting.  I'd restrict them to players myself, as
that's a big hole.  On the other hand, there were attempts at one
point to set up Agora as an arbitration service, where non-players
could sign contracts and have Agoran courts adjudicate any disputes.
Intriguing idea, sort of, though I don't think it would go anywhere
and would get used as a loophole far more.

> I don’t think there’s a satisfying formal way of distinguishing 
> between unregulated game actions and unregulated non-game actions

Can you give an example of an "unregulated game action"?  I'd say that,
by definition, if it's unregulated it's not a game action.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Jun 16, 2017, at 3:35 PM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Josh T wrote:
>>>  Which rule is authorizing the issuance of a card?
>> Rule 2450, where it says that breaking a pledge is a cardable offense.
> 
> Food for thought:
> 
> 1.  CAN is the approved way of empowering an action, but there's nothing that
> says other common-language synonyms can't be used.
> 
> 2.  What does it mean when something is [Verb]-able?  By common language, does
> it mean you CAN do it (i.e. that it's do-able)?
> 
> 3.  After a rules-search on "able", the only instance of [Verb]-able is 
> cardable,
> so assuming it works doesn't break anything.
> 
> 4.  The admitted weakness of this interpretation is you'd have to infer a
> 'by announcement' or something for the method.  But maybe there's a combo
> that works = Rule 2426 says "Cards CANNOT be issued except by players by
> announcement" that has a weak implication that if someone can be carded
> (is "cardable"), it can be done by players by announcement.  There may be
> other routes here.
> 
> 5.  I think o has already mentioned it, but in this:
>   As part of the Referee's weekly duties, e SHALL either impose
>   Summary Judgment on a player or truthfully announce that e
>   believes that there are no rules violations in the preceding
>   Agoran week for which a Card has not already been issued.
> the second part of the clause would include rules violations by non-
> players.  If there is exactly one violation in a week, by a non-player,
> the Referee couldn't do this correctly.
> 
> 6.  If a non-player publicly pledges but says e isn't being bound by the 
> rules,
> is it a R2450 Agoran pledge, or a non-enforceable non-Agoran pledge?

7. It is not necessary that someone be bound to the rules in order for them to 
participate in the game in rule-mediated ways. Supposing for a moment that 
someone who does not consent to the rules somehow nonetheless comes to be able 
to cast a ballot on an Agoran Decision: the result of that ballot will be 
determined by the rules, with or without the casting player’s consent. If 
you’re a formalist, that happens because the rules say so. If you’re a 
pragmatist, that happens because everyone else agrees that that’s the only 
sensible outcome.

 This same reasoning applies to, for example, cards, and other consequences of 
nonconsenting rule-mediated play. Someone who does not consent to being bound 
by the rules can’t avoid a card, or ratify something without 3 consent, or 
otherwise.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Owen Jacobson]

On Jun 16, 2017, at 8:44 PM, CuddleBeam  wrote:

> >Kerim Aydin 
> >'s
> > post
> 
> To add to that, can non-players perform unregulated actions?
> 
> Non-players actually being able to "play" the game without needing to be 
> bound to its rules is already pretty big "hocus pocus" (like, a weird magical 
> thing you could potentially do with the rules), I wonder what else could 
> happen if we combine it with another big source of hocus pocus: Unregulated 
> actions.

One possible Agoran solution - to both questions - would be a high-Power rule 
whose effect is to nullify game actions (for some suitable definition thereof) 
made by non-players. I was discussing this whole affair with my fiancée this 
evening and her stance is that the idea that a non-player can play the game is 
inherently contradictory, and that the confluence of rules that allows it 
regardless is, if not broken, then at least highly suspect.

The rules should not be all-encompassing; Agora does not exist to regulate your 
or my day-to-day life. Regardless of what, if anything, we do to the game as a 
result of G.’s experiments, it seems obvious to me that “unregulated actions” 
is a catch-all category which includes actions with no bearing on the game: 
buying groceries, negotiating a raise, travelling to France, and so on.

I don’t think there’s a satisfying formal way of distinguishing between 
unregulated game actions and unregulated non-game actions, for the same reason 
that I’ve been known to offer _unspeakable things_ in trade when playing 
Bohnanza. Games are social tools, and social boundaries are necessarily 
flexible and porous.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[CuddleBeam]

>Kerim Aydin
's
post

To add to that, can non-players perform unregulated actions?

Non-players actually being able to "play" the game without needing to be
bound to its rules is already pretty big "hocus pocus" (like, a weird
magical thing you could potentially do with the rules), I wonder what else
could happen if we combine it with another big source of hocus pocus:
Unregulated actions.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 12:35 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > 6.  If a non-player publicly pledges but says e isn't being bound by the 
> > rules,
> >  is it a R2450 Agoran pledge, or a non-enforceable non-Agoran pledge?
> 
> Back when private contracts existed, it was game custom to agree them
> as "binding under the rules of Agora". I can't remember whether or not
> that was necessary for them to work according to the rules.

Couldn't remember - did a little digging!

Before the contracts era, the Agreements rule (R1742, which later became 
the basic Contracts rule) began:

   Players may make agreements among themselves with the intention
   that such agreements will be binding under the Rules.

The Contracts version made that the basic definition of a Contract:

   Contracts are binding agreements governed by the rules.

But CFJs 1325 and 1328 (pre-Contracts) found that such agreements could be
inferred from more general language and practice without invoking those
exact words.

Still, it was a good precaution, especially if the agreement is made over
private email.  "Binding" was useful because it would be possible to say
"hey, this is a game - that wasn't an agreement, it was a game alliance
and people backstab in those all the time."  Without delving, my memory of
contract-era cases is that any semblance of a contract, that could make at
least one party reasonably believe was a contract, should be considered one.
But I also remember several game alliances that resulted in betrayal, that
no one claimed was an agreement or contract.

"under Agora" might be useful because someone could say (I guess) "sure it's 
a binding contract, but I never said in Agora.  Sue in my State of
California if you must."  I don't remember anyone trying this, but I'm 
guessing an Agoran court would say "it's between two Agorans about Agoran 
quantities.. duh it's Agoran unless *both* parties say otherwise."

Not sure now.  That language is all gone. (has anyone pointed out that all
our past precedents that agreements could be made "naturally" were judged
when at least some of that language was in the rules?)

Anyway I said clearly that I didn't consent to be personally bound by the
Rules of Agora, but I used the word Pledge in a public statement with full
knowledge of the rule in question.  Not gonna hide the knowledge - I 
wrote the rule for goodness sake - but I have no idea about the current
interpretation.  'Pledge' also has a common definition that doesn't have to
be attached to the rules.  CFJ 1290 might be relevant here.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 12:35 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 6.  If a non-player publicly pledges but says e isn't being bound by the 
> rules,
>  is it a R2450 Agoran pledge, or a non-enforceable non-Agoran pledge?

Back when private contracts existed, it was game custom to agree them
as "binding under the rules of Agora". I can't remember whether or not
that was necessary for them to work according to the rules.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Kerim Aydin]

On Fri, 16 Jun 2017, Josh T wrote:
> > Which rule is authorizing the issuance of a card?
> Rule 2450, where it says that breaking a pledge is a cardable offense.

Food for thought:

1.  CAN is the approved way of empowering an action, but there's nothing that
 says other common-language synonyms can't be used.

2.  What does it mean when something is [Verb]-able?  By common language, does
 it mean you CAN do it (i.e. that it's do-able)?

3.  After a rules-search on "able", the only instance of [Verb]-able is 
cardable,
 so assuming it works doesn't break anything.

4.  The admitted weakness of this interpretation is you'd have to infer a
 'by announcement' or something for the method.  But maybe there's a combo
 that works = Rule 2426 says "Cards CANNOT be issued except by players by
 announcement" that has a weak implication that if someone can be carded
 (is "cardable"), it can be done by players by announcement.  There may be
 other routes here.

5.  I think o has already mentioned it, but in this:
   As part of the Referee's weekly duties, e SHALL either impose
   Summary Judgment on a player or truthfully announce that e
   believes that there are no rules violations in the preceding
   Agoran week for which a Card has not already been issued.
 the second part of the clause would include rules violations by non-
 players.  If there is exactly one violation in a week, by a non-player,
 the Referee couldn't do this correctly.

6.  If a non-player publicly pledges but says e isn't being bound by the rules,
 is it a R2450 Agoran pledge, or a non-enforceable non-Agoran pledge?

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Josh T]

> Which rule is authorizing the issuance of a card?

Rule 2450, where it says that breaking a pledge is a cardable offense.

I suppose "publicly-made" might be construed to mean "in a public forum",
which would prevent Donald Trump from getting a card. I can see the
argument as for why G. can't be carded as of this message, but I think G.
can be carded for breaking a pledge e made, provided that it was in a
public forum.

天火狐

On 16 June 2017 at 02:39, Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 02:34 -0400, 天火狐 wrote:
> > I don't see how something like the following in the appropriate forum
> > wouldn't successfully give a card, assuming that it was issued in the
> right
> > time frame: "I issue Donald Trump a Green Card for breaking his pledge to
> > direct his secretary of the treasury to label China a currency
> manipulator."
>
> Which rule is authorizing the issuance of a card? Doing so is secured
> at power 1.7 (rule 2426), thus can't be done without a power 1.7+ rule
> authorizing it. (Additionally, doing so is regulated (rule 2125) due to
> there being specific mechanisms for it, and thus can't be done without
> a rule authorizing it; the security in rule 2426 thus serves to limit
> which rules could potentially make it possible, but it wouldn't be
> possible even without the security restriction.)
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 02:34 -0400, 天火狐 wrote:
> I don't see how something like the following in the appropriate forum
> wouldn't successfully give a card, assuming that it was issued in the right
> time frame: "I issue Donald Trump a Green Card for breaking his pledge to
> direct his secretary of the treasury to label China a currency manipulator."

Which rule is authorizing the issuance of a card? Doing so is secured
at power 1.7 (rule 2426), thus can't be done without a power 1.7+ rule
authorizing it. (Additionally, doing so is regulated (rule 2125) due to
there being specific mechanisms for it, and thus can't be done without
a rule authorizing it; the security in rule 2426 thus serves to limit
which rules could potentially make it possible, but it wouldn't be
possible even without the security restriction.)

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Josh T]

I don't see how something like the following in the appropriate forum
wouldn't successfully give a card, assuming that it was issued in the right
time frame: "I issue Donald Trump a Green Card for breaking his pledge to
direct his secretary of the treasury to label China a currency manipulator."

My reasoning for the above is as follows:
* It includes all the things that an announcement issuing a card must have
lest it be ineffective as per rule 2426;
* It is issued by a player;
* It clearly says in Rule 2450 that "breaking a publicly-made pledge is a
cardable offence";
* The infraction is inconsequential to Agora gameplay, and thus fits into
the category of a Green Card;
* It does not violate the other SHALL NOTs in rule 2426 (although mostly by
assumption)；
* Thus, the action would result in a card being issued.

If I am mistaken, I would like to be corrected on the issue.

天火狐

On 16 June 2017 at 02:12, Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 02:08 -0400, 天火狐 wrote:
> > > I don’t think I can do anything about this, formally, since you’re
> still
> >
> > not a player, but if you insist I can put together a theory under which
> > this should be carded.
> >
> > CFJ 1709 states that non-players are still bound to contracts if they are
> > party to it, with the implication that non-players must still follow the
> > rules if they choose to interact with them. I'm sure you can, with that
> in
> > hand, contrive a reason to card G., especially since carding doesn't seem
> > to be restricted to players.
> >
> > 天火狐
>
> As far as I can tell, the rules allow cards to be given to nonplayers
> in a general sense, but don't provide any mechanism for doing so (other
> than by proposal); all the mechanisms intended to be used for handing
> out cards only work with players.
>
> --
> ais523
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-06-16 at 02:08 -0400, 天火狐 wrote:
> > I don’t think I can do anything about this, formally, since you’re still
> 
> not a player, but if you insist I can put together a theory under which
> this should be carded.
> 
> CFJ 1709 states that non-players are still bound to contracts if they are
> party to it, with the implication that non-players must still follow the
> rules if they choose to interact with them. I'm sure you can, with that in
> hand, contrive a reason to card G., especially since carding doesn't seem
> to be restricted to players.
> 
> 天火狐

As far as I can tell, the rules allow cards to be given to nonplayers
in a general sense, but don't provide any mechanism for doing so (other
than by proposal); all the mechanisms intended to be used for handing
out cards only work with players.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Josh T]

> I don’t think I can do anything about this, formally, since you’re still
not a player, but if you insist I can put together a theory under which
this should be carded.

CFJ 1709 states that non-players are still bound to contracts if they are
party to it, with the implication that non-players must still follow the
rules if they choose to interact with them. I'm sure you can, with that in
hand, contrive a reason to card G., especially since carding doesn't seem
to be restricted to players.

天火狐

On 15 June 2017 at 16:13, Quazie  wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:53 AM Alex Smith 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 16:00 +, Quazie wrote:
>> > Wow, that's broken - any public document proporting to be a report
>> > self-ratifies?
>>
>> It's not broken, it's intentional:
>>
>> a) Public documents puporting to be reports are fairly obvious, so if
>> someone makes one incorrectly or maliciously, we can just CoE it;
>> b) It means that reports continue to self-ratify even if, for some
>> reason, Agora as a whole is mistaken as to who holds the office. This
>> means that uncertainty about the identity of officers doesn't have any
>> serious long-term effects. (Without this, if we got confused as to who
>> held an office, it might mean that nothing self-ratified from that
>> point onwards due to a snowball effect of mistakes about the gamestate,
>> which could be very hard to recover from.)
>>
>> --
>> ais523
>>
>
>
> So, G. just published something that will self-ratify if we don't CoE it?
>
> It seems like I could embed public documents purporting to be a report in
> any long message in hopes of scamming to success.
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Quazie]

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:53 AM Alex Smith 
wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 16:00 +, Quazie wrote:
> > Wow, that's broken - any public document proporting to be a report
> > self-ratifies?
>
> It's not broken, it's intentional:
>
> a) Public documents puporting to be reports are fairly obvious, so if
> someone makes one incorrectly or maliciously, we can just CoE it;
> b) It means that reports continue to self-ratify even if, for some
> reason, Agora as a whole is mistaken as to who holds the office. This
> means that uncertainty about the identity of officers doesn't have any
> serious long-term effects. (Without this, if we got confused as to who
> held an office, it might mean that nothing self-ratified from that
> point onwards due to a snowball effect of mistakes about the gamestate,
> which could be very hard to recover from.)
>
> --
> ais523
>


So, G. just published something that will self-ratify if we don't CoE it?

It seems like I could embed public documents purporting to be a report in
any long message in hopes of scamming to success.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

Yes, they are.

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



> On Jun 15, 2017, at 12:00 PM, CuddleBeam  wrote:
> 
> Isn't PSS and Publius Scrib(...) the same person? (8 and 45 Shinies)

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Quazie]

Wow, that's broken - any public document proporting to be a report
self-ratifies?
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 08:28 Kerim Aydin  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> > Given there's no way for this report to be published by any one
> > other than the current office holder as it isn't late, I choose
> > to ignore it.
>
> Please read R2162(c) (noting shiny holdings are switches) and let me
> know if ignoring it is still a preferred option for you.
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017, Quazie wrote:
> Given there's no way for this report to be published by any one 
> other than the current office holder as it isn't late, I choose 
> to ignore it.

Please read R2162(c) (noting shiny holdings are switches) and let me
know if ignoring it is still a preferred option for you.

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Owen Jacobson]

I’m tracking them by publication date, for the purposes of paydays.

-o

> On Jun 2, 2017, at 12:29 AM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> For ADOP reasons - this report says it's from the 28th, but today's the 2nd 
> (utc date obviously) - how do I track the date of the report?
> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 21:26 Owen Jacobson  > wrote:
> Astonishingly, this managed to fall neatly between the various attempts to 
> keep Shinies in flux.
> 
> -o
> 
> > On Jun 2, 2017, at 12:26 AM, Owen Jacobson  > > wrote:
> >
> > Secretary's Weekly Report
> >
> > Date of this report: Sun, 28 May 2017
> 
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly Report

[Quazie]

For ADOP reasons - this report says it's from the 28th, but today's the 2nd
(utc date obviously) - how do I track the date of the report?
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 21:26 Owen Jacobson  wrote:

> Astonishingly, this managed to fall neatly between the various attempts to
> keep Shinies in flux.
>
> -o
>
> > On Jun 2, 2017, at 12:26 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
> >
> > Secretary's Weekly Report
> >
> > Date of this report: Sun, 28 May 2017
>
>
>
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly report

[Kerim Aydin]

> I would like to point out that I am not an office (in the recent events 
> section of the report).
> 天火狐

No Player is an Office (CFJ 1895).

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Weekly report

[Owen Jacobson]

On Jan 6, 2017, at 9:24 PM, Aris Merchant  
wrote:

> Hate to to point this out, and I may be wrong, but... This report appears not 
> to reflect the several proposals you pended. Might want to update that. So 
> everyone knows, I'm not planning to release my report till all of this is 
> sorted out. I don't want it to be invalid, so I'm at least waiting for the 
> CFJ.

Note the date on the replacement report:

> Secretary's Weekly Report
> 
> Date of this report: Thu  6 Jan 2017
> Date of last report: Sun 27 Nov 2016

My two pending proposals are in my draft for next week’s report:

> - previous report -
> Thu,  6 Jan 2017 05:20:50  Payday [Players: ais523 (+20), Alexis (+20),
>   aranea (+30), Aris (+20), Charles (+10),
>   G. (+40), Henri (+10), Murphy (+10),
>   nichdel (+40), o (+20), omd (+10),
>   Roujo (+10), Sci_Guy12 (+10),
>   Sprocklem (+10), Tekneek (+10),
>   the Warrigal (+10), Yally (+10),
>   天火狐 (+10)]
> - time of last report -
> Thu,  6 Jan 2017 05:35:22  o paid Agora 4 Shinies
> Fri,  7 Jan 2017 01:13:38  o paid Agora 4 Shinies

They’re not lost, though if you insist, I’ll reissue this week’s again with 
them included, instead.

> The list of transactions for the payday is very long. Maybe consider just 
> adding a reference? Not sure about Agora, but in the real world incorporation 
> by reference is permitted, and it would improve readability if you just had 
> the change to Agora's balance and that.

I had the same reaction, honestly. In practice, the rules require a really 
excessive amount of cross-checkable data, and should probably be modified. I’m 
also likely over-tracking: the weekly report could probably do without a 
shiny-by-shiny breakdown of payments made.

I’m using Ledger (http://ledger-cli.org ) to manage the 
data, which helps immeasurably - I could easily satisfy the need to “report” by 
posting the ledger file itself (plain text, as below) or a generated excerpt.

— 8< — example ledger — 8< —
2016-12-05 * Proposal 7838 enacted
Agora 1,000 Shinies
Proposal:7838

2017-01-06 * Payday
Player:ais52320 Shinies
Player:Alexis20 Shinies
Player:aranea30 Shinies
Player:Aris  20 Shinies
Player:Charles   10 Shinies
Player:G.40 Shinies
Player:Henri 10 Shinies
Player:Murphy10 Shinies
Player:nichdel   40 Shinies
Player:o 20 Shinies
Player:omd   10 Shinies
Player:Roujo 10 Shinies
Player:Sci_Guy12 10 Shinies
Player:Sprocklem 10 Shinies
Player:Tekneek   10 Shinies
Player:Warrigal, the 10 Shinies
Player:Yally 10 Shinies
Player:天火狐 10 Shinies
Agora   = 700 Shinies

2017-01-06 * Pend proposal "Not an Apple campsite"
Agora 4 Shinies
Player:o
— 8< — example ledger — 8< —

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP