Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2380-81 assigned to Goethe
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 22:06 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> UNDETERMINED. It is beyond a reasonable effort for a judge to examine
> each contract for its assumptions upon a player's deregistration. It is
> an interesting question though (whether an Agoran contract attempting to
> bind a former player violates R101(viii). I recommend this be re-called
> with a reference to a specific contract to which Warrigal belonged at the
> moment of eir deregistration, along with evidence from the contract text
> that it attempts to keep em to the contract. It may be, for example,
> that R101(viii) is satisfied by an equity settlement to release Warrigal
> rather than by redefining "player" - this is just one possible outcome,
> this case needs specifics.
I call for judgement on the statement "Warrigal is a party to The Small
Partial Mousetrap".
Arguments: Warrigal joined the contract in question voluntarily, so was
certainly party to it at some point. The contract purports to prevent
Warrigal leaving it for as long as ais523 is a party:
{{{
ais523 CAN leave this contract by announcement. Other persons can leave
this contract only if ais523 is not a party to it, in which case they
can leave it by announcement.
}}}
As ais523 has continuously been a party to the contract in question, the
only way that Warrigal could have left it is via rule 101; that's what
this case has been called to determine.
See also CFJ 2381, which was seeking to establish the solution to the
same questions, but was marked UNDETERMINED due to lack of specificity;
this CFJ was called per the request of the judge there.
--
ais523
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Missing pledge?
On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 16:53 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 14:14 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> > ais523 wrote:
> >
> > > Murphy wrote:
> > > {{{
> > > I pledge to transfer a prop from myself to the eventual judge of these
> > > CFJs for giving em eight cases at once.
> > > }}}
> > > Did this ever happen? (A reminder seems to make more sense than an
> > > equity case for something like this...)
> >
> > I transfer a prop from myself to ais523 due to the above pledge.
>
> I terminate the above-quoted pledge as obsolete.
I also terminate the pledges informally known as (2009-02-04 Murphy) and
as (2009-02-05 Murphy), using the termination mechanisms in the pledges
themselves.
--
ais523
Notary
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Missing pledge?
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 14:14 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> ais523 wrote:
>
> > Murphy wrote:
> > {{{
> > I pledge to transfer a prop from myself to the eventual judge of these
> > CFJs for giving em eight cases at once.
> > }}}
> > Did this ever happen? (A reminder seems to make more sense than an
> > equity case for something like this...)
>
> I transfer a prop from myself to ais523 due to the above pledge.
I terminate the above-quoted pledge as obsolete.
--
ais523
BUS: Re: OFF: [IADoP] Organization Chart
On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 10:48 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > Office Holder Since Last R2154 Stability II Priority > --- > Tailor Wooble 8 Feb 094 Feb 09 T 1 low** I intend, without objection, to flip the II of Tailor to 2. -- ais523
BUS: Werewolves is probably dead after all
I intend, without objection, to terminate The Werewolves of Nomic Crossing. I intend, without 3 objections, to cause The Werewolves of Nomic Crossing to cease to be a contest. -- ais523
BUS: Deputised resolution of proposal 6072
Deputising for the Assessor, I publish the following document:
{{{
This notice resolves the Agoran decision on whether to adopt proposal
6072. The options available to Agora were ADOPTED, REJECTED, and FAILED
QUORUM.
ais523 1F
comex 1F
Dvorak Herring 1F
Goethe 1F
Murphy 1A [voted 3A, only one is valid]
[Pavitra tried to vote 1A but sent to a-d by mistake and didn't TTttPF]
[PerlNomic Partnership 0F: tried to vote FOR, but not an eligible voter]
woggle 1F
Wooble 1F [voted 5F, only one is valid]
FOR: 6
AGAINST: 1
PRESENT: 0
Quorum: 7
As an AI-3 proposal, proposal 6072 requires a VI >=3 and >1 to pass.
With a VI of 6, proposal 6072 passes, and the option selected by Agora
is ADOPTED.
}}}
I'm pretty sure that this resolution itself is uncontroversial (unless
people claim it failed due to ambiguity in the two-6072s interpretation
of events); nobody's disputing the vote count. What I just resolved will
likely lead to an interesting debate, though...
--
ais523
BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Census
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 11:29 -0800, Taral wrote: > INACTIVE PLAYERS (6 + 4) > > NicknameInactive since > -- > BobTHJ5 Jan 09 > Craig14 Jan 09 > Elysion 17 Dec 08 > harblcat 14 Jan 09 > S's Cat 14 Jan 09 > Sir Toby 14 Jan 09 CoE: w1n5t0n is inactive. (I inactivated em around the same time I nominated myself for Notary.) -- ais523
BUS: Things related to CFJ 2376
I submit my message archived at
http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-discussion/2009-February/023866.html
as gratuitous arguments for CFJ 2376.
I submit the following appeals opinion on CFJ 2376a:
{{{
My problems with this judgement are a matter of public record, and
Murphy's request to the appeals panel not to REMAND is pretty strong
evidence that e is unlikely to deliver a better verdict given a second
opportunity. AFFIRMing the judgement would simply be incorrect when it
is disputed this much (especially as I don't agree with it), and
OVERRULEing it would be inappropriate as I have such an interest in the
case. Therefore, I move to REASSIGN CFJ 2376, and therefore judge
REASSIGN on CFJ 2376a.
}}}
I intend, without 2 objections, to increase the interest index of CFJ
2376 to 2.
--
ais523
BUS: Judgement, CFJ 2361
(CFJ 2361: "If the Rules specify that a player is to receive a Note for performing a required (i.e. a SHALL) action, and e fails to perform it, the withholding of the Note is, for the purposes of R101(vi), a penalty for breaking the SHALL.") The first question here is the extent to which the reward is correlated to the actual performance of the action. Consider the following situations: a) A judge judges a CFJ on Wednesday. They receive a reward at the end of the week. However, they could be assigned another CFJ later in the week and get the reward from that instead. b) Suppose instead the judge's time limit to judge the CFJ ran out in Wednesday. Are they being punished for not getting the reward for the week the CFJ was assigned to them, or for the week the judgement period ran out in? What if they got a reward from a different CFJ in that time. c) Suppose that an officer fails to submit a report, but that Notes are repealed by proposal in the meantime. (Or maybe that a proposal to repeal notes is submitted, but fails.) Is the officer being punished for lateness by not being given the Note, even though they no longer exist? The problem, it seems to me, is that failing to perform an action is illegal now, but the withholding of the Note that would be the reward happens later, at the end of the week, and anything could happen in between. However, the fact that the "punishment" of withholding of a Note happens later than the crime is not necessarily a problem; after all, normal judicial punishments happen after-the-fact too. Looking at the problem from another angle, there is a problem with a lack of correlation between individual omissions and individual rewards. Suppose a player holds two high-priority offices, and submits a report for neither. They then aren't rewarded; but there isn't a withheld reward for either office, as they wouldn't have got one anyway due to their omission in the other! The rules don't define what a reward or punishment is directly, although they strongly imply that non-DISCHARGE criminal sentences are a form of punishment, and the title of rule 2234 (which is not legally binding but provides evidence of game custom) implies that contestmaster salaries are a reward. Per rule 754, therefore, we have to rely on the common English definition of "punishment". Can the withholding of a reward be a punishment? In standard English usage, yes. Importantly, though, this is only a punishment if the reward was going to be obtained anyway. If someone's earning £1000 a month, and is fined £1000 for a serious health and safety breach, they lose a month's salary. That's a punishment, rather than the withholding of a reward; it's gaining a reward and the reward's being cancelled out. If their month's salary is instead withheld (probably illegal in the UK, by the way), it comes to the same thing; it's still a punishment. However, suppose someone quits work, and doesn't get their pay for the next month as a result. That isn't a punishment for quitting, that's a lack of a reward. The difference is that not getting a salary is not a punishment if it isn't certain that you'll get it anyway. In a nomic, where the rules could change beneath you before your salary gets paid, or the salary could be withheld instead for another reason, or a Holiday or a scam could interfere with your requirement to perform an ability, or weeks might last for months unexpectedly (see B), it's hard to see how an Agoran officer's or judge's salary could be seen as stable enough to be a given which is fined away from the judge, instead of an occasional reward for performing a job, especially as there is not a 1:1 correlation between rewardable tasks and Notes awarded. Therefore, I judge CFJ 2361 FALSE; salary paid in notes is not predictable enough for the withholding of it to be considered a punishment, rather than the granting of it a reward. (Supporting this fact but not strong enough to support a judgement in itself is that the rules strongly imply that judicial sentences are punishments, thus weakly implying that other things aren't.) -- ais523
BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6109-6115
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 13:16 -0800, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE I vote as follows: > 6109 D 1 3.0 comex Right to vote AGAINST, probably broken. We don't want this implying, say, 0.25 of a vote per partnership, and it interacts weirdly with inactive players too. (Feel free to fix the underlying problem, but not via R101, there's too much risk in messing up there.) > 6110 D 1 3.0 Murphy Abstention! FOR, this is an utterly blatant attempt to get a Red Ribbon but you already have one > 6111 O 1 1.0 Yally Correction of Typos AGAINSTx5, doesn't work properly; you're basically mandating the Assessor to miscount the vote, rather than fixing the problem in question. The history of "AGAINT" is rather unfortunate in this respect... > 6112 D 1 2.0 Taral Shorten the criminal horizon FOR, and shortening it still further would be a good idea IMO > 6113 D 1 3.0 Goethe Intended Proposals Only FOR, closes the loophole and looks unlikely to break anything > 6114 D 1 2.0 Murphy Clean up the deregistration mess v1.1 FOR if the last paragraph of rule 1789 mentions a period of time during which a player cannot reregister after being deregistered in a Writ of FAGE, AGAINST otherwise > 6115 O 1 1.0 Murphy Get on with it! AGAINSTx5, gives the Assessor /even more/ power over timing scams than e currently does. (I'm actually considering writing proposals to give everyone a fair chance at Assessor-related timing scams, rather than just the Assessor; this is moving in the wrong direction.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Testing SHOULD
TTttPF
On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 17:08 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 12:02 -0500, Sgeo wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Alexander Smith wrote:
> > > I NoV against Sgeo for violating rule 1750 by failing to read the
> > > ruleset during Read the Ruleset week, and also failing to
> > > understand or to carefully weigh the consequences of this failure.
> > >
> > > Arguments: MMI describes SHOULD this way:
> > > {{{
> > > Before failing to perform
> > > the described action, the full implications of failing to
> > > perform it should be understood and carefully weighed.
> > > }}}
> > > Sgeo has admitted (in our IRC discussion forum) that e did not
> > > understand and carefully weigh the consequences of failing to read
> > > the rules during RTR week before RTR week ended.
> > >
> >
> > I Contest this NoV on the basis that it is unclear whether it is
> > possible to violate a SHOULD.
>
> I initiate a criminal case into the circumstances surrounding this NoV,
> to try to find out whether it is possible to violate a SHOULD.
>
BUS: Is Werewolves dead?
In Werewolves, I vote for 0x44, just to try to get this game going again. -- ais523
BUS: Downcaste (attn: Taral)
I spend a D Note Credit, an F Note Credit, and an A Note Credit to destroy a D Note Marker, an F Note Marker, and an A Note Marker in the possession of Taral, requesting Taral to reduce my Caste once by spending DFA. -- ais523
BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 6070 - 6072
On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 15:41 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: > Voting results for Proposals 6070 - 6072: > > [This notice resolves the Agoran decisions of whether to adopt the > following proposals. For each decision, the options available to > Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!).] > > [6070 is extended due to lack of quorum. 6072 may have already > been resolved by the AFO under comex's control, see CFJ 2376.] > > 6070 D1 2.0 Murphy Limited liability > *6071 O1 1.5 ais523 Eagle-eyed > ?6072 D1 1.0 Goethe Enough already I intend to deputise for the Assessor to resolve the Agoran decision about whether to adopt proposal 6072. CoE: Proposal 6072 has an AI of 3. -- ais523
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2377 assigned to Wooble
On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 13:11 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > > > > I judge TRUE. > > > > R2211 meets the definition of "proposal" found in R106. > > > > I believe this does imply that proposals in general can be mutable, > > although whether proposals that are not rules are mutable is beyond > > the scope of this case. The proposition that there exist mutable > > proposals does not imply that all proposals are mutable, this is the > > converse fallacy of accident. > > I intend to appeal this judgement with 2 support. One thing missing > from this argument is the second paragraph of R106, which strongly > implies that a body of text with the right properties has to go > through a process to "become" a legal proposal. I support this intent; the first paragraph of R106, to me, is defining the sort of thing a proposal generally is, rather than stating that everything matching the definition is a proposal. (See also CFJs 2172 and 1746; although not directly reversing the precedent of those CFJs, the reasoning here is rather at odds in those.) I note that in passing, even though this judgement, if correct, does not imply that proposals in general are mutable, it does imply that proposals are not necessarily immutable (and therefore by implication that a rule stating something is a proposal does not imply that it is mutable sufficiently strongly that it cannot be overriden by lower-power rules.) -- ais523
Re: BUS: T
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 14:31 +, Elliott Hird wrote: > 2009/2/12 Elliott Hird : > > 2009/2/12 Elliott Hird : > >> I leave the AAA zombification contract. > >> > > > > I also transfer all the assets I can to comex. > > > > I transfer all the assets I can apart from props to comex. Well, if we're in the business of annoying ehird... I act on behalf of ehird to cause em to request subsidisation. May as well get comex an extra land/WRV pair. -- ais523
BUS: Proposal: Make the Insulator's job less confusing
Proposal: Make the Insulator's job less confusing (AI = 2, please) Amend Rule 2230 (Notices of Violation) by replacing this text: A Notice that is still Uncontested four days after it is published automatically becomes Closed instead. with this text: If a Notice is Uncontested and was published at least four days ago, any player CAN cause it to become Closed by announcement.
BUS: What is a proposal, anyway?
I call for judgement on the statement "Rule 2211 is a proposal." Arguments: the precedent of the famous CFJ 1656 implies that rule 2211 is a proposal (it states that anything matching the definition of the first paragraph of rule 106 is a proposal, and rule 2211 is "making other explicit changes to the gamestate" by platonically flipping castes to Alpha every month). I'm wondering if that precedent ought to be overturned; for one thing, it implies that proposals are trivially capable of being amended, otherwise rule 2211 couldn't be amended, and yet it has been in the past. -- ais523
BUS: Decruft
I submit a proposal (AI 2, II 1, Title="Unstable") with the following
text:
Reduce the power of rule 2217 to 1, and change its text to:
{{{
Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority) after an
elected office ceases to have (or is created without) an active
holder, or after an election for the office ends and the office
still lacks an active holder, the IADoP SHALL initiate an election
for that office. This requirement is waived if the office comes
to have an active holder, or if another player initiates an
election for the office.
}}}
[This removes all the stuff about Stability, effectively making all
non-Imposed offices Perpetual.]
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: ...they shall guide play in the form in which they were voted on.
On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 13:37 -0500, comex wrote:
> Gratuitous:
>
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > that a proposal *is*, by its very nature and
> > definition, a precise text in a precise and immutable version, that
> > other properties; AI, ID number, etc. are secondary, and that a
> > different textual version is a different text and therefore a
> > different proposal (or not a proposal).
I submit the following proposal (AI=1, title=""):
{{{
Create one Chit in the possession of every player.
}}}
I submit the following proposal (AI=1, title=""):
{{{
Create one Chit in the possession of every player.
}}}
I strongly suspect that if these both pass, two Chits will be created in
the possession of every player. I don't see how this is consistent with
Goethe's reasoning, unless I misunderstand it.
--
ais523
BUS: CFJ 2369
I judge CFJ 2369 GUILTY/DISCHARGE. When a huge number of NoVs are being made against one person on similar grounds to make a point, it's manifestly unjust to assign punishments in more than a few of them, especially when no honest attempt to remind and get the problem fixed has been made first. I favour a principle of trying to remedy omissions via reminders and tolerance of a small amount of lateness before trying to settle things via the courts. -- ais523
BUS: If the banks collapse....
I PBA-withdraw as many B Note Credits as possible. (I think, from memory, it only has one, and that I can afford it; I'm not sure.) I PBA-withdraw as many Note Credits as possible. (I think this is a no-op, because IIRC it doesn't have any.) -- ais523
Re: BUS: Following Wooble's lead
On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 13:15 -0500, comex wrote: > I submit the following NoVs: > > Murphy violated R1868 (power 2) by failing to assign a judge to CFJ > 2339 as soon as possible after it came to require a judge. > Murphy violated R1868 (power 2) by failing to assign a judge to CFJ > 2340 as soon as possible after it came to require a judge. > Murphy violated R1868 (power 2) by failing to assign a judge to CFJ > 2341 as soon as possible after it came to require a judge. > Murphy violated R1868 (power 2) by failing to assign a judge to CFJ > 2342 as soon as possible after it came to require a judge. > Murphy violated R1868 (power 2) by failing to assign a judge to CFJ > 2345 as soon as possible after it came to require a judge. > Murphy violated R1868 (power 2) by failing to assign a judge to CFJ > 2346 as soon as possible after it came to require a judge. I contest the last 5 of these. Punishing em 6 times for what is essentially the same inaction is manifestly unjust, and may break R101. -- ais523
Re: BUS: NoVs, intents, nominations
On Mon, 2009-02-09 at 10:50 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 11:23 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > > I intend, without objection, to make the AFO inactive. > > Having received no objections, I make the AFO inactive. The AFO comes off hold. That was fun! -- ais523
BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] Docket
On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 23:26 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: > Tue 3 Feb 16:23:05 Wooble AFO2143 Assessor Jan 26 - Feb 1 > Tue 3 Feb 16:23:05 Wooble AFO2143 Registrar Jan26 - Feb 1 I spend A# A# to destroy a Rest I own. I spend B B to destroy a Rest I own. I believe this leaves me with no Rests. -- ais523
BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6073-6085
On Sat, 2009-02-07 at 05:34 -0800, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE I vote as follows: > 6073 D 1 3.0 Murphy Regulate self-contradiction FOR, although you could just create a Gnarly Rule instead > 6074 D 0 3.0 Murphy Patch 2282a FOR, I trust that Murphy won't give emself a dictatorship by breaking a pledge > 6075 D 0 3.0 Murphy Patch 2321a FOR, likewise > 6076 D 1 3.0 woggle Isn't This What Patent Titles Are For? AGAINST > 6077 D 1 2.0 Murphy That trick only works once FOR > 6078 D 1 2.0 Wooble Insulator committee FOR > 6079 D 1 2.0 Murphy Refactor NoV tracking FOR > 6080 D 1 2.0 Murphy Cacophony AGAINST > 6081 D 1 2.0 Murphy Five tons of flax AGAINST > 6082 D 1 2.0 Murphy Bankruptcy half an AGAINST (I am aware that this isn't a possible vote, and so expect it to not count at all) > 6083 D 1 2.0 ais523 FAQ FOR > 6084 O 1 1.0 Goethe Time's up! FORx8 (I think we can manage it before the proposal passes, although probably not before RTR week ends) > 6085 D 1 3.0 comex Proposal FOR -- ais523
BUS: Recusal
I recuse myself from CFJ 2363; I think I may have a conflict of interest with respect to it. -- ais523
Re: BUS: Recognition
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 14:35 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> I intend, without objection, to flip the Recognition of The Earth Is
> Nonetheless An Oblate Spheroid Nomic (http://einos-nomic.blogspot.com/)
> to Abandoned.
>
> I intend, with Agoran Consent, to make The Earth Is Nonetheless An
> Oblate Spheroid Nomic a Protectorate.
>
> >From its ruleset:
> {{{
> Rule X. The Earth Is Nonetheless An Oblate Spheroid Nomic submits to
> Agora as its benevolent protector. Any protective decree of Agora that
> targets this nomic takes effect as specified by the rules of Agora.
> }}}
>
> Einos seems to be in trouble, inactive and basically abandoned. It needs
> our help.
I repeat these intents, because I forgot to resolve them the first time.
--
ais523
BUS: Prempting that Rule 104 question
I submit the following proposal (AI=2, II=1, Title="FAQ"):
Insert the following paragraph after the third paragraph of rule 2186:
{{{
When used as a period of time, a "game" is the period of time between
one instant at which at least one person won the game, and the next such
instant. The "first game" was the period of time prior to the first
instant at which a person won the game.
}}}
(Longtime players of Agora will understand why this is necessary,
despite the FLR annotation and several CFJs on the subject.)
--
ais523
BUS: Starting at the top
Well, given that I'm reading the ruleset...
I call for judgement on the statement "There is a rule with ID number
2105.".
Arguments:
Rule 2141 says:
{{{
A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern
the game generally. A rule's content takes the form of
a text, and is unlimited in scope. In particular, a rule
may define in-game entities and regulate their behaviour,
make instantaneous changes to the state of in-game entities,
prescribe or proscribe certain player behaviour, modify the
rules or the application thereof, or do any of these things
in a conditional manner.
}}}
Rule 2105 is an ASCII art picture (therefore not text) that doesn't
attempt to define, regulate, change or modify anything, even
conditionally; so it doesn't seem to fit the definition of a rule in
Rule 2141. Rule 1586 states:
{{{
If the documents defining an entity are repealed or amended such
that they no longer define that entity, then that entity and its
properties cease to exist.
}}}
and rule 2141 was created in 2007, more recently than rule 2105 in 2005.
So if rule 2105 were ever a rule, rule 1586 caused it to cease to exist
when rule 2141 were created or amended. (Note that although the Ruleset
has been ratified, most recently in September 2008, rule 2141 was most
recently amended in January 2009.)
--
ais523
Re: BUS: PBA non-report
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 09:23 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > Asset Rate Stock > - - > 0 crops 0 2 > 8 crops 012 > 9 crops 031 > Player Coins > -- - > ais523 295 I PBA-withdraw two 0 Crops, ten 8 Crops, and ten 9 Crops. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [AAA] Agriculture Report
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 18:05 -0800, Charles Reiss wrote: > On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 17:33, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > > On Feb 4, 2009, at 8:26 PM, Charles Reiss wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 17:18, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > >>> On Feb 4, 2009, at 8:15 PM, Charles Reiss wrote: > I pledge (any player CAN terminate this pledge in two weeks) that if > OscarMeyr gives me X <= 12 five crops as soon as possible, I will give > OscarMeyr two-thirds X (rounded down) 3 crops as soon as possible. > >>> In plain language: Are you offering six 3s for seven 5s? > >> No, I'm offering two 3s for three 5s, up to 4 times. > > Great. I wasn't sure I parsed the rounding function correctly. > > I give woggle nine 5 crops. > I give OscarMeyr six 3 crops. I terminate the above-quoted pledge as obsolete. -- ais523
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Voting results for Proposal 6069, and scam
On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 11:52 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 4:57 PM, comex wrote:
> > The AFO publishes the following. (Please note: Other actions are
> > present after the resolution.)
> > {{{
> >
> > Voting results for Proposal 6069:
> >
> > [This notice resolves the Agoran decision of whether to adopt the
> > following proposal. For this decision, the options available to
> > Agora are ADOPTED (*), REJECTED (x), and FAILED QUORUM (!).]
> >
> > *6069 O 1 1.0 comex
> >
> >6069
> >
> > ais523 8F
> > AFO 8F
> > comex8F
>
> CoE: comex's voting limit on this proposal was 0 at the time it was
> resolved, or eir caste at the start of the voting period (1), minus 1
> for owning between 4 and 7 Rests.
The AFO denies that CoE. Per the precedent of CFJ 2276a, the attempt to
increase comex's voting power by 8 worked, and so comex did indeed have
8 FOR votes on that proposal.
--
ais523
BUS: Ending the dictatorship
On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 11:12 -0500, comex wrote:
> I cause Rule 2238 to amend itself to read:
>
> ais523 CAN cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.
>
> comex CAN, with support, cause Rule 1728 to amend Rule 2141.
>
> comex CAN, with support, cause Rule 1728 to change the power of
> this rule to 9001.
[Getting around Rests.]
I cause Rule 2238 to amend itself by appending the following paragraph:
{{{
Regardless of what other rules say, nobody satisfies any Losing
Conditions. This takes precedence over all other rules.
}}}
[Setting off Win by Junta.]
I cause Rule 2238 to amend itself to read:
{{{
ais523, comex, and the AFO CAN each cause this rule to make
arbitrary rule changes by announcement.
ais523, comex, and the AFO CAN each cause any rule to make
arbitrary rule changes by announcement.
ais523, comex, and the AFO CAN each create arbitrary assets in
the possession of arbitrary players by announcement.
Regardless of what other rules say, nobody satisfies any Losing
Conditions. This takes precedence over all other rules.
}}}
[The reward for the scam.]
I, comex, and the AFO win by Junta.
[Refunding the notes we spent for the scam.]
I create 6 G# notes in comex's possession.
I create 1 G note in comex's possession.
I create 7 E notes in the AFO's possession.
I create 4 C# notes in my own possession.
[Fixing the loophole.]
I cause rule 2238 to remove the paragraphs numbered (7) and (8) in rule
2126, and then renumber the paragraph numbered (9) as (7).
[Ending the dictatorship.]
I cause rule 2029 to repeal rule 2238. (I had to get the Town Fountain
involved somehow!).
--
ais523
Re: BUS: NoVs, intents, nominations
On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 11:23 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > I intend, without objection, to make the AFO inactive. The AFO objects. -- ais523
Re: BUS: Chutes and ladders
On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 11:12 -0500, comex wrote: > I intend, with support, to cause Rule 1728 to amend Rule 2141 by replacing: > > Every rule has power between one and four inclusive. It is > not possible for a rule to have a power outside this range. > > with: > > It is not possible for a rule to have a power below one. > I support. > I intend, with support, to cause Rule 1728 to change the power of Rule > 2238 to 9001. I support. -- ais523
BUS: Cassandra
On Tue, 2009-02-03 at 15:11 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> I submit the following proposal (AI=1.5,II=1,Title="Eagle-eyed"):
>
> Append the following paragraph to rule 1922 (Defined Regular Patent
> Titles):
> {{{
> (h) Eagle-eyed, to be awarded to any player who noticed a scam,
>thought up a way to stop it, warned everyone clearly, and yet
>the scam happened anyway due to apathy on the part of other
>players.
> }}}
>
> Award the patent title Eagle-eyed to Goethe and Murphy.
>
> (Goethe for the recent scam; Murphy for Monster Deputisation.)
Oh well, peer pressure it is. (Could someone explain?) I'll change the
patent title, but not the proposal title.
I retract my proposal titled "Eagle-eyed".
I submit the following proposal (AI=1.5,II=1,Title="Eagle-eyed"):
Append the following paragraph to rule 1922 (Defined Regular Patent
Titles):
{{{
(h) Cassandra, to be awarded to any player who noticed a scam,
thought up a way to stop it, warned everyone clearly, and yet
the scam happened anyway due to apathy on the part of other
players.
}}}
Award the patent title Cassandra to Goethe and Murphy.
--
ais523
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Voting results for Proposal 6069, and scam
On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 14:35 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 Feb 2009, comex wrote:
> > comex8F
>
> COE on voting results for 6069: I don't think comex has 8 votes?
> (can't find evidence of such in the record anyway, maybe I missed a
> big promotion).
>
> otw, pretty apathetic on everyone else's part eh what, not like there was
> no warning, even a specific warning...
>
I submit the following proposal (AI=1.5,II=1,Title="Eagle-eyed"):
Append the following paragraph to rule 1922 (Defined Regular Patent
Titles):
{{{
(h) Eagle-eyed, to be awarded to any player who noticed a scam,
thought up a way to stop it, warned everyone clearly, and yet
the scam happened anyway due to apathy on the part of other
players.
}}}
Award the patent title Eagle-eyed to Goethe and Murphy.
(Goethe for the recent scam; Murphy for Monster Deputisation.)
--
ais523
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2346 judged by Wooble
On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 10:37 +, Alex Smith wrote: > Also, I intend, without objection, to make w1n5t0n inactive. There have been no objections; I make w1n5t0n inactive. I nominate myself for Notary. Murphy, could you give me a notary wiki account? -- ais523
BUS: Fun with caste-cycling timing
On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 19:12 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > C#D# F#G#A# > Player C D E F G A B Total > DbEb GbAbBb > > ais523 4 7 7 3 3 1 5 5 2 1 5 6 49 If my caste is Beta, I spend B C# D# E F# to increase my caste to Alpha. -- ais523
BUS: Judgement, CFJ 2358
(CFJ 2358: {{If I submitted "The following is my Cantus Cygneus: {pigs
are delicious!!}" to the Registrar, it would be a Cantus Cygneus}})
[All rule quotes below are from rule 1789/5.]
First, I must point out that the caller's argument that the same
precedent would apply to Canti Cygnei (sorry about the dubious plural,
but the grammar of the original phrase is dubious in the first place)
and apologies in this matter is spurious. If the question were asked
about apologies, it would be a straightforward FALSE; the definition of
apologies requires various things to be included in the apology, such as
all the prescribed words. On the other hand, "Cantus Cygneus" is not
defined at all, which means that the situation is quite different:
{{{
Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously
by the Agoran community that e can no longer abide to be a part
of it, e may submit a document to the Registrar, clearly labeled
a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and expressing eir
reproach for those who e feels have treated em so badly.
As soon as possible after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the
Registrar shall publish this document along with a Writ of
Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player
to be deregistered.
}}}
These are the only two mentions of the phrase "Cantus Cygneus" (apart
from in a rule title). Looking at the history of the rule is not
particularly helpful either, because the proposal was originally
submitted in order to fulfil a requirement to include a "truly hideous
pun" in a proposal; therefore, the entire intent of the original
proposal was merely to include the joke at the end.
So what is a Cantus Cygneus? Is it a "document [...] clearly labeled a
Cantus Cygneus", or a "document [...] clearly labeled a Cantus Cygneus,
detailing eir grievances and expressing eir reproach for those who e
feels have treated em so badly."? Does it have to be submitted to the
Registrar in order to be a Cantus Cygneus?
There is a more important point here, though, which makes one
interpretation clearly in the best interests of the game. Although the
precedent of this CFJ will not affect apologies, there is at least one
other term which is used in a rule but not properly defined, and it's in
the same rule:
{{{
As soon as possible after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the
Registrar shall publish this document along with a Writ of
Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player
to be deregistered. The Registrar shall note the method of
deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar Reports,
as long as the Player remains deregistered.
The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and
the notation in the Registrar's Report will ensure that,
henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of
FAGE.
}}}
The question here is, what specifically is a Writ of FAGE? Does it have
to be published by the Registrar? Does it have to be published alongside
a Cantus Cygneus?
The way the rule is written, it seems pretty clear that the intention is
that the entire process has to be followed in order in order for a Writ
of FAGE to actually be a Writ of FAGE. The rule does not make much sense
otherwise (it would basically allow the Registrar to arbitrarily
deregister people, which is definitely not in the best interests of the
game!). So the rule itself is not clearly enough defined to be
unambiguous, but its intent in this case is relatively clear, and the
best interests of the game come to the same answer.
I know everyone hates it when I invoke rule 217, but I'm going to do it
now anyway, because it seems to be the most relevant way to determine
what the ambiguous rule means. A Writ of FAGE is clearly intended only
to be a Writ of FAGE when submitted at the appropriate time in a Cantus
Cygneus process. By the same precedent, a Cantus Cygeneus is only a
Cantus Cygneus if the proper steps are taken (including all required
information, and submitting to the Registrar). The alleged Cantus
Cygneus in the CFJ statement is missing some of the required
information; therefore, I judge CFJ 2358 FALSE.
TLDR: Posting a Writ of FAGE without the appropriate information would
let the Registrar arbitrarily deregister people, if it worked, which is
against the best interests of the game and the spirit of the rule in
question. Posting a Cantus Cygneus should follow the same standards.
FALSE.
--
ais523
who likes putting TLDRs in lengthy judgements
BUS: CFJ: The boundary of act-on-behalf
I call for judgement on the statement "An Enforceable judgement in an equity case CAN generally create an ability for arbitrary persons to act on behalf of persons bound by the judgement". Arguments: An equity judgement is no longer a contract, but it's been established that a contract is not necessary to allow act-on-behalf. I'm trying to establish exactly where the boundaries lie; equity judgements are somewhat contract-like, after all. (It would certainly be a useful ability in trying to create equations for party-inactivity situations.) -- ais523
BUS: The sort of crazy scam I think up when ill
I agree to Agora's rule 1742, as a binding agreement governed by the
rules of Agora, with the intention that it be binding on me and governed
by the rules.
The AFO agrees to Agora's rule 1742, as a binding agreement governed by
the rules of Agora, with the intention that it be binding on em and
governed by the rules.
Agora's rule 1742 is now a (private) contract (per rule 1742).
I intend, with the agreement of the AFO, to modify rule 1742 by
appending the following text:
{{{
Notwithstanding the rest of this rule, an instrument cannot become a
contract; and if a contract ever becomes an instrument, or an entity is
ever simultaneously a contract and an instrument, it ceases to be a
contract.
Notwithstanding other rules, ais523 CAN award or revoke Patent Titles by
announcement. This rule takes precedence over all over rules with the
same Power as it.
}}}
The AFO agrees to this change.
Therefore, per rule 2198, I just changed rule 1742. (The minimum number
of parties to a private contract is 2; therefore, Contract Changes to it
CAN be made by agreement between all the parties to it.) Rule 2198 is
sufficiently powerful to change rule 1742 (note that as rule 2198 uses
the passive, "Contract Changes CAN be made to it", it is rule 2198
itself, an instrument, that is making the change, as it does not specify
any other entity that makes the change). (Amending a contract is a
Contract Change per rule 2197.) Rule 105 does not block this this time
(rule 2198 permits the change, nothing prevents it, and the particular
amendment to rule 1742 I made was "amending the text of a rule"); and
rule 2140 does not block it (as rules 1742 and 2198 both have power
1.5).
I award the Patent Title of H. to ais523 and to the AFO.
I remove the Patent Title of Scamster from Comex.
I call for judgement on the statement "ais523 has the patent title of
H.", and submit this message as evidence.
[Disclaimer: Although I think this scam works, historically such scams
have tended to fail; so there is a high probability it fails due to
something I haven't thought of. Do not be mislead into thinking it works
without checking for yourself.]
--
ais523 (possibly H. ais523?)
BUS: While I have the chance...
I transfer 2 WRV to the PNP. -- ais523
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2346 judged by Wooble
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 23:59 -0600, Pavitra wrote: > > == Equity Case 2346 === > I intend, with 2 Support, to appeal this judgement. It establishes the > precedent that consistently, serially ignoring the rules is rewarded > by a general exemption from the rules flouted. If this is an > appropriate judgement, then the equity justice system has become a > mockery of itself. > > (But then, perhaps that was precisely H. Judge Wooble's point.) > > I suggest that H. CotC Murphy include the a-d thread on this case in > the database as arguments. Hmm... I support, although the original judgement amused me, and it's hard to see how to equate against someone who's deregistered. Maybe equitable would be an equation that states that ehird SHALL not break contracts, so that future breaches could be a criminal punishment. Also, I'll hopefully remember to send the text of the contract to the judge in question, as the Notary still seems to be missing. Also, I intend, without objection, to make w1n5t0n inactive. -- ais523
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2346 assigned to Wooble
On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 07:17 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > Neither the Notary nor any party to the contract provided me with a > copy, but I'll judge without one. I NoV against w1n5t0n for violating rule 2173 by failing to disclose the text and set of parties to the Scam Secrecy Contract to the judge of CFJ 2346. [Note that technically speaking, the Notary should have done this even without a request; but the fact that the judge of the case made such a request makes the infraction all the more obvious.] > It seems incredibly unlikely that when entering into a contract with > someone who's breached as many contracts as ehird has ais523 > reasonably expected em to abide by the terms of the contract. Affairs > proceeded exactly as should be expected by any reasonable observer of > the game. OK, I'll buy that. I did in fact think ehird was going to abide by the terms of the contract, but I'm willing to believe that I was a bit naive in that... ehird's punishment for this is mostly an unwillingness from me (and anyone else who saw this case) to trust em in the future, I think. -- ais523
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6063-6069
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 19:09 -0500, comex wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 4:56 PM, The PerlNomic Partnership
> wrote:
> > }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
> >
> > Proposal 6068 (Ordinary, AI=1.0, Interest=1) by comex
> >
> >
> > Anyone CAN cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.
> >
> >
> >
> > }{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{
>
> NoV: The PNP violated Rule 1607 by distributing this proposal (a
> mangled copy of P6069).
I contest this, as it was not the fault of the PNP as a whole, and it is
fairer to give the rests to the player responsible.
I NoV myself for violating rule 1742 by causing the PNP to break a rule
by distributing a mangled proposal, and close that NoV.
I spend C# D to remove the resulting Rest from myself.
--
ais523
BUS: Speaker duties
I assign Prerogatives for February as follows: Pavitra Justiciar ais523 Wielder of Rubberstamp Zefram Default Officeholder BobTHJ Wielder of Extra Votes pikhqWielder of Veto I submit the following Honors List: comex Elysion Murphy -- ais523 Speaker
BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6063-6069
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 22:05 +, Alex Smith wrote: > On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 13:56 -0800, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > > NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE > I vote as follows: > > 6063 D 0 2.0 Taral NoV acceptance fix > FOR > > 6064 D 1 2.0 Wooble Adding to the Game > AGAINST; I think the rules can handle this, in that if all the NoVs are > contested only 5 of them can actually lead to crims per week, unless > multiple players cooperate to convert them to CFJs > > 6065 D 1 2.0 comex Rebellion > AGAINST, both because we'd have mass deregistration via the Rests before > this passed if they weren't contested, because you're repeating the > Walrus again but with considerably less style, and because I wouldn't > gain from it anyway, relative to many other players > > 6066 D 0 2.0 comex Make the Conductor's job easier > FOR, now we have a good name. > > 6067 D 1 2.0 comex Notary wiki > > 6068 O 1 1.0 comex > > 6069 O 1 1.0 comex [snip] Whoops, hit send too early. I vote AGAINST on the Agoran Decision on proposal 6067 (a really bad idea, submitting reports via email and using it as the official version exists for several good reasons [ease of checking historical versions, centralised facts, only one set of rules for determining whether something's official or not]), AGAINSTx5 on 6068 (proposal created by the act of distribution which isn't what comex wrote, my mistake, sorry), FORx5 on 6069 (the fixed version). I also vote as shown in my quote above (which was sent to a-d because I hadn't fixed the To: address before accidentally sending); consider this an explicit pf. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Enigma] Last week's result
On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 09:39 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: > Thus, I believe I got 18 Y-axis points (for myself - that should > probably be changed - root, Wooble, Goethe, Pavitra, comex, ehird, > Sgeo, and woggle). Yes, I couldn't remember whether you counted for the point award, and couldn't remember whether /I/ counted, and I couldn't find the text of the contract to find out. I award 18 y-points to Murphy, because my previous attempt to award those points to em failed. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2344 assigned to ehird
On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 23:17 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: > comex wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Elliott Hird > > wrote: > >> On 19 Jan 2009, at 09:32, Ed Murphy wrote: > >> > >>>Props are a type of asset. > >> Umm, I pass a trivial TRUE on CFJ 2344. > > > > I intend to appeal this with 2 support, as the judge did not address > > the caller's arguments (or include any arguments, for that matter). > > Gratuituous: The backing document of props had been restored to legal > standing by the time this CFJ was initiated. If ais523 wanted to ask > whether props remained an asset while it lacked such standing, e should > have done so. I did actually mean to ask the question I asked, but the other question is interesting too. I support this appeal, as it's ridiculous that the permanent record of a case contains no arguments at all (from the judge or anyone else) as to why the judgement is correct. Just a few sentences explaining the error in my reasoning would have sufficed -- ais523
BUS: Plagiarism
I submit the following proposal, titled "Social experiment":
{{{
Create a new rule, entitled “Horses”:
Milking cows is a weekly action.
}}}
Let's see how well this one does in Agora.
--
ais523
BUS: Parts of the PRS, without cheating
I submit the following proposal (AI=2, II=1, Title="Limited Point
Transfer"):
Append the following to rule 2179 ("Points"):
{{{
Players generally CAN transfer points they own to other players, subject
to the restrictions that no more than 5 points can be transferred this
way to any one player, nor from any one player, per week.
}}}
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 6059
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 19:15 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 10:54 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > >> 6059 D 1 2.0 comex "Voluntary" creation of rests
> > > FOR
> >
> > I've found the scam here I believe; I'm not going to describe it
> > while this is being voted for in case comex hasn't thought of it :),
> > but I strongly recommend Against here. -Goethe
>
> I flip Wooble's key to F#.
>
> I flip Murphy's posture to leaning and hawkishness to hugging.
I call for judgement on the statement "Murphy is leaning."
Evidence:
An excerpt from rule 1871/25:
{{{
Posture is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the Courts,
with the following values:
[...]
A player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value by
announcement.
}}}
I call for judgement on the statement "Any player can flip the
Conductor's Key by announcement, at most once per month."
Evidence:
An excerpt from rule 2126:
{{{
Key is a player switch, tracked by the Conductor, with values
equal to the pitches that Notes can have, defaulting to C. A
player CAN change eir Key to any value by announcement, unless e
has already done so during the current month.
}}}
Arguments for both CFJs:
These hinge around what "eir" refers to in each case. Both sentences
have an "eir" which could either refer to something in the same
sentence, or something in a previous sentence; the posture case is
dubious due to the large separation between the sentences, whereas the
key case is much less dubious as the sentences are consecutive and in
the same paragraph. A construction like "ehird is the Monkey, and any
player CAN change eir intelligence by announcement." has its eir pretty
clearly referring to ehird. When split into two sentences, as "ehird is
the Monkey. Any player CAN change eir intelligence by announcement.",
does it still mean the same thing? On balance, I think it probably does,
as long as the sentences are not so ridiculously far apart as to be
implausible. So I recommend FALSE and TRUE on the two CFJs respectively.
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 6059
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 10:54 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Tue, 20 Jan 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >> 6059 D 1 2.0 comex "Voluntary" creation of rests > > FOR > > I've found the scam here I believe; I'm not going to describe it > while this is being voted for in case comex hasn't thought of it :), > but I strongly recommend Against here. -Goethe I flip Wooble's key to F#. I flip Murphy's posture to leaning and hawkishness to hugging. -- ais523
Re: BUS: Crop actions
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 12:01 +, Alex Smith wrote: > I RBoA-deposit 12 X Crops. > I RBoA-withdraw all the RBoA's Note Credits. Wooble thinks that this may have failed due to me being slightly short of Chits. I RBoA-deposit one X Crop. I RBoA-withdraw all the RBoA's Note Credits [which may be none]. -- ais523
BUS: Recognition
I intend, without objection, to flip the Recognition of The Earth Is
Nonetheless An Oblate Spheroid Nomic (http://einos-nomic.blogspot.com/)
to Abandoned.
I intend, with Agoran Consent, to make The Earth Is Nonetheless An
Oblate Spheroid Nomic a Protectorate.
>From its ruleset:
{{{
Rule X. The Earth Is Nonetheless An Oblate Spheroid Nomic submits to
Agora as its benevolent protector. Any protective decree of Agora that
targets this nomic takes effect as specified by the rules of Agora.
}}}
Einos seems to be in trouble, inactive and basically abandoned. It needs
our help.
--
ais523
Ambassador
BUS: Enforcing the Vote Market
I NoV against comex for violating rule 2169 by failing to comply with the equation of CFJ 2254 by failing to gain at least 50 VP within two weeks of that equation coming into effect. I NoV against ehird for violating rule 2169 by failing to comply with the equation of CFJ 2254 by failing to gain at least 50 VP within two weeks of that equation coming into effect. [This one is not as clear-cut as the others due to a scam; see CFJ 2309, which explains why the scam in question failed, and therefore ehird failed to meet the obligation.] I NoV against Quazie for violating rule 2169 by failing to comply with the equation of CFJ 2254 by failing to gain at least 50 VP within two weeks of that equation coming into effect. I NoV against Sgeo for violating rule 2169 by failing to comply with the equation of CFJ 2254 by failing to gain at least 50 VP within two weeks of that equation coming into effect. I think the Vote Market's pretty messed up at the moment; VP are basically valueless because nothing is really enforcing the requirement to regain VP. If proposal 6059 passes, the Vote Market might change the enforcement by act-on-behalf to create Rests; these NoVs are just getting in on the act early. A more fundamental problem is that there's no real way for an Indebted party to regain VP. Something ought to force parties with an excess of VP to sell their VP at a reasonable rate (which the equation of CFJ 2254 was meant to do, but failed in this.) [Note that I sold all my own VP in excess of 50 after the equation passed, at the rates in the equation in question.] -- ais523
BUS: Crop actions
I harvest each of the following CFJ numbers for 2 WRV each, using numbered crops: 2340 2341 2344 2345 2346 2347 2348. I RBoA-deposit 12 X Crops. I RBoA-withdraw all the RBoA's Note Credits. I purchase a Digit Ranch. -- ais523
Re: BUS: ?
On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 15:09 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Elliott Hird > wrote: > > Since Wooble is now SoA and has to track this stuff anyway: > > I absolutely don't have to track that stuff anyway, and I have no > intention to. I object. Based on this, I also object. No fair mousetrapping Wooble! -- ais523
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2282a assigned to ais523, Goethe, woggle
On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 13:09 -0800, Charles Reiss wrote:
> I intend, with the support of ais523 and Goethe, to cause the panel in
> CFJ 2282a to send the following message:
> {{
> The panel judges REMAND. Annotations are characterized by their
> attempt to explain or comment on the object they annotate; truth, in
> contrast, is not an essentially attribute. In light of this, the panel
> asks that H. Prior Judge Murphy reconsider whether the purported
> annotations were annotations and consider whether other requirements
> (for example, R105-related requirements) were met.
> }}
>
I support; reconsideration by the original judge seems like a sensible
option where the reasoning has come heavily under attack.
--
ais523
BUS: NoVs
NoV: Murphy broke rule 1868 by failing to assign a judge to CFJ 2335 on time. (Not NoVing for the related ones, I think it would be manifestly unjust to punish for all the other pending CFJs at the same time.) Also, remember that the CotC needs to declare NoVs VALID/INVALID, I haven't seen much of that going on recently. -- ais523
BUS: [Enigma] Last week's result
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 15:41 +, Alex Smith wrote: > There were no eligible answers to any puzzles last week, so no points > were scored. > > There are two puzzles this week: "Upside-down Cake" by Murphy, and > "Rainbow Adjacencies" by ais523 (a resubmission, due to the lack of > answers last week). No puzzles this week. I'll resubmit Rainbow Adjacencies again for next week, though, because it seems at least one person is still working on it, and there were no correct answers. As for Upside-down Cake: I award 4 y-points to Murphy, for submitting the puzzle. I award 0 x-points to Wooble and to root, for incorrect answers. (Wooble: it's a mathematically perfect cutting surface too, as you should have guessed. root: your argument breaks down because once a few slices have been turned over, partly-iced and partly-noniced slices end up being cut, meaning the area transferred is not a multiple of the irrational slice size.) I award 8 x-points to Billy Pilgrim, for the only correct answer, even though it exploited a bug in the wording of the puzzle. (Yes, 0 is a finite number of operations.) Eir long serious proof fell into the same fallacy as root's did. I award Murphy as many y-points as are specified in the contract for players who did not give eligible answers (because the Notary website seems out-of-date and I'm not sure how many that is). Note: I'm not sure if a statement this vague actually awards points, if someone tells me how many it is (or updates the website) I'll make a conditional award to make sure that the award worked exactly once altogether. In case you're wondering about the puzzle: Murphy wrote: > Yes. In particular, if the irrational fraction is slightly larger than > 1/2, then after four operations all the icing is on top again (there may > be other solutions as well). This works because, if you invert a slice > with a small iced portion on its right side, you get a slice with a > small un-iced portion on its *left* side; for some sizes of wedge, this > allows the icing to return to its starting point, even though the > position of the cuts will never return to theirs. > > Credit (include with solution): Anand Rao (anand...@gmail.com), > http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/puzzleteasers/ -- ais523 Enigma contestmaster
Re: BUS: Enigmaxes
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 12:36 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 15:43 +0000, Alex Smith wrote:
> > I intend, without member objection, to change the Enigma contract by
> > appending the following text:
> > {{{
> > Points which this contract award a player due to authoring a puzzle
> > SHALL be awarded as Y-axis [imaginary] points. Points which this
> > contract award a player due to submitting a solution to a puzzle SHALL
> > be awarded as X-axis [real] points.
> > }}}
> >
> > It's time we actually started using these new axes of ours!
>
> I intend, without 3 objections, to add the Y [imaginary] axis to Enigma.
>
> I will resolve the two intents above at the same time, or else leave
> them both unresolved (for instance, if one of them gets too many
> objections.)
>
> Incidentally, note that a win by points is impossible until at least one
> contest gets the Y axis and a method of awarding points on it (or else
> via scam).
With no objections, I add the Y axis to Enigma.
With no member objections, I change the Enigma contract as described in
the quote above.
--
ais523
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2330 assigned to Wooble
On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 10:12 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > Now, does R1728 base the time of a future event upon the time of > another event? Arguably, yes. When you announce your intent to > perform a dependent action (the "other event"), we may say that the > time limit to perform that action (the "future event") is based on the > time the intent was announced. (It could be argued that there is in > fact no "time limit" created here since the person announcing the > intent is not required to perform the action at all, but this is a > shaky reading at best and won't be considered for the purposes of this > ruling.) In this case, the time limit would be 14 days after 28 Dec., > or 11 Jan., which falls outside the Holiday. > > I judge CFJ 2330 FALSE. I intend, with 2 support, to appeal this judgement. I agree with Judge Wooble's arguments so far, but don't think they are arguments for or against a judgement of FALSE, because discussions about whether intents create a deadline for resolution and/or objection are independent of discussions about whether resolutions create a deadline for intentions, which is a point that the judgement doesn't appear to consider at all. (See the recent discussions between me and Goethe as to how to resolve this point; I think the resolutions which lead to FALSE are probably more plausible than the resolutions which lead to TRUE, although none are entirely satisfactory, but I would have expected the point to at least have been considered.) -- ais523
BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposals 6056-6058
On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 15:17 -0800, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE I vote as follows: > 6056 D 1 2.0 Taral NoV acceptance FOR, but this is an interesting one. My original proto deliberately left this out, because it gave judicial discretion to the size of a SILENCE punishment; the idea was that if someone had done something particularly bad, people couldn't just NoV themselves and accept to give themself just the minimum punishment. Now that we have fixed punishments, it makes sense; if I ever propose variable punishments, I'll propose a reversion of this too if it passes. > 6057 D 0 2.0 Taral NoV fixup FOR > 6058 D 1 2.0 Wooble NoV ID FOR -- ais523
BUS: Small Partial Mousetrap Report
I hereby publish the text and membership of the Small Partial Mousetrap,
although it remains a private contract.
Text:
{{{
This is a private contract, binding under the rules of Agora. ais523
SHOULD attempt to announce changes in its text and membership as they
occur; however, this is not mandatory, especially as its membership may
not always be trivial to determine.
Any person CAN agree to this contract. The agreement need not be done by
announcement; any action, in any nomic, which has the effect of agreeing
to this contract is sufficient to constitute agreement to this contract,
as long as such agreement is permitted by the rules (especially rule
101).
ais523 CAN leave this contract by announcement. Other persons can leave
this contract only if ais523 is not a party to it, in which case they
can leave it by announcement.
Parties to this contract SHALL vote FOR any Agoran decision on a
proposal submitted by ais523 on public request from ais523 (so long as
the request is made with sufficient notice to allow time to make that
particular vote during the voting period). Parties to this contract
SHALL retract ASAP any objections to a dependent action whose Executor
is ais523 on public request from ais523, and not re-object (or object in
the first place, if they had not previously objected to it) to dependent
actions on which ais523 has made such a request.
}}}
Membership: {ais523, ehird, Warrigal}.
--
ais523
Re: BUS: Judgement, CFJ 2303, and an NoV
On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 15:20 +, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 15 Jan 2009, at 11:55, Alex Smith wrote: > > > I NoV against ehird for selecting a confusing nickname (the null > > string), which violates the power-3 Rule 2170; this is not a defined > > Crime. (Note that whether or not the attempt to change nickname > > succeeded, ehird still 'selected' it in the message in which e claimed > > to change nickname. See the judgement of CFJ 2303 for more details.) > > I contest this. I initiate a criminal CFJ on the matter, and recommend a double penalty as ehird has given no information as to why the penalty is incorrect. (If e gives such information, I may continue to recommend a double penalty, depending on how persuasive it is.) As gratuitous arguments on the resulting CFJ, I submit the above inner-quoted NoV message, and also the sentence "See CFJ 2303 for more arguments". -- ais523
BUS: Silly Hats
I agree to the following public pledge:
{{{
This is an Agoran public contract, and a pledge. Nobody but ais523 can
join this pledge, and ais523 can terminate it by announcement.
Silly Hats are a class of asset. They have no recordkeepor, but can be
created by the Agoran Ambassador, in the possession of any entity
recognised by B Nomic as a B Nomic player, via a message to
. There is no limit to the number of Silly
Hats that can exist at any given time.
Silly Hats can be destroyed or transferred by their owners by
announcement, or by an equivalent announcement-like message which is
sent to spoon-business rather than an Agoran public forum.
}}}
--
ais523
BUS: Judgement, CFJ 2303, and an NoV
I judge as follows on CFJ 2303 ("ehird successfully changed eir name to
a null string on or about 5 December 2008 21:53:02 UTC."):
Rule 649/27 includes, in part:
{{{
When a patent title is used as a noun to refer to bearers of the
patent title, it is assumed to refer only to persons who Bear
that patent title unless context clearly indicates otherwise.
}}}
In other words, saying "I transfer 1 VP to ." would, according to this
rule, imply that the holder of the null-length patent title (Andre IIRC,
although I haven't checked this) is the person who receives the VP in
question, except in contexts which made this obviously incorrect.
(Although the issue of the null-length patent title has been brought up
before, I don't think the relevance of this particular quotation from
rule 649 has yet been considered.) In passing, I note that it would be
far more logical for this to transfer a VP to the holder of the Patent
Title in question (in this case, there only is one), rather than to the
Patent Title itself (a dubious and potentially impossible operation in
any case, but that is beyond the scope of this CFJ). Therefore, it seems
that in this case ehird's attempted name change was ILLEGAL per rule
2170, and I will NoV later in this message. Note, however, that being
illegal does not necessarily cause an action to fail; so we must look
further.
It is also worth considering what would happen in the absence of the
patent title in question. There is some debate about whether the null
string would be confusing as a nickname; although its presence is
normally determinable by the fact that the punctuation marks or spaces
before and after it are generally not merged, it can still be hard to
read. Also worth considering is the fact that email is generally sent
with manual line breaks after about 70 characters (this is considered
good style), and therefore it is not at all impossible that a player's
nickname might appear at the end of a line. A null string at the end of
a line would be hard to detect, requiring the grammatical context of the
surrounding text to be parsed, and even then there would be potential
ambiguities. (Consider the text "I transfer 1 VP to each of j, woggle,
and Murphy"; depending on whether or not a serial comma is used, it is
not at all clear whether a hypothetical null-string-named player is
included in the list of players to transfer the VP to.) This clearly has
the potential for sufficient confusion to imply that the selection of
the null string of a nickname is ILLEGAL per rule 2170 even in the
absence of an identically named Patent Title.
So it's illegal; is it impossible? I first note that the concept of
nicknames is hardly mentioned in the rules at all. Rule 2170 mentions
them, but only to make certain selections of nicknames illegal. Rule
2139 requires the Registrar to track only "information sufficient to
identify and contact [each player]"; I note that although a nickname is
often information sufficient to identify a player (for instance,
"ais523" is almost certainly sufficient to identify me in the context of
Agora, and probably in most other contexts too), it is not the only such
possible information. For instance, it would be possible to identify a
player via habitual email address, or via linking to the archives for a
message e had sent, or even by habitual IRC 'nick' (different from the
usual Agoran nickname in several cases, such as j vs. jayCampbell), as
long as the context was clear.
So what exactly is a nickname, in the context of Agora, and are attempts
to change it successful? CFJ 1361 established that what a nickname is
depends on context. The precedent it established has now been eroded by
legislation to some extent, but I independently came to a similar
conclusion; in my opinion, a person's nickname is a string of characters
(or possibly something more unusual, I'm not sure if this has been
explored yet) suitable to identify them in general conversation, or in
another specific context. In the case of Agora, a nickname is the name
by which someone is generally known to other Agorans, and therefore,
quite a matter of game custom. When ehird changed eir nickname to tusho,
Agorans as a whole generally called em tusho; therefore, de-facto, this
change was a success. However, when ehird tried to change eir name to ,
the vast majority of messages continued to have called em ehird.
Therefore, it would seem that on a practical level, this attempted
change failed; for something informal like a nickname, we have to look
at what names are actually being used to determine what a player's
nickname actually is, and in this case it seems inescapable to establish
that ehird's nickname is, in fact, "ehird", and so the attempt failed
(as well as being illegal).
I would like to mention that as nicknames are highly informal and
game-custom-based, despite being so important to the game, I suspect
that IRRELEVANT might in fact be an appropriate judgement for this CFJ,
even
Re: BUS: AFO
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 12:52 -0600, Josiah Worcester wrote: > I consent to ais523 joining the AFO. > With the consent of pikhq, Murphy and comex (all current AFO partners), I agree to and join the AFO. -- ais523
Re: BUS: Activity check
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 15:04 +, Alex Smith wrote: > On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 23:08 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: > > I cause the AFO to publish this. > > > > Registrar's Census > I'm going a bit further with deactivation than normal here; the idea's > to check to see if various people who haven't posted very recently are > awake, as well as inactivating people who haven't been playing for a > while. > > If I intend to deactivate you, don't take it as an attack; deactivating > people who aren't playing is intended simply to prevent them incurring > obligations and getting punished for not fulfiling them. It also reduces > quorum, making it easier to pass proposals that you aren't voting on. > > For each of the following players, I intend without objection to make > them inactive: > Billy Pilgrim, Craig/teucer, Dvorak Herring, harblcat, j, OscarMeyr, > Pavitra, Schrodinger's Cat, Siege, Sir Toby, w1n5t0n. > The deactivations of OscarMeyr, Pavitra, j, Siege, w1n5t0n, and Billy Pilgrim were objected to. Without objection, I inactivate Craig, Dvorak Herring, harblcat, Schrodinger's Cat, and Sir Toby. (If I just deactivated you against your will, you can just become active again by announcement.) -- ais523
Re: BUS: Taking the plunge
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 15:13 +, Alex Smith wrote: > I flip my judicial rank to 3. > > Without 2 objections, I intend to flip the II of each of the following > CFJs to 2: > > CFJ 2316 (about whether pre-emptive objections work; that one has since > been fixed by proposal, but it's relevant to know whether it mattered > earlier) > > CFJ 2322 (about whether private contracts allow act-on-behalf) > > CFJs 2321 and 2282 (which were both appealed; 2282 about the annotation > scam, 2321 about Goethe's recent without-objections scam) > > Without 2 objections, I intend to flip the II of CFJ 2331 to 0 (rule > 104, again...) > > I encourage players to remember to set the II of CFJs in the future. With only 1 objection (from Goethe), I set IIs of CFJs as I intended in the above message. (We have several rank-3 judges now, so it should be a safe way to allocate important CFJs as opposed to a scam to take over the judicial system.) -- ais523
BUS: Re: DIS: argument against
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 09:27 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jan 2009, Alex Smith wrote:
> > It also explicitly allows "the time limit to perform an action". I admit
> > that that's the most tenuous part of the whole scam, though; arguably,
> > the rule contradicts itself there, and the interpretation in which the
> > scam doesn't work is the more plausible one.
>
> Yes, the issue is that the phrase ("including the time limit to perform
> an action") is a parenthetical on "future event". Two reasonably
> consistent ways to read this:
I've now come to the conclusion that none of the scams worked, pretty
much based on your arguments; mine/comex's relied on an ambiguity, and
although it could be resolved so that the scam worked that isn't the
most natural reading of the rule, and you've already explained why yours
didn't work.
I object to all intents to perform dependent actions where the intents
were given during the recent holiday (just to make sure...)
--
ais523
Re: BUS: Enigmaxes
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 15:43 +, Alex Smith wrote:
> I intend, without member objection, to change the Enigma contract by
> appending the following text:
> {{{
> Points which this contract award a player due to authoring a puzzle
> SHALL be awarded as Y-axis [imaginary] points. Points which this
> contract award a player due to submitting a solution to a puzzle SHALL
> be awarded as X-axis [real] points.
> }}}
>
> It's time we actually started using these new axes of ours!
I intend, without 3 objections, to add the Y [imaginary] axis to Enigma.
I will resolve the two intents above at the same time, or else leave
them both unresolved (for instance, if one of them gets too many
objections.)
Incidentally, note that a win by points is impossible until at least one
contest gets the Y axis and a method of awarding points on it (or else
via scam).
--
ais523
BUS: FRC Equity
I initiate an equity case against the Fantasy Rules Contest; its list of
members is {BobTHJ Iammars Murphy pikhq root Quazie Sir Toby ais523
Wooble ehird 0x44 Billy Pilgrim} according to the Notary website, and
the state of affairs by which matters have not proceeded as envisioned
by the contract is that the contestmaster's inactivity has meant that a
large number of points which should have been awarded by the contract
have gone unawarded.
I suggest that an equitable resolution would be to change the contract's
contestmaster (if not permanently, at least temporarily, so that the
backlog can be cleared), and to modify the contract to allow its backlog
of points to be awarded to the appropriate players.
--
ais523
BUS: Judgement, CFJ 2324
I judge as follows in CFJ 2324:
{{{
This case hinges around what exactly happened when Craig sent the
message in question. The sentence in question was
{{Markos Sophisticus Maximus registers.}}
The only definition of Markos Sophisticus Maximus that has been
suggested, or that seems plausible in context, is the definition that is
given by a pledge by Warrigal (of which Craig is obviously aware, being
a party to it):
{{
Markos Sophisticus Maximus is an imposed office held by the
owner of the Badge of Markos Sophisticus Maximus.
}}
Now, it is clearly impossible for a contract to create offices. The
relevant precedent here is CFJ 1930, which found that when a contract
uses a rules-defined term, it is using the rules-defined meaning not the
English meaning, unless it explicitly says otherwise. An office is
defined by the rules as "a role defined as such by the rules"; so the
contract cannot create an office. So Fight Arena failed, because
creating a "secret rule" is something that although impossible,
certainly made sense. A contract obligating someone to create a secret
rule is much the same as a contract obligating someone to do any other
impossible thing; ridiculous and you'd be a fool to join, but legally
parsable. In the case of contract-defined dependent actions, meaning has
to slip a bit, because the circumstances are different. Rule 1728 allows
people to perform rules-defined dependent actions dependently. There's
nothing preventing a contract saying that something CAN be done w3o, or
whatever; however, rule 1728 doesn't give such actions any special
meaning, so the phrase just sticks around with game-custom meaning (and
I believe that it's sufficiently clear to allow the first paragraph of
rule 2198 to cause dependent-action-like contract changes to work if
they use the same wording as invokes rule 1728).
So what about contracts that purport to define an office? We first need
(per the precedent of CFJ 1930) to expand the definition:
{{
Markos Sophisticus Maximus is a role defined by the rules to be an
office but not an elected office, held by the owner of the Badge of
Markos Sophisticus Maximus.
}}
So we have here a case of a contract which is clearly lying, in much the
same way as a contract which says "This contract has power 4". CFJ 1933
covered the case of a contract which effectively said "This contract is
the backing document for "; the
judgement there was that each contract had its own internal gamestate,
and they could coexist quite happily, producing crop reports (which
contradicted each other) and disregarding each other (and incidentally,
CFJ 1923 found that in such a case, referring to a "crop" would
therefore be ambiguous unless it was clear which contract was meant from
context). Applying this precedent to the current case would imply that
the contract believed there was a rules-defined office when the rules
believed there weren't; however, it is not at all clear whether
contracts should by default be assumed to have rules-contradictory
internal gamestate. (There have been contracts with internal gamestate
different from the rules, mostly external nomics which somehow ended up
as Agoran contracts; for instance, Flapjack specifically stated that its
gamestate used different definitions from those in the rules, and had a
convention to show which meaning was used where. However, this is
different from defining false facts to be true.) So this precedent would
encourage TRUE; but it is shaky and not entirely applicable.
However, there is a more compelling argument which also indicates TRUE.
If the impossible part of the above definition is deleted, we get
{{
Markos Sophisticus Maximus is a role, held by the owner of the Badge of
Markos Sophisticus Maximus.
}}
The part of the contract's definitions that purports to contradict the
rules - which is whether Markos Sophisticus Maximus is rules-defined -
is irrelevant here. The definition as a role is (per CFJ 1930, and per
common Agoran language definitions) part of the definition of something
as an office; and we should not ignore the entire sentence just because
it contradicts the rules, but instead merely the part of it that
contradicts the rules. So it is clear that, regardless of how conflicts
with the rules are resolved, that from the point of view of the
contract, Markos Sophisticus Maximus was Craig at the time e sent the
message in question. It is very common shorthand (and r754-unambiguous)
to use a term defined only in a contract as shorthand for the definition
used by the contract; for instance, "I transfer a prop to the SoA" would
be taken as expanding to "I transfer a prop to the player that the
Agoran Agricultural Association defines to be the Secretary of
Agriculture", as that is the only plausible referent for SoA in the
current Agoran gamestate; and likewise, "Markus Sophisticus Maximus
registers" expands to "The player which Warrigal's recent unnamed pledge
defines to be the holder of Markus Sophisticus Maximus registers".
Re: BUS: PBA non-report
On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 18:47 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 11:19 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> [...]
> > I intend, with the Support of the People, to set the PBA exchange rate
> > for each asset to the rate it would have at the time of the setting if
> > the above report were correct. (This rate cannot be determined at the
> > time I'm posting this intent, but I believe it's an unambiguous
> > specification since the amount the rates will change is subject to a
> > deterministic formula.)
>
> With the support of woggle and Pavitra and with no objections, I set
> the PBA's exchange rates to (and the current inventory is):
> Asset Rate Stock
> - -
> PV 58 0
I PBA-deposit all my PV. (Note that the backing document for PV may have
just ceased to exist. If it has, ehird risks my fury, which is not as
scary as Goethe's, but still sufficiently scary, I imagine. Also, note
that even if the backing document has ceased to exist, PV may still
exist.)
I call for judgement on the statement {{Props are a type of asset.}}.
Arguments:
{{{
Rule 2166/9 states:
{{
An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule or contract
(hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because
its backing document defines its existence.
}}
When the backing document for props was decontractised by proposal (N.B.
we since altered the gamestate to what would have happened if it wasn't,
but the change nevertheless occurred), props continued to be tracked
informally: they were reports, people transferred them around, and they
otherwise acted entirely like assets. In light of this, it is a bit
absurd to state that props exist solely because their backing document
defines their existence; I think we have demonstrated that even without
a backing document, props can exist just fine.
}}}
--
ais523
Re: BUS: Watcher WoodsPam
On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 12:52 -0800, Charles Reiss wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 11:59, Elliott Hird
> wrote:
> >
> > On 10 Jan 2009, at 19:56, Royce Wood wrote:
> >
> > I would like to be an official watcher.
> >
> > CFJ: { WoodsPam is a Player }
> > Arguments: We should be lenient with the registration laws to the point of
> > absurdity, because an artificially inflated player count is objectively
> > good. Anyone arguing otherwise would be denying objective truth and,
> > therefore, should be treated only with a yelling of "CREAMPUFF!".
> > Associated Precedent: Pavitra.
>
> I intend, without 2 objections, to set the interest index of the above CFJ to
> 0.
>
I support. (Yes, I know this doesn't do anything, but IIRC it's
possible.)
--
ais523
Re: BUS: Watcher WoodsPam
On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 19:59 +, Elliott Hird wrote:
>
> On 10 Jan 2009, at 19:56, Royce Wood wrote:
>
> > I would like to be an official watcher.
>
> CFJ: { WoodsPam is a Player }
> Arguments: We should be lenient with the registration laws to the
> point of absurdity, because an artificially inflated player count is
> objectively good. Anyone arguing otherwise would be denying objective
> truth and, therefore, should be treated only with a yelling of
> "CREAMPUFF!".
> Associated Precedent: Pavitra.
Argument: This is obviously not an attempt to register, and legally
speaking, definitely isn't registration as it doesn't fit any of the
registration templates.
Associated precedent: comex.
--
ais523
BUS: Re: OFF: Distribution of proposal 6050
On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 02:50 -0800, The PerlNomic Partnership wrote: > NUM C I AI SUBMITTER TITLE I vote as follows: > 6050 O 0 1.0 ais523 Paradoxical Dancing TETRAHEDRONx5 -- ais523
Re: BUS: Harvesting
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 20:50 -0500, Benjamin Schultz wrote: > I harvest 2124, a recently amended power-2 rule, for 6 random crops. > > If I have no 0 crops, I mill 1 - 1 = 0. > I harvest 101, a recently amended power-3 rule for 8 random crops. I harvest the same two numbers for the same reasons, using X crops if necessary (but only where I can't do it with numbered crops). -- ais523
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2321a assigned to ais523, comex, harblcat
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 15:50 -0500, comex wrote: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 2:04 AM, Ed Murphy wrote: > > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2321a > > > > Appeal 2321a > > > > Panelist: ais523 > > Panelist: comex > > Panelist: harblcat > > It is possible (and Goethe now believes) that the Holiday scam and its > variants failed altogether for various reasons, which should be dealt > with by this CFJ's judge; on the other hand, there's a good argument > by Goethe against what Wooble laid out in eir judgement of CFJ 2321, > which only dealt with the four-days-before issue. As the success of > the scam which Wooble performed in the same message as eir judgement > of this CFJ depends on both of these factors, e is certainly > self-interested, and the circumstances in which e posted eir judgement > lead me to believe that this self-interest may be corruptive. > Therefore, I intend, with the support of ais523 and the CotC (it > appears that harblcat is inactive), to REASSIGN this CFJ. I support this intent. An absolute judgement here would be corruptive self-interest on my own part, I think. -- ais523
Re: BUS: note exchange non-report
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 15:16 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > Note Credits I transfer a prop from BobTHJ to Wooble, to [probably not enough] reward Wooble's attempts to work out what the economy actually is at the moment (not just for the Note Market, but also for the more difficult contracts like the PBA). -- ais523
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2325 assigned to Taral
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 11:42 -0500, comex wrote: > On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Taral wrote: > > Patent nonsense, given the history of nicknames. NOT GUILTY. > > I intend to appeal this with 2 support. > > Arguments: > > Huh? E did select such a nickname, and e would definitely be in > violation of the Rules if e had sent the message to a public forum; > the case hinges around whether actions outside of Agora count. Gratuitous: E didn't select such a nickname, as far as the rules are concerned; the game-custom presumption is that nickname changes only work to the PF. (IIRC, a while back someone jokily changed eir nickname to a-d, I can't remember who but it was around the time when avpx tried to change eir nickname to ehird because ehird was using the name tusho, I think; and nobody thought it was meant to be effective at the time. I might be wrong on this, though.) Rules don't punish people for or react to other nttpf actions (joining a private contract is a special case, because those are designed to not require the PF); an action to s-b (B Nomic's main public forum) is ineffective in Agora, and therefore unpunishable, just as an action to a-d would have been. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2321 assigned to Wooble
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 08:36 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote:
> Counterargument: act-on-behalf doesn't require a contract, it only
> requires consent. The intent behind this case was to determine
> whether Wooble's request constituted implicit consent (I expect not,
> but this will set some interesting precedent either way).
Interesting point; I don't think act-on-behalf via non-contract consent
has ever been established by a CFJ, and had assumed it didn't exist. As
act-on-behalf is based on game custom anyway, this could make for a very
interesting CFJ.
I initiate an inquiry CFJ with II 2 into the statement {{If a player
gives consent for other players to act on eir behalf without creating or
modifying a contract for the purpose, such consent actually does allow
those players to act on eir behalf.}}
Arguments:
I don't think there's any precedent or rules basis for this, but I might
be wrong.
--
ais523
BUS: Musical chairs
I change my key to A. I create a B Credit/B Marker pair, and deposit the B Credit in the PBA. -- ais523
BUS: While it's nominations season...
I nominate myself for Ambassador. (I have nothing against the PNP, but foreign nomics seem to not really like talking to computers...) -- ais523
BUS: Enigmaxes
I object to attempts to remove the X-axis from Enigma (but not to
attempts to add the Y-axis to it). Is Murphy's intent on this one still
valid? Nothing ever seemed to come of it.
I intend, without member objection, to change the Enigma contract by
appending the following text:
{{{
Points which this contract award a player due to authoring a puzzle
SHALL be awarded as Y-axis [imaginary] points. Points which this
contract award a player due to submitting a solution to a puzzle SHALL
be awarded as X-axis [real] points.
}}}
It's time we actually started using these new axes of ours!
--
ais523
Enigma contestmaster
BUS: [Enigma] This week's puzzles, last week's results
There were no eligible answers to any puzzles last week, so no points
were scored.
There are two puzzles this week: "Upside-down Cake" by Murphy, and
"Rainbow Adjacencies" by ais523 (a resubmission, due to the lack of
answers last week).
"Upside-down Cake", by Murphy:
> Puzzle:
>
> You have a circular cake that starts out with the entire top iced and
> the entire bottom un-iced, and a slicing tool that will cut a fixed-size
> wedge of it (i.e. both edges are radii of the circle). You cut a slice,
> turn the slice over and put it back, then cut another slice adjacent to
> the first one and turn that over and put it back, and so forth, always
> moving clockwise. If the angle is an irrational fraction of 360
> degrees, is it possible that after a finite number of operations you
> will end up with all the icing on the top again?
>
> (The cake is actually cylindrical, but only its circular cross section
> is relevant. Assume mathematical perfection.)
>
> Credit (include with puzzle): I got this from somewhere else. The
> source will be announced along with the solution.
Contestmaster's notes: The question is phrased as a yes-or-no question,
but just answering yes or no won't score any points (that would be too
trivial, you could just answer both). In order to score with an eligible
answer, you'll need to give either an explanation of how it's possible,
or an explanation of why it isn't.
"Rainbow Adjacencies", by ais523:
> I submit the following Enigma puzzle, titled "Rainbow Adjacencies":
>
> Question:
> {{{
> Suppose you have a 5 by 5 grid of squares (i.e. 5 squares across, 5
> squares down, sort of like a chessboard but smaller). Two squares on
> this grid are 'adjacent' if their x-coordinates differ by 1 and their
> y-coordinates are the same, or vice versa (i.e. adjacency is orthogonal
> but not diagonal). Also, the grid is considered to wrap round; two
> squares can also be adjacent if their x-coordinates differ by 4 and
> their y-coordinates are the same, or vice versa.
>
> To solve this puzzle, you have to colour each square on this grid Red,
> Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, or Violet (different squares can be
> different colours), whilst obeying the following restrictions:
> 1. Each of the 7 colours must be used at least once; that is, for
> each colour, some square on the grid has that colour.
> 2. The regions of each colour must be connected. In other words,
> for any two squares which are the same colour, there is a
> (possibly empty) path of squares of that colour connecting them,
> such that each pair of squares along that path are adjacent.
> 3. For any two colours, some square of the first of those colours
> is adjacent to some square of the second of those colours.
> In other words: you have to separate this 5x5 grid, with 25 squares,
> into 7 different regions, each a different colour, such that each of the
> regions is connected, and each region borders each of the others.
> (Restriction 3 is the hard one, of course).
>
> As an example, I give a solution to a similar puzzle using a 3x6 grid
> and only 6 colours:
>
> RRROOO
> YYGGGY
> BIIIBB
>
> Good luck doing it on a 5x5 with 7. I'll look forward to your solutions.
> }}}
Nobody did this one last week? Here's another week to think about it.
Maybe your brute-forcers were too slow, or maybe the Holiday got in the
way and nobody was thinking about Enigma. (It got in the way for me,
too; this is part of the reason why this announcement is so late in the
week.)
Scoring is the same as always; each puzzle gives 8 points to the first
contestant to submit a correct answer, 4 for other contestants who
submit a correct answer. (So if you answer them both right away, you
could score 16.) Submitters of puzzles gain 4 points, plus 2 points for
every active contestant who does not submit a correct answer. The
exception is that if nobody submits a correct answer to a puzzle other
than the author, no points are awarded for it that week (and the puzzle
is often resubmitted in a future week, giving people another chance to
score on it).
You have one week from this message. (Note that as this message is going
out unusually late in the week, that means you have until some time on
Thursday next week, you don't have to get things in before Sunday.)
NOTE TO NON-ENIGMA CONTESTANTS: Why not join in the fun? There are no
obligations to joining Enigma, and joining during the answer submission
period on a puzzle allows you to submit a solution to that puzzle. In
order to score, you have to be an Enigma contestant when the answer
submission period to a puzzle ends, and an player of Agora when I get
round to awarding points; there are no other restrictions (in
particular, you don't have to be a contestant right now to participate
in this week's puzzles). Especially to new Agorans, I'd like to point
out that Enigma is an interesting, thought-provoking and risk-free way
to gain points; and you al
BUS: Taking the plunge
I flip my judicial rank to 3. Without 2 objections, I intend to flip the II of each of the following CFJs to 2: CFJ 2316 (about whether pre-emptive objections work; that one has since been fixed by proposal, but it's relevant to know whether it mattered earlier) CFJ 2322 (about whether private contracts allow act-on-behalf) CFJs 2321 and 2282 (which were both appealed; 2282 about the annotation scam, 2321 about Goethe's recent without-objections scam) Without 2 objections, I intend to flip the II of CFJ 2331 to 0 (rule 104, again...) I encourage players to remember to set the II of CFJs in the future. -- ais523
BUS: Activity check
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 23:08 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: > I cause the AFO to publish this. > > Registrar's Census I'm going a bit further with deactivation than normal here; the idea's to check to see if various people who haven't posted very recently are awake, as well as inactivating people who haven't been playing for a while. If I intend to deactivate you, don't take it as an attack; deactivating people who aren't playing is intended simply to prevent them incurring obligations and getting punished for not fulfiling them. It also reduces quorum, making it easier to pass proposals that you aren't voting on. For each of the following players, I intend without objection to make them inactive: Billy Pilgrim, Craig/teucer, Dvorak Herring, harblcat, j, OscarMeyr, Pavitra, Schrodinger's Cat, Siege, Sir Toby, w1n5t0n. -- ais523
BUS: A trivial paradox?
I submit a proposal (AI=1, II=0, Title="Paradoxical Dancing"), with the
text {{{Create a power-1 rule with the text {{Wooble SHALL NOT Dance a
Powerful Dance. Neither sentence of this rule has an effect.}}.}}}
I call for judgement on the statement {{{If a rule were created with the
text {{Wooble SHALL NOT Dance a Powerful Dance. Neither sentence of this
rule has an effect.}}, then it would be ILLEGAL for Wooble to Dance a
Powerful Dance.}}}
Arguments: If the rule in question existed, then this would be a clear
Epinemedes Paradox. The paradox rules specifically allow for
hypothetical paradoxes; and the judgement is not irrelevant to the game
(for instance, Wooble might be planning to Dance a Powerful Dance in the
future, and would probably want to vote AGAINST the proposal I just
submitted if it did indeed restrict em from doing so).
--
ais523
Re: BUS: It's all in the timing
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 21:49 -0500, comex wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 6:59 PM, Geoffrey Spear wrote:
> > Having received no objections (the case of preemptive support not
> > working to democritize P5707 sets a precedent that preemptive
> > objections shouldn't work either), I ratify the following {} delimited
> > document with a scope of the SLR:
>
> This fails because there are standing preemptive objections (which is
> why ais523's and my similar scam used a without-3-objections
> mechanism)-- at least, no CFJ has ruled that such objections don't
> work. Proposal 5707 had to do with preemptive intent, which is
> completely different (and the arguments in that case are iffy anyway--
> how can an announcement fail? it's a physical action).
The argument there was not that the announcement failed, but that it
wasn't specific enough in identifying the proposal it was talking about,
as no proposal had been assigned the number 5707 at the time. I imagine
"I intend to do something" would not count as sufficient intent for a
dependent action for much the same reason.
> I intend to appeal this judgement with two support.
> Arguments: This deserves a REASSIGN under the corruptive self-interest
> clause.
I support attempts to appeal CFJ 2321, mostly because I'm not entirely
sure which way it was judged. I won't recommend any particular appeal
judgement yet, though.
--
ais523
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2321 assigned to Wooble
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 19:12 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > > I initiate an inquiry case on the following statement, disqualifying > > Wooble: > > > > In the message quoted in caller's evidence, ehird acted on behalf > > of Wooble to judge CFJ 2321. > > > Gratuitous argument: if a contract I'm not a party to can cause me to > grant power of attorney to ehird, Agora's more broken than B. Gratuitous arguments: There blatantly isn't an act-on-behalf here, because there's no way a contract with ehird as its only party can allow em to act on behalf of Wooble. However, the judge should probably look at if Wooble's request to ehird was R2164/3 para 2 consent to allow ehird to transfer the case to emself and judge it, and whether ehird did indeed invoke that paragraph. (By the way, did anyone else here remember that that paragraph existed?) -- ais523
BUS: Holiday's over now, isn't it? Judgement time...
I judge as follows on CFJ 2320 ("Four days and 5 hours from the time
this CFJ was/will be called, it will be possible to object to the above
intent.", called just before a holiday in the same message as the
intent):
This case hinges around when the deadline for objection is for objecting
to a dependent action, and whether there is in fact such a deadline. The
interesting complicating point here (apart from the Holiday) is that the
dependent actions rule is written backwards, so to speak. Rule
1728/22(b) says:
{{{
b) A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the
action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and
method(s) (including the value of N for each method), at
most fourteen days earlier, and (if the action depends on
objections) at least four days earlier.
}}}
So the question here is whether (as in ehird's attempted paradox)
intending an action creates a deadline for objection, or whether (as in
Goethe's and my/comex's scam attempt) doing a dependent action creates a
deadline for intending it, or both. I first point out that there is no
contradiction in supposing both are true, because they are deadlines for
different things; but also, that the resolution of Goethe's scam is a
matter for another CFJ, especially as I tried a similar one, and so that
I won't discuss the issue further in this judgement.
The following excerpts from rule 2124/9 are, I think, the most
enlightening on the matter:
{{{
[...] An Objector to a
dependent action is a first-class player (or other person
explicitly allowed to object to that action by the rule allowing
that action to be performed dependently) who has publicly posted
(and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent
to perform the action.
[...]
Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
if and only if:
(1) if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then
it has fewer than N objectors;
[...]
}}}
First, note that this means that the verdict on this CFJ is trivially
TRUE, as it is indeed possible to object to a dependent action even
after it's been carried out, by the above definition (although doing so
does nothing). [Note that objecting to a dependent action before it is
carried out - the opposite of this, is more murky, due to the difficulty
of identifying whether the objection is to the announcement of intent in
question before the announcement exists, but again irrelevant to the
case.] So no paradox here. Normally at this point I'd modify the
question to a version which isn't defeated by technicality, but I'm not
sure how to do so in this case [pun noticed but not intended]. So
instead, I simply judge as follows:
CFJ 2320 is TRUE. It is possible to object to a dependent action even
after it is resolved, not that that will do anything.
I judge as follows on CFJ 2298: {{{ TRUE. No Ribbon except Violet is
awarded for gaining the Patent Title "Minister without Portfolio". }}}
--
ais523
Re: BUS: AFO
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 22:11 -0500, comex wrote: > I intend, with the unanimous consent of the current Partners of the > AFO, to admit ais523 to it. I intend, with the unanimous consent of the current Partners of the AFO, to agree to it. -- ais523
BUS: Prerogatives (was: Re: Speaker)
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 21:22 -0500, comex wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:05 PM, Charles Schaefer
> wrote:
> > Inquiry CFJ: {The current Speaker is Michael Norrish.}
>
> See CFJs 2155 and 1534.
Someone told me that I'm the Speaker now. I'm not entirely sure whether
I am or not, but I've been de-facto doing the job for a while via
deputisation.
Disclaimer: The actions in the rest of this message fail if I am not
Speaker; I wouldn't want to mislead anyone into thinking they succeed if
I am not.
I assign prerogatives for January 2009 as follows (note that these fail
if the players in question aren't MWoPs, I'm relying on Murphy's website
for that and it's been wrong in the past):
ais523: Wielder of Veto [I've tried a few, and I like this one]
BobTHJ: Wielder of Extra Votes [we all know how e loves voting power]
Pavitra: Default Officeholder [to have someone active here just in case]
Zefram: Wielder of Rubberstamp [by elimination]
pikhq: Justiciar [make this someone supine to help out the CotC]
I intend to deputise for the Speaker to make the above assignments (in
case I'm not the speaker; the deputisation does nothing if I am).
--
ais523
Possibly the Speaker
Re: BUS: Between 4 and 14 days earlier [part 2]
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 17:40 -0500, Sgeo wrote: > On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 11:53 AM, comex wrote: > > [Summary: More y-points for me, to a total of 640, then a win > > announcement.] > > I initiate an Inquiry CFJ with the following statement: "On or about > December 28, 2008, comex achieved a Win by Points" (note that this > would also include ais523) I initiate an Inquiry CFJ on the statement "On or about December 28, 2008, ais523 achieved a Win by Points." Up until now, I forgot that comex was in the chokey/had Rests (or did he buy them all off? I can't remember), thus was prevented from winning. I'm not entirely sure what difference that makes to the win, or to the win-by-points cleanup. -- ais523
Re: BUS: PBA escape
On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 11:31 -0500, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > > PBA could be bought for 2268 coins; due to adjustments in the > > intervening Monday midnights this is now a bit lower (I didn't > > calculate how much). In any case, this sounds like an excuse for a > > I calculated how much. > > I withdraw 1 additional 6 crop. > > I now have 1 coin. > > There are currently 2880 outstanding coins, and it will cost 1389 > coins to buy all of the PBA's assets. Hmm... are we running low on useful currencies? I PBA-withdraw as many A Credits as possible. I PBA-withdraw as many A# Credits as possible. I PBA-withdraw as many B Credits as possible. I PBA-withdraw as many C Credits as possible. I PBA-withdraw as many C# Credits as possible. I PBA-withdraw as many D Credits as possible. I PBA-withdraw as many D# Credits as possible. I PBA-withdraw as many E Credits as possible. I PBA-withdraw as many F Credits as possible. I PBA-withdraw as many F# Credits as possible. I PBA-withdraw as many G Credits as possible. I PBA-withdraw as many G# Credits as possible. I PBA-withdraw as many PV as possible. I PBA-withdraw as many WRV as possible. -- ais523
