Re: BUS: CFJ on Shiny things

[Owen Jacobson]

On May 23, 2017, at 9:05 PM, Quazie  wrote:
> 
> I CFJ on the statement: I paid Gaelan 1 Shiney via QPS.

…

> I CoE on the latest Secretary report that now contains the payment in 
> question, as it's not in question.

Accepted. There are perks to being very late: one of them is that I can see how 
this CFJ played out and respond appropriately.

I withdraw the Secretary’s weekly report dated Sun, 28 May 2017, which has been 
in question since this CoE was raised.

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Secretary] Monthly Report

[Owen Jacobson]

Accepted.

I retract the below-quoted report.

-o

> On Jun 2, 2017, at 4:31 AM, Josh T  wrote:
> 
> CoE: The Charter of 蘭亭社 has been amended. [1]
> 
> [1] 
> https://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2017-May/034893.html
>  
> 
> 
> 天火狐
> 
> On 2 June 2017 at 01:01, Owen Jacobson  > wrote:
> Secretary's Monthly Report
> 
> Date of this report: Thu  1 Jun 2017
> Date of last report: Mon  1 May 2017
> 
> 
> Recent events (all times UTC)
> 
> - previous report -
> - time of last report -
> Thu, 27 Apr 2017 05:33:46  nichdel created Organization "AAaAA"
> Wed,  3 May 2017 04:22:28  o amended Organization "AVM"'s charter
> 
> [Agoran Award and Achivement Association]
> 
> An amendment to this Organization is Appropriate if intent to perform
> it was announced between 4 and 14 days ago, and no members of the
> Organization have publicly objected to it since.
> 
> When a member of this organization pays any number of shinies to this
> organization they receive as many Proxies as paid shinies.
> 
> Once a month any member of this organization may initiate a Voting
> Session. A Voting Session lasts 7 days. During the Voting Session,
> each member may cast a number of votes equal to eir number of Proxies,
> with valid votes being any entity that has a Balance switch. When a
> Voting Session ends, this Organization shall pay X/Y rounded down to
> each entity with the highest number of votes where X is the shinies
> this organization has in its Budget and Y is the number of entities
> to pay. All remaining shinies shall be paid to Agora. All members have
> 0 Proxies when a Voting Session ends.
> 
> 
> [The Agoran Betting Market]
> 
> An amendment to this Organization is Appropriate if intent to perform
> it was announced between 4 and 14 days ago, and no members of the
> Organization have publicly objected to it since.
> 
> References to a person's Budget Switch in this Charter refer to the
> Budget Switch for the pair consisting of that person and this
> Organization.
> 
> For the purposes of Bets made under the provisions of this
> Organization, a reference to an Agoran Decision on whether to adopt a
> proposal can be made by instead referencing the proposal itself, unless
> doing so would be ambiguous.
> 
> Any non-member of this Organization can join it via flipping eir Budget
> Switch to 25.
> 
> Any member of this Organization whose Budget Switch is currently 25 or
> less, and who has not authored any unResolved Bets that are Covered by
> a Bet with an author other than emself, can leave it via flipping eir
> Budget Switch to 0.
> 
> A Bet is a portion of an announcement, labelled as a Bet, that is
> authored by a member of this Organization and contains the following
> information:
> 
> Deadline: a moment in the future, defined either by its date, or by
> specifying an event that could potentially happen in the future but
> that has not yet occurred (e.g. "the resolution of Proposal "), in
> which case the Deadline is the first occurrence of such an event;
> Odds: two positive integers separated by a hyphen (e.g. 3-1);
> Event: a statement in the future tense about a property of Agora's
> gamestate, which is evaluated at the time stated in the Deadline.
> 
> If two Bets have the same Deadline, reverse Odds (i.e. the number
> before the hyphen and the number after the hyphen are swapped), and
> Events which are negations of each other (i.e. one is necessarily true
> whenever the other is false, and vice versa), the Bets are stated to
> Complement each other. For each bet, the first bet that Complements it
> and has not previously Covered another bet is said to Cover that bet.
> Exception: if a Bet is not Covered by its Deadline, it cannot Cover or
> be Covered by another Bet subsequently.
> 
> A statement by a member of this Organization that e "covers" a Bet is
> interpreted as an announcement that would be a Bet that Covers it, if
> such a bet is possible (i.e. if the Bet is unCovered and its Deadline
> has not occurred).
> 
> A statement by a member of this Organization that e "withdraws" a Bet
> that e authored is interpreted as though that member had announced that
> e covered that Bet.
> 
> If a Bet is Covered and its Deadline has passed, it has not previously
> been Resolved, and the Bet and the Bet that Covers it have different
> authors, any member of this contract can Resolve it. To do so, e flips
> the Bet's author's Budget Switch as follows:
> 
> - If the Bet's Event was true when the Deadline occurred, the switch is
> reduced by the integer before the hyphen in the Bet's Odds;
> 
> - If the Bet's Event was false when the Deadline occurred, the switch
> is increased by the integer after the hyphen in the Bet's Odds.
> 
> Members of this Organization are strongly encouraged to Resolve a Bet
> and the Bet that Covers it within the same message. Th

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3522 assigned to Murphy

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 18:53 -0700, Edward Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
> > On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 13:45 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:
> > > Call for Judgement
> > > The Tailor's recent statement in the preamble of his June 6
> > > report that "the well-known "disputed" mark in reports has... no
> > > legal effect." was legally correct
> > 
> > This is CFJ 3522. I assign it to Murphy.
>
> I agree with the caller. Reporting something as disputed implicitly
> changes what is being reported, from "X is Y" to "X is probably Y but
> may instead be Z because ", and this change is legally
> significant and effective in preventing the self-ratification of that
> report from including "X is Y" in its scope.
> 
> FALSE.

Hmm, it looks like this result is insufficient to clear up what
actually happens (and also fails to block self-ratification as it isn't
 explicit enough).

CFJ, explicitly challenging the most recent purported Tailor's Report:
Alexis does not have a White Ribbon, but ais523 does have a White
Ribbon.

Evidence:

Tailor's Report, October (excerpt):
{{{
   ROGCBMUVIPLWKY
ais523  OG  MUV P WKY
AlexisC   W Y
scshuntRO CBMU  P  KY
}}}
[Note: "Alexis" and "scshunt" are two different nicknames for the same
person.]

Tailor's Report, May (excerpt):
{{{
   ROGCBMUVIPLWKAT
ais523  OGC MUV P WKA
Alexis RO CBMUV P WKA  (disputed, see CFJs 3463/3464)
}}}

Rule 2162/8 (excerpt):
{{{
  3. Optionally, exactly one office whose holder tracks instances
 of that switch.  That officer's (weekly, if not specified
 otherwise) report includes the value of each instance of that
 switch whose value is not its default value; a public
 document purporting to be this portion of that officer's
 report is self-ratifying, and implies that other instances
 are at their default value.
}}}

Arguments: In October 2016, neither ais523 nor Alexis had a White
Ribbon, but were both incorrectly shown as having such on the Tailor's
Report. It's already been ruled that Alexis' Ribbon Ownership failed to
ratify, as the report listing it was internally inconsistent (listing
Alexis twice under different nicknames, and with a different holding
for each name).

After that, there was no further Tailor's Report until May 2017. This
report listed Alexis' White Ribbon holdings as disputed, but had no
such mark for ais523 (because I remembered the controversy but forgot
the details; it had been several months earlier). This CFJ is basically
about what portion of a switch report (if any) counts as self-ratifying 
if part of it is marked as disputed, or is internally inconsistent.

Working out the current Ribbon holdings requires answering these
questions:

Did the May have a self-ratifying section at all?

If so, did that section include ais523's Ribbon Ownership but not
Alexis's Ribbon Ownership, or did it include both? Did it additionally
contain the statement of dispute?

If it included both, what happened when it self-ratified?

If the May report failed to change ais523's Ribbon Ownership upon self-
ratification, did the October report self-ratify ais523's Ribbon
Ownership?

-- 
ais523

BUS: More decorating

[Edward Murphy]

I award myself a Blue Ribbon for judging CFJ 3522.

BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3522 assigned to Murphy

[Edward Murphy]

ais523 wrote:


On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 13:45 +1000, V.J Rada wrote:

Call for Judgement
The Tailor's recent statement in the preamble of his June 6 report that "the
well-known "disputed" mark in reports has... no legal effect." was legally
correct


This is CFJ 3522. I assign it to Murphy.


Evidence
Rule 1551, Ratification, reads in relevant part
[When a public document is ratified, rules to the contrary notwithstanding,
the gamestate is modified to what it would be if, at the time the ratified
document was published, the gamestate had been minimally modified to make
the ratified document as true and accurate as possible.]
The preamble of the Tailor's report on June 6 reads
[Before the main body of the report, a summary of what I believe to have
happened with respect to Alexis: eir own White Ribbon was never legally
given, and nor was the White Ribbon e gave me; but I forgot at the time
of the last report that my own White Ribbon holding was disputed, and
thus marked only Alexis' as such. The report itself was not CoEd, and
thus self-ratified a week later. As far as I can tell, what therefore
happened was that both me and Alexis gained a White Ribbon at the time
of ratification (being the minimum change to the gamestate required to
give all the Ribbon Ownership switches the value the report stated they
held; note that the statement that Alexis' switch had a disputed value
is not in its own right self-ratifying, although being a true
statement, it wouldn't matter if it were; ratifying a true statement
has no effect).

This seems something like a bug that should perhaps be fixed, as
reporting on disputes is currently impossible to do "correctly" without
CoEing your own report and resolving the CoE with a reference to the
CFJ in question, something that I hadn't realised would be required.
The well-known "disputed" mark in reports, has, as far as I can tell,
no legal effect.

If someone believes that I've misinterpreted the law here, I'd
recommend calling a CFJ. Alternatively, if someone feels that I've
interpreted it correctly but that the situation is nonetheless unfair,
the correct solution probably involves a proposal. (Perhaps we should
create some sort of rules-wide equity system. I know G. would probably
be a fan of that.)]

Argument
I disagree with the statement that the disputed mark has no legal effect,
and therefore, as suggested by the Tailor himself, call a CFJ. Game
practice clearly shows (as the Tailor admits by calling it "well-known")
that marking an aspect of a report "disputed" is often used; I believe that
the intent of this use is to mark a fact in a report as possibly incorrect,
and therefore its very inclusion in the report should not lead to its
finality. I believe that the best judgement would be that the use of the
disputed mark implies that the previously listed words in the report are
arguably factually incorrect, and thus ratification of the report would
continue that possibility instead of precluding it. Common sense affirms
this course of action. As the Tailor notes, it seems silly to make it
impossible for the very writer of a report to cast aspersions its contents
except by CoE. In addition, the possible unfairness of this factual
situation itself leads to this conclusion. A person who wished to make a
CoE may have stopped due to the presence of the disputed mark, only to be
caught off card by this new legal opinion.

Alternatively, "internally inconsistent" reports or statements cannot be
ratified. Stating a fact in the same way as other facts and then
contradicting that fact with the disputed mark is internally inconsistent.

In either case, this case should be judged FALSE, and marking a fact
"Disputed" in a ratified statement should be judged to have legal effect.


I agree with the caller. Reporting something as disputed implicitly
changes what is being reported, from "X is Y" to "X is probably Y but
may instead be Z because ", and this change is legally
significant and effective in preventing the self-ratification of that
report from including "X is Y" in its scope.

FALSE.

Re: BUS: [ADoP] Initiating Elections (Secretary, Superintendent, Tailor)

[Edward Murphy]

Quazie wrote:


What follows is the initiation of the Secretary, Superintendent, and
Tailor 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 Secretary, as there has been no election
since the
last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Secretary.
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 Superintendent, as there has been no election
since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new
Superintendent. 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 Tailor, as there has been no election since the
last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Tailor. For
this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the
players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).

NOTE: Quorum for these Agoran decisions is currently 5


For each of these decisions, I endorse the current holder of the office
in question.

BUS: Getting a Ribbon

[Martin Rönsch]

As I recently deputized for the Reportor I award myself a Cyan ribbon.

Veggiekeks

Re: BUS: [ADoP] Initiating Elections (Secretary, Superintendent, Tailor)

[Martin Rönsch]

I initiate an election for Secretary, as there has been no election 
since the
last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new 
Secretary. For
this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options 
are the

players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).


I endorse o.


I initiate an election for Superintendent, as there has been no election
since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new
Superintendent. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the
valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).


I endorse Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.


I initiate an election for Tailor, as there has been no election since 
the

last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Tailor. For
this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options 
are the

players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).


I endorse ais523.


Veggiekeks

Re: BUS: [ADoP] Initiating Elections (Secretary, Superintendent, Tailor)

[Alex Smith]

On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 18:04 +, Quazie wrote:
> I initiate an election for Secretary, as there has been no election since
> the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Secretary.
> For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are 
> the
> players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).

I vote for the incumbent.

> I initiate an election for Superintendent, as there has been no election
> since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new
> Superintendent. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the
> valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).

Does anyone even want this job? I vote for the set of persons who
unconditionally vote for themselves, in the order of said votes.

> I initiate an election for Tailor, as there has been no election since the
> last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Tailor. For
> this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the
> players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).

I vote for myself.

-- 
ais523

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Initiating Elections (Secretary, Superintendent, Tailor)

[V.J Rada]

TTttPF

On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 10:09 AM, V.J Rada  wrote:

> I vote PRESENT on all 3
>
> On Sat, Jun 10, 2017 at 4:47 AM, Josh T 
> wrote:
>
>> On the election for Secretary, I vote PRESENT.
>>
>> On the election for Superintendent, I endorse the incumbent.
>>
>> On the election for Tailor, my vote consists of the following:
>>* First, if a candidate for the office of Tailor pledges to award me a
>> grAy ribbon in eir next monthly report if they become Tailor, I cast my
>> first-priority votes for that candidate. If there is more than one such
>> candidate, preference is given to the earliest such pledge.
>>* Next, the final candidate before the vote is closed who transfers me
>> a Shiny for the purpose of securing my vote is awarded my second-priority
>> votes. (Which, to clarify, if the first priority votes are empty, the
>> second-priority votes de facto become first-priority votes)
>>* Otherwise, I vote PRESENT.
>>
>> 天火狐
>>
>>
>> On 9 June 2017 at 14:13, Quazie  wrote:
>>
>>> I vote as follows:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:05 AM Quazie  wrote:
>>>
 I initiate an election for Secretary, as there has been no election
 since the
 last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new
 Secretary. For
 this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are
 the
 players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).

>>>
>>> I endorse o
>>>
>>>
>>> I initiate an election for Superintendent, as there has been no election
 since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new
 Superintendent. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and
 the
 valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).

>>>
>>> I don't really want this office anymore, but if no one else wants it,
>>> i'll stick with it.
>>> I vote for the first player to non-conditionally vote for emself.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 I initiate an election for Tailor, as there has been no election since
 the
 last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Tailor.
 For
 this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are
 the
 players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).

>>>
>>> I endorse ais523
>>>
>>
>>
>

BUS: Proposal: Assets v7

[Aris Merchant]

I submit the following proposal:

Title: Assets v7
Adoption index: 3.0
Author: Aris
Co-authors: G., o, nichdel, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

Reenact rule 2166, Assets (Power = 2), with the following text:

  An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
  document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
  existence.

  Each asset has exactly one owner.  If an asset would otherwise
  lack an owner, it is owned by Agora.  If an asset's backing document restricts
  its ownership to a class of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or
  transferred to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned
  by an entity outside that class (except for Agora, in which case any player
  CAN transfer or destroy it without objection). The restrictions in the
  previous sentence are subject to modification by its backing document.

  Unless modified by an asset's backing document, ownership of an asset is
  restricted to Agora, persons, and organizations.

  An organization's charter CAN specify whether or not that organization is
  willing receive assets or a class of assets. Generally, an organization CANNOT
  be given assets its charter states that it is unwilling to receive. The
  previous provisions of this paragraph do not apply to an asset if the
  organization is required to provide that asset in order to continue existing.

  The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)
  defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document.  That
  entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class
  and their owners.  This portion of that entity's report is
  self-ratifying.

  An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by
  announcement, subject to modification by its backing document. An
  indestructible asset is one defined as such by it backing document, and CANNOT
  be destroyed except by a rule specifically addressing the destruction of
  indestructible assets or that asset in particular; any other asset is
  destructible. In circumstances where another asset would be
  destroyed, an indestructible asset is generally transferred to Agora, subject
  to modification by its backing document and the intervention of other rules.

  To "lose" an asset is to have it destroyed from one's
  possession; to "revoke" an asset from an entity is to destroy it
  from that entity's possession.

  An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed, given) by its owner to
  another entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing
  document.  A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing
  document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.

  A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing document.
  Instances of a currency with the same owner are fungible.

  The "x balance of an entity", where x is a currency, is the number of x that
  entity possesses. If a rule, proposal, or other competent authority attempts
  to increase or decrease the balance of an entity without specifying a source
  or destination, then the currency is created or destroyed.

  Where it resolves ambiguity, the asset or currency being referred to is the
  currency designated as "Agora's official currency", if there is one.

  Amendments to a backing document shall not be construed to alter, transfer,
  destroy, or otherwise effect any assets defined by that document, unless
  that is their clear intent.

  Assets are always public. [To provide for private contract based assets later]

Change the power of Rule 2166 to 3.0.

Change the rule "Economics" to read in full:

  Shinies (sg. shiny) are an indestructible liquid currency, and the official
  currency of Agora. They may be owned by Agora, any player, or any
  organization. The Secretary is the recordkeepor for Shinies.

  The Secretary CAN cause Agora to pay any player or organization by
  announcement if doing so is specified by a rule.

Amend Rule 2459, Organizations, by adding as a paragraph at the end:

  A member of an Organization CAN perform any action the rules authorize that
  Organization to perform, if the Organization's charter states that doing so
  is Appropriate.

For the avoidance of doubt, all shinies existing under the old system continue
to so under the new system, and if they would not otherwise do so, new shinies
are created to replace them.


Amend the rule "The Surveyor" to have the following text:

  The Surveyor is an office, and the recordkeepor of estates.

Amend the rule "Estates" to have the following text:

  An Estate is a type of indestructable liquid asset, which can be owned by
  players, organizations, and Agora. The following changes are secured:
  creating, modifying, or destroying an Estate; and causing an
  entity to become an Estate or cease to be an Estate.

Amend the rule "Estate Auctions" by changing the paragraph beginning "During
an auction..." to read "During an auction, any player or organization may bid
any numb

Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Metareport

[Quazie]

On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 12:06 AM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 10:43 AM, Quazie  wrote:
> >
> >
> > Office  M[1]  Report  Last Published  Late[2]
> > ---
> > ADoP[3]   Offices 2017-06-05
> > Herald  Y Patent titles   2017-05-20
> > Promotor  Proposal pool   2017-05-21  !!
> > Referee   Rule violations 2017-06-02
> > Registrar Players, Fora   2017-06-05
> > Registrar   Y Player history  2017-05-31
> > Reportor  The Agoran Newspaper2017-05-24  !
> > RulekeeporShort Logical Ruleset   2017-05-28  !
> > Rulekeepor  Y Full Logical Ruleset2017-05-28
> > Secretary OLEaB[4]2017-06-02
> > Secretary   Y Charters2017-06-02
> > SuperintendentAgencies (incremental)  2017-06-05
> > Superintendent  Y Agencies (Full) 2017-05-18
> > Surveyor  Estates 2017-06-02
> > Tailor  Y Ribbons 2017-05-18
> > ---
> > [1] Monthly
> > [2] ! = 1 period missed. !! = 2 periods missed. !!! = 3+ periods missed.
>
> CoE: The Promoter's report isn't late. I release it in the new week
> every week, so this week's one isn't late. In addition, I released the
> report last week.
>
> -Aris
>

ACCEPTED: Though I still have some doubts about your formatting, as it's
not 100% certain that your e-mails are 'Purporting to be a Promotor's
report' as the rules indicate they should, especially when the e-mails
seemed to be predominantly Distributions on first glance..  I don't wanna
inject a CFJ into my life, but i request you note that the message are
indeed Promotor Reports to eliminate ambiguity in the future.  I'll update
this soon.


{{{

  The Promotor's report includes a list of all proposals in the
  Proposal Pool, along with their text and attributes.  This
  portion of a public document purporting to be a Promotor's
  report is self-ratifying.

}}}

My question is, if the document doesn't purport to be a Promotor's report,
is it still the Promotor's report, and is it still self-ratifying?

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [ADoP] Initiating Elections (Secretary, Superintendent, Tailor)

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

TTttPF


Publius Scribonius Scholasticus

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 4:06 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote:

> On the Secretary, I endorse the incumbent.
> On the Superintendent, I vote for myself.
> On the Tailor, I vote for myself, followed by the list of people
> equivalent to an endorsement of the incumbent.
>
> 
> Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
>
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 2:47 PM, Josh T  wrote:
>
>> On the election for Secretary, I vote PRESENT.
>>
>> On the election for Superintendent, I endorse the incumbent.
>>
>> On the election for Tailor, my vote consists of the following:
>>* First, if a candidate for the office of Tailor pledges to award me a
>> grAy ribbon in eir next monthly report if they become Tailor, I cast my
>> first-priority votes for that candidate. If there is more than one such
>> candidate, preference is given to the earliest such pledge.
>>* Next, the final candidate before the vote is closed who transfers me
>> a Shiny for the purpose of securing my vote is awarded my second-priority
>> votes. (Which, to clarify, if the first priority votes are empty, the
>> second-priority votes de facto become first-priority votes)
>>* Otherwise, I vote PRESENT.
>>
>> 天火狐
>>
>>
>> On 9 June 2017 at 14:13, Quazie  wrote:
>>
>>> I vote as follows:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:05 AM Quazie  wrote:
>>>
 I initiate an election for Secretary, as there has been no election
 since the
 last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new
 Secretary. For
 this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are
 the
 players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).

>>>
>>> I endorse o
>>>
>>>
>>> I initiate an election for Superintendent, as there has been no election
 since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new
 Superintendent. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and
 the
 valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).

>>>
>>> I don't really want this office anymore, but if no one else wants it,
>>> i'll stick with it.
>>> I vote for the first player to non-conditionally vote for emself.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 I initiate an election for Tailor, as there has been no election since
 the
 last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Tailor.
 For
 this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are
 the
 players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).

>>>
>>> I endorse ais523
>>>
>>
>>
>

Re: BUS: [ADoP] Initiating Elections (Secretary, Superintendent, Tailor)

[Josh T]

On the election for Secretary, I vote PRESENT.

On the election for Superintendent, I endorse the incumbent.

On the election for Tailor, my vote consists of the following:
   * First, if a candidate for the office of Tailor pledges to award me a
grAy ribbon in eir next monthly report if they become Tailor, I cast my
first-priority votes for that candidate. If there is more than one such
candidate, preference is given to the earliest such pledge.
   * Next, the final candidate before the vote is closed who transfers me a
Shiny for the purpose of securing my vote is awarded my second-priority
votes. (Which, to clarify, if the first priority votes are empty, the
second-priority votes de facto become first-priority votes)
   * Otherwise, I vote PRESENT.

天火狐

On 9 June 2017 at 14:13, Quazie  wrote:

> I vote as follows:
>
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:05 AM Quazie  wrote:
>
>> I initiate an election for Secretary, as there has been no election since
>> the
>> last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Secretary.
>> For
>> this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are
>> the
>> players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>>
>
> I endorse o
>
>
> I initiate an election for Superintendent, as there has been no election
>> since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new
>> Superintendent. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the
>> valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>>
>
> I don't really want this office anymore, but if no one else wants it, i'll
> stick with it.
> I vote for the first player to non-conditionally vote for emself.
>
>
>
>> I initiate an election for Tailor, as there has been no election since
>> the
>> last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Tailor. For
>> this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are
>> the
>> players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>>
>
> I endorse ais523
>

Re: BUS: [ADoP] Initiating Elections (Secretary, Superintendent, Tailor)

[Quazie]

I vote as follows:

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 11:05 AM Quazie  wrote:

> I initiate an election for Secretary, as there has been no election since
> the
> last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Secretary.
> For
> this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are
> the
> players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>

I endorse o


I initiate an election for Superintendent, as there has been no election
> since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new
> Superintendent. For this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the
> valid options are the players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>

I don't really want this office anymore, but if no one else wants it, i'll
stick with it.
I vote for the first player to non-conditionally vote for emself.



> I initiate an election for Tailor, as there has been no election since the
> last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Tailor. For
> this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are
> the
> players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).
>

I endorse ais523

BUS: [ADoP] Initiating Elections (Secretary, Superintendent, Tailor)

[Quazie]

What follows is the initiation of the Secretary, Superintendent, and Tailor
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 Secretary, as there has been no election since
the
last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Secretary.
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 Superintendent, as there has been no election
since the last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new
Superintendent. 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 Tailor, as there has been no election since the
last win. I initiate the Agoran decision to determine the new Tailor. For
this decision, the vote collector is the ADoP and the valid options are the
players (PRESENT is also a valid vote).

NOTE: Quorum for these Agoran decisions is currently 5

BUS: [ADoP] Resolving ADoP, Registrar, and Referee Elections:

[Quazie]

I resolve the Agoran Decisions of electing ADoP as electing Quazie.
I resolve the Agoran Decisions of electing Registrar as electing Publius
Scribonius Scholasticus.
I resolve the Agoran Decisions of electing Referee as electing o.

Below are the full results for each election:
<--->

Full results for ADoP:
  Towards Quorum: 8, Cast Votes: 6
o
  Vote   : nichdel
  As Cast: nichdel, followed by Gaelan.

nichdel
  Vote   : Quazie
  As Cast: [Quazie]

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
  Vote   : Quazie
  As Cast: I endorse nichdel.

CuddleBeam
  Vote   : PRESENT
  As Cast: I vote PRESENT

天火狐
  Vote   : PRESENT
  As Cast: I endorse the incumbent, if any; should the office be vacant, I
vote PRESENT

roujo
  Vote   : Quazie
  As Cast: I submit a vote for whoever 天火狐's vote currently counts for

Quazie
  Vote   : Quazie
  As Cast: 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]

Quazie
  Vote   : Quazie
  As Cast: 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]

<--->

Full results for Registrar:
  Towards Quorum: 8, Cast Votes: 7
o
  Vote   : Quazie
  As Cast: Quazie, followed by Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.

nichdel
  Vote   : Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
  As Cast: endorse PSS, nichdel

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
  Vote   : Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
  As Cast: I vote for Publius Scribonius Scholasticus.

CuddleBeam
  Vote   : PRESENT
  As Cast: I vote PRESENT

天火狐
  Vote   : Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
  As Cast: I endorse the incumbent, if any; should the office be vacant, I
vote PRESENT

roujo
  Vote   : Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
  As Cast: I submit a vote for whoever 天火狐's vote currently counts for

Quazie
  Vote   : Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
  As Cast: if the current office holder places a vote other than PRESENT I
endorse em, otherwise I vote for em.

Quazie
  Vote   : Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
  As Cast: if the current office holder places a vote other than PRESENT I
endorse em, otherwise I vote for em.

<--->

Full results for Referee:
  Towards Quorum: 8, Cast Votes: 7
o
  Vote   : o
  As Cast: o.

nichdel
  Vote   : o
  As Cast: I endorse the current officeholder.

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
  Vote   : o
  As Cast: I endorse o.

CuddleBeam
  Vote   : PRESENT
  As Cast: I vote PRESENT

天火狐
  Vote   : o
  As Cast: I endorse the incumbent, if any; should the office be vacant, I
vote PRESENT

roujo
  Vote   : o
  As Cast: I submit a vote for whoever 天火狐's vote currently counts for

Quazie
  Vote   : o
  As Cast: if the current office holder places a vote other than PRESENT I
endorse em, otherwise I vote for em.

Quazie
  Vote   : o
  As Cast: if the current office holder places a vote other than PRESENT I
endorse em, otherwise I vote for em.

<--->

[Note: Quazie has two ballots as his VP is 2 via Prime Minister]

Re: BUS: Decorating

[Quazie]

On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 10:08 Alex Smith  wrote:

> On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 09:01 -0700, Edward Murphy wrote:
> > I award myself a White Ribbon. (According to the latest Tailor's
> > report, I haven't had one since Rule 2438 was adopted.)
>
> I'm not convinced this works. According to old archives, you awarded
> yourself a White Ribbon on 24 November 2009, as a consequence of
> mentoring omd (one of the ways to get White Ribbons back then), and
> rule 2438 says "including under previous rulesets". (At least, when
> writing the rule, I intended it to be able to look at the old Ribbons
> system. Maybe it doesn't, though?)
>
> I call a CFJ on the statement "Murphy has a White Ribbon".
>
> Arguments: Does "A player qualifies for a White Ribbon if e has never
> previously owned a White Ribbon (including under previous rulesets)."
> count White Ribbons from rulesets that predate the adoption of rule
> 2438? If so, this is FALSE; if not, this is TRUE.
>
> --
> ais523


I request to not be assigned this CFJ

>
>

Re: BUS: Decorating

[Alex Smith]

On Thu, 2017-06-08 at 09:01 -0700, Edward Murphy wrote:
> I award myself a White Ribbon. (According to the latest Tailor's
> report, I haven't had one since Rule 2438 was adopted.)

I'm not convinced this works. According to old archives, you awarded
yourself a White Ribbon on 24 November 2009, as a consequence of
mentoring omd (one of the ways to get White Ribbons back then), and
rule 2438 says "including under previous rulesets". (At least, when
writing the rule, I intended it to be able to look at the old Ribbons
system. Maybe it doesn't, though?)

I call a CFJ on the statement "Murphy has a White Ribbon".

Arguments: Does "A player qualifies for a White Ribbon if e has never
previously owned a White Ribbon (including under previous rulesets)."
count White Ribbons from rulesets that predate the adoption of rule
2438? If so, this is FALSE; if not, this is TRUE.

-- 
ais523

BUS: Re: DIS: Is being required to violate a Rule against the Rules?

[CuddleBeam]

It's a very interesting point but I don't think there is any conflict

How I see it, is that the rules are bugged and if you're Officer A, you're
screwed, no matter what you do. Just faulty rules.

So I'd go with that if you don't do the thing in time, you get a card as
for breaking R1. If you do it, you get a card, for breaking R2.

I don't see how an holistic view somehow invalidates that the Officer
should be able to get a card for violating R2, because R1 "saves" them.
There is no rule that enables that as far as I know. You could argue that
the interpretation rules lets you solve the "contradiction"; but I don't
see the contradiction. I see it as (with sloppy propositional logic):

If you do p, you're screwed. (p-> you're screwed)
If you don't do p, you're screwed (not p-> you're screwed)
Ergo
anything-> you're screwed

So in either p or not p, you're screwed. It's frustrating but its not
contradictory at all.

For practical reasons, sure, I feel like Officer A shouldn't be screwed
over. But the rule are the rules. It can be later proposed to cancel all
criminal charges on them (because the rules were just junk and the guy
didn't deserve it), we have the power to do any fixes we want a posteriori.
Any problem is just temporary.