DIS: CotC site update
New search options: caller, judge, arguments/evidence text. Caveats: Only one option can be used at a time. Search by judge does not care whether the player's decision was final.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5649-5650
Quazie wrote: > On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 7:25 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> 5649 O1 1.7 Quazie Partnerships devolve, and so should unqu... >> AGAINST x 17 (should explicitly lift the first-class restriction for >> initiating) > > I'll fix that then. Also, is the word basis or feet appropriate for > what I want to say (i don't remember if your proposal passed/will pass > or not) It didn't pass. Here was the relevant portion of it: Amend Rule 2150 (Personhood) by replacing this text: The basis of a first-class person is the singleton set consisting of that person. with this text: Each person has a basis, which is a set of one or more persons (its feet). The basis of a first-class person is the set consisting of that person. [Avoid "member of basis", as it can easily be confused with "member of contract".]
DIS: Re: BUS: It's all the rage these days.
tusho wrote: > 2008/7/21 Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> The following action will fail: I initiate a criminal CFJ against tusho for >> violating rule 2149 by stating that the initiation of this criminal CFJ will >> fail. >> >> tusho >> > > I retract any CFJs I initiated in this message, if there are any. > > I initiate a criminal CFJ against tusho for violating rule 2149 by stating > that the initiation of this CFJ will fail. > > tusho > > (btw, the CFJ initiation will fail) I'm also treating /this/ as insufficiently clear as to initiate a case.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5640-5648
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: > Assuming that tusho is not a player (CFJ 2074), Proposal 5648 was not > made democratic until after the end of the voting period. Rule 2142 > allows this, but what does it do to vote validity? Gratuitous: R683 strongly implies that a vote is valid if it is among the first N where N<= the voting limit when the vote is submitted. This points to a dangerous break in the rule allowing democratization during the voting period, in that Ordinary votes cast before the democratization would remain valid even after the democratization. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's all the rage these days.
2008/7/23 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I'm also treating /this/ as insufficiently clear as to initiate a case. > > Give me an actual reason for it to fail apart from an offhand note.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5651-5657
2008/7/23 Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>5657 O1 1.5 comex enough already? > AGAINST*11 Do you find this interesting? Funny? Exciting? Good for Agora? Stop it. tusho
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: It's all the rage these days.
tusho wrote: > 2008/7/23 Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> I'm also treating /this/ as insufficiently clear as to initiate a case. >> >> > > Give me an actual reason for it to fail apart from an offhand note. An offhand note suffices. It's basically equivalent to announcing "I (do not yet) submit the following (proposal/contract/whatever)", which I'm pretty sure has been used before with the unquestioned intent of not acting (merely prototyping).
DIS: Re: BUS: 3 / 11 = ???
2008/7/23 comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I intend, with 2 support, to make Proposal 5657 Democratic. > I offer my moral support.
DIS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5651-5657
> 5651 O1 1Quazie Left in a lull PRESENT > 5652 D1 2comex Awful proposal AGAINST > 5653 O1 1.5 BobTHJ Department of Corrections FOR * 8 > 5654 D0 2ais523 PRESENT > 5655 D1 2comex Allow chaotic ID numbers to be assigned AGAINST > 5656 O1 1ais523 A one-off CotC exit clause ENDORSE MURPHY * 8 > 5657 O1 1.5 comex enough already? AGAINST * 8
DIS: Re: BUS: 3 / 11 = ???
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 8:09 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I intend, with 2 support, to make Proposal 5657 Democratic. > I support. I support.
Re: DIS: CotC site update
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:03 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > New search options: caller, judge, arguments/evidence text. > > Caveats: Only one option can be used at a time. Search by judge > does not care whether the player's decision was final. Excellent. Thanks! -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Objecting and supporting
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 8:29 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Rule 2124 (Agoran Satisfaction) does not include "specify" like >> the rule relevant to CFJ 1307 did. > > Rule 2208/0 (Power=3) > Clarity of Announcements > > All attempts to perform an action by announcement fail if the > action is not unambiguously specified. > ^ Yes, but where does it say that attempts to support such an action must be unambiguously specified? -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5640-5648
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:40 AM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Assuming that tusho is not a player (CFJ 2074), Proposal 5648 was not >> made democratic until after the end of the voting period. Rule 2142 >> allows this, but what does it do to vote validity? > > Gratuitous: > > R683 strongly implies that a vote is valid if it is among the first N where > N<= the voting limit when the vote is submitted. This points to a dangerous > break in the rule allowing democratization during the voting period, in that > Ordinary votes cast before the democratization would remain valid even after > the democratization. Among the otherwise-valid votes on an Agoran decision, only the first N submitted by each entity are valid, where N is the entity's voting limit on that decision. I don't see anything in there that implies "when the vote is cast" timing. It talks about the collective validity of votes which could have been cast at different times, not the validity of individual votes. In fact, condition (d) strongly implies that vote validity is a status that is evaluated instantaneously, not set in stone when the vote was cast -- otherwise, retracting a vote would fail to invalidate it. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Objecting and supporting
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:28 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Yes, but where does it say that attempts to support such an action >> must be unambiguously specified? > > I CFJ on the statement: > > Publishing the message "I object", in response to an attempt to > perform a dependent action, causes an action to be taken by > announcement. > > Arguments: > You could post a message like "This message is an objection to the > above action", which would object in a method other than announcement, > because the criterion of "by announcement" is that a person performs > an action by announcing that e performs it. However, in the case of > "I object", this criterion is satisfied, even if Rule 2124 does not > require that an objection be an announcement. No, the "by announcement" criterion of R478 is not satisfied, because it specifically only applies to rule-defined actions. Nowhere do the rules define objecting to a dependent action as an action. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Objecting and supporting
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:34 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:28 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Yes, but where does it say that attempts to support such an action >>> must be unambiguously specified? >> >> I CFJ on the statement: >> >> Publishing the message "I object", in response to an attempt to >> perform a dependent action, causes an action to be taken by >> announcement. >> >> Arguments: >> You could post a message like "This message is an objection to the >> above action", which would object in a method other than announcement, >> because the criterion of "by announcement" is that a person performs >> an action by announcing that e performs it. However, in the case of >> "I object", this criterion is satisfied, even if Rule 2124 does not >> require that an objection be an announcement. > > No, the "by announcement" criterion of R478 is not satisfied, because > it specifically only applies to rule-defined actions. Nowhere do the > rules define objecting to a dependent action as an action. I gratuitously argue the above, please. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: A different approach to making props useful
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And without three objections I intend to make the following change to
>> the Vote Market agreement:
>> {
>> Append the following to Section 10:
>> {{
>> A Slave is an Indebted party who has either become either inactive or
>> deregistered. Any non-indebted party may act on behalf of a Slave to
>> register, become active, and/or cast a vote of SELL (2VP) on an Agoran
>> decision. A party may cease to be a Slave by announcement.
>> }}
>> }
>
> I object. A Slave would also cease to be a Slave as soon as e
> registers or becomes active, so this doesn't work the way you want it
> to.
>
I don't think it would. That's why I worded it "who becomes" instead
of "who is". Becoming inactive or deregistered triggers the Slave
status on, there is no continuing requirement to remain that way.
BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Objecting and supporting
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, the "by announcement" criterion of R478 is not satisfied, because > it specifically only applies to rule-defined actions. Nowhere do the > rules define objecting to a dependent action as an action. Although Rule 2124 defines it as a message that must be sent, we treat objecting very, very much like an action, which we send pseudo-announcements in order to perform. Or is it a real announcement? Although Rule 478 defines "by announcement" only in the context of actions that the Rules say we can take by announcement, that simply means that "by announcement" is otherwise undefined. Rule 2208 refers to *any* attempt to perform *any* action by announcement, so we must infer a meaning for "by announcement" in other contexts. Compare to contract-defined announcements: although the Rules do not "define an action that CAN be performed 'by announcement'", so the term is undefined, we still treat actions which a contract says can be performed "by announcement" as effective. I think it is game custom (although the rule is still new) to treat Rule 2208 as applying to such actions, too. I submit the above as gratuitous arguments.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: A different approach to making props useful
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think it would. That's why I worded it "who becomes" instead > of "who is". Becoming inactive or deregistered triggers the Slave > status on, there is no continuing requirement to remain that way. You worded it "who has become" not "who becomes". If you're going to interpret it that way, then it appears to apply to any indebted party who has ever deregistered or been inactive, regardless of current status. -root
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:47 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Come on. Statements like "I object to everything that can be > objected to" put a whole lot of unnecessary work on anyone who is > trying to perform a dependent action. How so? If I'm trying to perform a dependent action, it's immediately obvious whether or not and how the above applies to my dependent action. > FOR* ((lambda x:map(lambda o:(map(lambda c:map(lambda l: > o.__setslice__(l[0],l[1],l[2]),([o[2]+3,o[2]+4,[o[0]]],[0,3,[o[1], > reduce(lambda x,o:x+o,o[:2]),o[2]+1]])),range(x)),o)[1],[[1,1,0]+ > range(x)])[0][3:])(4)[-1]) 3. But I take your point. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Objecting and supporting
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 10:56 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Although Rule 2124 defines it as a message that must be sent, we treat > objecting very, very much like an action, which we send > pseudo-announcements in order to perform. Or is it a real > announcement? Although Rule 478 defines "by announcement" only in the > context of actions that the Rules say we can take by announcement, > that simply means that "by announcement" is otherwise undefined. Rule > 2208 refers to *any* attempt to perform *any* action by announcement, > so we must infer a meaning for "by announcement" in other contexts. Why? If somebody attempts to perform an action by announcement, and the action can't be performed by announcement, then obviously the attempt fails regardless of whether R2208 can be applied to it. It doesn't matter whether an arbitrary publication takes the form of an announcement; if the rules say it's not an action-by-announcement, then it's not an action-by-announcement. > Compare to contract-defined announcements: although the Rules do not > "define an action that CAN be performed 'by announcement'", so the > term is undefined, we still treat actions which a contract says can be > performed "by announcement" as effective. I think it is game custom > (although the rule is still new) to treat Rule 2208 as applying to > such actions, too. Apart from equity cases, a contract is its own authority, and if their parties want to be lax in their interpretation, that's their own business. -root
Re: DIS: CotC site update
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 3:03 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Caveats: Only one option can be used at a time. Search by judge > does not care whether the player's decision was final. It also seems to list any equity case as "case open", which I imagine has something to do with there not being a fixed set of available judgments.
Re: DIS: CotC site update
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It also seems to list any equity case as "case open", which I imagine > has something to do with there not being a fixed set of available > judgments. Although oddly 1932 displays the judgment as "equation" when none of the others do.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Objecting and supporting
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why? If somebody attempts to perform an action by announcement, and > the action can't be performed by announcement, then obviously the > attempt fails regardless of whether R2208 can be applied to it. It > doesn't matter whether an arbitrary publication takes the form of an > announcement; if the rules say it's not an action-by-announcement, > then it's not an action-by-announcement. As an extreme case, what if we remove the announcement clause entirely from Rule 478? Then, you argue, no action can be performed by announcement, because 'by announcement' is not defined?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Objecting and supporting
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:35 AM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Why? If somebody attempts to perform an action by announcement, and >> the action can't be performed by announcement, then obviously the >> attempt fails regardless of whether R2208 can be applied to it. It >> doesn't matter whether an arbitrary publication takes the form of an >> announcement; if the rules say it's not an action-by-announcement, >> then it's not an action-by-announcement. > > As an extreme case, what if we remove the announcement clause entirely > from Rule 478? Then, you argue, no action can be performed by > announcement, because 'by announcement' is not defined? Do you mean just the last paragraph of R478, or do you mean all mention of announcement? If just the last paragraph were removed, we probably would not suffer, since for each such action, some other rule indicates that it CAN be performed "by announcement", and "announce" would still be defined, which is probably sufficient. There still would be no reason to interpret things that are announced in the form of actions but aren't defined as such to be actions. If the definition of "announce" were removed as well, we might still be fine if it's a reasonable synonym of "publish". The point is that R478 doesn't define what is or is not an action. For each rule-defined action, the defining rule defines it as an action by indicating that it CAN be performed. It is reasonable to conclude that where an action would be a legal fiction, and no such action is defined, no such legal fiction exists. -root
DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2090 assigned to ais523
Taral wrote: > I support. With two support (root, Zefram) I appeal the judgement of CFJ 2090. Just out of interest, have I ever made a judgement that /hasn't/ been appealed? -- ais523 <>
DIS: RE: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
BobTHJ wrote: > Federal Subsidy: 8 I request subsidisation. -- ais523 <>
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2090 assigned to ais523
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Taral wrote: >> I support. With two support (root, Zefram) I appeal the judgement of CFJ >> 2090. > Just out of interest, have I ever made a judgement that /hasn't/ been > appealed? Sounds like a case for the new zenith search options. Looks like you judged CFJs 1945, 1953, 2025, 2028, 2030, 2059, 2061, and 2062; none of which have been appealed. -root
Re: DIS: RE: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2090 assigned to ais523
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:41 PM, Alexander Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Taral wrote: >>> I support. With two support (root, Zefram) I appeal the judgement of CFJ >>> 2090. >> Just out of interest, have I ever made a judgement that /hasn't/ been >> appealed? > > Sounds like a case for the new zenith search options. Looks like you > judged CFJs 1945, 1953, 2025, 2028, 2030, 2059, 2061, and 2062; none > of which have been appealed. Also, you've judged 14 cases total, so that's an overall appeal rate of 43%. -root
Re: DIS: CotC site update
Wooble wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Geoffrey Spear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> It also seems to list any equity case as "case open", which I imagine >> has something to do with there not being a fixed set of available >> judgments. > > Although oddly 1932 displays the judgment as "equation" when none of > the others do. Fixed. (The current-judgement logic is "maximum event_id where the decision is not AFFIRM"; for equations, the decision_id is null. I tweaked it to use "maximum event_id, period" for the "case open" check. 1932 was different because it was appealed.)
DIS: RE: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: distribution of proposals 5640-5648
Goethe wrote: > R683 strongly implies that a vote is valid if it is among the first N where > N<= the voting limit when the vote is submitted. This points to a dangerous > break in the rule allowing democratization during the voting period, in that > Ordinary votes cast before the democratization would remain valid even after > the democratization. I spotted this scam ages ago, and filed CFJs 1959 and 1960 to determine whether it would work. The verdict is that it wouldn't, so I didn't try it. (I certainly would have tried it otherwise.) -- ais523 <>
DIS: RE: AAA - Secretary of Agriculture Report
BobTHJ wrote: > CROPS & VOUCHERS > FARMER 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 X WRV > (snip) > ais523 14 2 1 5 I mill 8+9=6. I deposit one WRV in the RBoA. (I think this gains me 175 Chits.) I withdraw three 5 crops from the RBoA. (I think this costs me 85 Chits each, for a total of 255 spent, net loss of 80 Chits, leaving me with 41 Chits.) I withdraw a 4 crop from the RBoA. (I think this costs me 39 Chits, leaving me with 2 Chits.) I harvest 5654 using numbered crops (i.e. not using X crops), which is the ID number of a democratic proposal in its voting period, to gain 4 points. -- ais523 <>
Re: DIS: CotC site update
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fixed. (The current-judgement logic is "maximum event_id where the > decision is not AFFIRM"; for equations, the decision_id is null. I > tweaked it to use "maximum event_id, period" for the "case open" > check. 1932 was different because it was appealed.) Hmm... it would be nice if you could release some sort of periodic database dump for us to play with. A list of most appealed judges, anyone?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Vote Market proposal: Facebook (ii)
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 5:33 PM, David Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Phooey. I so want to define "rounds of applause" as a currency, right >> alongside http://tipjar.com/2008i/tipjarium.html";> tipjarium >> which is in pre-alpha state but if you think ReCaptcha is fun, >> it's a game today. > > Surprisingly addictive...I'm imaginary rich! > > Unfortunately, now I can't close my browser for fear of losing my vast > imaginary wealth. > > -root just don't clear your cookie file. The cookie will persist until 2038 or something. Hopefully I'll get daily mediocrity and weekly, monthly, annual, and decadely meta-mediocrity running with the iAu and iAg accounts going as well. And your computer will be detected by the orbiting hope-ray detector satellite. -- But some very large rats, Ate his coats and his hats, While that futile old gentleman dozed. http://cronos.advenge.com/pc/nonsense/nonsense27.html
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Vote Market proposal: Facebook (ii)
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 5:39 PM, David Nicol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > just don't clear your cookie file. The cookie will persist until 2038 > or something. Unless, like me, your cookies are automatically forced to be session cookies. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
