Re: DIS: Ruleset history error

[omd]

On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 3:19 PM Reuben Staley  wrote:
> Having looked into the matter further, I can safely say that mistakes
> were indeed made. The following is my analysis.

Thanks for looking into it :)

I... never realized that Alexis (aka alercah) was the same person as
scshunt, despite having interacted with em under the former names on
occasion. :\

Re: DIS: Ruleset history error

[Reuben Staley]

Having looked into the matter further, I can safely say that mistakes 
were indeed made. The following is my analysis.


On 5/25/19 3:52 PM, omd wrote:

Just a quick note -

The FLR credits Proposal 7778 (in various places) as:

Amended(21) by P7778 'Instant Runoff Improved' (Alexis), 14 Aug 2014

But in fact I submitted it:

https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2015-July/033799.html


This claim is substantiated, with a big asterisk.


And it was actually adopted on 14 Aug 201*5*:


This claim is perfectly substantiated.


https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2015-August/08.html

Confusing things further, the resolution message incorrectly lists the
author as yet a third individual – scshunt –


scshunt was a previous player name for Alexis. When e switched eir 
player name to Alexis, all eir ruleset attributions were changed to 
reflect this. Had this proposal been drafted by who was then scshunt, 
there would be no error.



and it would have
self-ratified under rule 2034...


For the reference of readers, selections from the text of rule 2034/10 
follow:


Rule 2034/10 (Power=3)
Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges

  A public message purporting to resolve an Agoran decision
  constitutes self-ratifying claims that...

  4. (if the indicated outcome was to adopt a proposal) such a
 proposal existed, was adopted, and took effect.

To me, this seems to point to the proposal's attributes changing due to 
the self-ratification.



though I'm not sure whether
self-ratification would affect the type of historical annotations
involved here.


For this, I consult the current ruleset. Selections from the text of 
rule 1681 follow:


Rule 1681/21 (Power=1)
The Logical Rulesets

  The Full Logical Ruleset (FLR) is a format of the ruleset. In this
  format, rules are assigned to the same category and presented in
  the same order as in the SLR. The FLR must contain all the
  information required to be in the SLR, and any historical
  annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to record

  Whenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor SHALL record
  a historical annotation to the rule indicating:

  1. The type of change.

  2. The date on which the change took effect.

  3. The mechanism that specified the change.

  4. If the rule was changed due to a proposal, then that proposal's
 ID number, author, and co-author(s) (if any).

Because it appears that Proposal 7778 itself was changed by the 
resolution of the decision so that its author was scshunt/Alexis, I 
believe this means that I am to report that Alexis is the author. I 
believe simply ratifying a document changing the author of Proposal 7778 
to omd would be sufficient.


IN CONCLUSION, the date reported in the annotation will be changed but 
the author's name will not.


--
Trigon

Re: DIS: Ruleset history error

[Reuben Staley]

Thank you for pointing that out. It is through the due diligence of the
players of Agora Nomic that what I report is even remotely accurate.

--
Trigon

On Sat, May 25, 2019, 15:52 omd  wrote:

> Just a quick note -
>
> The FLR credits Proposal 7778 (in various places) as:
>
> Amended(21) by P7778 'Instant Runoff Improved' (Alexis), 14 Aug 2014
>
> But in fact I submitted it:
>
>
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2015-July/033799.html
>
> And it was actually adopted on 14 Aug 201*5*:
>
>
> https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2015-August/08.html
>
> Confusing things further, the resolution message incorrectly lists the
> author as yet a third individual – scshunt – and it would have
> self-ratified under rule 2034... though I'm not sure whether
> self-ratification would affect the type of historical annotations
> involved here.
>

Re: DIS: Ruleset typo on the website (ATTN: Rulekeepor)

[Alexis Hunt]

The list formatting in Rule 2496 is also broken, and a space is missing
from the last paragraph of Rule 991.

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 at 21:29 Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> On the website, in Rule 2231, a space is missing between "in general." and
> "As this".
>

DIS: Ruleset typo on the website (ATTN: Rulekeepor)

[Alexis Hunt]

On the website, in Rule 2231, a space is missing between "in general." and
"As this".

Re: DIS: Ruleset

[Eric Stucky]

On whenever on whatever day, Ed Murphy wrote:
 (super helpful) things


As long as you're explaining how things work, I still don't understand 
ratification. Could you do some magic on the ruleset and make that make sense 
to me?

-Turiski

Re: DIS: Ruleset

[Elliott Hird]

On 23 June 2012 09:54, Eric Stucky turiski.no...@gmail.com wrote:
 As long as you're explaining how things work, I still don't understand 
 ratification. Could you do some magic on the ruleset and make that make sense 
 to me?

Ratification is when we take a document and say this is true, and it
becomes true, regardless of what the actual truth was beforehand. So
we can make sure the ruleset is a certain thing, or the list of
players is a certain thing, or the proposal pool is a certain thing,
by ratifying it. This lets us eliminate ambiguity when there's some
kind of problem. A lot of reports are ratified automatically on a
regular basis, if nobody challenges them (e.g. with a CoE).

Re: DIS: Ruleset

[Benjamin Schultz]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Elliott Hird
penguinoftheg...@googlemail.com wrote:
 On 21 June 2012 22:21, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote:
 Do I need to know all the rules to play?

 Hell, I've been playing for four years and I still don't know *any* of them.

ehird, you might want to start with R101.  :poke:

(That's a joke, son.  Laugh.)

(explaining the joke)

Henri, in the starting ruleset for nomic, rule 101 says that players
are to obey the current rules.  In any game short of a nomic, this is
assumed; in a nomic, this is in the rules.  But the point is to change
the rules, so this rule can be changed.  And has been.  Got it?

So jump right in -- register, propose a rule change, make a mess.
We'll help. :)

-- 
OscarMeyr

Re: DIS: Ruleset

[Sean Hunt]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote:
 Do I need to know all the rules to play?

 --
 -Henri

No. It's entirely possible to play by just watching and picking things
up as you go along (ehird did this for quite a while). It's probably
preferable, actually.

-scshunt

Re: DIS: Ruleset

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 21 Jun 2012, Henri Bouchard wrote:
 Do I need to know all the rules to play?

Well, I've been playing for 11 years and I don't know them all.

The FAQ we used to have did a summary of which rules you should
read to figure out the basics.  Don't have a copy, it's probably
out-of-date.  Anyone else have that handy?

-G.

Re: DIS: Ruleset

[Pavitra]

On 06/21/2012 04:21 PM, Henri Bouchard wrote:
 Do I need to know all the rules to play?

No.

If you want to be engage in certain optional aspects of play, such as
being a judge, or writing proposals, or exploiting loopholes in the
rules, then it would probably be helpful to have a cursory acquaintance
with most of the rules. The full ruleset can be found at
http://agora.qoid.us/current_flr.txt.


Here's a quick primer to get started. You're not required to read all of it.


Many game actions are taken by announcement. In order to do something
by announcement, send a message to agora-busin...@agoranomic.org stating
that you do it. For example, to become a player, you could send a
message to agora-business with the text I become a player. in the body.

A CFJ (Call For Judgement) is (usually) a formal request for
clarification on something that might be unclear. A CFJ is created by
announcement (see above), specifying a true-or-false statement. For
example, if I want to know whether the black moon howls, I could send a
message to agora-business with the text CFJ: The black moon howls. in
the body. A few days later, someone would file an official judgement,
such as TRUE (if the black moon howls) or FALSE (if the black moon
does not howl).

It's bad form to call a CFJ if you're just confused about what's going
on; CFJs are generally used when the playerbase as a whole is confused
or in disagreement, and the game needs an official ruling in order to be
able to continue. If you just want clarification, ask in
agora-discussion. If you prefer, you can also ask for clarification in
the IRC channel ##nomic on Freenode.

Once a week, someone (currently omd) will send a message to
agora-offic...@agoranomic.org with a title along the lines of
Distribution of Proposals. You can vote on these proposals by
announcement; an example ballot can be found at
http://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg23341.html.
If you don't want to vote, it would be polite to send a message to
agora-business saying I vote PRESENT on everything I can.; this will
help the vote to reach quorum.

Re: DIS: Ruleset

[Ed Murphy]

Henri Bouchard wrote:


Do I need to know all the rules to play?


Okay, I half-lied, here are some useful secondary things that will
probably end up in the FAQ (mostly skipping the details of how
proposals and elections work):

Each rule has a Power (typically 1 to 3); higher Power means higher
authority (when rules contradict each other) and harder to alter.  Each
Proposal has an Adoption Index (AI, typically 1 to 3, default 1);
higher AI means higher ability to alter rules and harder to adopt.

All-caps terms pertain to what's possible (cars CANNOT fly) and legal
(drivers SHALL NOT speed); see Rule 2152.

NttPF = Not to the Public Forum = the quoted message was
ineffective because you sent it to the wrong list (the main public
lists redirect replies to the discussion list by default).  TTttPF
= This Time to the Public Forum = the quoted message is now
effective because I'm sending it to the right list.

As soon as possible = within a week (5 days if the Speed is Fast,
which as of this writing it is).

Absolute days (June 1, 2012) start at midnight UTC.  Relative days
work normally (two days after June 1, 2012, 12:34:56 UTC =
June 3, 2012, 12:34:56 UTC).

Switches are single-value attributes with validated values (any switch
without a valid value changes back to its default value).

How to perform an action with support:
  1) Announce that you intend to do it
  2) Someone else announces that they support it
  3) Announce that you do it (within 14 days of #1)

Without objection is similar (minimum 4-day wait); with Agoran
consent is basically with more supporters than objectors.  See
Rules 1728 and 2124 for more.

Ratification is basically formalized let's pretend it was this way
all along.  See Rules 1551, 2202 (without objection), and 2201
(various major documents self-ratify after a week by default).

I endorse name is basically I vote however name ends up voting.

For inquiry cases (the ones with true/false statements), the judge
judges whether the statement was true/false at the time the case was
initiated.  There are also criminal cases (person violated rule
via action/inaction, and you must also specify that it's a criminal
case; the judge judges guilt and punishment).  If you don't like a
judgement, you can move to have it reconsidered (once per case,
requires 2 support, sends it back to the same judge) or appealed (once
per individual judgement, requires 2 support, sends it to a
three-player review panel who may affirm or reject or send it back to
the same judge or a new judge).

Re: DIS: Ruleset

[Aaron Goldfein]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote:

 Do I need to know all the rules to play?

 --
 -Henri


No, you don't. In fact, when I first joined Agora a little over three years
ago, I registered to play before I saw even a single message sent to the
d-lists, had  barely even glimpsed at the Ruleset, and my sole exposure to
Nomic had been reading its Wikipedia page a few days earlier after I
stumbled upon it from the page on Mao.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but you haven't properly registered.
To do that, send a message to agora-busin...@agoranomic.org saying I
register. Historically, Agora has avoided placing any obligations on
players unless they agree to them. Voting is optional, you won't be
assigned any Calls for Judgement unless you say that you want to, and you
can avoid any sorts of subgames you don't understand or don't like. At
first I recommend only voting on the proposals you understand, and as you
learn more about the game and the Ruleset, start to get involved with more
aspects of Agora.

-Yally

Re: DIS: Ruleset

[Elliott Hird]

On 21 June 2012 22:21, Henri Bouchard henrib...@gmail.com wrote:
 Do I need to know all the rules to play?

Hell, I've been playing for four years and I still don't know *any* of them.

DIS: Ruleset?

[Peter Conerly]

Hey crew

I was looking at the nomic wiki, which lists this website for more
info (which I get a 404 at): http://www.iki.fi/scurra/agora.html

I was also looking at agoranomic.org, and I didn't see anything
immediately... so where is the agora ruleset?

Peter

On 12/29/06, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 08:22:30PM -0800, Jonathan Fry wrote:
 I'm not sure what criteria you used to make this list, but I can
 think of a couple of other active nomics that might be worth
 consideration:

 Nomopoly  http://q17.cjb.net/nomopoly5/index

No fair!  This one doesn't become active until next year!


 Also, didn't Ackanomic die a long, long time ago?

Yes.  But I've met a former Ackan in person, and I can't say that for
other non-Agoran nomics (I met one Agoran in person, but that was years
before I goaded em into playing).

--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
some things are lost and others gained
-- Andre, in agora-discussion

Re: DIS: Ruleset?

[Michael Slone]

On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 01:01:46AM -0800, Peter Conerly wrote:
 I was looking at the nomic wiki, which lists this website for more
 info (which I get a 404 at): http://www.iki.fi/scurra/agora.html

Yes, that's rather out of date.  


 I was also looking at agoranomic.org, and I didn't see anything
 immediately... so where is the agora ruleset?

Michael Norrish's copy of the ruleset is available at:

http://axiom.anu.edu.au/~michaeln/agora/short-ruleset .

There is also a (partially) wikified version available at

http://agora.lendemaindeveille.com/index.php/List_of_rules_by_category .

-- 
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
some things are lost and others gained
-- Andre, in agora-discussion