BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly report
COE on registration list: still love y’all, but I’m not consenting to being a player at this time. Out of abundance of caution, I also COE the most recent monthly registrar’s report that implies I’m a current player. (I think current precedent is that player lists wont self-ratify persons into being registered without their consent since doing would create an internal gamestate contradiction - silent ratification failure would be even more confusing to depend on tho). -G. On Tue, Sep 5, 2023 at 5:43 AM juan via agora-official < agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > === > Registrar: juan The Agoran Directory > 2023-09-05 > > === > > > --- > NEWS > > No news. > > --- > PLAYERS > > Active players: 17/18 > > a Player Registration Latest Contact > > - -- -- > - > + kiako 2023-08-05 " its.ki...@gmail.com > > + juan 2022-03-14 " juan at juanmeleiro.mat.br > > + Murphy 2017-12-17 2021-02-03 murphy.agora at gmail.com > > + blob 2023-05-18 " cearguinzoni1 at gmail.com > > + Anneke-Constantine 2023-05-23 " agora.quarentine at gmail.com > > + Kate 2023-08-21 " kate.agora at > katherina.rocks > + innalienableWright 2023-05-16 " inalienablewright at > mailfence.com > + Yachay Wayllukuq 2023-03-16 2023-08-18 yachaywayllukuq at gmail.com > > + Aspen 2022-11-07 " thoughtsoflifeandlight17 at > gmail.com > + ais523 2021-06-08 " callforjudgement at > yahoo.co.uk > + G. 2017-08-25 2021-02-03 kerim at uw.edu > > + Janet 2019-06-02 2021-02-03 janet.agora at > unspecified.systems > + beokirby 2023-05-18 " beokirbyagora at gmail.com > > + snail 2022-01-29 " secretsnail9 at gmail.com > > + 4st2023-01-27 " notorious4st at gmail.com > > + cuddlybanana 2021-03-16 2023-01-16 rose.strong42 at gmail.com > > + Gaelan 2017-05-15 2023-06-06 gbs at canishe.com > > - omd2011-02-03 2022-03-23 comexk at gmail.com > > > WARNING: Player name “blob” refers to the currently registered one, > who became a player on 2023-05-18, and not blob the player from many > years ago. They are different people, to the best of my judgment. This > warning will remain necessary pending decision on how to handle clashing > player names. Do not complain; comply. > > Convetions: > * Player: Latest player name. > * Registered: Date of latest registration. > * Latest: Date of latest change in Activity. > * Contact: URI for eir prefered contact method > > Legend for symbols: > a Activity > + Active > - Inactive > " Same value as cell to the left > > > > --- > FORA > > PublicityLocation or descriptionTypical use > ------- > Public agora-official at agoranomic.org official reports > Public agora-business at agoranomic.org other business > Discussion agora-discussion at agoranomic.org discussion > Discussion > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://discord.gg/JCC6YGc__;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!nOX5oczolWA0syx4Xq6T7BNJJdM9Tn9Ok0G6bbR2g3px8-VAzCUKxRhOMvJpxTOpR1nJEXSrtVnUO5S3VH060_9uoYprtjXe$ > discussion > Foreign agoranomic at groups.io * backup > Foreign agora at listserver.tue.nl backup > Foreign irc://irc.libera.chat:6667/##nomic discussion > Foreign matrix:r/#agoranomiccommunity:mozilla.org discussion > > * The forum is specifically just that email list. > > Subscribe or unsubscribe from main lists: > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo__;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!nOX5oczolWA0syx4Xq6T7BNJJdM9Tn9Ok0G6bbR2g3px8-VAzCUKxRhOMvJpxTOpR1nJEXSrtVnUO5S3VH060_9uoZW0_aMS$ > > Subscribe or unsubscribe from tue.nl backup list: > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://listserver.tue.nl/mailman/listinfo/agora__;!!K-Hz7m0Vt54!nOX5oczolWA0syx4Xq6T7BNJJdM9Tn9Ok0G6bbR2g3px8-VAzCUKxRhOMvJpxTOpR1nJEXSrtVnUO5S3VH060_9uoSAO6inY$ > > The IRC channel does not require subscription; set your IRC client to > server irc.libera.chat, port 6667, channel ##nomic. > > You can subscribe to GIO by messaging the following email > > main+subscribe at agoranomic.groups.io > > There is also a Matrix foreign forum: > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://matrix.to/*/*agoranom
BUS: (@registrar) can't think of a clever subject
I deregister. -G.
(@referee) Re: BUS: (@ADoP/@Referee) Resignation
H referee, I note that 4st violated r2143 by failing to publish the heralds weekly report last week. In terms of penalties, I’ll mention I believe e missed the previous week too, and eir resignation below gives no aid to the incoming herald in reconstructing the report - it would have been easier under the circumstances had e resigned weeks ago. Keeping the other parts of the office while having a professed lack of interest in the duties made it materially more difficult for anyone to take over. (I mean this to be respectful of 4st’s choices - there’s nothing wrong with losing interest in a task, but it’s reasonable for the penalty to reflect the material difficulties caused by the late resignation). -G. On Wed, Aug 23, 2023 at 8:39 AM 4st nomic via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I resign as Herald, leaving the office vacant. > I pledge to, if possible, temporarily deputize to publish the Scroll of > Agora in a timely manner from when it is due, as if I were the Herald, > anyways. > > Additionally, I expunge 1 blot from myself, for that blot was for not > publishing radiance. > > (Put simply: I have so little interest in tracking radiance I do not wish > to be dinged for it, but I do note the importance of the Scroll so I will > still do that.) > > -- > 4ˢᵗ > Deputy Herald > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator >
BUS: (@stonemason) reaching
I reach for the Sabotage stone. -G.
BUS: (@referee) Re: OFF: [Herald] Hi Scores
You didn't out yourself, and it was noticed - I checked the ADoP report a couple days ago but didn't sit down to do duties until today. H. Referee, I note that 4st violated R2143 (infraction: tardiness) by failing to publish a Herald's Weekly Report last week. -G. On Thu, Aug 3, 2023 at 3:46 PM 4st nomic via agora-official wrote: > > WOW. You just LET me be super late with this report. (this is NOT a note of > an infraction against myself.) > > Radiances: > Murphy: 56 > Snail: 22 > 4st, Aspen, G., Janet, Yachay Wayllukuq, ais523, beokirby, blob, > cuddlybanana, inalienableWright, juan, Anneke-Constantine: 14 > all others: 0 > > changes: > murphy, dream of sharing (*2): (14/2/1 * 2)= 14(July 24th/July 31st) > > -- > 4ˢᵗ > Deputy Herald > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator
BUS: Whoops forgot
I succumb
BUS: (@adop) a vote
I vote Janet for rulekeepor (vote may fail if quorum was met earlier)
Re: BUS: I like colors (attn Buttonmastor)
I press the button. On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 1:18 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business < agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > I press the button. > > To the best of my knowledge, the button was last pressed on or about > Fri, 07 Jul 2023 16:10:25 -0300, thus this should flip my Buttonclass > to Yellow. >
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9003-9004
I vote: > --- > 9003* Janet, G.3.0 Process Protection FOR > 9004~ 4st, Janet, Murphy 1.0 Additional Containment Procedure!!! AGAINST (did you people who voted present actually *read* this thing?) -G.
Re: (@Arbitor) Re: BUS: [@Arbitor/@Referee] The Boulder Was Not Pushed.
On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 7:57 PM ais523 via agora-business wrote: > > On Fri, 2023-07-07 at 22:30 -0400, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > On 7/7/23 22:27, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote: > > > (Some related CFJs) > > > Rule 2683 was violated, as the last time the boulder was pushed was June > > > 23rd by 4st. > > > > > > CFJ, barring juan: Juan, the Absurdor, violated rule 2683. > > > CFJ, barring G.: 4st violated rule 2683. > > > CFJ, barring snail: Every player violated rule 2683. > > > CFJ, barring janet: The ruleset violated 2683. > > > > > > Arguments JUAN: Juan, the Absurdor, has an implied responsibility to push > > > the boulder, as e has the office responsible for tracking it, and has the > > > power to push the boulder on any given week. > > > > > > Arguments 4ST: 4st, as the last and only pusher of the boulder, should > > > have > > > continued to push the boulder, as by volunteering the first time, has an > > > implied responsibility to continue to do it. > > > > > > Arguments EVERYONE: As anyone CAN push the boulder, it is everyone's > > > implied responsibility, and so, everyone violated rule 2683, because > > > everyone has the responsibility to push the boulder. > > > > > > Arguments in each of the above: CFJ 3730 clearly suggests a judgement of > > FALSE. > > > > > > > Arguments RULESET: Alternatively, since there is no one assigned to the > > > responsibility specifically, the ruleset violated the rule, and thus, the > > > infraction has no infracter. (I believe this is the precedent, but it > > > doesn't hurt to check) > > > > > > Arguments: IRRELEVANT. No punishment can be imposed in any case. > > > > Arguments: I believe in this case it is the boulder that has violated > the rules, by not being pushed. (As far as I can tell, this viewpoint > is not inconsistent with CFJ 3730.) In CFJ 3141, the judge found that a > sentence fragment "judges SHALL NOT be assigned to any judicial case" > meant that the judge would have violated a rule by being assigned (as > opposed to the person doing the assignment). This situation has > comparable wording. > > Anyway, CFJ 3730 is a direct enough precedent that I think the first > three CFJs could appropriately be judged IRRELEVANT, on the basis that > they can be trivially determined from the outcome of another judicial > case; there doesn't seem to be anything different this time compared to > last time we tried this (something which IIRC was pointed out during > the voting period). Gratuitous (specific response to ais523's arguments): Even if the judge agrees with the principles and logic of CFJ 3730, there's some rule text changes to consider. The judgement quotes a clause of Rule 2531/4 in effect at the time of that judgement: > Any attempt to levy a fine is INEFFECTIVE if: > (reasons) That text has been replaced with this in R2531/16: > An infraction is automatically forgiven if: > (reasons) The "reasons" in R2531/4 mixed the concepts of "not a rules violation based on facts" and "technically a rules violation but excused from penalties" so it was the appropriate citation at the time; currently, "not a rules violation based on facts" is a platonic effect of Rule 2478 and R2531/16 is only relevant for forgiving an established rules violation. If the judge agrees with the overall logic of CFJ 3730, I think this is a minor rules citation issue, but it's probably different enough to reaffirm FALSE and cite R2478 as the new governing rule, or do a little due diligence on whether the new rules text functions as expected, rather than dismiss this as wholly irrelevant. -G.
BUS: 30 in New Zealand
Happy Birthday, Agora!
Re: BUS: (@Rulekeepor) Commune Repair
I object. I don’t think this fixes the issue that nix is fixed as
surveyor, has abandoned the tournament, and can’t be replaced? Apologies if
I missed something on that but.
On Sun, Jun 25, 2023 at 7:58 AM secretsnail9 via agora-business <
agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> I intend, without objection, to ratify the following document, which
> contains incorrect information, in order to fix the commune tournament:
> {{{
> On Wednesday, April 19th, 2023, at 20:28:35 UTC, there existed only one
> tournament, "Commune 2023", which had the following set of regulations:
> {
> Regulation FT0/0
> Commune 2023
>
> Name: Commune v1.3
>
> Description
> ===
>
> This tournament is a self-contained game inspired by Acquire where
> players build communities on a board, invest in those communities,
> and gain rewards when communities they invested in are absorbed by
> other communities.
>
> Playing
> ===
>
> Any player CAN become a participant of this Tournament at any time
> during its play by announcement.
>
> Any participant CAN cease to be so by announcement. A participant
> of this tournament ceases to be so when e becomes inactive in
> Agora. When a person ceases to be a participant, all assets e owns
> defined by this Tournament are destroyed.
>
> The Game Master for this tournament is also known as the Surveyor.
>
> Gaining Tokens
> ==
>
> A Token is an asset ownable by participants only. Tokens CANNOT be
> transferred or destroyed except as otherwise allowed by this
> Tournament. Each Token has a corresponding Symbol which can be
> any English letter A-J or any integer 0-9. Tokens owned by the
> same player with the same Symbol are fungible.
>
> Each participant has a Left, Middle, and a Right Token
> Constructor. By default, Token Constructors are set to construct
> nothing.
>
> For each of eir Token Constructors, players CAN once a week do one
> of the following by announcement:
> - Begin Constructing a Token with a specified Symbol.
> - Grant emself the Token that the Token Constructor is already
> constructing (if not set to nothing).
>
> The playboard
> =
>
> The playboard is a grid of size 10 x 10. The x coordinates of the
> playboard are identified by English letters A-J, and the Y
> coordinates of the playboard are identified by integers [0-9].
>
> Adjacency is defined by being at the same cordinate on one axis,
> and exactly one coordinate away on the other axis.
>
> An example visualization of the initial playboard is below:
>
> A B C D E F G H I J
> +---+
> 0|x x x x x x x x x x|0
> 1|x x x x x x x x x x|1
> 2|x x x x x x x x x x|2
> 3|x x x x x x x x x x|3
> 4|x x x x x x x x x x|4
> 5|x x x x x x x x x x|5
> 6|x x x x x x x x x x|6
> 7|x x x x x x x x x x|7
> 8|x x x x x x x x x x|7
> 9|x x x x x x x x x x|9
> +---+
> A B C D E F G H I J
>
> Placing Tiles and Founding Communities
> ==
>
> If a tile has not been placed on a location on the board, it is
> empty.
>
> Participants CAN place a tile on an empty location by paying one
> letter token and one number token that correspond to that
> location's coordinates.
>
> If a tile is placed that is not adjacent to any tiles belonging to
> any communities, the player that placed it founds a new community,
> e is granted 1 investment for that community, and e becomes its
> founder. The placed tile then begins belonging to the newly founded
> community. E CAN and SHOULD name the community after any color that
> starts with a different first letter than any existing community
> by announcement. If a community has not been named, the Surveyor
> CAN and SHALL do so by announcement.
>
> A player who is the founder of an existing community CANNOT place
> a tile that would found a new community.
>
> If a tile is placed adjacent to one or more tiles belonging to a
> single community, that tile belongs to that community.
>
> If a tile is placed adjacent to two or more tiles belonging to
> different communities, a merger happens.
>
> When a merger happens, if a single community involved in the
> merger has more tiles than each other community, that community is
> the acquiring community. If there is a tie, the tied community
> that gained a tile least recently is the acquiring community. The
> other communities are the acquired communities. All tiles
> belonging to the acquired communities cease to belong to them and
> begin to belong to the acquiring community, and then t
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Notary) A subgame about hats
On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 4:20 PM 4st nomic via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 4:07 PM juan via agora-business <
> agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > juan via agora-business [2023-06-21 20:02]:
> > > 4st nomic via agora-business [2023-06-21 15:41]:
> > > > I create and join the following contract:
> > > > {
> > > > ==Wonderland==
> > > […]
> > > > }
> > >
> > > I join Wonderland.
> > >
> > > --
> > > juan
> >
> > Also, I hurl my hat at 4st just like in that scene in Goldfinger where
> > Oddjob does it at a statue, thereby severing the statue's head.
> >
> > --
> > juan
>
>
> Uh, hm. This should have been an expected turn of events, but it was not.
> Unless anyone has anything else to say about this turn of events, this is
> what I'm thinking occurs:
>
> Naturally, I would suppose that most natural hats do not have the property
> of cutting heads, nor do I suppose most people have the natural capability
> to throw a hat in such a way where it would therefore cut off heads. As
> such, I think I would find that this resolves in an anticlimactic way,
> wherein the hat hits me in the neck, and then falls on the floor?
> This presumes that players exist, have heads, and arms in which to throw
> hats, that a floor exists, and that gravity exists to act upon the hat,
> among other things. However, given the context of the attempt, I think it
> is safe to presume all of these things, whereas the unsafe assumption is
> that hats thrown by players cannot cut heads?
>
> ===State of Wonderland===
> Contains 4st (The Red Queen) and Juan.
> Juan's hat is on the floor.
I pull a rabbit out of my hat. Naturally.
("...but that trick never works")
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: (@herald) did I win?
>
On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 8:24 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business
wrote:
>
> On 6/23/23 11:07, 4st nomic via agora-business wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 2:49 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion <
> > agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> >
> >> I believe I won the rice game on 12 June - not sure though. Here are
> >> my notes, wouldn't be at all surprised if I missed something critical.
> >>
> >> ---
> >> 5-22 harvested plan
> >> Created: snail
> >> Up: {4st, beokirby, blob, inalienableWright, nix, snail, Yachay},
> >> Down: {Aspen, ais523, cuddlybanana, G., Janet, juan, Murphy}
> >> Signatures: snail, Yachay, 4st, beokirby
> >>
> >> After 5-22 harvest
> >> 4st 1
> >> beokirby 1
> >> blob 1
> >> iWright* 1
> >> nix 1
> >> snail 1
> >> Yachay1
> >>
> >> ---
> >> 5-29 harvested plan
> >> Created: 2023-05-22 by juan
> >> Up: {Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, cuddlybanana, juan}
> >> Down: {4st, beokirby, blob, iWright, nix, snail, Yachay}
> >> Signatures: ais523, juan, G., Janet
> >>
> >> After 5-29 harvest
> >> Aspen 1
> >> G.1
> >> Janet 1
> >> Murphy1
> >> ais5231
> >> cuddlybanana 1
> >> Juan 1
> >>
> >> ---
> >> Note: ais523 had 1 rice at the time of Proposal 8989's alleged adoption
> >> (just before the 6-05 plans were harvested). So that proposal was
> >> resolved incorrectly and the victory condition remains 2 rice.
> >>
> >> Proposal 8988 was adopted, but I'm assuming that plans and signatures
> >> were continuous as the definitions didn't change over-much, and the
> >> winning plan below was signed in a way (by announcement/announced
> >> consent) that works under both rule versions. This, of course, is
> >> arguable.
> >> ---
> >> 6-05 harvested plan
> >> Created: 2023-06-04 by 4st
> >> Up: {G.}
> >> Down: {All active players with 1 or more rice at the time of creation,
> >> except 4st}
> >> Signatures: G., 4st
> >> (note: G is on both up and down lists)
> >>
> >> After 6-05 harvest
> >> G. 1
> >>
> >> ---
> >> 6-12 harvested plan
> >> Created: 2023-06-05 by Beokirby
> >> Up: {Beokirby, Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, cuddlybanana, juan}
> >> Down: {}
> >> Signatures: beokirby, juan
> >>
> >> After 6-12 harvest
> >> Beokirby 1
> >> Aspen 1
> >> G.2
> >> Janet 1
> >> Murphy1
> >> ais5231
> >> cuddlybanana 1
> >> juan 1
> >> ---
> >>
> >> I did not track after this, due to not knowing if things were reset on 6-12
> >>
> > "I, THEREFORE, DO ALL THE THINGS!"
> >
> > Based on my last Ricemastor report, and the resolutions of the CFJs, I
> > believe this to be correct as well.
> > Given that this is in fact correct, I, as Herald, I award G. the patent
> > title Champion (again), for "Rice".
> > Given that this is in fact correct, and as it has been over a week since e
> > won, it is overdue, and thus,
> > I deputise as Prime Minister to appoint G to the office of Speaker.
> >
> > (I would now like to execute a dive order on G., however, there is
> > currently no Referee to track it, and as to keep things smooth, I therefore
> > do not do so.)
> >
>
> Oops, sorry.
>
> The deputisation fails. The time limit has not been expired for 14 days,
> and no intent was announced.
>
> The Champion award succeeds or fails based on whether G. actually won.
>
> I intend (under the meaning in R2160) to deputize for Prime Minister for
> the purpose of appointing G. to Speaker.
>
> I CFJ: "On or about 2023-06-12, G. won the game."
>
> Evidence:
>
> {
>
> //
> ID: 8988
> Title: Rice rewrite
> Adoption index: 1.0
> Author: Janet
> Co-authors: snail
>
>
> Amend the rule entitled "The Rice Game" to read, in whole:
> {
> The Ricemastor is an office.
>
> Rice is a fixed asset tracked b
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4043 Assigned to G.
On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 11:10 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-official
wrote:
>
> [out of time to assign this case but want to ensure the judgements
> happen in the right order and build on each other...]
>
> I make the following pledge, with a time window of 14 days:
> {I SHALL NOT judge CFJ 4043 until the current judge of CFJ 4032
> (ais523) has either judged that case or been recused from it}.
>
> The below CFJ is 4043. I assign it to G..
>
> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4043
>
> === CFJ 4043 ===
>
> Yachay's 5-22 rice plan was harvested.
>
> ==
>
> Caller:4st
>
> Judge: G.
>
> ==
>
> History:
>
> Called by 4st:08 Jun 2023 22:08:10
> Assigned to G.: [now]
>
> ==
>
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> Arguments FOR: G withdrew their consent (CFJ 4034), and 4st's consent
> didn't work or worked on both, so Yachay's plan was earliest and was tied
> for most signatures, and was thus harvested.
>
> Arguments PARADOX:
> G did not withdraw their consent (CFJ 4034), so 4st's consent results in a
> paradox as eir consent only exists if a plan would not be harvested.
> Yachay's plan would not have enough signatures if it were to be harvested,
> and it would have enough signatures if it wasn't going to be harvested.
>
> G withdrew their consent (CFJ 4034), so 4st's consent results in a paradox
> as eir consent only exists if a plan would not be harvested, thus Yachay's
> plan would now have enough signatures, and juan's plan would be tied for
> first.
>
> Arguments AGAINST: G did not withdraw eir consent, and 4st's consent either
> didn't work or worked on both, so juan's plan was harvested.
>
> ==
Judgement for CFJ 4043
First, I've reviewed the Ricekeepor's report published here:
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017142.html
and in particular the Rice Plans and signatures for the Harvest Week
of 5-28 (see evidence below), and noticed no factual errors. CFJ 4032
found that rice plan consent generally functioned (unter the first
version of the rule) as one might expect, and CFJ 4034 found that G.
consented to Juan's Rice Plan but did not withdraw consent. So the
final question is interpretation of this announcement by 4st:
> I consent to all rice plans that will not be harvested.
In general, indirect specification of entities or sets (like "I do
this for all X that meet conditions Y") are subject to the same
standards of communication as conditional actions - the specification
of the set must be determinate at the time of communication, otherwise
the communication simply fails to communicate and does nothing. The
specification that 4st used was clear future tense - it didn't say "I
consent to all plans that are currently not ahead" but "I consent to
all plans that will in the future not be ahead". Future information
such as this is indeterminate, so there was no reasonably clear
consent to sign any plan at the time that message was sent.
Now, it's *possible* that the Rice rule allowed a kind of continual
evaluation of this statement, such that some plan was signed by 4st
whenever that statement became determinate. For various reasons I
don't think that forward continual evaluation works, but even if it
*did* work, it fails here. Because there's no time when "will not be
harvested" is actually resolvable. Up to the instant of the
beginning-of-week deadline, the "will be harvested" is indeterminate,
so consent is not reasonably clear. At the instant the deadline
passes though, the rice plans platonically become "harvested" or "not
harvested". So there is no actual instant in between where "will be
harvested" becomes determinate, and 4sts set of "rice plans that will
not be harvested" is never sufficiently determine to express consent
for any plan.
Therefore, Juan's rice plan was harvested, not Yachay's. I find FALSE.
Judge's Evidence
RICE PLANS
==
Section 1: Harvest of Week 5-28
Created: 2023-05-28 by snail
Up: {active players at time of creation}
Down: {}
Signatures: beokirby, snail, Janet, 4st
Created: 2023-05-27 by G.
Up: {G., Janet}
Down: {4st}
Signatures: G., Janet, 4st
Created: 2023-05-
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4042 Assigned to G.
On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 3:59 PM Kerim Aydin via agora-official
wrote:
>
> The below CFJ is 4042. I assign it to G..
>
> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4042
>
> === CFJ 4042 ===
>
> At the time the Assessor first attempted to resolve the Agoran
> decision about whether to adopt proposal 8989, ais523's vote on
> that proposal resolved to PRESENT.
>
> ==
>
> Caller:ais523
>
> Judge:G.
>
> ==
>
> History:
>
> Called by ais523: 05 Jun 2023 00:19:23
> Assigned to G.: [now]
>
> ==
>
> Caller's Arguments:
>
> Rule 2127 requires a conditional vote to be "determinate" in
> order to avoid evaluating to PRESENT. Rule 2518 requires a value to be
> reasonably determinable from information reasonably available to be
> determinate.
>
> Were my rice holdings actually determinate at this point? There has
> been mass confusion (and several CFJs) regarding how the rice rules
> actually work, with at least two CFJs unresolved at the time of the
> attempted resolution. The Ricemastor is inactive, and has missed
> reports. Some people have taken to attempting to sign Rice Plans using
> lots of different wordings in the same message, in the apparent hope
> that at least one of them will work.
>
> Further evidence is that the Assessor appeared to be in sufficient
> doubt about my Rice holdings that e immediately CoEd eir own
> resolution, referring the situation to CFJ – this implies that it was
> unreasonable for em to determine my Rice holding, otherwise e would
> probably have done so. (In general, it seems that although it's
> reasonable to tie a report to a CFJ outcome, it is unreasonable to do
> the same for a conditional vote.)
>
> ==
I Judge CFJ 4042 as follows:
As per R2518/1, a value is indeterminate if it "CANNOT be reasonably
determined (without circularity or paradox) from information
reasonably available". As per R2127/11, the determinacy of
conditional votes is calculated as per conditions at the time the
voting period ends. Importantly, the verb "determined" is an active
verb that implies the determination is being conducted by persons
(thinking beings) - and that determination is a physical/mental
process that takes time. Taken literally, it is physically impossible
for anybody to make the determination at (exactly) the end of the
voting period, because given email delays, the full set of information
isn't practically known until at least a few minutes after the
deadline passes. To make sense of these rules, then, is to assume
that the "information reasonably available" must be present (or en
route with an early enough datestamp) at the end of the voting period,
but that "determination" is an allowable interpretive process - e.g.
by the Assessor - that can occur after the voting period has closed.
To this end, the caller has erred in eir arguments, in noting that the
CoE and CFJ calling are evidence of indeterminacy. Rather, they are
part of the working determination process, not evidence of its
failure. CFJs must be taken to be an acceptable part of the
"reasonable determination" process occuring after the deadline, or
they would fail to set up a "reasonable expectation" of controversy
resolution as mandated by R217/12. So the Assessor calling a CFJ is
simply exporting the formal responsibility for determination to a
judge. While it is unfortunate that judicial delays may drag out the
determination process, R217 confirms (essentially defines) that these
CFJ delays are still within the timeline for "reasonably" determining
a result or resolving a controversy about the interpretation of a
result.
CFJ 4032 has been called that questions the results of the first Rice
Harvest. CFJ 4043 is questioning the result of the second Rice
Harvest. If neither of those CFJs finds the situation indeterminate,
then that would answer ("reasonably determine") the status of ais523's
vote at the time the voting period ended. This current CFJ could be
trivially revisited when those CFJs are judged, but until then, in
deference to those CFJs, I DISMISS this case.
-G.
BUS: Busy weekend
I succumb. -G.
BUS: Re: [Arbitor] Court Gazette
On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 6:38 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Agoran Court Gazette (Arbitor's Weekly Report) > Sun 04 Jun 2023 > > > DEADLINES (details below) > --- > 4032 4st Motion to reconsiderOVERDUE Sun 04 Jun 2023 03:15:50 I recuse 4st from CFJ 4032. In addition to this being several days overdue (the formal reason for recusal), 4st is now potentially self-interested in the outcome. -G.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8990-9001
snail wrote: > (please don't get rid of gameplay, it is limited and precious) tbh, I for one am a little weary of a bunch of half-baked broken subgames with limited participation. I'm voting against anything that isn't a direct repeal of a subgame, or something needed in the core rules. I vote: > --- > 8990~ Janet, nix 2.0 Self-referential stone fixes AGAINST > 8991~ Janet 2.0 Reach clarification AGAINST > 8992~ juan1.0 Camusian Dream v2 AGAINST > 8993~ G. 1.0 rice knowing you FOR > 8994~ juan1.0 Not Game Theory AGAINST > 8995~ Murphy, snail 2.0 Broad Recursion AGAINST > 8996~ Murphy 2.0 Narrow Recursion AGAINST > 8997~ Janet, Murphy 1.0 Stamp fungibility AGAINST > 8998* Janet 3.0 Stamp fungibility correction AGAINST > 8999* Yachay 3.0 Go Home, You're Drunk FOR (good in spirit even if it's gone already) > 9000~ snail, Janet... [1] 1.5 Brights AGAINST > 9001~ snail 2.0 More Bright Abilities AGAINST -G.
Re: BUS: (@Notary) Rice Promise
On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 12:19 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-business
wrote:
>
> I grant G. the following promise:
> {
> The Author (4st) creates and consents to the rice plan specified by the
> bearer.
> }
I cash the above promise, specifying the following Rice Plan. {Up:
[G.]. Down[all active players with 1 or more rice at the time of this
message, except 4st]}
I (G.) agree to the above Rice Plan.
-G.
Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) Going Up
On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 11:43 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > On 5/28/23 19:57, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > I create and consent to (having my signature on) the following rice plan: > > Rice up: All current active players at the time of this rice plan being > > created > > Rice down: [] > > -- > > Snail > > > I consent to, sign, and consent to signing the above Rice Plan. > As do I. -G.
Re: BUS: Biased rice [attn. Ricemastor]
I create the following Rice Plan, then sign, consent to, and consent to signing it: * Rice Up: [G.] * Rice Down: [] -G. On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 11:44 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > I create the following Rice Plan, then sign, consent to, and consent to > signing it: > > * Rice Up: [Janet] > > * Rice Down: [] > > -- > Janet Cobb > > Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason >
BUS: [proposal] rice knowing you
I submit the following proposal, rice knowing you, AI-1: Repeal Rule 2682 (The Rice Game). [Because the proposer/officer of this has gone inactive with the records in a questionable state - if someone else committed to running it sorts out a report in the meantime, might vote against.]
BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4035 Assigned to G.
On Sun, Jun 4, 2023 at 6:27 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-official
wrote:
>
> The below CFJ is 4035. I assign it to G..
>
> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4035
>
> === CFJ 4035 ===
>
> Juan has consented to a Rice Plan that does not have eir
> signature.
>
> ==
>
> Caller:Juan
>
> Judge: G.
>
> ==
>
> History:
>
> Called by Juan: 28 May 2023 00:32:29
> Assigned to G.: [now]
>
> ==
>
> Caller's Evidence:
>
> >On 5/27/23 20:19, Juan F. Meleiro via agora-business wrote:
> >> I create, consent, and join the following contract, named “Juan's feeble
> >> attempt at paradox”:
> >>
> >> {
> >> Only juan is a party of this contract.
> >>
> >> Any party to this contract consents to all existing Rice Plans that do
> >> not have eir signature.
> >> }
>
> ==
I deliver the following judgement:
In general, contracts only have the exact abilities the rules say they
have, no more. In particular, statements/interpretations of contracts
are generally subject to standards of textual clarity similar to
by-announcement actions. The standards (precedents over time)
generally hold that self-contradictory announcements or contract
clauses are simply failures to communicate, not paradox-makers. Rule
2682 makes "consenting to a rice plan" essentially synonymous with
having one's signature on it, so the contract in the Caller's evidence
reduces to a classic self-contradictory Russell's Paradox. Due to this
self-contradiction, the contract fails to "explicitly and
unambiguously" communicate any kind of consent as required by
R2519(2). Further, while some "technically broken" contracts may
still provide some limited context for consent as per R2519(4),
creating "paradoxical consent" has been found to fail to meet R2519(4)
standards as per CFJ 4013:
> Taking the position that silence != consent also means assuming that
> uncertainty != consent. In many cases in Agora, we have legislated
> away the law of excluded middle - just because something isn't true
> doesn't mean it's false, it may be logically indeterminate. However,
> in dealing with consent, we should generally avoid such logic and
> maintain that a lack of clear consent means NO consent exists, at
> least to the extent that the rules allow.
(https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?4013)
Therefore, the contract in the Caller's evidence does not meet Agoran
standards for determining consent to anything. FALSE.
Side-note: I believe the logic of this judgement holds whether or not
"consenting to rice plans" is judged (in currently-parallel CFJs) as
an instant action, a continual action, or if R2519 is used as
definitional guidance for consenting to a non-action. So this
judgement should hold regardless of the outcome of those CFJs.
Judge's Evidence:
Rule 2519/2 (Power=3)
Consent
A person is deemed to have consented to an action if and only if,
at the time the action took place:
1. e, acting as emself, has publicly stated that e agrees to the
action and not subsequently publicly withdrawn eir statement;
2. e is party to a contract whose body explicitly and
unambiguously indicates eir consent;
3. the action is taken as part of a promise which e created; or
4. it is reasonably clear from context that e wanted the action to
take place or assented to it taking place.
Rule 2682/0 (Power=1)
The Rice Game
The Ricemastor is an office, in charge of tracking Rice, Rice
Plans and Signatures. Rice is a fixed asset, ownable only by
players. Any active player can create a Rice Plan by announcement,
if e hasn't done so yet in the current week. Rice Plans can have
Signatures, and each Signature must be of an active player. A Rice
Plan has an active player's Signature as long as that player is
consenting to it. An active player can destroy a Rice Plan that e
has created by announcement.
A Harvest occurs at the beginning of each week. When this occurs:
- If there is only one Rice Plan with the most Signatures, that
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly report
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 3:54 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > 1. In the Ricemastor's Report linked in evidence, "blob" without > additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who > registered from the email address recorded as "cearguizoni1 at gmail > dot com". > > 2. In the FLR linked in evidence, "Blob" without additional annotation > unambiguously refers to the person who was last registered from the > email address recorded as "malcolmr at cse.unsw.edu.au". I withdraw the above CFJs (due to inaccurate email address and a better example arising). I CFJ (two linked CFJs): 1. In the Herald's Weekly Report linked in evidence, "blob" without additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who registered from the email address recorded as "cearguinzoni1 at gmail dot com". 2. In the Herald's Monthly Report linked in evidence, "Blob" without additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who was last registered from the email address recorded as "malcolmr at cse.unsw.edu.au". Evidence: Herald's Weekly Report: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017107.html Herald's Monthly Report: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-June/017108.html Registrar's Weekly Report noting the email of current player 'blob': https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017106.html Registrar's Monthly Report noting the last known email of former player 'Blob': https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017011.html Arguments: The Herald's Weekly and Herald's Monthly reports linked in evidence were both published by the same officer on the same day. One lists 'blob' with an amount of radiance, one lists 'Blob' as the holder of some patent titles. Neither report has any comments to resolve this (alleged) ambiguity. Same officer's reports, same day, read back-to-back - how are the two entities being distinguished? Is the capital letter enough? The current context of discussion? If "the current context" is sufficient, does that become insufficient as time passes/for future historical viewers? Is that enough certainty for radiance self-ratification, or patent title ratification? Or are these reports ambiguous? -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Surveyor) Commune Actions
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 11:21 AM nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 5/25/23 11:05, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > I invest in Olive. > > I play an H and 2 tile on H2 (merging Olive into Red). > > Ope I just noticed this. This fails, H2 is already occupied. oops. I play H and 3 on H3. -G.
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly report
On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 2:27 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > CoE: Blob is not a player. > > CFJ: "The above-quoted Registrar's report contains a statement that the > person that, as of 2023-01-01, would have been known as Blob is a player." Seeing that with the email address listed, makes me think another question needs asking. Because there's probably pretty good evidence (at least, preponderance of evidence) that 'blob' in that report with that listed email address is not the Blob with a different email address in the Registrar's Monthly. And if everyone put "blob [email address]" on their reports, the issue would be 'solved' and we wouldn't need to care if [email address] was part of eir 'name' or a different kind of disambiguation marker. Of course, that's a really ugly notation to carry around so nobody's going to do that. The question is - in what contexts is an annotation needed? I'll try related CFJs: I CFJ on the following two statements (two linked CFJs): 1. In the Ricemastor's Report linked in evidence, "blob" without additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who registered from the email address recorded as "cearguizoni1 at gmail dot com". 2. In the FLR linked in evidence, "Blob" without additional annotation unambiguously refers to the person who was last registered from the email address recorded as "malcolmr at cse.unsw.edu.au". Evidence: Registrar's Weekly Report noting the email of current player 'blob': https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017078.html Registrar's Monthly Report noting the last known email of former player 'Blob': https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017011.html Ricemastor's Report: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017077.html FLR: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2023-May/017069.html (The current player blob registered before the above-linked Ricemastor Report and FLR were published). Arguments: Not providing arguments for one side or the other, but clarifying that I'm thinking of "unambiguous" in the context of, say, ratification (I'm not sure if FLR annotations would ever be ratified - the Scroll would be a better example, but there wasn't a Scroll published since the current player blob registered. So if the FLR is a bad example on a technicality it would be great if the judge would use a hypothetical scroll example instead).
Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) unsigned planning
On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 11:17 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 11:13 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business > wrote: > > > > /.On 5/27/23 14:11, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > > I create the following Rice Plan, but I do not consent to having my > > > signature on it: > > > Rice Up: [G., Janet] > > > Rice Down: [4st] > > > > > > I consent to the above rice plan (and to the above rice plan having my > > signature) so long as G. does not consent to it. > > I consent to the above plan (and it having my signature). > > CFJ: Janet's signature is currently on the rice plan in evidence. I consent to the above plan (and it having my signature). -G. Disclaimer: I may be already in a "consenting state" so that might do nothing.
Re: BUS: (@Ricemastor) unsigned planning
On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 11:13 AM Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > /.On 5/27/23 14:11, Kerim Aydin via agora-business wrote: > > I create the following Rice Plan, but I do not consent to having my > > signature on it: > > Rice Up: [G., Janet] > > Rice Down: [4st] > > > I consent to the above rice plan (and to the above rice plan having my > signature) so long as G. does not consent to it. I consent to the above plan (and it having my signature). CFJ: Janet's signature is currently on the rice plan in evidence. Evidence [above] -G.
BUS: (@Ricemastor) unsigned planning
I create the following Rice Plan, but I do not consent to having my signature on it: Rice Up: [G., Janet] Rice Down: [4st]
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4032 Assigned to 4st
On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 10:40 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > > (similar steps occur for withdrawal of consent.) I intend to file a Motion to Reconsider this judgement with 2 Support. There is absolutely no mechanism or arguments presented that withdrawal of consent is POSSIBLE, and this throwaway phrase is not enough to convince me that withdrawal works. Overall it is beyond the scope of this judgement as it is not required to determine how withdrawal works to answer the question. -G.
[CFJ] Re: BUS: Counterice Planning
On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:21 PM juan via agora-business wrote:
>
> I create the following Rice Plan:
>
> {
> Up Rice: {Aspen, G., Janet, Murphy, ais523, cuddlybanana, juan}
> Down Rice: {4st, beokirby, blob, iWright, nix, snail, Yachay}
> }
>
> and consent to having my signature put in it.
I consent to the above Rice Plan (to having my signature on it).
If the Riemann Hypothesis is true, I withdraw my consent from the
above Rice Plan.
I CFJ: G. has withdrawn consent from the Rice Plan in evidence, so
that plan currently does not have G's signature.
Caller's Evidence
[the above]
Caller's Arguments
Granting consent in most cases is described in Rule 2519/2, and CFJ
4013 recently found that, even without that rule, the general concept
of "giving consent" requires positive evidence of consent, and neither
silence nor ambiguity should be inferred as granting consent.
However, *withdrawing* consent is another matter. In particular, you
CANNOT withdraw consent from a contract without the unanimous
agreement of parties or unless the contract text itself explicitly
allows it. Otherwise, the contract wouldn't be a "binding" agreement,
by the basic definition of "binding".
Rule 2682/0 contains this clause:
> Rice Plans can have
> Signatures, and each Signature must be of an active player. A Rice
> Plan has an active player's Signature as long as that player is
> consenting to it.
This *anticipates* that consent could be withdrawn from Rice Plans,
but provides no mechanism for doing so. My belief is that this is
regulated (the Ricemastor tracks signatures) so it is currently
IMPOSSIBLE to withdraw consent. However, in the event that the above
rules text enables the "natural" withdrawal of consent by various
means, there is no standard of communication to be inferred, no "good
of the game" reason to allow for consent withdrawal, and no "good of
the game" reason to decide that the burden of proof is for or against
withdrawal succeeding. So it could quite easily lead to PARADOXICAL
if my conditional above is indeterminate.
BUS: (@Surveyor) Commune Actions
I invest in Olive. I play an H and 2 tile on H2 (merging Olive into Red). -G.
Re: BUS: (@blob) Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly report
I make the same Claim of Error again. As we also established last week, blob is open to changing eir nickname. And that's how we've always handled it, in respect to the game's history. Please give em a chance to respond so this does not escalate. Thank you. -G. On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 11:02 AM juan via agora-official wrote: > > Kerim Aydin via agora-business [2023-05-24 06:46]: > > > + blob 2023-05-18 " cearguizoni1 at gmail dot > > > com > > > > Oops we never resolved this. > > > > Claim of Error: Blob (as listed 4 times on the Registrar's Monthly > > report) is not a current player. > > > > blob (current): would you be willing to pick some kind of > > disambiguation of your nickname? > > I deny this claim. > > blob is a current player. Or, rather, “blob” is the name of a > current player. As we have established this last week, a name is a name > if people are willing to use it. If the original blob were to come back, > we'd have to resolve this situation – but crucially, this is informal. > > As to the monthly report, where the two players appear in the same > context, I'll find a way to disambiguate it. For actions and reports in > the current context, we all know (and all shall know when looking upon > the archives) to which blob this refers. And, if someone publishes any > ambiguous reference to a “blob”, that that's just that: ambiguous. > > -- > juan > Registrar
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8985-8989
I vote: > 8985~ Yachay 1.0 Democratization (low AI version) AGAINST > 8986* Yachay 3.0 Democratization (high AI version) AGAINST > 8987* Janet 3.0 I meant what I said FOR -G.
BUS: (@blob) Re: OFF: [Registrar] Weekly report
> + blob 2023-05-18 " cearguizoni1 at gmail dot com Oops we never resolved this. Claim of Error: Blob (as listed 4 times on the Registrar's Monthly report) is not a current player. blob (current): would you be willing to pick some kind of disambiguation of your nickname? -G.
Re: BUS: [Surveyor] Weekly Commune Report
On Sun, May 14, 2023 at 2:46 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:53 AM nix via agora-business > wrote: > > G. (f. Green) > > - > > Constructors (L,M,R): H, 2, 3 > > I grant myself (H,2,3) from my (L,M,R) constructors. > I invest in Amber. I set my Left Constructor to I. I grant myself (2,3) from my (M, R) constructors. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: on invisbilitating
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 9:25 AM ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Fri, 2023-05-12 at 06:04 -0700, Kerim Aydin via agora-business > wrote: > > > > Further it is clear from the text itself that it was intended > > that this definition be "hidden" and continue to provide definitional > > guidance (that's unique afaik when thinking of other old gamestate): > > It can't provide definitional guidance. Rule 217 contains a complete > list of things that can be used to interpret and apply the rules where > their text is silent, and "the text of adopted proposals" isn't on the > list. (So neither the text of proposal 4513, nor the text of proposal > 8961 which references it, is relevant in the interpretation.) > > Do you have a past judgement to reference for the definition? (There's > no game custom remaining at this point – I remembered that > Invisibilitating had once been defined, which is why I voted AGAINST, > but couldn't remember the details – and common sense and the best > interests of the game may argue towards leaving the term defined or > undefined but don't provide a definition.) [Sorry for the late reply to this, but I just now got a chance to have a good look] Gratuitous: I grepped the full BUS and OFF mboxes, and searched the CFJ archive, and I believe that there were never any legal proceedings accusing anyone of Invisibilitating, either while it existed in the previous iteration or afterwards. The only references I found were the enactment, the repeal, and the appearances in the ruleset or the proposal. This vaguely matched my memory that it was rarely if ever used. In this special case, I disagree that we are limited to the R217 definitional sources - in particular, because there are *no* R217 definitional sources, and the "text of the rules" says Invisibilitating is a crime, so we need to interpret that text of the rules. To that end, I would say we have to use the "common sense or game custom" to find some kind of definition, outside the R217 sources. Of course, I fully realize that it might be neither common sense nor game custom to use the old sense of the term. -G.
Re: (@Collector, Herald) BUS: The Never-Ending Dance
On Fri, May 19, 2023 at 11:25 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I'd like to thank ais523 for the 4pocalypse where everyone has 44 points. > > As such, if the 4pocalypse is real, I intend to, with Agoran Consent, grant > > all current players the badge 4. > > I object. -G. Side-question: I'm trying to remember if the set of "all current players" in a tabled action intent is evaluated at the time of intent, the time of action, or is too unspecified to work as a tabled action (because the announcer could have meant either). I feel like there are precedents - anyone remember/point to one? -G.
Re: (@Collector, Herald) BUS: The Never-Ending Dance
> I'd like to thank ais523 for the 4pocalypse where everyone has 44 points. > As such, if the 4pocalypse is real, I intend to, with Agoran Consent, grant > all current players the badge 4. I object. -G.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8980-8984
I vote as follows: > 8980~ Yachay 1.0 Riding with training wheels AGAINST > 8981~ Janet, nix 2.0 Stone fixes PRESENT > 8982~ snail 2.0 Reward the Speaker! FOR > 8983~ Janet 1.0 Sacrilege FOR > 8984* nix, ais523 3.0 Clarifying Intentions FOR -G.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8972-8979
I vote: > 8972* Janet 3.0 Yes we are EFFECTIVE! FOR > 8973~ Janet 1.0 Not so welcome anymore FOR > 8974~ Janet 1.0 Plan B FOR > 8975* Janet 3.0 De-regulating FOR > 8976* Janet 3.0 Ruleset convergence FOR > 8977~ snail 2.0 Expedited Proposals AGAINST > 8978* Janet 3.0 Authorized initiation FOR, although it doesn't actually solve the issue that brought this up, as it doesn't ratify a *proposal's* existence when the decision is to adopt a proposal (the equivalent of R2034(4) but on the promotor's side). > 8979~ Yachay 1.0 Rationalized Impartial Commencement > Equality AGAINST -G.
Re: BUS: [proposal] Sacrilege, but more this time
On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 12:51 PM nix via agora-business
wrote:
>
> On 5/18/23 14:43, Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote:
> > CFJ: This violates Rule 2029 ("Town Fountain").
> > I note and investigate the infraction to be 2 blots. (and as we know, this
> > investigation only occurs if it does indeed violate the rule).
> >
> > Arguments FOR: Ritual Paper Dance enables dancing. Rule 2029 asks us to
> > always dance a powerful dance. Thus, if it were repealed, we could no
> > longer dance. Thus, proposing to repeal it is a crime.
> I note the infraction of No Faking by 4st here. E should know as Arbitor
> that 2029 does not include anything that creates infractions, as it
> contains nothing that creates rule violations. This is both falsy and
> misleading.
I informally risk being guilty of favoritism 7 days from now, by
saying that the combination of CFJ calling and parenthetical reminder
that it may fail is enough disclaimer to avoid no faking. I'll also
note that Janet pointed out CFJ 1881 which asked if R2029 created a
duty to dance, and in fact Judge omd of that case found that R2029
*does* apply penalties to the Marvy (if there were any Marvy), and CFJ
2589 which raised the matter again/independently. So it's not 100%
cut-and-dried that R2029's exhortation to dance has no legal effect.
And I'd forgotten at least one of those cases myself, so I wouldn't
expect 4st to know about them.
-G.
Re: [CFJ] Re: (@Collector, Herald) BUS: The Never-Ending Dance
On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 4:14 PM nix via agora-business wrote: > I CFJ on the following statement: "Per Rule 2680, a player can anoint a > ritual number multiple times for a single instance of a ritual act." > > Gratuitous thoughts: > > To me, the intuitive reading of "When [event] happens, a player CAN > [verb]" is that a player can do the verb one time per event. This is the > way I would mean this is plain speech, and it's the way the rules of > pretty much any board game are written. "When [event] happens, draw a > card" doesn't usually mean you can draw more than one card. Nothing in > the rules (that I see) seems to suggest any reason that Agora would > interpret this differently than plain speech or analogous situations in > other games. > > -- > nix > Prime Minister, Herald > Gratuitous: In any board game, if a rule said "When you place your meeple, you can draw a card", I don't think any board game group in the world would interpret it as meaning you can empty the deck. I wholly agree that the "whole deck" interpretation is Agoran current custom and that, barring minor technical issues, this win was obtained totally fairly under that assumption. But I sure am interested in how the assumption came to be - so I might ask the judge to look into details or first principles if e's willing to pursue it a bit, instead of just saying "it's our common custom" (which is a totally fair reason to uphold the win). For example, tabled actions are written continuously - a player can perform the tabled action "if e is [currently] a sponsor" of an appropriate intent. Some of the "multiple wins from one trigger" successes were based on Apathy intents. If the precedent was written originally for the tabled action case, and depended on the continuity of the condition, it might have been an error to extend it to "When X happens, a player CAN Y" language.
Re: BUS: (@Herald) Referee is Submitting a Thesis anyways WHAAAAT
I'm sorry that the past week has been busier than expected, and will continue to be. Janet has noted many overall structural issues with this thesis - in particular the lack of focus - which I think needs some major refining. I look forward to an overall refining like this before providing detail comments on sections, so I recommend REVISE (substantial revisions) AND RESUBMIT. However one philosophical/historical point: You wrote: > > To find elementary particles for cause, I look to the causes that already > > exist: Time, Players, Combination, and Variable Change. For each of these, > > we have almost codified, completely, these particles. I loosely modeled the current text of R101 on the Aristotelian model of causality, in particular the 4 causes model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes) as follows: > Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting in accordance > with the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or results of > these actions via Fora in order to play the game. Formal Cause: the Rules Efficient Cause: game Actions Material Cause: communications via Fora Final Cause, or "telos": Persons playing a game The link is not particularly deep - I decided it was a useful abstraction for a CFJ judgement on the concept of causality and personhood [0], and had it in mind when drafting that version of R101. I thought it might/could evolve into an organizational principle for the ruleset though it never really did and the abstraction didn't really add much. The point being, like any categorization scheme can be somewhat arbitrary, as can your scheme or any others. The question for a thesis for me, if this remains the core focus of your thesis, is what do we gain by thinking of things along a particular causality model - there should be a compare-and-contrast there. For example, your scheme is biased towards recording data and algorithmic thinking - treating platonism as re-running code with the wrong bits commented out, perhaps. My scheme is biased towards persons communicating in natural language (perhaps). Are there plusses and minuses to a particular organizational paradigm? [0]https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1895 -G.
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4024 Assigned to snail
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 5:42 AM Kerim Aydin wrote:
> We have a custom of looking at natural language and common sense in
> parsing actions.
Here's some evidence of explicit game custom/precedent explicitly
around support and objections, going back quite a while. While there
have been many changes in support/object rules since the below
judgement, it provides explicit in-context support for the "game
custom" backed up by "good of the game" for blanket objections.
Unless specific textual changes in your judgement contradict this
finding (not sure you pointed out any?) this custom should be taken
into account in your judgement, and with explicit reasons for
overruling this custom, perhaps necessitating considerable
back-calculations of recent wins, is for the good of the game:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2316
Quoting myself as judge:
> Now, announcements of Intent, by both Rule and precedent, are some of
> the most strictly specific communications in the game. From R1728/22:
> "A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the
> action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and
> method(s)"
> and many dependent actions have failed for lack of specificity in the
> intent ("unambiguously and clearly specifying" is a tougher standard
> than is required for many actions). By custom, we do not require post-
> intent objections to be so precise, for example: "I object to all
> recently-posted intents to do X" has been taken to be sufficient.
> Erring on the side of unambiguity in the intent and allowing generality
> in objections is, in general, for the good of the game; the range of
> powerful w/o objection actions possible in the game means better safe
> (preventative) than sorry.
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4024 Assigned to snail
On Mon, May 15, 2023 at 8:57 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> I intend, with 2 support, to group-file a motion to reconsider in the
> above case.
I support. Since this has received sufficient support, I group-file
the motion to reconsider CFJ 4024.
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 1:19 AM secretsnail9 via agora-business
wrote:
> You say that the meaning of the action is the same in different contexts.
>
> I say the opposite: the meaning comes from context.
I agree that context matters, but you have taken the wrong approach
about context.
We have a custom of looking at natural language and common sense in
parsing actions.
We have a strong game custom of "sensible transactions". To that end,
it's generally "sensible" that a block transfer of currencies to a
single person be treated as a block - there are few real-world
sensible situations where a deal works with a "partial payment".
That's common sense. Fungible currency transactions are a special
case though, with their own historical quirks about whether transfers
are one action or many in the first place, and not the subject of this
judgement. In particular, we've generally kept the game custom of
severability with respect to mass actions.
Particularly, if someone wrote: "I do A, B and C in that order" that
each is taken independently, whereas if they desire those to function
atomically (fail or succeed together) they write: "I do the following
conditionally such that if one fails they all do {A, B, C}". This
custom is strong enough that (outside of the weird currency situation)
that it (as a custom) generally needs to be overridden with explicit
text, if "whole failure" is desired. Further, in cases where order
doesn't matter, "I do X for all" where all is a well-delineated set
and order doesn't matter and there are many/most instances of that
being taken as separate.
The rules are silent on the matter (you have not found any rules text
to support your assertions) - in such situations, by R217 game custom
has interpretive precedence over a "fresh reading" (you have not shown
precedents or good-of-the-game reasons, and it is fairly clear that
"common sense" here is debatable.
-G.
Re: BUS: [Surveyor] Weekly Commune Report
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:53 AM nix via agora-business wrote: > G. (f. Green) > - > Constructors (L,M,R): H, 2, 3 I grant myself (H,2,3) from my (L,M,R) constructors. I invest in Amber. -G.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8965-8970
I cast ballots thusly: > --- > 8965~ nix 1.0 Registrar Tracks Birthdays FOR > 8966* Janet 3.0 8639 rerun AGAINST > 8967~ nix 2.0 Campaign Please FOR > 8968~ snail, nix, Aspen, G. 1.0 April Awards Extension FOR > 8969~ Yachay, nix 1.0 The Rice Game PRESENT > 8970~ Yachay 1.0 Black Ribbon & Friends AGAINST -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] CFJ 4028 Assigned to G., Judged FALSE
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 7:58 AM nix via agora-discussion wrote: > > On 5/12/23 08:24, Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business wrote: > > Sure, > > > > I note the infraction of Invisibilitating performed by 4st for jaywalking > > without a license, compounded by having dangerous levels of swagger. > > > > I CfJ: "There was an infraction noted in this message." > AFAICT Invisibilitating, if it does anything, only impacts anyone who > writes an adopted proposal that alters gamestate without tracking it. > Not sure if anyone has done so in recent memory. > > Also not sure it does anything at all, since the resolution uses a > lowercase "shall" that would not necessarily be interpreted the same way > as the uppercase under the modern MMI rules. Pseudo-investigation: Since investigation is weirdly platonic (the investigation doesn't exist if there was no infraction), I'm just noting publicly that, as the *alleged* investigator, I agree with nix that the cited behavior neither fits the ancient description of the crime, nor does it fit any crime definition that I could infer for invisibilitating outside of that ancient text, so I'm (informally, with no legal effect[0]) stating 'not guilty' at this time. I submit my "investigation" above, as well as the below-linked note, as gratuitous arguments for the CFJ: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg44780.html [0] This may have one legal effect - should this turn out to be a crime anyway, it's reasonably plausible that I'm exercising the "highest reasonably possible standard of care" by not investigating it in a timely fashion and making the above statement. -G.
BUS: on invisbilitating
>> Re-enact Rule 2056 (Invisibilitating) with the following text: >> >> Invisibilitating is a Class 1 infraction. Proposal 4513[0] - clearly cited in the proposal just adopted - made the following 'pronouncement' when it took effect, and the pronouncement was not 'rescinded' when the rule was repealed[1]. I'm under no illusion that the pronouncement is still "taking effect" in any legal way, but it is a unique case because (as Yachay found) there's no common-sense definition or term findable on an internet search, so this text - which was just voted into the rules, so must be interpreted as the text of the rules - is the only thing I know that potentially "clarifies" the text of the rules in a R217 definitional sense. Further it is clear from the text itself that it was intended that this definition be "hidden" and continue to provide definitional guidance (that's unique afaik when thinking of other old gamestate): > Proposal 4513 by Steve, AI=1, Ordinary > Invisibilitating > > Be it resolved, that the proposer of an adopted proposal (besides this > proposal) that includes a provision that proposes to make changes to > parts of the gamestate, where no player is required to report those > changes in an official report, with the exception of the publication of > that proposal by the Promotor and the Assessor, shall be guilty of the > Class 0 Infraction of Invisibilitating. [0] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2003-July/000706.html [1] https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2005-May/002223.html
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] Investigation of 4st (Re: OFF: [Referee] Active Player Tax)
On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 6:41 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 6:13 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-business > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 5:44 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion < > > agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 5:38 PM Forest Sweeney > > > wrote: > > > > > > > CFJ: I successfully collected taxes in this statement. > > > > > > > Arguments PARADOX: IF I successfully collected taxes, then the action was > > > EFFECTIVE, and THUS, was NOT falsey. > > > IF I didn't successfully collect taxes, then the action WAS NOT effective, > > > and thus, IS NOT covered by No Faking, and THUS, > > > I should not be found guilty. > > > > > > -- > > > 4st > > > Referee and Deputy(AKA FAKE) webmastor > > > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator > > > > > > > Sorry, I withdraw this CFJ, and instead: > > CFJ: I am not guilty of violating No Faking by collecting taxes. > > > > Arguments PARADOX: > > IF I successfully collected taxes, then the action was > > EFFECTIVE, and THUS, was NOT falsey, and could not violate no faking. > > IF I didn't successfully collect taxes, then the action WAS NOT effective, > > and thus, IS NOT covered by No Faking, and THUS, > > I should not be found guilty. > > > > However, I was found guilty of violating No Faking. > > > > > > (This CFJ is closer to what I am getting at for PARADOX) > > Gratuitous arguments for TRUE: > > It's trivially TRUE that 4st was not found guilty of violating No > Faking by "collecting taxes". E was found guilty of violating No > Faking by asserting in public that collecting taxes (whether > successfully or unsuccessfully) was done "as Referee". The factual > matter of whether tax collection was EFFECTIVE is in fact IRRELEVANT > (as it impacts nothing in the game), what's relevant for the guilty > verdict is that the act of collection is not part of the Referee's > duties or abilities. Gratuitous Evidence: The investigation: https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2023-April/051175.html More arguments: After some discussion on discord it was a bit clear 4st and I were taking entirely different angles on this case. To clarify, I did not address or think about the "unregulated" angle or R2125 at all, but rather took No Faking at face value. So I defer to 4sts arguments on the unregulated nature of the whole thing. My investigation was based on the following, solely determining if eir statement was falsy: - If 4st had written "As an official duty of the office of Referee, I collect taxes" I think most people would say that was a lie, as there was no official duty. - 4st is noting that the phrasing e used "As Referee, I collect taxes" was "technically true" as e was the Referee, and doing a (wholly unofficial and unregulated) tax. - My investigation asserted that "As Referee, I collect taxes" in a message to OFF, with the phrase "game action", with no disclaimers etc. was close enough in content and context to strongly imply "As an official duty of the Referee, I collect taxes" - false advertising is falsy. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [proposal] 8639 rerun [CFJ]
On Sun, May 7, 2023 at 2:46 PM Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > > On 5/7/23 17:43, nix via agora-business wrote: > > On 5/7/23 16:37, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > >> Gratuitous: > >> > >> I've was consistent (or tried to be) in saying that "amend a rule's > >> title" doesn't work, until we explicitly amended Rule 105 to say that it > >> does work (P8871). We agreed that legislation was needed there, and the > >> fact that Rule 105 now*explicitly* uses "amend" for one non-text change > >> but not another suggests that rule changes where it is not used should > >> be able to use "amend". If they could, "syn. amend the title of" would > >> be surplusage. > > More grat: > > > > I wrote that section. It's not surplusage, it was an attempt to > > compromise with the Rulekeepor by disambiguating, since it seemed clear > > e wasn't going to change eir mind. This grat strips authorial intent to > > argue the exact opposite of what the intent was. > > > > I agree, it's not surplusage. A finding that "amend" can include changes > other than those explicitly described in Rule 105 would render it surplus. Gratuitous Janet's logic about "surplussage" is a bit of a fallacy that leads to a problematic cycle. Consider the following: 1. A single player finds something in the rules unclear to em. Instead of testing by CFJ e makes a proposal to add clarifying text. 2. Voters see it as harmless - it wasn't unclear to them, the clarification proposed is what they assumed the text meant all along, but it must have been unclear to someone, and better safe than sorry right? 3. Once the added text is adopted, the original player uses it as proof (via "surplussage") that the original text would absolutely be read in the opposite way if the clarifying text was removed, also perhaps citing other places in the rules that the same original language must now be unclear. This leads to a round of adding clarifying language to other areas, and the assumptions that it's always needed, when the original text was never tested by CFJ and might have been perfectly clear to most people. This kind of ratchet, wherein adding "extra" clarity is assumed to weaken the text of the original, is not logicially sound reasoning, nor does it make for good rules-writing. Whatever else the merits of this particular case, that logic should not be a reason for a finding, one way or the other. In terms of the merits of the case itself: Communication in Agora is a balance between precision and free expression. In particular, it's not necessarily good to privilege "exact incantations", and R217 is direct and explicit in the use of synonyms. While the R105 clarity standards tip "rule change" specification to be more towards precision, it's not absolute. And also - we don't tend to privilege verbs alone, but verbs in context of object or subject. In particular, amend, change, alter etc. are all synonyms. All of the R105 rule change types that involve changing an existing rule (amending rule text, retitling a rule, and changing the power of a rule) are differentiated by their object (rule text, title, or power), NOT the verb used, which is essentially 'change'. While "retitle" embeds the object in the verb and so can only be used to specify titles, using "change" or "amend" with one of those specified objects is absolutely or perfectly clear as to which action is meant - keyed by the object type, not the exact synonym for "change" that was used. In the proposal in question[0], the "uncertain" proposal clause was: > Amend Rule 879 (Quorum) by changing its power to 3. This is perfectly and abundantly clear as to the object (power), the double amend/change is harmless synonym pairing and emphatic, and the action (of changing power) should be absolutely clear, even at the R105 standard. https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-official/2022-February/015693.html
BUS: Behind
I succumb. Sorry I know there’s a lot of pending cfjs just ran out of hours today. -G.
BUS: [CFJ] regulated unregulations
(this will be a fun week for the Arbitor) I CFJ: In Rule 2125, the phrase 'The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions' proscribes unregulated actions. Arguments Currently, an action that's made ILLEGAL by a SHALL NOT does not in itself make that action regulated by clause (1) of R2125 (SHALL NOT is not a limit, allowance, enablement, or permission). I believe clause 1 used to include 'forbid' which would have made SHALL NOTs regulated, but that word or a synonym is not there now. "Interpretation" is a thought/speech act and as a whole - it's not subject to success or failure (clause 2). Interpretation in certain contexts (CFJ judgements) may change a record for clause 3, but interpretation in general does not do that. Therefore, my interpretation is that the clause in question forbids itself. Also, as these CFJ arguments are themselves an interpretation, I believe these CFJ arguments are an interpretation about the legality of making these CFJ arguments and I would ask the judge to note if this is so. Evidence Rule 2125/13 (Power=3) Regulated Actions An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or permit its performance; (2) the Rules describe the circumstances under which the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor. A Regulated Action CAN only be performed as described by the Rules, and only using the methods explicitly specified in the Rules for performing the given action. The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Herald) Referee is Submitting a Thesis anyways WHAAAAT
Note to Herald that I would enjoy being on this review panel. -G.
On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 5:40 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion
wrote:
>
> I highly recommend that you join the review board, especially since you've
> already read this one :)
>
> tor. 4. mai 2023, 1:34 a.m. skrev Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-discussion <
> agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org>:
>
> > Oop, I didn't mean to send that just yet. Oh well, it's good enough.
> >
> > In any case, I'm very happy to see your thesis, and I enjoyed reading it. I
> > hope to see more sometime.
> >
> > On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 10:32 AM Yachay Wayllukuq <
> > yachaywayllu...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I like a lot the new vocabulary that the thesis introduces as well as the
> > > themes that it tackles, and I'd like to give a response to its
> > conclusions.
> > > This isn't intended to be a review, just a reply.
> > >
> > > - "Firstly, let's experiment with holistic offices and gameplay (...)":
> > > I'm very open to experimentation, but I think that resorting to our "code
> > > libraries" isn't a bad idea. Not using switches or established mechanics
> > > seems fine to do for fun to see what happens, but I don't think that
> > > routinely ignoring them is a better approach than just simply using them.
> > > We also don't have infinite time and effort to write cod- I mean
> > ruletext,
> > > and it's often much more economical to just use what already exists and
> > > seems to work well.
> > >
> > > - "Secondly, reject bugfixes when you can. (...)": I don't think that
> > this
> > > is a good idea, because bugfixes are fun - for me at least. Proposals
> > > currently have a negligible cost and seeing the rules tinkered around and
> > > observing the attempts to improve them is entertaining for me. It might
> > not
> > > be entirely required or practical, but neither are most things that
> > > people do for fun. I also don't see how this point emerges from the
> > > previous ones in your thesis.
> > >
> > > - "Thirdly, be clear and unambiguous in your statements when YOU
> > interpret
> > > it. Your opinion matters, don't get rolled over by Agora. (...)": This
> > > seems important for any nomic, although I understand the motivation as to
> > > why traditionalists or other kinds of factionalism may emerge. There's
> > > power and safety in being in a group (and we instinctively know this at
> > an
> > > unga bunga ape level, as social animals), and because of the arguments in
> > > the third paragraph in "Agoran Chemistry", people want power. In any
> > case,
> > > it's reassuring to see this hammered down in a thesis, because I'm a bit
> > > anxious sometimes about it as a newer player.
> > >
> > > - "Fourstly, play a role in this game.": If that's what's fun for you,
> > > sure, although I wouldn't prescribe it to everyone in general. I don't
> > > think everyone would benefit as much from feeling like they fit into some
> > > kind of archetype, some just wouldn't care and I think that's fine. I
> > also
> > > don't see how "playing a role" emerges from your main body of arguments.
> > >
> > > - "Fifthly, express your opinion, and express it hard.": I feel like this
> > > was already covered in the third point.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 4, 2023 at 1:01 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business <
> > > agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I submit the following horribly long thesis specifically to qualify for
> > a
> > >> degree, AND, AS REFEREE, also because I am a great antagonist that hates
> > >> you all, especially the people who signed up to read thesises!
> > >> MWAHAHAHAHA!
> > >> <3
> > >> (Maybe I should change my registered name to Sithrak... Hmm...)
> > >>
> > >> (OOC: Just kidding, y'all are great, and thanks for being here and
> > coming
> > >> to my TED talk.)
> > >>
> > >> {
> > >> Agoran Particle Physics:
> > >> A collection of Agoran Theories
> > >> and A case against Platonism
> > >>
> > >> (AKA one big pointless opinion)
> > >>
> > >> 0) Too Long, Didn't Read!
> > >>
> > >> For those of you uninterested in specifics:
> > >> 1 posits that Agora is a game of expression, but it is also pretty
> > >> platonic. (Yes, this is completely in contrast to nomic being a game of
> > >> Self-Amendment.)
> > >> 2 elaborates on what could be some basic atomic categories of a
> > completely
> > >> platonic system.
> > >> 3 builds upon 2, and I attempt to identify all potential atoms of those
> > >> categories.
> > >> 4 is a whole section is probably garbage I decided to keep in, and
> > >> therefore, represents my namesake. :D
> > >> 5 argues we shouldn't strive for total platonism, so I present some
> > >> theories on why it currently is that way.
> > >> 6 has my opinions on ways to fix the current situation based on the
> > prior
> > >> evidence. Arguably the most contentious part, so the only one worth
> > >> reading.
> > >> 7 has some summaries of other theses (and drafts), and links to sources.
> > >>
> > >> 1) Agoran Chemi
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8960-8964
On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 3:42 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 12:30 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > 8962~ Yachay 1.0 Please behave, Prime Minister > > I change my vote on 8962 to AGAINST, because I disagree with the > author's principle of forcing radiance give-ups in exchange for votes. Oops my bad - this makes it sound like it’s about principles when it’s really not at all - it’s just friendly political transactionalism. I change my vote on the above proposal to a conditional vote: if Yachay has changed all eir votes on referenda in this distribution to unconditional votes then FOR, otherwise AGAINST. -G.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8960-8964
On Wed, May 3, 2023 at 12:30 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > 8962~ Yachay 1.0 Please behave, Prime Minister I change my vote on 8962 to AGAINST, because I disagree with the author's principle of forcing radiance give-ups in exchange for votes. -G.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8960-8964
I vote FOR each and every one of these. -G. On Fri, Apr 28, 2023 at 6:48 PM secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote: > ID Author(s) AITitle > --- > 8960~ ais523 1.0 Ritual disambiguation > 8961~ G. 1.0 now you don't see it > 8962~ Yachay 1.0 Please behave, Prime Minister > 8963~ 4st 1.0 hats > 8964~ snail 2.0 Minty Stone
Re: BUS: I SUPPORT
On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 10:13 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > > !---| > This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender > You have not previously corresponded with this sender. > See https://itconnect.uw.edu/email-tags for additional > information. Please contact the UW-IT Service Center, > h...@uw.edu 206.221.5000, for assistance. > |---! > > On Tue, May 2, 2023 at 9:38 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business < > agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I support all intents to award anything. > > Discussion has taken place and the appropriate people have placed their > > intents, I trust those people and my opinion was considered. > > (We can award more than one thing too if you want to add MORE intents :D ) > > > > -- > > 4st > > Referee > > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator > > > > CFJ: This means the same thing as "each and every". > Arguments FOR: This is extremely clear and unambiguous language. > Arguments AGAINST: This only provides support for one tabled intent, one > that doesn't exist. > > Please find this CFJ as FOR. I find it ridiculous I have to ask this. Gratuitous Arguments For context, this came up on discord. There was an assertion that supporting "all" intents is a single atomic action where if any of them would fail, they all do. So if 4st previously supported one of the intents and can't do so again, they all would fail. But using the term "every" avoids this problem and makes them fail or succeed together. (Not part of gratuitous: that was the discussion that led to this not my own position. FWIW I tend to agree with 4st. There has been mention of precedents existing but none were explicitly cited yet.)
BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP, Tailor] Levels of intent
On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 4:49 PM Edward Murphy via agora-official wrote: > > For each intent that I published within the past 6 hours, I intend > (specifically with 2 Agoran consent) to do that thing. Friendly caution: I don't think this meets my personal bar for tabled intent clarity (in terms of whether I'd challenge it)? Referring to messages elsewhere, and doing so collectively, does not seem particularly "conspicuous" in specification of each action. Just in case, I once again object to each and every intent to declare Apathy. -G.
Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] Election updates
On Sun, Apr 30, 2023 at 4:11 PM Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote: > > For the Herald Election, I vote [4st, Yachay, nix]. > > For the Assessor Election, I vote [Yachay, 4st, Janet]. I vote (nix) for Herald. I vote (Janet) for Assessor. While I really like supporting "new" officers, the newer candidates in this case have treated this a bit like a prize not an election, in that they have not given any reasons why they should be elected (i.e. no campaigning). The incumbents have strong records so I would expect some level of thought into "what could be better" about the offices, as a campaign position for challengers, to show that they have a concern and interest in the particular office itself. -G.
Re: (@Surveyor) Re: BUS: [Tournament] Commune Begins, and some actions
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 11:35 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 3:18 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > I become a participant in commune, and begin constructing (H, 2, 3) with my > > (left,middle,right) constructors. > > > > I grant myself (H, 2) from my (left, middle) constructors. > I grant myself a 3 from my right constructor. -G.
BUS: [Arbitor] Wooden Gavel Intent
nix wrote: > April is almost over. I petition the Tailor, Protomor, Arbitor, and ADoP > to intend eir award by Friday. I respond to the above petition to the Arbitor (though I'm not convinced the above worked, lol) as follows: I intend (as Arbitor), with 2 Agoran Consent, to award the (2022) patent title of Wooden Gavel to snail, for eir judgement in CFJ 3971 (https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3971). Reason for selection: An excellent and thorough walkthrough of a complex core set of rules (the tabled action rules) - the first sort of "full examination" of the method's functioning since a rather substantial 2021 rewrite, putting the use of those "new" rules on solid ground and affirming that they are working more-or-less as desired. Also, if e'd judged that particular case the other way, my current intent would be meaningless and the wooden gavel award impossible, so that's a tidy logical loop. = the Arbitor
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Arbitor] Investigation of 4st (Re: OFF: [Referee] Active Player Tax)
On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 6:13 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 5:44 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion < > agora-discuss...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 5:38 PM Forest Sweeney > > wrote: > > > > > CFJ: I successfully collected taxes in this statement. > > > > > Arguments PARADOX: IF I successfully collected taxes, then the action was > > EFFECTIVE, and THUS, was NOT falsey. > > IF I didn't successfully collect taxes, then the action WAS NOT effective, > > and thus, IS NOT covered by No Faking, and THUS, > > I should not be found guilty. > > > > -- > > 4st > > Referee and Deputy(AKA FAKE) webmastor > > Uncertified Bad Idea Generator > > > > Sorry, I withdraw this CFJ, and instead: > CFJ: I am not guilty of violating No Faking by collecting taxes. > > Arguments PARADOX: > IF I successfully collected taxes, then the action was > EFFECTIVE, and THUS, was NOT falsey, and could not violate no faking. > IF I didn't successfully collect taxes, then the action WAS NOT effective, > and thus, IS NOT covered by No Faking, and THUS, > I should not be found guilty. > > However, I was found guilty of violating No Faking. > > > (This CFJ is closer to what I am getting at for PARADOX) Gratuitous arguments for TRUE: It's trivially TRUE that 4st was not found guilty of violating No Faking by "collecting taxes". E was found guilty of violating No Faking by asserting in public that collecting taxes (whether successfully or unsuccessfully) was done "as Referee". The factual matter of whether tax collection was EFFECTIVE is in fact IRRELEVANT (as it impacts nothing in the game), what's relevant for the guilty verdict is that the act of collection is not part of the Referee's duties or abilities.
BUS: [Arbitor] Investigation of 4st (Re: OFF: [Referee] Active Player Tax)
On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 1:55 AM Forest Sweeney wrote: > > Under penalty of no faking, as Referee, I do the following game action > for each active player: > I collect that player's taxes that are owed to the office of Referee. > (The active players being 4st, Aspen, G.,Janet, Murphy, Yachay, ais523, > cuddlybanana, juan, nix, and snail.) > > Please make any disputes about this individually, as taxes are done on a > case by case basis. The above public statement by 4st was noted by Yachary as a violation of rule 2471 (No Faking). As 4st is the Referee, the Arbitor is the Investigator. I investigate as follows: The alleged violation was not merely an assertion that taxes were owed by certain parties. It was an assertion that taxes were owed as part of the official abilities and/or duties of the Referee. If a statement about taxes had been made to BUS, without reference to the Referee, it *might* be defensible (depending on context) to say "I was talking about my own private unregulated taxes which exist in my head but happen to be 0". But in this case, the clear "as Referee, I do the following game actions" and context of sending to OFF makes the assertion that this is part of the referee's official position a core part of the statement. This is a direct falsehood. It is not reasonable to claim that those duties were part of some kind of "unregulated yet official" task because that doesn't make sense - claiming to be acting "as Referee" to levy taxes is essentially synonymous with claiming that the taxes are a regulated or required thing, which is a lie. It is also not a reasonable defense to say "I never actually *said explicitly* that this was a referee duty" - the implication contained in the composition of the statement is suitably strong to (falsely) imply the connection with the office. Further, I'll state for the record that I was (momentarily) fooled. Not to the point of thinking I owed taxes, but my thought process went "did I miss a proposal? a pledge or contract about referee's duties? or is a mousetrap scam maybe coming?" Had there been no subsequent comments, I might have searched my Agoran emails for "tax" before concluding that no such taxes exist, and I still would have been suspicious of a hidden mousetrap. As it is, I depended on a statement by Yachary, who stated that they also had to "review the rules" before concluding falsehood. So between myself and Yachary, there is sufficient to find that the statement was misleading enough to be a violation of the cited rule. This violation has a (default) class of 2. The fact that the defendant revealed the situation right away is somewhat mitigating, while using the guise of an official position is somewhat aggravating. Balancing these, I conclude this investigation by specifying 2 blots as the penalty. As a final comment, I'll note that, even if the officer-part of this were left out, the mention of taxes would not necessarily be harmless - saying " gee I was talking about my private unregulated taxes" is not *necessarily* a sufficient defense - as I stated above, it depends on context. On one hand, we don't want to penalize fun and silly comments (like "I floop the doop" or whatever). But the flipside is that before No Faking existed, these kinds of fakeries were a bit problematic, and occasionally used to genuinely fool people - maybe not fooling them to think the taxes exist, but at least fooling them enough to spend time and energy worrying about mousetraps and the like, that a relationship between parties existed, or that someone was selling a newbie a proverbial Brooklyn Bridge by trying to get them to pay taxes. Neutering No Faking by allowing that sort of defense would not be for the good of the game. Rule cited: Rule 2471/3 (Power=1) No Faking A person SHALL NOT make a public statement that is a lie. A public statement is falsy if any of the following was true at the time of publication: * The statement was not true and the author knew or should have known that it was not true. * The author believed the statement to be not true. A public statement is a lie if it is falsy and any of the following is true: * The author made the statement with intent to mislead. * The author, in the same message, declared the statement to be made "under penalty of No Faking" (or similar). For the purposes of this rule, an attempt to perform an action by publishing certain text constitutes an implicit statement that the action was EFFECTIVE. Merely quoting a statement or attempt does not constitute making it for the purposes of this rule. Any disclaimer, conditional clause, or other qualifier attached to a statement or attempt constitutes part of the statement or attempt for the purposes of this rule; the truth or falsity of the whole is what
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8956-8959
I vote: > ID Author(s) AITitle > --- > 8956~ Yachay 1.0 Unradiance PRESENT > 8957~ Yachay 1.0 Unradiance v2 PRESENT > 8958~ Murphy, nix 2.0 Taken for Granite FOR > 8959~ ais523 1.5 Noncompetitive Radiance AGAINST -G.
Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] A Pox! A Pox on All of You!
On Mon, Apr 24, 2023 at 5:56 PM nix via agora-business
wrote:
> I submit the following proposal:
>
> {
> Title: A Pox!
> AI: 1
> Author: nix
>
> Grant each player that did not vote FOR this proposal 2 blots.
> }
>
> I issue the cabinet order Manifesto to distribute the proposal "A Pox!"
>
> Its ID is (presumed to be) 8960. Quorum is 4, the vote collector is the
> Assessor, voting method is AI-majority, the proposal is Ordinary, and
> the options are FOR or AGAINST (PRESENT and conditionals and
> endorsements that resolve to one of those options are also valid).
I vote FOR the above proposal.
I withdraw my ballot on the above proposal.
I cast this conditional vote on the above proposal: If I did vote FOR
the above proposal, I vote AGAINST the above proposal, otherwise I
vote FOR the above proposal.
-G.
Re: (@Surveyor) Re: BUS: [Tournament] Commune Begins, and some actions
On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 3:18 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > I become a participant in commune, and begin constructing (H, 2, 3) with my > (left,middle,right) constructors. > I grant myself (H, 2) from my (left, middle) constructors. I pay these tokens to place a tile on H2. I name this community Green. I grant myself an investment in Olive. -G.
BUS: [Proposal] now you don't see it
I submit the following proposal, "now you don't see it", AI=1: Re-enact Rule 2056 (Invisibilitating) with the following text: Invisibilitating is a Class 1 infraction. [ Rule 2056 history (confirmed by checking archives): Enacted (Power=1) by Proposal 4513 "Invisibilitating" (Steve), 10 July 2003. Repealed by Proposal 4759 "Olive Repeals" (Manu, Sherlock), 15 May 2005. ]
BUS: nope
I object to any and all intents to declare apathy. -G.
Re: (@Surveyor) Re: BUS: [Tournament] Commune Begins, and some actions
I become a participant in commune, and begin constructing (H, 2, 3) with my
(left,middle,right) constructors.
On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 2:19 PM ais523 via agora-business <
agora-business@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2023-04-19 at 15:28 -0500, nix via agora-business wrote:
> > On 4/14/23 13:16, nix via agora-business wrote:
> > >
> > > I intend, with 2 Agoran Consent, to start the following tournament:
> > >
> > > {
> > > Name: Commune v1.3
> > With 1 Support (Janet) and 0 Objectors, I do so.
>
> I become a participant in Commune.
>
> For my Left Token Constructor, I Begin Constructing a Token with the
> Symbol '3'.
>
> For my Middle Token Constructor, I Begin Constructing a Token with the
> Symbol 'G'.
>
> For my Right Token Constructor, I Begin Constructing a Token with the
> Symbol '6'.
>
> I feel vaguely disappointed that this tournament wasn't created very
> late on a Sunday, allowing the person resolving the action to get a
> week's head start.
>
> --
> ais523
>
Re: BUS: Ratification without Objection intent - Continuity of the game since 1993
On Sat, Apr 22, 2023 at 3:34 AM Yachay Wayllukuq via agora-business
wrote:
> I don't see many CFJs answering these odd philosophical questions...
FWIW, one of my theses was the caller's arguments for CFJ 3822, and
its judgement in 2020 (by Judge Aspen) established that, to the
preponderance of the evidence, that the judicial system and CFJs are
continuous from 1993:
https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3822
> I intend to ratify without objection: {The current gamestate is the result
> of an unbroken sequence of gameplay and unbroken continuous existence of
> the game since the moment that this nomic has started to exist on June 30,
> 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200.}
I object - Three possibilities: (1) this is true already and this
does nothing; (2) this ratification would add inconsistencies to the
gamestate and fail to ratify, again doing nothing; (3) if there was a
discontinuity, it might have affected the existence of ratification,
and then we have a mess. Two of these outcomes are harmless in
theory, but would have to be established; the other would leave things
worse than they are now.
-G.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8952-8955
> ID Author(s) AITitle > --- > 8952* juan3.0 Fix Fora > 8953* Janet 3.0 Fluidity > 8954~ Janet 1.0 Closing the barn doors > 8955~ snail 2.0 Disassembling the Device I vote FOR all. -G.
BUS: [Proto] deregulation and tournaments
Proto-proposal Semi-Deregulation, ai=3 [So on a reading, I realized that if we use the common definition of regulations as "a directive maintained by an authority" we can repeal the direct definition of "regulation" and all of the other types of regulations and it still works for tournaments.] Repeal Rule 2493 (Regulations) Repeal Rule 2614 (Eclipse Light) Repeal Rule 2630 (The Administrative State) Amend Rule 649 (Patent Titles) by deleting: Any player CAN award a specified Patent Title to a specified player, as authorized by the Herald's Administrative Regulations. Amend Rule 2464 (Tournaments) to read in full: A Tournament is a sub-game of Agora initiated as described by the Rules. A tournament may be either a Champion's Tournament or a Scoring Tournament, as explicitly specified when it is initiated. The person who initiates a tournament is its Gamemaster. A tournament is governed by a set of published regulations, created when a tournament is initated, which is binding to those who freely consent to play the tournament (the tournament's contestants and its gamemaster) and over the tournament itself. If a contestant or gamemaster of a tournament violates its regulations, they violate this rule. Once the tournament is concluded, its regulations cease to have any effect and are considered repealed. A tournament's regulations collectively have Mint Authority. A player who is not the gamemaster of an existing tournament CAN initiate a sanctioned tournament of a specified type with specified set of regulations, with 2 Agoran consent. A tournament's gamemaster CAN, with 2 Agoran Consent, enact, amend, or repeal the tournament's regulations, but SHOULD only do so to fairly correct any difficulties in the tournament's intended play. A tournament concludes (ceases to exist as a tournament) when its regulations or when the rules state that it concludes. Any player CAN conclude any tournament without 3 Objections. [Should the gamemaster by-default have interpretation privilege if not arbitrary and capricious? If so insert that here.] Retitle Rule 2566 (Free Tournaments) to "Tournament Awards". Amend Rule 2566 to read in full: Upon the first correct public announcement that one or more specified persons have won a specified Champion's Tournament as determined by its regulations, that person or those persons win the game. To be correct, the announcement must specify every such winner and no non-winners. When at least one person has won the game via the specified tournament in this manner, any player CAN conclude that tournament with Notice. The gamemaster of a Scoring Tournament, CAN, by announcement, increase the radiance of any of its contestants as directed by the tournament's regulations, provided doing so does not cause the total radiance increase for that tournament in a single Agoran Week to exceed 4*P, where P is the number of contestants in the tournament at the start of that week. If the gamemaster has made a correct announcement that e has performed all the radiance increases for a given tournament in a given week, e CAN increse eir own radiance by 2 during that week, by announcement. [You don't have to be a contestant to win a Champion's Contest - the only person initially bound by it is the Gamemaster, and it's at the option of the regulations whether becoming a contestant is necessary to participate. You do have to be a contestant of a scoring contest to earn score.] Amend Rule 2495 (The Birthday Tournament) to read in full: In a timely fashion after the start of June 1 of each year, the Herald SHALL propose a set of Regulations governing a Birthday Tournament for that year; the Herald CAN also delegate the responsibility for creating or running the tournament to another player, with that player's consent, by announcement. The Birthday Tournament's regulations SHOULD be such that all persons who choose to participate have a fair chance of winning the tournament (according to its regulations), and a winner SHOULD be expected within 2-8 weeks following the tournament's initiation. After adequate time for discussion of the Birthday Tournament's regulations, the Herald (or delegate) CAN initiate a sanctioned tournament without 3 objections. These regulations may thereafter be amended only by the Herald or eir designee Without 3 Objections. The initiation SHOULD be timed to coincide with Agora's Birthday. [First two paragraphs of birthday rule are unchanged, the third paragraph just needed the "promulgating" clause removed.] BE IT HEREBY APPLIED: Any tournaments that existed as defined by the rules immediately before this proposal took effect
BUS: [Arbitor] judicial assignment policy
Hey everyone, I just did a "procedural" judicial assignment to myself with CFJ 4020, and one of those hasn't come up in a while and we've had player turnover since then. So I thought I'd repost (slightly edited from 2020 when I last posted it) the judicial assignment policy I've been using in general - it's neither strictly "from the top of the list" nor "random" but those are both part of the heuristics for making fair assignments. Happy to discuss! - FIRST, A REMINDER: *Please feel free to Favor or Disfavor individual cases* (in public please so my filter picks it up). I'll do my best to accommodate these (in general first come first serve, if you're doing it too much to crowd out others, I'll just politely mention it). If you don't read anything below, please remember that doing this is helpful to me, if not overused. MORE GENERAL POLICY: There's two general guidelines for judicial assignments in R991: The first one is: > The Arbitor is an office, responsible for the administration of > justice in a manner that is fair for emself, if not for the rest > of Agora. I interpret "fair for emself" as fair for the office of Arbitor which means to sometime jump on cases to make a procedural point without it counting as a "judicial turn" without taking rewards for doing so (e.g. CFJ 4020) - but more often, "fair for the Arbitor" means minimizing Arbitor workload, which means assigning cases to minimize motions and moots and get to the right answer the first time. Fortunately, this is also "fair for the rest of Agora" in that it expedites the resolution of controversy. So under this category goes: avoid materially self-interested judges (merely having an opinion doesn't count as self-interest, it has to be materially more self-interest than the average Agoran has in the case). Also, if someone's given a reasoned argument in discussion, they're thinking about the case, so that's a point in their favor for assignment. However, if that argument has ended up in some tit-for-tat with the Caller or with a rule-author about their intended reading, I might instead look for a third opinion. The second one is: > The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all > interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge. For "equal opportunities" I don't *just* think about # of cases per person although that's a lot of it - also think of "equal effort", so if you just had a really thorny case I might give you an easy one or give you a pass for a couple cases (or vice versa). Also, here's where favoring/disfavoring is counted as weighting a judge's "interest", as long as it doesn't rise to "self-interest" described above. Activity matters a little, if I haven't seen you post for a month I'd weight that as less interest at the moment - this also goes into the "fair for Agora" bit above - if there's an urgent case, I'm thinking about who's been more active or able to do the case quickly. So anyway, to implement this I have an ordered list of judges. Whenever I assign a case I move the assignee to the bottom of the list (that's a given). When selecting a judge, I start at the top of the list, but look at the first few judges on the list to see who's a good fit based on everything above, while making sure I don't pass over any person on the top for very long. I prefer to batch assign, so I have N CFJs and take the top N persons on the list, which gives me the flexibility to match up within that group to take all the factors above into account. Finally, if there's a few good choices, a coin/flip die roll helps keep the list from staying in the same order. If anything in the above seems confusing/unfair, lmk... -G.
BUS: Re: [Arbitor] CFJ 4021 Assigned to G.
On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 9:02 AM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > The below CFJ is 4021. I assign it to G.. > > status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#4021 > > === CFJ 4021 === > > Yachay owns the Hot Potato stone. > > == > Judgment in CFJ 4021: [For future reference, "TRUE" means that snail obtained the Hot Potato due to reach, and then it was transferred to Yachay due to being wielded by snail.] The rule paragraph in question is written reasonably cleanly and concisely. The fact that "reached first" is missing an object (a specified stone) leads the reader to look for context, and even a moron in a hurry (like the judge of this case) could see that the context is supplied by the preceding sentence - as the "tie" clearly refers to the "highest" in the previous sentence, the "reached first" clearly, and in nearly-parallel construction, applies to the reaches "in the previous week" in that same sentence. No amount of Agoran grammatic sophistry can take away from the plain and obvious common-sense intended meaning in that paragraph; further, it is not in the best interests of the game to force the rules-writers to constantly expand the level of rules-overspecification to defend against motivated readings, in situations where such plain and obvious contextual usage suffice. This judge finds FALSE. -G.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8946-8951
I vote AGAINST all. -G. > ID Author(s) AITitle > --- > 8946~ 4st 2.0 Horses Can Dream/Horse Virus > 8947~ Janet 1.0 Stamp win removal > 8948~ G. 2.0 Undo Burden > 8949* Janet 3.0 Might as well ask? > 8950~ nix 2.0 Major Stamp Reform > 8951~ nix, 4st, Janet 2.0 Gathering Stone Power v3
BUS: Not caught up
I succumb. -G.
BUS: Undo burden
I submit the following proposal, "Undo Burden", AI=2: - Amend Rule 2645 (The Stones) by appending the following paragraph: - Undo Stone (Fortnightly, 3): When wielded while specifying an act of stone wielding that occurred in the last 24 hours, the effects of the specified wielding are undone, to the extent POSSIBLE. This is not retroactive; rather wielding the undo stone causes a reverse effect (e.g. if the specified previous wielding increased a value, that value is decreased by the same amount). If wielding the undo stone would lead to a paradox, it fails instead. -
BUS: (@Herald) Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposals 8922-8925
On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 12:49 PM Janet Cobb wrote: > IDTitle Result > -- > 8922 What's a paragraph anyway? ADOPTED > 8923 Department of Defense ADOPTED > 8925 Codify Conditionality ADOPTED As author of each of the above proposals, I gain myself 4 radiance for each (in the order listed above, 12 radiance total). -G.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 8940-8945
I vote: > 8940~ 4st 1.0 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ AGAINST > 8941~ Yachay 1.0 Ascetics AGAINST > 8942* 4st 3.0 Cleaning FOR > 8943~ Janet, G. 1.0 Ritual rewrite FOR > 8944~ Janet, ais523 2.0 Effecting change FOR > 8945~ snail 2.0 Going up AGAINST - what a horribly overpowered idea, rule power shouldn't be gamefied by ephemera. -G.
Re: BUS: [??Ritual Master??] Fond Memories of what once was.
On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 6:47 PM Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > > man. 27. mar. 2023 kl. 13:55 skrev Janet Cobb via agora-business < > agora-business@agoranomic.org>: > > > ... > > CoE on each of the above: no authorization under R2680 attached at each > > of the above reports, as the relevant text was not in force at the time. > > > > -- > > Janet Cobb > > > > Assessor, Mad Engineer, Rulekeepor, Stonemason > > > > > As I SHOULD, since I believe these CoE's to be wrong, > I deny each CoE from above. > Just like how a report is still a report, a ritual act is still a ritual > act. > Timing is not explicitly mentioned. > If you'd like, you can take that to the arbitor, > but I shalln't. > Thusly, I believe these ritual numbers are declared correctly. I CoE on the ritual act attempts referenced above. In this part of the rule: > Firstly: Each of these is a ritual act: > - Performing a cabinet order "performing" is an active verb. when past acts (before the rule existed) were performed, they were not ritual acts. After that rule text existed, they were not performed. So they were not ritual acts either when performed, or now. -G.
BUS: 1a
I intend
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8934-8936
I vote FOR all. -G. On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 1:26 PM secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote: > ID Author(s) AITitle > --- > 8934~ 4st 1.0 H4x0r5 > 8935~ nix, Aspen, G. 2.0 Quicker Peer Expungement > 8936~ 4st 2.0 Oh come on guys folks
Re: BUS: (@ADoP) impeachment!
On Sun, Mar 19, 2023 at 10:33 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > > I intend to, with 2 agoran consent, impeach the referee. (I should be > properly elected.) If this conditional statement is sufficient to set forth my intent, I support. -G.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Herald] RADIANCE (Weekly, 14 Feb 23)
On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 11:41 AM nix via agora-official wrote: > > Radiances as of 14 Mar 2023. > > PLACE NAME [0] RADIANCE [1] > - > 1stJNT 089 (+5) CoE on this report - does not include score adjustments from Janet's recent victory. -G.
[CFJ] Re: BUS: (@Herald) The radiance
CFJ, barring snail: snail gained 1 radiance for being co-author of Proposal 8919. Caller's Arguments: When Proposal 8919 *started* taking effect, R2657 read in part: Each time a player fulfills a scoring condition, the officer associated with the condition CAN once by announcement, and SHALL in an officially timely fashion, add to that player's score the associated amount of points, rounded down. Below is a list of scoring conditions and their associated points and officers. [...] * Being a coauthor of a proposal that takes effect: 1 (Assessor). When Proposal 8919 *finished* taking effect, R2657 read in part: Each time a player fulfills a radiance condition, e CAN once by announcement (specifying any indicated info) gain the associated radiance. Below is a list of radiance conditions: [...] * Being a coauthor of a proposal that takes effect: 1 (must specify proposal number) I think the "when" is triggered when the proposal *first* starts taking effect, so e earned the right to be awarded by the old system (which was then made impossible to give via rule change), but not the new system. A counterargument is that since the proposal is still "taking effect" when the new text came into being, that was awarded somehow too - but interpreting the trigger as continuous is a self-conflict with the first sentence of the rule that says "each time", which implies a specific single instant. Caller's Evidence: On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 11:46 AM secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > > For the adoption of P8919, I gain 1 radiance (co-author). > > -- > snail Proposal 8919: // ID: 8919 Title: Radiance v1.1 Adoption index: 3.0 Author: nix Co-authors: G., 4st, snail [This proposal reskins points/score as "radiance" and also changes the scoring conditions to be cashed by players. IE, insteead of the assessor granting points for proposals, each player must claim them. Also introduce gains/grants language to get rid of clunkier things, and adds some requirements to specify your radiance when winning, and where you gained the radiance from when you do.] Retitle R2656 to "Radiance". Amend R2656 to read in full: A player's Radiance is an integer player switch defaulting to 0, tracked by the Herald. When a player is "granted" or "gains" a specified amount of radiance, eir radiance is increased by that amount. Upon a correct announcement from a player that eir radiance is 100 or more (correctly specifying the amount), e wins the game. Then, eir radiance is set to 0, and all other players' radiance are set to half their current value rounded down. At the start of every quarter, all radiance switches are set to half their current value rounded down. For each player, set eir radiance switch to be equal to the value eir score switch was at immediately before this proposal was adopted. Retitle R2657 to "Gaining Radiance". Amend R2657 to read, in full: Each time a player fulfills a radiance condition, e CAN once by announcement (specifying any indicated info) gain the associated radiance. Below is a list of radiance conditions: * Being the author of a proposal that takes effect: 5 (must specify proposal number) * Being a coauthor of a proposal that takes effect: 1 (must specify proposal number) * Having an Agoran Birthday: X, where X is the number of active players during eir birthday. * Judging a CFJ that e was assigned to without violating a time limit to do so, unless at the time of judgement the case was open due to self-filing a motion to reconsider it: 2 (must specify CFJ number) Amend R2659 by replacing "increase eir own score by (X^2)-X points" with "gain (X^2)-X radiance" and replacing "increase eir own score by (X-1)*2 points" with "gain (X-1)*2 radiance". In R2670 replacing: The score of the player that has the most dollaries is increased by 30. In the event of an N-way tie, instead, each tied player's score is increased by 30/N points, rounded down. with: The player that has the most dollaries gains 30 radiance. In the event of an N-way tie, instead, each tied player gains 30/N radiance, rounded down. In R2675 replace every instance of "score" with "radiance". Amend R2645 by replacing: - Score Stone (Weekly, 3): When wielded, a specified player's (defaulting to the wielder if not specified) Score is increased by 3. with: - Radiance Stone (Weekly, 3): When wielded, a specified player (defaulting to the wielder if not specified) gains 3 radiance. and replacing: When this stone is wielded, the wielder specifies
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8926-8933
I vote: > 8926* 4st, nix3.0 Just add the sins directly AGAINST. clutter to encode obvious abbreviations let's stick with common sense. > 8927~ 4st, nix1.0 One More Sin AGAINST making the letter R a term of art. > 8928~ juan1.0 Acting on commitment FOR > 8929* Janet, Murphy, snail3.0 Tabled action security FOR > 8930~ nix 1.0 Rebalancing FOR > 8931~ 4st 1.0 Rhyme Time AGAINST > 8932~ Janet 1.0 Only so bright FOR > 8933~ Janet 1.0 Ritual ratification FOR -G.
BUS: (@referee) a note
H. Referee, I note that snail has violated R591 for failing to judge CFJ 4012 in a timely manner. In terms of penalty consideration, I'll mention that this is the second one in a row that e was late in judging (e violated this rule just over 14 days ago with CFJ 4011). -G.
BUS: (@Herald) point adds
I add points to the following scores for timely judgements: +2 Murphy (4014). -G.
Re: BUS: [Prime Minister] Manifesting @Assessor, @Promotor
> On 2/28/23 12:32, nix via agora-business wrote:
> > I issue the Manifesto Cabinet order to distribute the following proposal:
> >
> > {
> > ID: 8921*
> > Title: ReGardening
> > AI: 2
> > Author: nix
> > co-authors:
I vote PRESENT. -G.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8922-8925
I vote FOR all. -G. On Sun, Mar 5, 2023 at 3:11 PM secretsnail9 via agora-official wrote: > ID Author(s) AITitle > --- > 8922~ G. 1.0 What's a paragraph anyway? > 8923~ G. 2.0 Department of Defense > 8924~ G., Janet 2.0 A Populist PM > 8925* G., Janet, Murphy 3.0 Codify Conditionality
BUS: [Proposal] On conditionality
I submit the following proposal: Title: Codify Conditionality AI: 3 Author: G. Coauthors: Janet, Murphy [Since a recent win was performed with a slightly-complex conditional action, there has been discussion in DIS and on discord about codifying conditional actions. There is much debate and difference of approach in the Discord discussion, but it would be good not to stall out. This paragraph is intended to essentially change no mechanics, and legislatively codify our current common-law precedent - thus acknowledging that conditionals exist at least, which can be changed in later proposals]. Amend Rule 2518 (Determinacy) by appending the following paragraph: A communication purporting to express conditional intent to perform an action is considered unclear and ambiguous unless, at a minimum, the conditional is determinate, true, and reasonably straightforward to evaluate with publicly-available information at the time of communication. The communicator SHOULD explain specific reasons for being uncertain of the outcome when e makes the communication.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8914-8920
I vote (spreadsheet updated): > --- > 8914~ nix 1.5 Can't Trust Em To Do Eir Own Work FOR > 8915~ 4st, G., Janet 1.0 Reenactment V2 AGAINST > 8916~ 4st, Janet 1.0 Ongoing obligation AGAINST > 8917* Janet 3.0 No FOR > 8918~ 4st, nix, G. Murphy 1.0 Ritual Paper Dance V2 FOR > 8919* nix, G., 4st, snail 3.0 Radiance v1.1 FOR > 8920* Janet 3.0 Adopted change re-application FOR -G.
BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Proposals 8911-8913
I vote (spreadsheet updated): > 8911~ 4st 1.0 Player-Defined Nonsense AGAINST > 8912~ snail 1.0 How'd that get there? PRESENT > 8913* G., Murphy 3.0 emself v2 FOR -G.
BUS: (@4st) duplicate CFJs
Hi 4st, You may have called duplicate CFJs. You send a message that actually went to BUS, then sent one later with the same CFJ with a "TTttPF" included. I'm just assigned the 'first' one (as identified by the 'called by' date string in the assignment email) but please withdraw the second one (by announcement, maybe using the descriptor "open" to refer to the unassigned one?) to avoid duplication. If not, later I'll be required to assign the second one (and will assign it to the same judge), just more paperwork all around. Messages: https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg44105.html https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg44108.html [There may be a meta-CFJ on whether a message that arrived at BUS, but was then re-sent to BUS with a TttPF, actually expresses intent to perform the task the second time, but calling that cfj is left as an exercise...] -G.
BUS: (@Herald) point adds
I add points to the following scores for timely judgements: +2 ais523 (4010) +2 G. (4013) -the Arbitor
BUS: Re: [Proposal] strength to the people
Third time's the charm? I withdraw my proposal Populist Priming. I submit the following proposal: -- Title: A Populist PM AI: 2 Author: G. Coauthor: Janet Amend Rule 2451 (Executive Orders) by appending the following list item: - Proxy (Assessor): The Prime Minister specifies another active player. A player's voting strength on an ordinary referendum is increased by 4 for each time Proxy was specified for em in its voting period. --
BUS: [Proposal] Department of Defense
I submit the following proposal: -- Title: Department of Defense AI: 2 Author: G. Amend Rule 2451 (Executive Orders) by appending the following list item: - Research Funding (Mad Engineer): The Prime Minister specifies an existing Rule. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Mad Engineer CAN and SHALL use that rule instead of making a random rule selection as part of eir weekly duties for the following week. --
