Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Victory Auction] First Victory Auction of June 2021
I bid 661 On Fri, Jun 18, 2021, 2:43 PM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion < agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/18/21 12:40 AM, Rebecca Lee via agora-discussion wrote: > > I bid 661 > > > NttPF > > -- > Jason Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > >
Re: BUS: [Attn: ATMunn, Jason] [Obstructive Pooling] Amendments
On 6/18/21 12:38 AM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
> Title: VP Drain Fix v1.1
> Co-author: Jason
>
> {
>
> At the end of the following paragraph:
>
> Decipoints are a currency. A Victory Point is worth ten Decipoints
> and a Victory Card is worth 25 Decipoints.
>
> add the sentence:
>
> A Victory Product is a Victory Card or a Victory Point.
>
> Replace:
>
> The Trustee CAN transfer Victory Cards and Victory Points from this
> contract to emself by announcement.
>
> with
>
> The Trustee CAN transfer Victory Products from this contract to
> emself by announcement. Any party to this contract CAN act on
> behalf of the Trustee to transfer Victory Products Points from this
> contract to the Trustee.
>
> Replace the following text:
>
> Any player (the withdrawer) CAN act on behalf of the Trustee to
> transfer Victory Cards and/or Victory Points to the withdrawer with
> value up to the withdrawer's Decipoints balance; when the withdrawer
> does this, that value in Decipoints in eir possession is destroyed.
>
> with:
>
> To Withdraw is to act on behalf of the Trustee to transfer Victory
> Products to oneself. When a player Withdraws, the corresponding
> value in Decipoints is destroyed from the Withdrawer's possession.
>
> Any player CAN Withdraw Victory Products as long as all of the
> following are true:
>
> 1. The contract owns no Victory Products.
>
> 2. The Victory Products being withdrawn do not exceed the
>withdrawer's balance before the withdrawal.
>
> 3. No Victory Points are being withdrawn, or the Trustee owns no
>Victory Cards, or the Withdrawal includes all of the Trustee's
>Victory Cards. (In other words: preference must be given to
>withdrawing Cards.)
>
> }
I consent.
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: BUS: [Attn: ATMunn, Jason] [Obstructive Pooling] Amendments
On 6/18/21 12:28 AM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
> Title: Pooling the responsibility
>
> {
>
> At the end of the following paragraph:
>
> The Trustee SHOULD exchange four Victory Cards for ten Victory
> Points whenever possible.
>
> append the sentence:
>
> Any party to this contract CAN act on behalf of the Trustee to do
> so.
>
> }
>
I consent.
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8574-8592
On 2021-06-18 14:22, ais523 via agora-business wrote: On Fri, 2021-06-18 at 00:20 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: On 6/17/21 3:38 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: 8586* Murphy 3.0 Clarify deputisation FOR I change this vote to AGAINST, per Falsifian. I also change my vote on this proposal to AGAINST. I also change my vote on this proposal to AGAINST.
Re: BUS: [Attn: ATMunn, Jason] [Obstructive Pooling] Amendments
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 12:30:09AM -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> On 6/18/21 12:28 AM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote:
> > with
> >
> > The Trustee CAN transfer Victory Products from this contract emself
> > by announcement. Any party to this contract CAN act on behalf of
> > the Trustee to transfer Victory Products Points from this contract
> > to the Trustee.
>
>
> Missing "to".
>
> --
> Jason Cobb
Thanks.
I withdraw my consent for the amendment "VP Drain Fix".
I propose the following amendment, delimited by {...}, to the
Obstructive Pooling contract. I consent to it.
Title: VP Drain Fix v1.1
Co-author: Jason
{
At the end of the following paragraph:
Decipoints are a currency. A Victory Point is worth ten Decipoints
and a Victory Card is worth 25 Decipoints.
add the sentence:
A Victory Product is a Victory Card or a Victory Point.
Replace:
The Trustee CAN transfer Victory Cards and Victory Points from this
contract to emself by announcement.
with
The Trustee CAN transfer Victory Products from this contract to
emself by announcement. Any party to this contract CAN act on
behalf of the Trustee to transfer Victory Products Points from this
contract to the Trustee.
Replace the following text:
Any player (the withdrawer) CAN act on behalf of the Trustee to
transfer Victory Cards and/or Victory Points to the withdrawer with
value up to the withdrawer's Decipoints balance; when the withdrawer
does this, that value in Decipoints in eir possession is destroyed.
with:
To Withdraw is to act on behalf of the Trustee to transfer Victory
Products to oneself. When a player Withdraws, the corresponding
value in Decipoints is destroyed from the Withdrawer's possession.
Any player CAN Withdraw Victory Products as long as all of the
following are true:
1. The contract owns no Victory Products.
2. The Victory Products being withdrawn do not exceed the
withdrawer's balance before the withdrawal.
3. No Victory Points are being withdrawn, or the Trustee owns no
Victory Cards, or the Withdrawal includes all of the Trustee's
Victory Cards. (In other words: preference must be given to
withdrawing Cards.)
}
--
Falsifian
Re: BUS: [Attn: ATMunn, Jason] [Obstructive Pooling] Amendments
On 6/18/21 12:28 AM, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: > with > > The Trustee CAN transfer Victory Products from this contract emself > by announcement. Any party to this contract CAN act on behalf of > the Trustee to transfer Victory Products Points from this contract > to the Trustee. Missing "to". -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [Attn: ATMunn, Jason] [Obstructive Pooling] Amendments
I propose the following two amendments, each delimited by {...}, to the
Obstructive Pooling Contract.
I consent to both.
Title: VP Drain Fix
{
At the end of the following paragraph:
Decipoints are a currency. A Victory Point is worth ten Decipoints
and a Victory Card is worth 25 Decipoints.
add the sentence:
A Victory Product is a Victory Card or a Victory Point.
Replace:
The Trustee CAN transfer Victory Cards and Victory Points from this
contract to emself by announcement.
with
The Trustee CAN transfer Victory Products from this contract emself
by announcement. Any party to this contract CAN act on behalf of
the Trustee to transfer Victory Products Points from this contract
to the Trustee.
Replace the following text:
Any player (the withdrawer) CAN act on behalf of the Trustee to
transfer Victory Cards and/or Victory Points to the withdrawer with
value up to the withdrawer's Decipoints balance; when the withdrawer
does this, that value in Decipoints in eir possession is destroyed.
with:
To Withdraw is to act on behalf of the Trustee to transfer Victory
Products to oneself. When a player Withdraws, the corresponding
value in Decipoints is destroyed from the Withdrawer's possession.
Any player CAN Withdraw Victory Products as long as all of the
following are true:
1. The contract owns no Victory Products.
2. The Victory Products being withdrawn do not exceed the
withdrawer's balance before the withdrawal.
3. No Victory Points are being withdrawn, or the Trustee owns no
Victory Cards, or the Withdrawal includes all of the Trustee's
Victory Cards. (In other words: preference must be given to
withdrawing Cards.)
}
Title: Pooling the responsibility
{
At the end of the following paragraph:
The Trustee SHOULD exchange four Victory Cards for ten Victory
Points whenever possible.
append the sentence:
Any party to this contract CAN act on behalf of the Trustee to do
so.
}
--
Falsifian
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8574-8592
On Fri, 2021-06-18 at 00:20 -0400, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > On 6/17/21 3:38 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > > 8586* Murphy 3.0 Clarify deputisation > > FOR > > > I change this vote to AGAINST, per Falsifian. I also change my vote on this proposal to AGAINST. -- ais523
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8574-8592
On 6/17/21 3:38 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote: >> 8586* Murphy 3.0 Clarify deputisation > FOR > > I change this vote to AGAINST, per Falsifian. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8574-8592
I vote as follows. > ID Author(s) AITitle > --- > 8574& Trigon, Jason, Aris 1.0 mending the quill endorse Trigon > 8575& Jason, Gaelan 2.0 Stone Win Delay v2 endorse Jason > 8576* Jason, Aris, Murphy 3.0 "By announcement" loosening endorse Jason > 8577* Jason 3.0 Festival intent eligibility endorse Jason > 8578& Jason, Trigon 2.0 Auction limitation endorse Jason > 8579* Jason, Trigon 3.0 AI voting method clarification v2 endorse Jason > 8580* Jason, ais523, Trigon 3.0 Strength Buying Separation v2 endorse Jason > 8581& Aris1.0 Grants on Resets endorse Aris > 8582& Aris2.0 The Artistry Lies in the Art endorse Aris > 8583* Murphy 3.0 Clarify switches endorse Murphy > 8584* Murphy 3.0 Effective deference endorse Murphy > 8585* Murphy 3.0 Clarify variable voting period endorse Murphy > 8586* Murphy 3.0 Clarify deputisation AGAINST. [Missing the "and" linking the conditions. Without that, I think it's most natural to interpret this as a list where *any* of the listed conditions are sufficient, which is not what we want.] > 8587& Murphy, G. 2.0 Clarify nomination period endorse Murphy > 8588& Murphy, G. 2.0 Clarify stone retrieval endorse Murphy > 8589& ATMunn 1.0 Secret proposal A AGAINST > 8590& ATMunn 1.0 Secret proposal B AGAINST > 8591& ATMunn 1.0 Secret proposal C AGAINST > 8592& ATMunn 1.0 Secret proposal D AGAINST -- Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [@Promotor] The Notary's Report is too long
On 6/18/21 12:08 AM, Telna via agora-business wrote: > Right, I'm glad for that! Was a bit further back than I was looking. > I retract the quoted proposal and revoke the quoted promise. Promise revocation from the Library can only be done without objection. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [@Promotor] The Notary's Report is too long
On 2021-06-18 13:42, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: On Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 11:03 PM Telna via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: I create the following proposal: // Title: Contract Chaff Cleanup Adoption index: 2.5 Author: Telna Co-author(s): Amend Rule 1742 "Contracts" by appending the following as a new paragraph: The Notary CAN destroy a contract Without 2 Objections, but SHOULD NOT do so unless the contract no longer serves any significant purpose. // I grant the following promise, titled "Pendant Payment" to the Library: Cashing conditions: The bearer has pended the proposal "Contract Chaff Cleanup" authored by Telna, and Telna has at least 2 boatloads of coins. I transfer 2 boatloads of coins to the bearer. (This is currently valued at 28 coins) Proposal 8559 adds the same mechanism, but whether the proposal worked was under CFJ, so it hasn't appeared in a published ruleset. That will be remedied (hopefully) within a day. Right, I'm glad for that! Was a bit further back than I was looking. I retract the quoted proposal and revoke the quoted promise.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8574-8592
On Tue, 2021-06-15 at 00:11 -0700, Aris Merchant via agora-official wrote: > ID Author(s) AITitle > --- I vote as follows: > 8574& Trigon, Jason, Aris 1.0 mending the quill FOR (the wording here is awkward but it's still an improvement) > 8575& Jason, Gaelan 2.0 Stone Win Delay v2 FOR > 8576* Jason, Aris, Murphy 3.0 "By announcement" loosening FOR > 8577* Jason 3.0 Festival intent eligibility FOR > 8578& Jason, Trigon 2.0 Auction limitation ENDORSE G. > 8579* Jason, Trigon 3.0 AI voting method clarification v2 FOR > 8580* Jason, ais523, Trigon 3.0 Strength Buying Separation v2 FOR > 8581& Aris1.0 Grants on Resets AGAINST > 8582& Aris2.0 The Artistry Lies in the Art PRESENT > 8583* Murphy 3.0 Clarify switches FOR > 8584* Murphy 3.0 Effective deference AGAINST; it's easy enough to avoid introducing a contradiction, as shown in your first example, and allowing low-power rules to ever overrule high-power rules (even with their permission) makes me suspicious that something might break or be scammable, even though I can't immediately think of any examples > 8585* Murphy 3.0 Clarify variable voting period FOR > 8586* Murphy 3.0 Clarify deputisation FOR > 8587& Murphy, G. 2.0 Clarify nomination period PRESENT; this gives the ADoP two different "CAN"s to perform the same action, which I think works (there's no contradiction), but it's ugly and goes against how many people think about how actions work > 8588& Murphy, G. 2.0 Clarify stone retrieval AGAINST; as many other people pointed out, this prevents the L&FD owning coins, and doesn't explain why > 8589& ATMunn 1.0 Secret proposal A AGAINST > 8590& ATMunn 1.0 Secret proposal B AGAINST > 8591& ATMunn 1.0 Secret proposal C AGAINST > 8592& ATMunn 1.0 Secret proposal D AGAINST -- ais523
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Treasuror] [Victory Auction] First Victory Auction of June 2021
On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 11:16:14AM +1000, N. S. via agora-business wrote: > I bid 502 (sorry for top text) I bid 600. -- Falsifian
Re: BUS: [@Treasuror] Re: OFF: [Ministor] Ministor's Report REVISION 2
> On Jun 15, 2021, at 3:45 PM, Trigon via agora-business > wrote: > >> * Legislation - grant yourself a Legislative card I grant myself a legislative card. Gaelan
Re: BUS: [Attn: ATMunn and Treasuror] [Obstructive Pooling] deposit
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 03:37:01AM +, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: > On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 07:05:27PM +, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: > > I transfer one Victory Card to ATMunn for the sole purpose of > > depositing under the Obstructive Pooling contract. > > > > (The contract is broken, but doesn't actually give the Trustee an > > advantage as far as I know, and it's still good for pooling cards.) > > > > (ATMunn, if you don't want to be Trustee, feel free to give the trust > > back to me. For an example of how to do that, see my most recent DoV > > message; if you're trustee, then that worked.) > > > > -- > > Falsifian > > I again transfer one Victory Card to ATMunn for the sole purpose of > depositing under the Obstructive Pooling contract. > > -- > Falsifian I transfer one Victory Point to ATMunn for that same sole purpose. -- Falsifian
Re: BUS: [@Treasuror] Re: OFF: [Ministor] Ministor's Report REVISION 2
On Tue, Jun 15, 2021 at 07:17:07PM -0400, ATMunn via agora-business wrote: > On 6/15/2021 6:45 PM, Trigon via agora-business wrote: > > On 15/06/2021 21:00, nix via agora-official wrote: > > > +-+ > > > |Ministor's Report| > > > +-+ > > > > > > Date of this report: 2021-06-15 20:55 UTC > > > > > > Notices > > > === > > > > > > Legacy players now grant themselves a victory point. The Card is the > > > only thing raffled. > > > > > > Player Ministry Focuses > > > === > > > > > > Focus grants a monthly bonus: > > > > > > * Unfocused - nothing, just the default > > > * Compliance - grant yourself a Justice card > > > * Legislation - grant yourself a Legislative card > > > * Participation - grant yourself a Voting card > > > * Legacy - grant yourself a Victory Point and be entered in a monthly > > > raffle for a Victory Card (resolved in a separate email) > > > > > > You can Plan To Flip your own focus by announcement - it will be flipped > > > at the start of the next month. > > > > > > Current Focuses > > > > > > Compliance (1): Cuddlebeam > > > > > > Legacy (5): ATMunn, Falsifian, G., Trigon, nix > > > > > > Legislation (4): Aenet, Gaelan, Jason, seventeenMachine > > > > > > Participation (2): Aris, Murphy > > > > > > Unfocused (4): R. Lee, ais523, cuddlybanana, omd > > > \ > > > > > > -- > > > nix > > > Webmastor, Ministor, Herald > > > > > > > I grant myself a victory point pursuant to my focus > > > > I do the same. > > -- > ATMunn > friendly neighborhood notary :) Me too! -- Falsifian
Re: BUS: [Attn: ATMunn and Treasuror] [Obstructive Pooling] deposit
On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 07:05:27PM +, Falsifian via agora-business wrote: > I transfer one Victory Card to ATMunn for the sole purpose of > depositing under the Obstructive Pooling contract. > > (The contract is broken, but doesn't actually give the Trustee an > advantage as far as I know, and it's still good for pooling cards.) > > (ATMunn, if you don't want to be Trustee, feel free to give the trust > back to me. For an example of how to do that, see my most recent DoV > message; if you're trustee, then that worked.) > > -- > Falsifian I again transfer one Victory Card to ATMunn for the sole purpose of depositing under the Obstructive Pooling contract. -- Falsifian
BUS: [@Promotor] The Notary's Report is too long
I create the following proposal: // Title: Contract Chaff Cleanup Adoption index: 2.5 Author: Telna Co-author(s): Amend Rule 1742 "Contracts" by appending the following as a new paragraph: The Notary CAN destroy a contract Without 2 Objections, but SHOULD NOT do so unless the contract no longer serves any significant purpose. // I grant the following promise, titled "Pendant Payment" to the Library: Cashing conditions: The bearer has pended the proposal "Contract Chaff Cleanup" authored by Telna, and Telna has at least 2 boatloads of coins. I transfer 2 boatloads of coins to the bearer. (This is currently valued at 28 coins)
Re: (mooty moot intent) Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3916 Assigned to ais523
On 2021-06-18 08:26, Aris Merchant via agora-business wrote: On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 2:07 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: On 6/17/2021 5:37 AM, Telna via agora-business wrote: On 2021-06-14 22:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: Do you really have any doubt that a finger pointed at me for failing to respond to the petition wouldn't have succeeded? We'll never know of course. But if I'd defended myself by saying "hey, that wasn't directed at me as PM, it was directed at me as a person" that wouldn't have held any water - the answer would be "you were the PM, you are you, there's no ambiguity, what's the problem?" If I had been the PM, I would have been forced to respond. But since I wasn't the PM, it's somehow retroactively ambiguous? Punished if I am, punished if I'm not. -G. I support the motion to reconsider. I intend to enter the judgement of CFJ 3916 into moot, with 2 support. Reasons: H. Judge ais523 has followed up to my intent to reconsider with some discussion arguments, but I think eir semantic dissections are missing the forest for the trees somewhat. I think this one of the rare cases where a moot/democracy may be a better determinate of resolving the controversy. It is a matter of post-hoc justification for Agora to consider - if I had been PM at the time of the petition and didn't respond, would Agora have considered it a formal petition, and therefore a penalty? When I thought I was PM back in February, and had counterscammers arrayed against me, I had no doubt they would use every tool in their arsenal, including this one. But maybe I'm wrong! Hence, perhaps, a polling moot. -G. I support. This should not be taken as agreement, just a sign that I want this to go to a vote. -Aris I support as well.
Re: (mooty moot intent) Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3916 Assigned to ais523
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 2:07 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/17/2021 5:37 AM, Telna via agora-business wrote: > > On 2021-06-14 22:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > >> Do you really have any doubt that a finger pointed at me for failing to > >> respond to the petition wouldn't have succeeded? We'll never know of > >> course. But if I'd defended myself by saying "hey, that wasn't directed > >> at me as PM, it was directed at me as a person" that wouldn't have held > >> any water - the answer would be "you were the PM, you are you, there's > no > >> ambiguity, what's the problem?" > >> > >> If I had been the PM, I would have been forced to respond. But since I > >> wasn't the PM, it's somehow retroactively ambiguous? Punished if I am, > >> punished if I'm not. > >> > >> -G. > >> > > I support the motion to reconsider. > > I intend to enter the judgement of CFJ 3916 into moot, with 2 support. > > Reasons: > > H. Judge ais523 has followed up to my intent to reconsider with some > discussion arguments, but I think eir semantic dissections are missing the > forest for the trees somewhat. I think this one of the rare cases where a > moot/democracy may be a better determinate of resolving the controversy. > > It is a matter of post-hoc justification for Agora to consider - if I had > been PM at the time of the petition and didn't respond, would Agora have > considered it a formal petition, and therefore a penalty? > > When I thought I was PM back in February, and had counterscammers arrayed > against me, I had no doubt they would use every tool in their arsenal, > including this one. But maybe I'm wrong! Hence, perhaps, a polling moot. > > -G. I support. This should not be taken as agreement, just a sign that I want this to go to a vote. -Aris >
(mooty moot intent) Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3916 Assigned to ais523
On 6/17/2021 5:37 AM, Telna via agora-business wrote: > On 2021-06-14 22:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: >> Do you really have any doubt that a finger pointed at me for failing to >> respond to the petition wouldn't have succeeded? We'll never know of >> course. But if I'd defended myself by saying "hey, that wasn't directed >> at me as PM, it was directed at me as a person" that wouldn't have held >> any water - the answer would be "you were the PM, you are you, there's no >> ambiguity, what's the problem?" >> >> If I had been the PM, I would have been forced to respond. But since I >> wasn't the PM, it's somehow retroactively ambiguous? Punished if I am, >> punished if I'm not. >> >> -G. >> > I support the motion to reconsider. I intend to enter the judgement of CFJ 3916 into moot, with 2 support. Reasons: H. Judge ais523 has followed up to my intent to reconsider with some discussion arguments, but I think eir semantic dissections are missing the forest for the trees somewhat. I think this one of the rare cases where a moot/democracy may be a better determinate of resolving the controversy. It is a matter of post-hoc justification for Agora to consider - if I had been PM at the time of the petition and didn't respond, would Agora have considered it a formal petition, and therefore a penalty? When I thought I was PM back in February, and had counterscammers arrayed against me, I had no doubt they would use every tool in their arsenal, including this one. But maybe I'm wrong! Hence, perhaps, a polling moot. -G.
Re: OFF: Re: BUS: (@ADoP) election
I too become a candidate On Fri, Jun 18, 2021, 6:45 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/13/2021 3:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:> So with the needed support of 2, > I initiate an election for Prime Minister.> > (drum roll for the *third* > attempt...)> > I become a candidate in the election. > Also for convergence: I become a candidate in the ongoing PM election. > > (If I was speaker during the above-quoted message, I became a candidate > thus initiating the election, but then immediately after ceased being a > candidate). > > -G. > > > > > >
Re: OFF: Re: BUS: (@ADoP) election
On 6/17/21 4:44 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > On 6/13/2021 3:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:> So with the needed support of 2, > I initiate an election for Prime Minister.> > (drum roll for the *third* > attempt...)> > I become a candidate in the election. > Also for convergence: I become a candidate in the ongoing PM election. > > (If I was speaker during the above-quoted message, I became a candidate > thus initiating the election, but then immediately after ceased being a > candidate). > > -G. > > I cease being a candidate in the ongoing PM election. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: OFF: Re: BUS: (@ADoP) election
On 6/13/2021 3:50 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:> So with the needed support of 2, I initiate an election for Prime Minister.> > (drum roll for the *third* attempt...)> > I become a candidate in the election. Also for convergence: I become a candidate in the ongoing PM election. (If I was speaker during the above-quoted message, I became a candidate thus initiating the election, but then immediately after ceased being a candidate). -G.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8561-8572
> If I am still PM and someone has not unrightfully ousted me, I appoint > Aris to Speaker. Apologies to other winners. There was a little bit > going on and I forgot about my duties. > (just in case, since it's still in appeal/moot timeframe). If I am PM, I appoint Aris to Speaker. -G.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8574-8592
I vote as follows: > 8574& Trigon, Jason, Aris 1.0 mending the quill FOR > 8575& Jason, Gaelan 2.0 Stone Win Delay v2 FOR > 8576* Jason, Aris, Murphy 3.0 "By announcement" loosening ENDORSE G. since while I'm relatively sure this doesn't break anything, if e thinks it's a bad idea it probably is. > 8577* Jason 3.0 Festival intent eligibility FOR > 8578& Jason, Trigon 2.0 Auction limitation FOR > 8579* Jason, Trigon 3.0 AI voting method clarification v2 FOR > 8580* Jason, ais523, Trigon 3.0 Strength Buying Separation v2 FOR > 8581& Aris1.0 Grants on Resets PRESENT > 8582& Aris2.0 The Artistry Lies in the Art ENDORSE nix > 8583* Murphy 3.0 Clarify switches FOR > 8584* Murphy 3.0 Effective deference FOR > 8585* Murphy 3.0 Clarify variable voting period FOR > 8586* Murphy 3.0 Clarify deputisation FOR > 8587& Murphy, G. 2.0 Clarify nomination period AGAINST because this reverts the election cycle changes > 8588& Murphy, G. 2.0 Clarify stone retrieval FOR > 8589& ATMunn 1.0 Secret proposal A AGAINST > 8590& ATMunn 1.0 Secret proposal B AGAINST > 8591& ATMunn 1.0 Secret proposal C AGAINST > 8592& ATMunn 1.0 Secret proposal D AGAINST -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: BUS: Joebeam deal
I join that contract On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 7:04 PM BigBobBingo ! via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I plan to set my Focus to Legacy. > > I create the following contract called "Joebeam Deal": > > Cuddlebeam and Joe are the only people that can become parties to this > contract. > > One or zero parties to this contract are the Puppeteer. If there is a > Puppeteer, the other party is the Puppet. Cuddlebeam, if they are a party, > are the Puppeteer. > > The Puppeteer can act on behalf of the Puppet to: > - Plan to Flip their Ministry Focus. > - Grant their Ministry Focus' Grant to the Puppeteer. > - Transfer 1 Victory Card from the Puppet to themselves, if the Puppet has > gained a Victory Card by being granted it by the Ministor by virtue of > R2624 and the Puppeteer has not done so since the last time that such an > event has happened. > > The Puppet SHALL NOT plan to flip eir Ministry Focus or grant eir Ministry > Focus's Grant, except as provided for in this contract. The Puppet SHALL > NOT transfer or spend their last Victory Card, if they have been granted > one by the Ministor by virtue of R2624 and the Puppeteer hasn’t used this > contract to transfer it to themselves yet. >
BUS: Joebeam deal
I plan to set my Focus to Legacy. I create the following contract called "Joebeam Deal": Cuddlebeam and Joe are the only people that can become parties to this contract. One or zero parties to this contract are the Puppeteer. If there is a Puppeteer, the other party is the Puppet. Cuddlebeam, if they are a party, are the Puppeteer. The Puppeteer can act on behalf of the Puppet to: - Plan to Flip their Ministry Focus. - Grant their Ministry Focus' Grant to the Puppeteer. - Transfer 1 Victory Card from the Puppet to themselves, if the Puppet has gained a Victory Card by being granted it by the Ministor by virtue of R2624 and the Puppeteer has not done so since the last time that such an event has happened. The Puppet SHALL NOT plan to flip eir Ministry Focus or grant eir Ministry Focus's Grant, except as provided for in this contract. The Puppet SHALL NOT transfer or spend their last Victory Card, if they have been granted one by the Ministor by virtue of R2624 and the Puppeteer hasn’t used this contract to transfer it to themselves yet.
BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 3917 Assigned to G.
On 6/16/2021 11:33 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:> CFJ Statement: Trigon fulfilled
eir obligation to track the Unit of
> Flotation for the weeks of 31 May and 7 Jun.
[Thanks to Telna for the CFJ#s]
Judgement for the above case:
CFJ 3798 found that for information to be published in the performance of
a weekly duty, it must be "informative". Part of that standard was:
> * Each part must be reasonably-well labelled (so we are informed as to
> what it is) [2];
> [2] Information is not information if we don’t know what information
> it’s supposed to be, so some kind of label is needed.
A buried abbreviation UF that does not appear in the rules and is buried
in a history section without explanation, in what looks like a generic
self-check script output, does not fulfill this requirement.
On timeliness, CFJ 3798 allowed for some backdating, but stated that it
would fail to qualify as being "maintained" if it was backdated much
outside the frequency of the report. So in the May 31 report, the May 1
record is too old to be considered "maintained" for a weekly duty.
The real question is, does missing a single record of this nature
disqualify the whole report? For example, if an officer failed to list a
new player on a list of players, it would be subject to CoE but still
would have fulfilled a reporting duty. CFJ 3462 set a high standard
("gross sloppiness and negligence") for disqualifying a reasonable report
attempt from being a duty-fulfilling report.
So what about in this case? The caller noted:
> In my defense, the bit requiring that I track the UF is
> in a weird place.
By this, I believe that e means that most of the "floating economy"
variables are defined in R2634, while the Unit of Floatation is in
standalone rule 2635.
However, this actually works against the caller. If UF were listed
alongside the other Buoyancy numbers, we might say "e missed one out of
three quantities, and the one e missed can be calculated from the others -
it's mostly there" and allow it. However, since it's in a standalone
rule, it's singled out for special attention. It's not the officer's
place to necessarily decide the importance - the fact that there's a
standalone requirement, in a separate rule (and, I note in the SLR,
immediately following the first rule, so not particularly hidden) means
that a whole "section" of the report is missing, even if that's only a
single (labelled) number.
While the rules can be tricky and missing little things can be common,
officers should generally be knowledgeable on the plain-text duties of
their office - so in this case, missing that whole section *is* in fact
negligence. A minor, accidental, and inconsequential kind of negligence,
to be sure, especially given the difficulty of the Treasuror's job and H.
Treasuror Trigon's high level and quality of past service, but still
negligent enough to disqualify the report.
I find FALSE.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [@Treasuror] 3-way pool
Twice, I expunge a blot from myself by paying a blot-be-gone.
--
Trigon
currently on a phone
On Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 07:48 Reuben Staley via agora-discussion <
agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Twice, I expunge a blot from myself.
>
> --
> Trigon
>
> currently on a phone
>
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 07:44 Jason Cobb via agora-business <
> agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > On 6/17/21 9:42 AM, Trigon via agora-business wrote:
> > > I transfer one legislative card to Jason as well.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Trigón
> > > No clue why my signature won't work on my phone
> >
> >
> > I perform the following actions if and only if they all succeed:
> >
> > {
> >
> > I pay a set of 4 justice cards to receive 10 blot-be-gones.
> >
> > I transfer 3 blot-be-gones to ATMunn.
> >
> > I transfer 3 blot-be-gones to Trigon.
> >
> > }
> >
> > --
> > Jason Cobb
> >
> > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
> >
> >
>
[@Referee] Re: BUS: [@Treasuror] 3-way pool
On 6/17/2021 9:43 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
On 6/17/21 9:42 AM, Trigon via agora-business wrote:
I transfer one legislative card to Jason as well.
--
Trigón
No clue why my signature won't work on my phone
I perform the following actions if and only if they all succeed:
{
I pay a set of 4 justice cards to receive 10 blot-be-gones.
I transfer 3 blot-be-gones to ATMunn.
I transfer 3 blot-be-gones to Trigon.
}
I pay a blot-be-gone to expunge 1 blot from myself.
I pay a blot-be-gone to expunge 1 blot from myself.
--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary :)
Re: BUS: [@Treasuror] 3-way pool
On 6/17/21 9:42 AM, Trigon via agora-business wrote:
> I transfer one legislative card to Jason as well.
>
> --
> Trigón
> No clue why my signature won't work on my phone
I perform the following actions if and only if they all succeed:
{
I pay a set of 4 justice cards to receive 10 blot-be-gones.
I transfer 3 blot-be-gones to ATMunn.
I transfer 3 blot-be-gones to Trigon.
}
--
Jason Cobb
Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
BUS: [@Treasuror] 3-way pool
I transfer one legislative card to Jason as well. -- Trigón No clue why my signature won't work on my phone
BUS: [@Treasuror] 3-way pool
I transfer a justice card to Jason. -- ATMunn friendly neighborhood notary :)
BUS: Concentrating real hard [attn. Treasuror]
I wield the concentration stone, specifying myself. (This causes me to gain one legislative card.) -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 3916 Assigned to ais523
On 2021-06-14 22:40, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: On 6/14/2021 3:08 AM, ais523 via agora-business wrote: I judge CFJ 3916 FALSE. I intend to motion to reconsider this with 2 support. Frankly, this seems unfair and like trying to have it two ways. Let's say I had been PM. And let's say I failed to respond to the petition. Do you really have any doubt that a finger pointed at me for failing to respond to the petition wouldn't have succeeded? We'll never know of course. But if I'd defended myself by saying "hey, that wasn't directed at me as PM, it was directed at me as a person" that wouldn't have held any water - the answer would be "you were the PM, you are you, there's no ambiguity, what's the problem?" If I had been the PM, I would have been forced to respond. But since I wasn't the PM, it's somehow retroactively ambiguous? Punished if I am, punished if I'm not. -G. I support the motion to reconsider.
BUS: [@Notary, Press] New Reportor on the Block
I become a party to the contract "Agoran Press". I transfer the Weekly Assignment from the contract "Agoran Press" to myself.
BUS: Cleaning a clause i wrote [@Rulekeepor]
I intend to amend rule 2581 "Official Patent Titles" by replacing "Contracts that achieve fun gameplay and significantly impacts Agora as a whole" with "Contracts that achieve fun gameplay and significantly impact Agora as a whole." without objection. [The amendment makes a grammatical change to the word 'impact' and adds a full stop] -- >From R. Lee
