BUS: [Ribbon] who's a good Arbitor then?

[Kerim Aydin via agora-business]

I award myself a Green Ribbon (Arbitor).

BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3858 assigned to ATMunn

[nch via agora-business]

On 6/25/20 5:24 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:
> The below is CFJ 3858.  I assign it to grok.
>
> CFJ Statement:
> An action to be performed with 7 days notice depends on objections.

Gratuitous:

Reposting the relevant clause with my Gratuitous for readability:

   The above notwithstanding, if an action depends on objections, and
   an objection to an intent to perform it has been withdrawn within
   the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with that intent.

"X depends on Y" reads to me as "Y is important to the result of X". 
There's at least one possible objection, that of the speaker, that is 
important to the result of any dependent action intent. I think it's 
pretty clear that all dependent action intents depend on the objection 
of the speaker.

The only reasonable counterargument I see is that the relevant clause is 
simply not intended to apply here. You could argue that "on objections" 
refers to objections in general, as opposed to any particular objections 
(like the Speaker's). However, if we look at the original purpose of the 
clause, that seems unlikely.

In May 2009 two players performed a scam by objecting to an intent they 
wanted to pass - the objections tricked other players into assuming it 
would fail - and then withdrawing their objections last minute to 
resolve it [1][2]. A patch was quickly introduced that added the first 
version of this text, which impressively has lasted since then [3].

So the purpose of the clause is to make it where a person can't scam by 
doing a 'faux' objection. While "with notice" and the Speaker's veto 
didn't exist at the time, the sensible interpretation with these newer 
mechanics is that the Speaker also shouldn't be able to do faux objections.

Thus, an in-context reading suggests the clause should apply to anything 
anyone can object to. I submit that H. Judge Grok should find this CFJ TRUE.

[1] 
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2009-May/020136.html

[2] 
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2009-May/026459.html

[3] 
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2009-May/020138.html

-- 
nch
Prime Minister, Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager

BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3857 assigned to grok

[Jason Cobb via agora-business]

[resending to fix formatting]

On 6/25/20 5:58 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:
> The below if CFJ 3857.  I assign it to grok.


Gratuitous arguments for the judge:


omd
(https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043634.html):

> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:42 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business
>  > 
> wrote:
> > If there exists no CFJ with the statement "If the person who sent the
> > above message is  a player, e cast a vote on Proposal 8442 in that
> > message.", I initiate one.
>
> Arguments:
>
> I thought I remembered a precedent that anonymous actions didn't work,
> because for a statement of "I perform an action" to be unambiguous,
> you need to identify who "I" is.
>
> ...But apparently my memory is faulty.  This pair of cases is all I
> can find, and it suggests that anonymous actions do work, or at least
> did under the rules of the time:
>
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2179
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2180


Response to omd from G.
(https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-June/059219.html):

> On 6/23/2020 11:46 AM, omd via agora-business wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:42 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business
> >  > > 
> > wrote:
> >> If there exists no CFJ with the statement "If the person who sent the
> >> above message is  a player, e cast a vote on Proposal 8442 in that
> >> message.", I initiate one.
> > 
> > Arguments:
> > 
> > I thought I remembered a precedent that anonymous actions didn't work,
> > because for a statement of "I perform an action" to be unambiguous,
> > you need to identify who "I" is.
> > 
> > ...But apparently my memory is faulty.  This pair of cases is all I
> > can find, and it suggests that anonymous actions do work, or at least
> > did under the rules of the time:
> > 
> > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2179
> > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2180
>
> I vaguely remember arguing the same thing during the Annabel crisis and
> didn't make headway - the assumption then was it worked (albeit that was
> only retroactive uncertainty).
>
> Gratuitous based on current rules:
>
> In this R78 text:
>   unambiguously
>   and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
>   it.
>
> the "e" should not imply the ability to simply say "I" when the identity
> of the message-sender is ambiguous, but rather should include the notion
> that the pronoun must have a clear referent (that is usually implied by
> the email address if the message isn't signed), otherwise e's not saying
> that e's the one performing it.  This is a "for the good of the game"
> argument where the rules are silent (it would definitely be better if the
> self-identification requirement was clearer in the rule).


Response to G. from Aris
(https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-June/059223.html):

> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:28 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
>  > 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 6/23/2020 11:46 AM, omd via agora-business wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:42 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business
> > >  > > >
> > >  wrote:
> > >> If there exists no CFJ with the statement "If the person who sent the
> > >> above message is  a player, e cast a vote on Proposal 8442 in that
> > >> message.", I initiate one.
> > >
> > > Arguments:
> > >
> > > I thought I remembered a precedent that anonymous actions didn't work,
> > > because for a statement of "I perform an action" to be unambiguous,
> > > you need to identify who "I" is.
> > >
> > > ...But apparently my memory is faulty.  This pair of cases is all I
> > > can find, and it suggests that anonymous actions do work, or at least
> > > did under the rules of the time:
> > >
> > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2179
> > > https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2180
> >
> > I vaguely remember arguing the same thing during the Annabel crisis and
> > didn't make headway - the assumption then was it worked (albeit that was
> > only retroactive uncertainty).
> >
> > Gratuitous based on current rules:
> >
> > In this R78 text:
> >   unambiguously
> >   and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
> >   it.
> >
> > the "e" should not imply the ability to simply say "I" when the identity
> > of the message-sender is ambiguous, but rather should include the notion
> > that the pronoun must have a clear referent (that is usually implied by
> > the email address if the message isn't signed), otherwise e's not saying
> > that e's the one performing it.  This is a "for the good of the game"
> > 

BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3858 assigned to ATMunn

[Jason Cobb via agora-business]

[resending to fix formatting]

On 6/25/20 6:24 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:
> The below is CFJ 3858.  I assign it to grok.
>
> CFJ Statement:
> An action to be performed with 7 days notice depends on objections.


Gratuitous arguments for the judge (grok, again, I suppose):

>From R. Lee
(https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-June/059234.html):

> This is silly for the following reasons. Actions like "With T notice" are
> called, by the ruleset, DEPENDENT ACTIONS. What do these actions depend on?
> They depend on a specific set of conditions being met, in this case 7 days
> passing. What does it mean to depend on objections? To have, in the
> conditions for the DEPENDENT ACTION to work, the absence of objections as a
> condition.


Response to R. Lee from Jason
(https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-June/059235.html):

> On 6/23/20 10:15 PM, Ed Strange via agora-discussion wrote:
> > This is silly for the following reasons. Actions like "With T notice" are
> > called, by the ruleset, DEPENDENT ACTIONS. What do these actions depend on?
> > They depend on a specific set of conditions being met, in this case 7 days
> > passing. What does it mean to depend on objections? To have, in the
> > conditions for the DEPENDENT ACTION to work, the absence of objections as a
> > condition.
>
>
> Counterpoint: even with T notice depends on the absence of objections
> from a specific person - the Speaker, so it is still dependent on the
> state of objections to the intent in general.
>
> -- 
> Jason Cobb

-- 
Jason Cobb

BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3858 assigned to ATMunn

[Jason Cobb via agora-business]

On 6/25/20 6:24 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:
> The below is CFJ 3858.  I assign it to grok.
>
> CFJ Statement:
> An action to be performed with 7 days notice depends on objections.


Gratuitous arguments for the judge (grok, again, I suppose):

>From R. Lee
(https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-June/059234.html):

> This is silly for the following reasons. Actions like "With T notice" are
> called, by the ruleset, DEPENDENT ACTIONS. What do these actions depend on?
> They depend on a specific set of conditions being met, in this case 7 days
> passing. What does it mean to depend on objections? To have, in the
> conditions for the DEPENDENT ACTION to work, the absence of objections as a
> condition.


Response to R. Lee from Jason
(https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-June/059235.html):

> On 6/23/20 10:15 PM, Ed Strange via agora-discussion wrote:
> >/This is silly for the following reasons. Actions like "With T notice"
> are />/called, by the ruleset, DEPENDENT ACTIONS. What do these actions
> depend on? />/They depend on a specific set of conditions being met, in this 
> case 7
> days />/passing. What does it mean to depend on objections? To have, in the 
> />/conditions for the DEPENDENT ACTION to work, the absence of
> objections as a />/condition. /
>
> Counterpoint: even with T notice depends on the absence of objections
> from a specific person - the Speaker, so it is still dependent on the
> state of objections to the intent in general.
>
> -- 
> Jason Cobb

-- 
Jason Cobb

BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3857 assigned to grok

[Jason Cobb via agora-business]

On 6/25/20 5:58 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official wrote:
> The below if CFJ 3857.  I assign it to grok.


Gratuitous arguments for the judge:


omd
(https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043634.html):

> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:42 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business
>  > 
> wrote:
> >/If there exists no CFJ with the statement "If the person who sent the 
> >/>/above message is a player, e cast a vote on Proposal 8442 in that 
> >/>/message.", I initiate one. /
> Arguments:
>
> I thought I remembered a precedent that anonymous actions didn't work,
> because for a statement of "I perform an action" to be unambiguous,
> you need to identify who "I" is.
>
> ...But apparently my memory is faulty.  This pair of cases is all I
> can find, and it suggests that anonymous actions do work, or at least
> did under the rules of the time:
>
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2179
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2180


Response to omd from G.
(https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-June/059219.html):

> On 6/23/2020 11:46 AM, omd via agora-business wrote:
> >/On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:42 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business 
> >/>/ >
> wrote: />>/If there exists no CFJ with the statement "If the person who sent 
> the />>/above message is a player, e cast a vote on Proposal 8442 in that 
> />>/message.", I initiate one. />//>/Arguments: />//>/I thought I remembered 
> a precedent that anonymous actions didn't work, />/because for a statement of 
> "I perform an action" to be unambiguous, />/you need to identify who "I" is. 
> />//>/...But apparently my memory is faulty. This pair of cases is all I 
> />/can find, and it suggests that anonymous actions do work, or at least 
> />/did under the rules of the time: 
> />//>/https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2179 
> />/https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2180 /
> I vaguely remember arguing the same thing during the Annabel crisis and
> didn't make headway - the assumption then was it worked (albeit that was
> only retroactive uncertainty).
>
> Gratuitous based on current rules:
>
> In this R78 text:
>   unambiguously
>   and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs
>   it.
>
> the "e" should not imply the ability to simply say "I" when the identity
> of the message-sender is ambiguous, but rather should include the notion
> that the pronoun must have a clear referent (that is usually implied by
> the email address if the message isn't signed), otherwise e's not saying
> that e's the one performing it.  This is a "for the good of the game"
> argument where the rules are silent (it would definitely be better if the
> self-identification requirement was clearer in the rule).


Response to G. from Aris
(https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2020-June/059223.html):

> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 1:28 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion
>  > 
> wrote:
> >//>//>/On 6/23/2020 11:46 AM, omd via agora-business wrote: />/> On Tue, Jun 
> >23, 2020 at 9:42 AM Jason Cobb via agora-business />/>  >agoranomic.org
> >
> wrote: />/>> If there exists no CFJ with the statement "If the person who 
> sent the />/>> above message is a player, e cast a vote on Proposal 8442 in 
> that />/>> message.", I initiate one. />/> />/> Arguments: />/> />/> I 
> thought I remembered a precedent that anonymous actions didn't work, />/> 
> because for a statement of "I perform an action" to be unambiguous, />/> you 
> need to identify who "I" is. />/> />/> ...But apparently my memory is faulty. 
> This pair of cases is all I />/> can find, and it suggests that anonymous 
> actions do work, or at least />/> did under the rules of the time: />/> />/> 
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2179 />/> 
> https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2180 />//>/I vaguely 
> remember arguing the same thing during the Annabel crisis and />/didn't make 
> headway - the assumption then was it worked (albeit that was />/only 
> retroactive uncertainty). />//>/Gratuitous based on current rules: />//>/In 
> this R78 text: />/unambiguously />/and clearly specifying the action and 
> announcing that e performs />/it. />//>/the "e" should not imply the ability 
> to simply say "I" when the identity />/of the message-sender is ambiguous, 
> but rather should include the notion />/that the pronoun must have a clear 
> referent (that is usually implied by />/the email address if the message 
> isn't signed), otherwise e's not saying />/that e's the one performing it. 
> This is a "for the good of the game" />/argument 

BUS: [Dragon] Rejoining

[Aris Merchant via agora-business]

I don't think I ever consented to the latest amendment, so I believe I
am no longer a party. I become a party to the Dragon Corporation.

-Aris

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Statement from the Opposition

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-business]

On 6/25/20 4:33 PM, omd via agora-discussion wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 at 12:12 PM Jason Cobb via agora-business
>  wrote:
>> Free Tournaments require only 2 Agoran consent to initiate, while
>> Emergency Regulations require 3, so the easiest option is a Free
>> Tournament that automatically grants a certain person the win.
> 
> 3 Agoran Consent is hard but perhaps not impossible.  Currently, my
> Emergency Regulation intent has objections from the 2 scam team
> members, and support from 3 people including me.  If nobody else
> objects, we could pass it with 7 support, so 4 more...
> 

I support it.

-- 

Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth

BUS: Statement from the Opposition

[Jason Cobb via agora-business]

It is no secret that we wish to prevent the exile scam from working,
granting three players wins and resetting our economy. All that must be
done in order to do that is to prevent the exile intent from being
resolvable for any amount of time, so that the fix proposal's decision
can be resolved (please vote for it and consider using EVs, it appears
to be failing right now).

There are two potential ways to delay the intent resolution: having the
Speaker object and use of the final paragraph of Rule 2124.

First, the Speaker objection. The Speaker can veto the resolution for 48
hours by objecting to the intent. This could either by done by
convincing the current Speaker (G.) to object or by replacing em with
someone against the scam. We have no specific desire to replace the
Speaker - if e agrees to help stop the scam, we will not replace em.
However, since that, at the moment, appears unlikely, we are forced to
consider replacing em.

To replace G., someone must win the game, and the Prime Minister must
appoint em to Speaker. The latter is the reason for the Motion of No
Confidence - if the office is vacant, a person against the scam can
deputise to appoint the like-minded Speaker (which also grants em voting
strength on the fix proposal). Again, we have no specific desire to make
Prime Minister vacant, and we will not do so if it proves unnecessary
(i.e. if there is a Speaker opposed to the scam).

There are currently the following methods for winning the game:
- free tournament
- birthday tournament
- PM -> emergency regs
- VP win
- Apathy
- PARADOXICAL CFJ
- Ribbons

Some of these are definitely impossible within the necessary timeframe:
PARADOXICAL CFJ (needs to stand for one week) and Ribbons (nobody both
has a black ribbon and is close to having all the ribbons). Some of them
we will not be pursuing: VP Win, Apathy, and the Birthday Tournament.
This leaves a Free Tournament and emergency regulations.

Free Tournaments require only 2 Agoran consent to initiate, while
Emergency Regulations require 3, so the easiest option is a Free
Tournament that automatically grants a certain person the win. However,
this intent is also vetoable by the Speaker, which would be incentivized
to do so in order to keep eir post. This means that bribing the current
Speaker with a free win might be the best option. This would also remove
the need to control Prime Minister.

Finally, there is another potential way of blocking the intent -
objecting and withdrawing objections from the Blots intent. This would
only work if a recently called CFJ is judged TRUE (i.e. it is found that
with notice actions "depend on objections"). If so, then every player
can veto the exile intent for one day each, which is certainly enough
time to resolve the proposal.

-- 
Jason Cobb

BUS: [Proposal] Talismans Auction Patch

[Jason Cobb via agora-business]

I submit the following proposal:

Title: Talismans auction patch

Author: Jason

Coauthors: Trigon

Adoption index: 2.0

{

Amend Rule 1885 by deleting the sentence beginning "The method to be
used for this auction".

[This fixes a specification bug in the talismans proposal, since
auctions are now supposed to have their method determined by the
auctioneer, rather than a rule. If talismans has not been adopted, then
this will have no effect.]

}

-- 
Jason Cobb