BUS: Proposal: Q*Bert the Second
I pend the following proposal with paper. Title: Q*Bert the Second AI: 2 Author: Trigon Co-authors: G., Corona Amend rule 1995 "Land Types" by doing the following: Replacing the first paragraph with: Each Unit of Land has a Land Type switch, tracked by the Cartographor. Possible values are: 1. Black 2. White 3. Gray 4. Aether (the default) Changes to Land Type switches are secured. To "change the type" of, or to "transform" a Unit of Land is to flip its Type switch. A “Unit of X” is a Unit of Land whose Land Type switch has the value X. and replacing the first word of the final paragraph with "Alternating Land Type". Re-enact rule 2046 (Power=1.0) "Q*Bert (tm)" [1] Rename rule 2046 to "Q*Bert" Amend rule 2046 by replacing its text, in its entirety, with: Q*Bert is an entity which has a location. Q*Bert CAN be on a unit of Aether. Q*Bert has a color switch, tracked by the Cartographor, whose possible values are all defined Land Type other than Aether or Gray. The default value is Black. When Q*Bert moves to a Land Unit, if the current type of the unit is not the same as Q*Bert's color switch, Q*Bert changes that space's type to the value of eir color switch. Every week, the Cartographor CAN and SHALL move Q*Bert using the following process: 1. If Q*Bert is on the same Land Unit as another entity, the Cartographor SHALL select a Land Unit adjacent to Q*Bert's current position and move em there. 2. Otherwise, the Cartographor SHALL select a Land Unit whose longitude and latitude both differ from Q*Bert's by exactly one. If, after Q*Bert has moved, e is on a Preserved Land Unit, the Cartographor SHALL repeat the process above, moving Q*Bert until e is no longer on a Preserved Land Unit. If the type of the Land Unit that Q*Bert is located on is switched by an entity that is not Q*Bert, Q*Bert's color switch is set to that type instead. Whenever Q*Bert is moved to (0, 0), the Cartographor CAN and SHALL choose a random Land Type that is an allowed value of Q*Bert's color switch and set Q*Bert's color switch to it. When referring to Q*Bert, entities CAN replace the "*" with any punctuation character or spell it with a lowercase letter "b" (i.e. Q-Bert, Q^bert) [1] Full History for Rulekeepor: Created by Proposal 4471 "Q-bert" (OscarMeyr), Mar 19, 2003 Repealed by Proposal 4486 "Of what worth honor?" (Michael; with Goethe, Murphy), Apr 23, 2003 -- Trigon
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Regkeepor] ACORN [CFJ 3631 Judgement]
(This is, oddly, a by announcement) I repeal the Regulation exempting the contract "Order of the Occult Hand" from sustenance payments. On Sat, Apr 21, 2018 at 7:53 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > CFJ Statement: V.J. Rada (The current Notary) has the power to repeal > Regulations promulgated by o. in hisofficial capacity as Notary. > > > For future reference, I believe this case is CFJ 3631. > > > I deliver the following judgement for this CFJ: > > > We tend to think that, if an officer begins a "named process" that occurs > over time (e.g. an Agoran Decision), that responsibility for finishing the > process transfers to the new officer is the officer changes. However, this > is not necessarily universal, and is in fact hard-coded in cases where it's > true. For example, for Agoran Decisions in R208: > >> Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector, defaulting to >> the initiator of the decision. If the vote collector is defined by >> reference to a position (or, in the default case, if the initiator >> was so defined), then the vote collector is the current holder of >> that position. > > Or for dependent actions in R1728: >> 2. The initiator was authorized to perform the action due to >>holding a rule-defined position now held by the performer. > > > It's reasonable to extend "hard-coding" to include situations where the > responsibility is defined continuously, for example for land auctions in > R2004: >> For this auction, the announcer is the Cartographor > > "is the Cartographer" is defined continuously (for any given moment), so > the announcer switches to be aligned with the office. > > In the current case, we have two separate phrases to consider. First, > R2526: >> The Notary CAN, by regulation, exempt a contract from the >> preceding paragraph. > > And Rule 2493: >> A regulation allows an officer (known as the Promulgator) to >> exercise rule defined powers. > > Taken together, we can infer that the Notary is "known as" the Promulgator > for this type of regulation. or simply that the Notary "is" the Promulgator > for this type of regulation. This is further bolstered by this text in > R2493: >>A regulation is in effect >> continuously from the time of its creation... > suggesting that the properties of this regulation, such as its promulgator, > are also evaluated continuously. > > This is sufficient hard-coding to say that the position of "promulgator" > for this type of regulation is transferred with the office, and fortunately > this matches both the intent of the rule text as well as what's best for > the game (to keep duties aligned with the office). I judge TRUE. > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Regkeepor] ACORN [CFJ 3631 Judgement]
CFJ Statement: V.J. Rada (The current Notary) has the power to repeal Regulations promulgated by o. in hisofficial capacity as Notary. For future reference, I believe this case is CFJ 3631. I deliver the following judgement for this CFJ: We tend to think that, if an officer begins a "named process" that occurs over time (e.g. an Agoran Decision), that responsibility for finishing the process transfers to the new officer is the officer changes. However, this is not necessarily universal, and is in fact hard-coded in cases where it's true. For example, for Agoran Decisions in R208: > Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector, defaulting to > the initiator of the decision. If the vote collector is defined by > reference to a position (or, in the default case, if the initiator > was so defined), then the vote collector is the current holder of > that position. Or for dependent actions in R1728: > 2. The initiator was authorized to perform the action due to >holding a rule-defined position now held by the performer. It's reasonable to extend "hard-coding" to include situations where the responsibility is defined continuously, for example for land auctions in R2004: > For this auction, the announcer is the Cartographor "is the Cartographer" is defined continuously (for any given moment), so the announcer switches to be aligned with the office. In the current case, we have two separate phrases to consider. First, R2526: > The Notary CAN, by regulation, exempt a contract from the > preceding paragraph. And Rule 2493: > A regulation allows an officer (known as the Promulgator) to > exercise rule defined powers. Taken together, we can infer that the Notary is "known as" the Promulgator for this type of regulation. or simply that the Notary "is" the Promulgator for this type of regulation. This is further bolstered by this text in R2493: >A regulation is in effect > continuously from the time of its creation... suggesting that the properties of this regulation, such as its promulgator, are also evaluated continuously. This is sufficient hard-coding to say that the position of "promulgator" for this type of regulation is transferred with the office, and fortunately this matches both the intent of the rule text as well as what's best for the game (to keep duties aligned with the office). I judge TRUE.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Regkeepor] ACORN
Having received no objections, I assign myself to judge the below CFJ
(w/o 3 objections).
On Tue, 10 Apr 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I favor this one.
>
> As we haven't heard from the Arbitor for a bit, I intend to assign it
> to myself without 3 objections.
>
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote:
>
> > I call a CFJ with the following statement: V.J. Rada (The current
> > Notary) has the power to repeal Regulations promulgated by o. in
> > hisofficial capacity as Notary.
> >
> > The rules state that regulations are promulgated by "an officer (known
> > as the Promulgator)". An officer is (to quote google dictionaries) "a
> > person holding a position of authority". O was that person holding the
> > position of Notary. I am an officer, holding the same office, but I am
> > not the same officer, and therefore am not the Promulgator of those
> > regulations.
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2018 at 12:46 PM, Aris Merchant
> > wrote:
> > > I disagree. The Promulgator of a regulation is an officer, not a person.
> > > In
> > > this case, the Promulgator is the Notary, not o. o only promulgated the
> > > regulation in eir persona as Notary, which has now passed to you. I
> > > therefore believe that you have the power to repeal the regulation.
> > >
> > > -Aris
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 7:44 PM Ned Strange
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Do other people believe my interpretation is correct?
> > >>
> > >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Ned Strange
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > The Regulations rule states that "Regulations may be repealed by their
> > >> > promulgator". o. was the promulgator of the regulation you refer to,
> > >> > so I
> > >> > believe I cannot repeal or amend that Regulation.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 5:59 PM, Aris Merchant
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 11:53 PM, Aris Merchant
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> > --
> > >> >> > Regulation 1.2
> > >> >> > Contract Sustenance Exemptions
> > >> >> > Parent rule(s): 2526 ("Sustenance Payments", Power 2.4)
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > The following contracts are exempt from paying sustenance payments,
> > >> >> > until the date specified:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > * Order of the Occult Hand, until January 31st, 2018.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > History:
> > >> >> > Promulgated upon recommendation by o, 16 November 2017
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > --
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Our honorable new Notary is reminded that e may want to repeal this,
> > >> >> and also to start publishing eir report soon.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> -Aris
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --
> > >> > From V.J. Rada
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> From V.J. Rada
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > From V.J. Rada
> >
>
>
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8033-8041
On Fri, 13 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > ID Author(s)AI Title Pender > --- > 8033* Kenyon, [1] 2.0 Gray Land and the FountainKenyon I vote PRESENT. > 8034* G. 2.0 Paydays Fix Kenyon I vote FOR. > 8035* G., [2] 1.0 Nothing to worry aboutG. I vote FOR. I act on behalf of omd to have omd vote FOR. I act on behalf of o to have o vote FOR. I act on behalf of omd to act on behalf of pokes to have pokes vote FOR. > 8036* Aris 2.0 Impeachment Aris I vote AGAINST. I think level of consent is too low for an open-ended process like this (would support 3). > 8037* ATMunn 1.0 Medals of Honour Correction Act ATMunn I vote PRESENT. > 8038* V.J. Rada1.0 V.J. Rada Equitable Remedy. Corona I vote FOR. > 8039* Aris, [4]2.1 V.J. Rada Equitable Remedy v2 Aris I vote FOR. > 8040* Aris, [5]3.0 Blot Expansion v3 Aris I vote FOR. > 8041* Aris, [6]2.0 Consolidated PatchAris I vote FOR. -G.
BUS: Proposal
I create the following proposal. Title: Clearer & Better Zombies AI: 2.0 Text: In rule 2532, Zombies, replace the text "A zombie's master, if another player, is allowed to act on behalf of the zombie (i.e. as the zombie's agent) to perform LEGAL actions." with "A zombie's master, if another player, CAN act on behalf of the zombie to perform actions" -- >From V.J. Rada
Re: BUS: Zombie CFJs and Finger pointing
I think you intended to assign a CFJ to yourself about 8 days ago, G. Should probably do so. I intend to assign this CFJ to myself without 3 objections. On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I find Shenanigans. Since the zombie act-on-behalf rule means > Corona CANNOT cause Quazie to perform illegal actions: > -If the bid was illegal, it failed and no crime was commited; > -If the bid was legal, no crime was committed. > > On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: >> I point my finger at Corona for violations of Rule 2532, "Zombies", >> and/or Rule 2466, "Acting on Behalf", committed by causing Quazie to >> violate Rule 2550, "Bidding". I CFJ, barring G., on the statement >> 'Rule 2532, "Zombies", enables zombie owners to act on behalf of their >> zombies.' I CFJ, barring Corona, on the statement 'Corona has >> violated of Rule 2532, "Zombies", and/or Rule 2466, "Acting on >> Behalf", by causing Quazie to violate Rule 2550 "Bidding".' >> >> [For reference, I don't really see how a violation could have been >> committed, but this is all rather unclear and I'd like to see what >> people think." >> >> Arguments: >> >> If Quazie bid in the auction, e committed a violation of Rule 2550, >> "Bidding", and in particular the provision that "A person SHALL NOT >> bid on an Auction if it would be impossible for em to pay that amount >> at the conclusion of the Auction." Quazie did not have any money at >> the time of the bid, and did not get any by the end of the auction. We >> clearly do not hold em culpable for this violation, given that we do >> not in general hold people responsible for violations they could not >> reasonably have avoided, but the violation remains nevertheless. >> >> If Corona successfully caused Quazie to bid, e violated Rule 2466, >> "Acting on Behalf", and specifically the provision that "A person >> SHALL NOT act on behalf of another person if doing so causes the >> second person to violate the rules." What remains in question is >> whether or not Corona's action succeeded. There are three >> possibilities: it succeeded, it failed in this specific case, or it >> never works at all. I believe that it is one of the later two. >> >> The crucial question is one of interpreting Rule 2532, "Zombies". >> which states that "A zombie's master, if another player, is allowed to >> act on behalf of the zombie (i.e. as the zombie's agent) to perform >> LEGAL actions." The phrase "allowed to" is ambiguous, it could mean >> CAN or MAY, although I find it somewhat unlikely that it means both of >> them at once. If it means CAN, then the action failed because the >> action was ILLEGAL, and the affixed conditional resolves to false. >> >> I believe that the phrase probably means MAY. Granted, the Rule 217 >> factors suggest that the phrase means CAN, but I don't think that they >> can overturn the presumption to the contrary in this case. I'm not >> saying that "allow' can never mean "enable', but reading "allowed to" >> to mean "able to" doesn't really sound right. For instance, seems >> reasonable for someone to say "I will allow you to open your mind", >> but (to my ears) it sounds ridiculous to say that "you are allowed to >> open your mind". I think the only reason there even appears to be >> ambiguity is because of preconceived notions of what the zombie rule >> means. Reading the text without judgement, the MAY reading is the >> obvious one. Under this reading, there is no provision anywhere that >> says that an owner CAN act on behalf of a zombie, so e can't. >> >> -Aris >> > -- >From V.J. Rada
