BUS: humble agoran farmer cooks curry
Getting stuff fixed when I see a potential flaw in it I could use goes against scamming spirit. So, I want to try out a thing because I'm not too familiar with scams on Agora and this works as a test run. I CFJ the following statement: "If this sentence is true, then Agora is Ossified." I present the following as Arguments: * CFJ 3498's Judgement. "Judging this as TRUE would cause Agora to become ossified (proposals are created by announcement, announcements must be unambiguous). Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE to judge this CFJ as TRUE. Therefore, I judge as FALSE." * If it were TRUE, Agora would become Ossified, therefore the Judgement should be FALSE. * It is IMPOSSIBLE to judge this CFJ as TRUE, (because its actually undecidable), therefore the Judgement should be FALSE (would you choose to approach through "It is IMPOSSIBLE to judge this CFJ as TRUE->ergo-> I judge as FALSE"). * Therefore, it's FALSE.
Re: BUS: [ADoP] Initiating Elections Again (Referee, ADoP, Registrar)
For the Registrar election, I vote for Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. For the ADoP election, I endorse nichdel. For the Referee election, I endorse o. I see no problem with the current officers’ performance. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On May 26, 2017, at 5:39 PM, Nic Evans wrote: > > What follows is the initiation of the Referee, ADoP, and Registrar elections > as per the discussion from the Super Election Season thread. > > Note for new players: Elections are Instant Runoff, meaning you can cast > votes > as a list. Any portion of your vote, or the entire thing, can be a > conditional. > A vote of 'present' is largely irrelevant for these decisions. > > Note for all players: With your vote, please include any thoughts about > necessary changes to the office and payrates and report rates. > > I initiate an election for Referee, as there has been no election since the > last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Referee. For > this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the > players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). > > I initiate an election for Associate Director of Personnel, as there has > been no election since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to > determine the new Associate Director of Personnel. For this decision, the > vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the players > (PRESENT is also a valid vote). > > I initiate an election for Registrar, as there has been no election since the > last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Registrar. For > this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the > players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). >
BUS: Re: [ADoP] Initiating Elections Again (Referee, ADoP, Registrar)
On 05/26/2017 04:39 PM, Nic Evans wrote: I initiate an election for Referee, as there has been no election since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Referee. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). I endorse the current officeholder. I initiate an election for Associate Director of Personnel, as there has been no election since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Associate Director of Personnel. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). I endorse Quazie if e pledges to run elections for the remaining offices. Otherwise I vote [nichdel, Quazie]. I initiate an election for Registrar, as there has been no election since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Registrar. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). I vote [endorse PSS, nichdel].
Re: BUS: [ADoP] Initiating Elections Again (Referee, ADoP, Registrar)
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 2:38 PM Nic Evans wrote: > I initiate an election for Referee, as there has been no election since the > last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Referee. For > this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the > players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). > > if the current office holder places a vote other than PRESENT I endorse em, otherwise I vote for em. > I initiate an election for Associate Director of Personnel, as there has > been no election since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to > determine the new Associate Director of Personnel. For this decision, the > vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the players > (PRESENT is also a valid vote). > > I vote as follows: [Quazie] followed by a list that is equivalent to endorsing the current office holder. If the above vote is invalid, or results in PRESENT I instead vote: [Quazie, nichdel] Note: I'd like to do this job, but i'm also not saddened by Nichdel's performance in this role. If i take up the position I aim to maintain the report with as much information as currently exists within the report, plus a csv file of all relevant ADoP events so that, from this point, full histories can be generated. I may also be interested in converting old ADOP histories into this format, but I don't see myself filling in non-reported gaps in officer holdings. > I initiate an election for Registrar, as there has been no election since the > last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Registrar. For > this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the > players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). > > if the current office holder places a vote other than PRESENT I endorse em, otherwise I vote for em.
BUS: [ADoP] Initiating Elections Again (Referee, ADoP, Registrar)
What follows is the initiation of the Referee, ADoP, and Registrar elections as per the discussion from the Super Election Season thread. Note for new players: Elections are Instant Runoff, meaning you can cast votes as a list. Any portion of your vote, or the entire thing, can be a conditional. A vote of 'present' is largely irrelevant for these decisions. Note for all players: With your vote, please include any thoughts about necessary changes to the office and payrates and report rates. I initiate an election for Referee, as there has been no election since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Referee. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). I initiate an election for Associate Director of Personnel, as there has been no election since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Associate Director of Personnel. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). I initiate an election for Registrar, as there has been no election since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Registrar. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
Re: BUS: [ADoP] Initiating Elections (Referee, ADoP, Registrar)
On 05/26/2017 04:23 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Nic Evans wrote: What follows is the initiation of the Referee, ADoP, and Registrar elections as per the discussion from the Super Election Season thread. Note for new players: Elections are Instant Runoff, meaning you can cast votes as a list. Any portion of your vote, or the entire thing, can be a conditional. A vote of 'present' is largely irrelevant for these decisions. Note for all players: With your vote, please include any thoughts about necessary changes to the office and payrates. Since it looks like Granular Paydays will pass, consider both Payrate and Report Rate. I initiate an election for Referee, as there has been no election since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Assessor. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). I initiate an election for Associate Director of Personnel, as there has been no election since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Assessor. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). I initiate an election for Registrar, as there has been no election since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Assessor. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). CoE: You have started elections, but have not initiated the correct Agoran decisions. In each case, you "initiate[d] the Agoran decision to determine the new Assessor". -Aris *sigh* Accepted. I'll correct this and the metareport soon.
Re: BUS: [ADoP] Initiating Elections (Referee, ADoP, Registrar)
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 2:00 PM, Nic Evans wrote: > What follows is the initiation of the Referee, ADoP, and Registrar elections > as per the discussion from the Super Election Season thread. > > Note for new players: Elections are Instant Runoff, meaning you can cast > votes > as a list. Any portion of your vote, or the entire thing, can be a > conditional. > A vote of 'present' is largely irrelevant for these decisions. > > Note for all players: With your vote, please include any thoughts about > necessary changes to the office and payrates. Since it looks like Granular > Paydays will pass, consider both Payrate and Report Rate. > > I initiate an election for Referee, as there has been no election since the > last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Assessor. For > this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the > players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). > > I initiate an election for Associate Director of Personnel, as there has > been no election since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to > determine the new Assessor. For this decision, the vote collector is the > ADoP and the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). > > I initiate an election for Registrar, as there has been no election since > the > last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Assessor. For > this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the > players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). CoE: You have started elections, but have not initiated the correct Agoran decisions. In each case, you "initiate[d] the Agoran decision to determine the new Assessor". -Aris
Re: BUS: [ADoP] Initiating Elections (Referee, ADoP, Registrar)
For the Registrar election, I vote for Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. For the ADoP election, I endorse nichdel. For the Referee election, I endorse o. I see no problem with the current officers’ performance. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > On May 26, 2017, at 5:00 PM, Nic Evans wrote: > > What follows is the initiation of the Referee, ADoP, and Registrar elections > as per the discussion from the Super Election Season thread. > > Note for new players: Elections are Instant Runoff, meaning you can cast > votes > as a list. Any portion of your vote, or the entire thing, can be a > conditional. > A vote of 'present' is largely irrelevant for these decisions. > > Note for all players: With your vote, please include any thoughts about > necessary changes to the office and payrates. Since it looks like Granular > Paydays will pass, consider both Payrate and Report Rate. > > I initiate an election for Referee, as there has been no election since the > last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Assessor. For > this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the > players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). > > I initiate an election for Associate Director of Personnel, as there has > been no election since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to > determine the new Assessor. For this decision, the vote collector is the > ADoP and the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). > > I initiate an election for Registrar, as there has been no election since the > last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Assessor. For > this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the > players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). >
BUS: [ADoP] Initiating Elections (Referee, ADoP, Registrar)
What follows is the initiation of the Referee, ADoP, and Registrar elections as per the discussion from the Super Election Season thread. Note for new players: Elections are Instant Runoff, meaning you can cast votes as a list. Any portion of your vote, or the entire thing, can be a conditional. A vote of 'present' is largely irrelevant for these decisions. Note for all players: With your vote, please include any thoughts about necessary changes to the office and payrates. Since it looks like Granular Paydays will pass, consider both Payrate and Report Rate. I initiate an election for Referee, as there has been no election since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Assessor. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). I initiate an election for Associate Director of Personnel, as there has been no election since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Assessor. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote). I initiate an election for Registrar, as there has been no election since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Assessor. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
On 05/26/2017 03:43 PM, Quazie wrote: COE Many new SINCE dates are wrong, such as my prime minister, your speaker, and ais' arbitor. Accepted. I used the wrong clock. Now to decide if I want to correct them or just remove them...
BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport
COE Many new SINCE dates are wrong, such as my prime minister, your speaker, and ais' arbitor. On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:36 PM Nic Evans wrote: > <--> > > Offices and Reports > Date of this report: > Date of last report: 2017-05-26 > > Informal measures > - > Administrative Health [1]: 97% > Consolidation [2]: 2.14 > > [1] Calculated by the weighted average of # of offices filled/total and > # of reports not late/total. A higher Administrative Health % indicates > a more active bureaucracy. > > [2] Calculated by dividing the # of filled offices by the number of > unique officeholders. A higher consolidation rating is not necessarily > bad, but means Agora is putting more power & responsibility in a small > group's hands. > > NB: The "PR|RR" and "Holder" columns of this report are > self-ratifying. > > Office PR|RR[1] Holder Since Last Election Can Elect[2] > > Arbitor2|2 ais523 2017-05-15 2017-05-26 > Assessor 2|2 nichdel 2016-07-19 2017-05-26 > ADoP[3]2|2 nichdel 2017-05-18 2016-10-23 Y > Herald 2|2 PSS[4] 2017-05-20 2015-07-02 Y > Prime Minister 2|2 Quazie 2016-10-24 2016-10-22 Y > Promotor 2|2 Aris 2016-10-21 2017-05-26 > Referee2|2 o2017-04-17 2017-01-14 Y > Registrar 2|2 PSS[4] 2017-04-18 2014-08-31 Y > Reportor 2|2 nichdel 2016-09-10 2016-08-30 Y > Rulekeepor 2|2 Gaelan 2017-05-17 2017-05-26 > Secretary 2|2 o2016-11-06 -- Y > Speaker2|2 nichdel 2017-01-08 2014-04-21 Never[5] > Superintendent 2|2 Quazie 2017-04-16 -- Y > Surveyor 2|2 o2017-05-08 2017-05-10 > Tailor 2|2 ais523 2017-05-17 -- Y > > > [1]Payrate and Report Rate > [2]Whether an election for this position can be initiated by > announcement, as per R2154(a). Note any player can initiate an election > for any office with 4 Support per R2154(b). > [3]Associate Director of Personnel > [4]Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > [5]An imposed position. Election date recorded only for historical > purposes. > > Office M[1] Report Last Published Late[2] > > ADoP[3] Offices now > Herald Y Patent titles 2017-05-20 > Promotor Proposal pool 2017-05-21 > RegistrarPlayers, Fora 2017-05-18 > Y Player history -- !!! > Referee Rule violations 2017-05-21 > Reportor The Agoran Newspaper2017-05-24 > Rulekeepor Short Logical Ruleset 2017-05-17 > Y Full Logical Ruleset2017-05-21 > SecretaryOrgs and Econ[4]2017-05-22 > Y Charters2017-05-01 > Superintendent Agencies (incremental) 2017-05-25 > Y Agencies (full) 2017-05-18 > Surveyor Estates 2017-05-22 > Tailor Y Ribbons 2017-05-18 > > > [1]Monthly > [2]! = 1 period missed. !! = 2 periods missed. !!! = 3+ periods missed. > [3]Associate Director of Personnel > [4]Organizations, lockout, expediture, and balances > > EVENTS > -- > 2017-05-26 15:21 Elections for Assessor, Promotor, Arbitor, and > Rulekeepor result in no officer changes. > 2017-05-24 08:00 Adoption of Proposal 7852 changes Payrate and > enacts Report Rate. > 2017-05-20 14:43 PSS becomes Herald, via deputisation. > 2017-05-18 19:43 ais523 becomes Arbitor, via deputisation. > 2017-05-18 16:32 o becomes Surveyor, via election. > > <--> > >
Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity
I support this. I'm also pissed. The ability of Agora's system to append a certain value to a certain switch DOES NOT change whether a certain separate reality is factual or not. It's absurdity.
Re: BUS: CFJ: Ambiguity
I am kind of not comfortable with the argument provided being the official one, since it doesn't address the caller's arguments directly, and the main argument therein sort of just reads (at least to me) "If the statement is TRUE, Agora is ossified. Agora does not want to be ossified. Thus, this statement is FALSE", which sounds awfully like an appeal to consequence fallacy to me. (I argue that if this CFJ were to be found TRUE, since a CFJ is not a proposal, it and any gamestate changes it effects falls under the "any other single change to gamestate" clause, the specific offending result which would cause the game to become ossified would be cancelled; this does not prevent the CFJ being found true.) While I think the line of reasoning presented in the additional argument is an acceptable resolution to this CFJ, I feel that this CFJ as it currently stands is unsatisfactory: it is my understanding of Agora CFJ system that the result of the case is merely the destination and the logical journey of reaching the conclusion is equally, if not more, important in establishing the Agoran framework for the future. Hence, I would like to file a motion to reconsider with two support with the hope of having a judgement that addresses the caller's evidence and potentially avoiding setting bad precedents for Agora (including but not limited to the aforementioned fallacy and establishing that it is an OK practice to ignore caller's evidence). 天火狐 PS: Originally I filed this CFJ in an attempt by ad absurdum to show that "Translation between any two languages is inherently ambiguous" and "Any ambiguity is sufficient to stop an action which is required to be unambiguous" together are very bad opinions to take as axiomatic in Gaelan's initial objection to the amendment of 蘭亭社's charter, with the expectation that the result of the CFJ was to be effectively irrelevant. However, I think having a strong CFJ on the subject of ambiguity is something that is good for Agora as a whole. On 26 May 2017 at 00:42, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I judge this as FALSE. > > Rule 1698/4: > Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable > combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule > changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted > within a four-week period. > > If, but for this rule, the net effect of a proposal would cause > Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to > exist, it cannot take effect, rules to the contrary > notwithstanding. If any other single change to the gamestate > would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to > cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules to the > contrary notwithstanding. > > Judging this as TRUE would cause Agora to become ossified (proposals are > created by announcement, announcements must be unambiguous). Therefore, it > is IMPOSSIBLE to judge this CFJ as TRUE. Therefore, I judge as FALSE. > > Additional argument: ambiguous is a relative term, but it is clear from > game precedent that in this context it means “reasonably unambiguous to the > players of Agora." > > On May 19, 2017, at 12:06 PM, Josh T wrote: > > I submit a Call for Judgement for the following statement: > > "Every statement is ambiguous." > > I present the following argument as caller's evidence: > * Every statement is written in one language. > * Translation between any two languages is inherently ambiguous. > * Therefore, every statement is ambiguous at least in every language > the statement was not originally written in. > * Agora does not formally make preference to any one language, and > recognizes differences in dialect (CFJ 1439). > * Thus, every statement is ambiguous. > > 天火狐 > > >
Re: BUS: I hope i'm wrong
I retract my CFJ. My brain totally misread things.
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 10:44 AM Nic Evans wrote:
> Argument for TRUE: "assigned to a judge" and "assigned exactly one
> judgement" are talking about two entirely different traits of CFJs.
> "Open" refers to if it has a judgement, not if it has a judge.
>
> On 05/26/2017 12:40 PM, Quazie wrote:
> > I CFJ on the following statement "It is possible to assign judgments
> > to CFJs"
> >
> > Evidence:
> > {{{
> > Rule 591/42 (Power=1.7)
> > Delivering Judgements
> >
> > When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN
> > assign a valid judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so
> > in a timely fashion after this becomes possible. If e does not,
> > the Arbitor CAN remove em from being the judge of that case by
> > announcement.
> > [...]
> >
> > Rule 991/17 (Power=2)
> > Calls for Judgement
> >
> > Any person (the initiator) can initiate a Call for Judgement
> > (CFJ, syn. Judicial Case) by announcement, specifying a
> > statement to be inquired into. E may optionally bar one person
> > from the case.
> >
> > At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or
> > assigned exactly one judgement.
> >
> > The Arbitor is an office, responsible for the administration of
> > justice in a manner that is fair for emself, if not for the rest
> > of Agora.
> >
> > When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any
> > player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so within a
> > week. The players eligible to be assigned as judge are all
> > players except the initiator and the person barred (if any).
> > The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all
> > interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.
> > If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to
> > judge that CFJ CAN assign it to emself Without 3 Objections.
> >
> > }}}
> >
> > Arguments:
> > {{{
> > Rule 991 states that a case can either be Open or Assigned.
> >
> > Rule 591, a lower power rule, states that judgements can be assigned
> > to a case that is Open AND assigned.
> >
> > Thus, no judgments can be placed, as a case can't be in both states.
> > }}}
>
Re: BUS: I hope i'm wrong
Argument for TRUE: "assigned to a judge" and "assigned exactly one
judgement" are talking about two entirely different traits of CFJs.
"Open" refers to if it has a judgement, not if it has a judge.
On 05/26/2017 12:40 PM, Quazie wrote:
I CFJ on the following statement "It is possible to assign judgments
to CFJs"
Evidence:
{{{
Rule 591/42 (Power=1.7)
Delivering Judgements
When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN
assign a valid judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so
in a timely fashion after this becomes possible. If e does not,
the Arbitor CAN remove em from being the judge of that case by
announcement.
[...]
Rule 991/17 (Power=2)
Calls for Judgement
Any person (the initiator) can initiate a Call for Judgement
(CFJ, syn. Judicial Case) by announcement, specifying a
statement to be inquired into. E may optionally bar one person
from the case.
At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or
assigned exactly one judgement.
The Arbitor is an office, responsible for the administration of
justice in a manner that is fair for emself, if not for the rest
of Agora.
When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any
player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so within a
week. The players eligible to be assigned as judge are all
players except the initiator and the person barred (if any).
The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all
interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.
If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to
judge that CFJ CAN assign it to emself Without 3 Objections.
}}}
Arguments:
{{{
Rule 991 states that a case can either be Open or Assigned.
Rule 591, a lower power rule, states that judgements can be assigned
to a case that is Open AND assigned.
Thus, no judgments can be placed, as a case can't be in both states.
}}}
BUS: I hope i'm wrong
I CFJ on the following statement "It is possible to assign judgments to
CFJs"
Evidence:
{{{
Rule 591/42 (Power=1.7)
Delivering Judgements
When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN
assign a valid judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so
in a timely fashion after this becomes possible. If e does not,
the Arbitor CAN remove em from being the judge of that case by
announcement.
[...]
Rule 991/17 (Power=2)
Calls for Judgement
Any person (the initiator) can initiate a Call for Judgement
(CFJ, syn. Judicial Case) by announcement, specifying a
statement to be inquired into. E may optionally bar one person
from the case.
At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or
assigned exactly one judgement.
The Arbitor is an office, responsible for the administration of
justice in a manner that is fair for emself, if not for the rest
of Agora.
When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any
player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so within a
week. The players eligible to be assigned as judge are all
players except the initiator and the person barred (if any).
The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all
interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.
If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to
judge that CFJ CAN assign it to emself Without 3 Objections.
}}}
Arguments:
{{{
Rule 991 states that a case can either be Open or Assigned.
Rule 591, a lower power rule, states that judgements can be assigned to a
case that is Open AND assigned.
Thus, no judgments can be placed, as a case can't be in both states.
}}}
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3515 judged TRUE
TTttPF Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus < p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I see my imprecision, therefore I file a Motion to Reconsider. > > > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Nic Evans wrote: > >> On 05/26/2017 11:53 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> >> TO elaborate every verb is an action, but many can only be performed >> under certain circumstances. I believe you are misunderstanding my judgment >> to have greater meaning than it has. >> >> >> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus >> >> This is a fundamental misunderstanding of verbs and performative >> utterances, and the very reasoning that leads to the I SAY I DID fallacy. >> >> First, 'every verb is an action' isn't true at all. Grammatical verbs >> mostly describe actions, they don't perform them. >> >> Second, performative utterances are not directly tied to verbs (though >> many require formulas that include a specified verb). I can say "FOR" to >> vote, and no verb was used. >> >> You might be suggesting that *saying* something is an action, which I >> agree with. In that way an agency could allow you to say something. But >> it's the I SAY I DID fallacy to suggest that saying you did a performative, >> or using a performative's formula, is any action greater than *saying*. >> >> Consider this theoretical agency: >> >> Title: A Very Broken Agency (VBA) >> Agents: All players >> Actions: Say anything on my behalf >> >> By the CFJ reasoning, VBA allows other players to perform any action on >> my behalf. By my reasoning, anything that is said via VBA is only said and >> not performed. A less trivial example: >> >> Title: Broken Voting Agency (BVA) >> Agents: All players >> Actions: Any agent may send a message specifying my votes on an Agoran >> Decision. >> >> By the CFJ reasoning, that message could contain any action as long as it >> also contains votes, all done on my behalf. By my reasoning, everything >> except the votes would fail to be actions (except for the action of saying) >> because there is a separation between saying and doing. >> > >
Re: BUS: CFJ 3515 judged TRUE
On 05/26/2017 09:15 AM, Nic Evans wrote: On 05/26/2017 05:28 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: I judge CFJ 3515 TRUE in concurrence with the judgement of CFJ 3511 by Gaelan. Further, by this standard any rule-defined or non-rule-defined verb is an action. However, what it would be to “24 Hours Notice” is unclear to me, therefore I believe what is intended is to ask whether “to give 24 Hours Notice” is an action. I find this to be an action and to be secured if the action for which one is giving the 24 hours notice is rule-defined, as “to give 24 Hours Notice” is in this context synonymous with “to intent” or “to issue intent”. I plan to soon release a thesis elaborating on the types of actions, how they can be used, and other action related topics. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com I motion to reconsider with 2 Support. The statement "any rule-defined or non-rule-defined verb is an action" is a codification of the I Say I Did Therefore I Did fallacy. More elaborated arguments: I agree with TRUE for the text of the CFJ. The issue I have is that not every verb is an action. In fact, not every purported action is an action. Players *can* do things by announcement, but many of those things require other conditions to be met to be done. It would not be an action for me to say "I distribute the following proposals" because the action purported isn't possible for me.
Re: BUS: CFJ 3515 judged TRUE
On 05/26/2017 05:28 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: I judge CFJ 3515 TRUE in concurrence with the judgement of CFJ 3511 by Gaelan. Further, by this standard any rule-defined or non-rule-defined verb is an action. However, what it would be to “24 Hours Notice” is unclear to me, therefore I believe what is intended is to ask whether “to give 24 Hours Notice” is an action. I find this to be an action and to be secured if the action for which one is giving the 24 hours notice is rule-defined, as “to give 24 Hours Notice” is in this context synonymous with “to intent” or “to issue intent”. I plan to soon release a thesis elaborating on the types of actions, how they can be used, and other action related topics. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com I motion to reconsider with 2 Support. The statement "any rule-defined or non-rule-defined verb is an action" is a codification of the I Say I Did Therefore I Did fallacy.
BUS: Judgment on CFJ 3514
For the statement "The judge assigned to this CFJ will be kind enough to include eir favorite cookie recipe in eir judgment," we do require some judge's arguments: This is my favorite cookie recipe. It's from Alton Brown and produces medium-large, soft chocolate chip cookies he calls "The Chewy." I'll provide the recipe below, then add some commentary after it's through to explain some of the choices and make sure you don't make the same mistakes I did the first time I made them. This recipe SHOULD fit in an eighty-character fixed-width line, for all our terminal-based or fixed-width font mail client users. Ingredients 8 ounces unsalted butter 12 ounces bread flour 1 teaspoon kosher salt 1 teaspoon baking soda 2 ounces granulated sugar 8 ounces light brown sugar 1 large egg 1 large egg yolk 2 tablespoons whole milk 1 1/2 teaspoons vanilla extract 12 ounces semisweet chocolate chips Instructions 1. Melt the butter in a 2-quart saucepan over low heat, then set aside to cool slightly. 2. Sift together the flour, salt and baking soda onto a paper plate. 3. Pour the butter into your stand mixer's work bowl. Add the sugars and beat with the paddle attachment on medium speed for 2 minutes. (If you don't have a stand mixer, a hand mixer set to medium will do just fine. If you don't have either a stand mixer or a hand mixer, work it with a whisk or a silicon spatula until the butter and sugar come together) 4. Meanwhile in a separate bowl, whisk together the whole egg, egg yolk, milk and vanilla extract. 5. Slow the mixer to "stir" and slowly work the egg mixture into the butter and sugar. Mix until thoroughly combined, about 30 seconds 6. Using the paper plate as a slide, gradually integrate the dry ingredients, stopping a couple of times to scrape down the side of the bowl with a rubber spatula. 7. Once the flour is worked in, drop the speed to "stir" and add the chocolate chips. 8. Chill the dough for 1 hour. 9. Heat the oven to 375 degrees F and place the racks in the top third and bottom third of the oven. 10.Scoop the dough into 1 1/2-ounce portions onto parchment paper-lined half sheet pans, 6 cookies per sheet. 11.Bake two sheets at a time for 15 minutes, rotating the pans halfway through. 12.Remove from the oven, slide the parchment with the cookies onto a cooling rack, and wait at least 5 minutes before devouring. Ingredient notes: - For best results, WEIGH YOUR FLOUR. Flour is not a fluid, so "one cup" is not always the same amount of flour. Baking is a precise science, not an art. If you measure by weight, you'll have better cookies. If you don't have access to a scale, you may substitute by volume (but you'll have to do the measurements yourself. - Unsalted butter is key. Using unsalted butter allows you to control the amount and quality of salt you use in your cookies. I like kosher salt here--the large crystals are really good at dissolving and absorbing into the batter. - Make sure you use baking SODA, not baking powder. You'll only make that mistake once. - If you don't have bread flour, you can substitute using all-purpose flour. For every 4 ounces of all-purpose flour, add 0.6 ounces of corn starch. Either way, you need a tough-binding flour that still has a little give. Bread flour is great for that purpose. If you are using volumetric measures, first how dare you, and second replace two tablespoons per one cup of flour. - A whole bag of chocolate chips seems like a lot but I can tell you from experience it is not as much as you'd think. - If you like a more intense cookie flavor, you can substitute dark brown sugar instead of light brown sugar. It'll provide a more "molassessy," smoky flavor but will also make your cookies a little firmer. Assembly notes: 1. You can melt your butter in the microwave too. Just keep an eye on it so it doesn't burn or boil over. Your butter might also look a little cloudy out of the microwave, but you're putting it into cookies! Nobody will ever notice. 2. If you can sift, I strongly recommend it. Sifting your flour will prevent annoying clumping and help you work the dry ingredients into the wet without problems. If you don't sift, you will also probably wind up with extra dense cookies. Not fun to eat. If you're substituting with AP flour and corn starch, you MUST sift in order to thorougly combine the two ingredients. Also, if you sift onto a paper plate, sift onto a very flexible (read: cheap) plate. That will be important when adding the flour to the wet ingredients. 3-7.N/A 8. Yes, one hour of chill time is necessary. It'll make the dough come together and make it so much easier to work with when putting them on the sheet pan. You also are giving it time for the brown sugar and butter flavors to meld into the flour. If you don't do that, your cookies might just taste like flour. From experience: y
Re: BUS: Proposal Competition: Academia
I SUPPORT this. ...If it's alright that there has been a typo there and the following got split: "Objective of improving and encouraging scholarship of Agora and/or theming Agora around scholarship and academia."
BUS: CFJ 3515 judged TRUE
I judge CFJ 3515 TRUE in concurrence with the judgement of CFJ 3511 by Gaelan. Further, by this standard any rule-defined or non-rule-defined verb is an action. However, what it would be to “24 Hours Notice” is unclear to me, therefore I believe what is intended is to ask whether “to give 24 Hours Notice” is an action. I find this to be an action and to be secured if the action for which one is giving the 24 hours notice is rule-defined, as “to give 24 Hours Notice” is in this context synonymous with “to intent” or “to issue intent”. I plan to soon release a thesis elaborating on the types of actions, how they can be used, and other action related topics. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
BUS: Proposal Competition: Academia
I hereby issue intent to initiate a Proposal Competition, with Agoran Consent, with the specified Objective o f improving and encouraging scholarship of Agora and/or theming Agora around scholarship and academia. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
