Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [scam] rulekeepor's notes on proposals 5949-5964
On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 19:19 -0500, Joshua Boehme wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:41:11 -0500
comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I cause Rule 1367 to amend itself by adding the following historical
annotation:
{
Note: comex CAN, and has been able to for the past several months,
cause this rule to amend itself by announcement.
}
Annotations != rules. The rules require the Rulekeepor to track
annotations and encourage em to do so, but it gives no particular
legal force to the annotations so tracked.
However, if, as in this case, the annotations are part of the rules,
they have legal force because they are part of the rules, irrelevant of
whether they are annotations.
It's probably worth pointing out that the typical sort of annotation in
the FLR has no effect merely because it isn't part of the rules
themselves and nothing gives it legal force or a positive Power. If an
annotation is part of a rule, as it is here, it has the same Power as
the rule in question and therefore is an instrument (or else part of an
instrument).
--
ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Last resort
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 18 Nov 2008, at 16:41, Zefram wrote: Elliott Hird wrote: Therefore, Agora acknowledges that a nomic ruleset can have a jurisdiction larger than the domain of the game it defines the rules for. Not in general, no. That judgement is only that Agoran rules have infinite scope. Well that's very fair to other nomics ... Sure it is. Just like there's 500 coins that I can use however I want but nobody else can touch (without some type of majority consent, at least). --Warrigal, who platonically declares that he's using there's correctly
DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1234 judged by Taral
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 7:04 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1234 judged by Taral == CFJ 1234 == Assigned to Taral: 21 Aug 2000 03:29:12 GMT How was it judged?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [scam] rulekeepor's notes on proposals 5949-5964
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Indeed, but as a part of the text it would no longer be an annotation. I disagree with you, but that interpretation's fine. In that case, the added text was a historical annotation before I added it to a Rule, so Rule 1051 let me add it, upon which it ceased to be a historical annotation.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1234 judged by Taral
On 19 Nov 2008, at 14:03, comex wrote: How was it judged? TRUE, I believe. along with the denying.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2254 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 16:26, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 18 Nov 2008, at 23:09, Geoffrey Spear wrote: This would lead to deliberately driving down the rate to sell them cheaply first. On the other hand, the RBoA's rates are almost always wrong, it keeps being scammed, etc. Just because the PBA has self-adjusting rates doesn't make them right. Take a look at my recent deposit of PV, for an example. Yes, I'll concede that the RBOA was scammable when it overvalued PBA coins, but now that it no longer trades in coins it should function just fine (as it had prior to the PBA). BobTHJ
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2254 assigned to OscarMeyr
On 19 Nov 2008, at 15:36, Roger Hicks wrote: Just because the PBA has self-adjusting rates doesn't make them right. It makes them righter, in general, instead of arbitrarily set. Take a look at my recent deposit of PV, for an example. You misunderstand: the point is that the PBA is structured so that when the rates are wrong, they get corrected. This is done by offering nice rewards when the rates are wrong, and so it has been doing well. The PV was a rare extreme case of this. Yes, I'll concede that the RBOA was scammable when it overvalued PBA coins, but now that it no longer trades in coins it should function just fine (as it had prior to the PBA). It's not easy to determine what's a good or bad rate unless you have something impartial monitoring their value somehow (PBA).
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2254 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's not easy to determine what's a good or bad rate unless you have something impartial monitoring their value somehow (PBA). PBA's rate change algorithm isn't impartial, it's just an arbitrary way of adjusting. It seems unlikely to me that the objective value of a 0 crop decreases by 25% any time someone deposits one in one bank but doesn't change at all if they deposit it in a different bank.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2254 assigned to OscarMeyr
On 19 Nov 2008, at 16:06, Geoffrey Spear wrote: PBA's rate change algorithm isn't impartial, it's just an arbitrary way of adjusting. It seems unlikely to me that the objective value of a 0 crop decreases by 25% any time someone deposits one in one bank but doesn't change at all if they deposit it in a different bank. It's an estimation that seems to work.
DIS: Re: BUS: So Hey This is a CFJ
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Murphy, if you reject this as ambiguous I will eat your soul because my intent is clear. Ineffective because the subject line of a message has no effect on actions in it. I don't know why you can't just call the CFJ normally.
DIS: Re: BUS: So Hey This is a CFJ
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Murphy, if you reject this as ambiguous I will eat your soul because my intent is clear. I'm so disappointed that I won't get to vote for you as CotC later today. Demanding that a CFJ with no statement is accepted is exactly the sort of attitude we all want in a CotC.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2254 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 08:44, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 19 Nov 2008, at 15:36, Roger Hicks wrote: Just because the PBA has self-adjusting rates doesn't make them right. It makes them righter, in general, instead of arbitrarily set. Take a look at my recent deposit of PV, for an example. You misunderstand: the point is that the PBA is structured so that when the rates are wrong, they get corrected. This is done by offering nice rewards when the rates are wrong, and so it has been doing well. The PV was a rare extreme case of this. Don't worry, I get it. The PBA's self adjusting rates are a good thing, and your chosen implementation of them does seem to work well in a large number of cases. I admit I was planning self-adjusting rates for the RBOA before you created the PBA, I just hadn't devised a good method of making them work. However, with that being said it still doesn't mean that the PBA's rates are inherently more accurate than the RBOA's. The PBA rates vastly reflect recent market trends, but tend to fail at modeling long-term value of assets. Because of their self-adjusting nature they can easily be skewed (for example, if the CFJ in question were decided on PBA rates, it would be a simple matter for anyone to artificially inflate or deflate those rates prior to the judgment going into effect). The RBOA's rates on the other hand tend to reflect a more stable long-term asset value. BobTHJ
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 1234 judged by Taral
ehird wrote: On 19 Nov 2008, at 14:03, comex wrote: How was it judged? TRUE, I believe. along with the denying. The history backs this up. Dunno why the summary omits Kelly's judgement (it doesn't do that for other ancient appealed cases); I'll look into it later. Context: At the time, there was a rule for submitting motions, which the judge would grant or deny. Kelly judged the case, and eir judgement was affirmed on appeal, but e failed to grant or deny the motion, so was recused and replaced with Taral for that purpose.
DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] request for information
ehird wrote: Also, I decline my self-nomination for CotC. Want to get scripts running first. I really don't see someone with a long history of attempting scams being voted into the office that decides who gets first shot at adjudicating the success or failure of scams. Of course, this may change as the player population does. If CotC does change hands (to someone other than the AFO), I'll provide either a copy of the scripts, or access to the admin interface. Unlike Conductor, there's enough business logic there that avoiding reinventing the wheel is likely to be worth it.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: So Hey This is a CFJ
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I nominate Murphy as CotC so he can have a few days while I write a superior interface and demonstrate my amazing speed of assignment. Fails, e is already a consenting nominee in the current nomination period.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: So Hey This is a CFJ
Wooble wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, I did accept it. On further reflection: I nominate Zefram as CotC. I can understand your disagreements with my performance of the office, but could you at least nominate someone active?
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] request for information
On 19 Nov 2008, at 17:47, Ed Murphy wrote: I really don't see someone with a long history of attempting scams being voted into the office that decides who gets first shot at adjudicating the success or failure of scams. Of course, this may change as the player population does. FYI, I would use a random number generator. Also: If I assign a scamster judge to a scam case, it will obviously be appealed no matter what, so I wouldn't.
DIS: Re: BUS: musical banking
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I spent Db Db D to gain a C note. Fails. Surely you meant to write Eb Db D. -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: So Hey This is a CFJ
Wooble wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Murphy, if you reject this as ambiguous I will eat your soul because my intent is clear. I'm so disappointed that I won't get to vote for you as CotC later today. Demanding that a CFJ with no statement is accepted is exactly the sort of attitude we all want in a CotC. Actually, I did accept it. On further reflection: 1) While subject lines are discounted by CFJ 1784 when they're at odds with the body, this is a case where the subject line is referenced by the body (and /it/ asks). ISTR some other CFJ on a message whose subject line identified itself as a proposal. My interpretation here may or may not be compatible with that precedent, depending on whether the body of that message referenced its subject. Either way, I think that precedent ought to be dug up and reviewed; I was never comfortable with the idea that subject lines are /never/ meaningful. 2) I interpreted [This CFJ] asks whether [X]. as clearly identifying X as the statement.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: musical banking
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Ian Kelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I spent Db Db D to gain a C note. Fails. Surely you meant to write Eb Db D. (9) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the distance between the other two Notes spent. C is as many semitones distant from Db as Db is from D.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: musical banking
root wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Geoffrey Spear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I spent Db Db D to gain a C note. Fails. Surely you meant to write Eb Db D. The order shouldn't matter (IIRC ais523 once tried to spend a chord listed in second-inversion order, which failed only because e got one of the individual notes wrong). In particular, D Db Db would work.
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [Notary] request for information
ehird wrote: On 19 Nov 2008, at 17:47, Ed Murphy wrote: I really don't see someone with a long history of attempting scams being voted into the office that decides who gets first shot at adjudicating the success or failure of scams. Of course, this may change as the player population does. FYI, I would use a random number generator. The current interface defaults to random (except giving hugging and hanging judges preference). This used to be required, but (on top of Platonic headaches) sometimes you want to change it up manually so that more judges can be included in the rotation. Also: If I assign a scamster judge to a scam case, it will obviously be appealed no matter what, so I wouldn't. Probably. I've actually limited the extent to which scam cases are assigned to vocal anti-scamsters, for similar reasons.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: So Hey This is a CFJ
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: I'm so disappointed that I won't get to vote for you as CotC later today. Demanding that a CFJ with no statement is accepted is exactly the sort of attitude we all want in a CotC. Actually, I did accept it. On further reflection: Proto (AI=2?) The CotC CAN declare a potential CFJ statement as Malformed by an announcement specifying eir reasons for doing so. E SHOULD only do so if the construction or means of calling the potential CFJ created substantial uncertainty as to its status as a CFJ. A Malformed potential CFJ remains Malformed for one week, during which the CotC is under no obligation to perform actions with respect to it. After one week, a Malformed CFJ ceases to be a be a CFJ or potential CFJ of any kind. A person may make a Malformed CFJ cease to be Malformed with two support, in which case the CotC CANNOT make it Malformed again as described above. [prevents abuse and protects from R101 rights].
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: So Hey This is a CFJ
Goethe wrote: The CotC CAN declare a potential CFJ statement as Malformed by an announcement specifying eir reasons for doing so. E SHOULD only do so if the construction or means of calling the potential CFJ created substantial uncertainty as to its status as a CFJ. A Malformed potential CFJ remains Malformed for one week, during which the CotC is under no obligation to perform actions with respect to it. After one week, a Malformed CFJ ceases to be a be a CFJ or potential CFJ of any kind. A person may make a Malformed CFJ cease to be Malformed with two support, in which case the CotC CANNOT make it Malformed again as described above. [prevents abuse and protects from R101 rights]. The CotC CAN refuse a CFJ without 3 objections, stating eir reasons for doing so.
DIS: Re: BUS: [Coinkeepor] Report location change
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At http://agora.eso-std.org/pba-report.txt now, will change when I get an HTML interfacey thingy to that. Speaking of which, the Conductor report has moved to http://agora.periware.org/conductor/report/ (the previous location has a redirect, but you should still update your links). -root
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: So Hey This is a CFJ
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Kerim Aydin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Proto (AI=2?) The CotC CAN declare a potential CFJ statement as Malformed by an announcement specifying eir reasons for doing so. E SHOULD only do so if the construction or means of calling the potential CFJ created substantial uncertainty as to its status as a CFJ. A Malformed potential CFJ remains Malformed for one week, during which the CotC is under no obligation to perform actions with respect to it. After one week, a Malformed CFJ ceases to be a be a CFJ or potential CFJ of any kind. A person may make a Malformed CFJ cease to be Malformed with two support, in which case the CotC CANNOT make it Malformed again as described above. Buggy. First the Malformed thing is a potential CFJ statement, then it's a potential CFJ, then it's just a CFJ. But a malformed statement was never actually turned into a CFJ... Proto-proto: The initiator of a CFJ is generally the person who initiated it. However, the CotC CAN create an inquiry case by announcement identifying any person as its initiator, as well as a subclass and all parameters generally necessary to initiate a case of that subclass. The CotC SHALL only do this for the purpose of reducing ambiguity.
Re: DIS: Proto: Agora Smock Exchange
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:53 AM, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Proto-contract: Agora Smock Exchange [Too busy for me to handle manually. I hereby turn the concept over to BobTHJ and/or ehird for potential implementation and automation.] 1) Administrivia: a) The name of this public contract is the Agora Smock Exchange (ASE). This contract is a pledge if and only if it has less than two parties. b) Any party to this contract CAN amend it without party objection. c) Actions described in this contract are performed by announcement, unless otherwise specified. 2) For each currency backed by this contract, its recordkeepor is the Broker, and e CAN without party objection cause each active first-class player to gain an equal number of units of that currency. 3) Shekels (~) are a currency. A person CAN transfer a Smock from the ASE to emself (withdraw it) by transferring its face value in shekels from emself to the ASE. A person CAN transfer a Smock from emself to the ASE (deposit it) to transfer its face value in shekels from the ASE to emself. 4) Cotton Smocks are a currency. When a proposal is distributed, the face value of Cotton Smocks is increased by its adoption index (rounded down to the nearest integer). 5) Denim Smocks are a currency. At the end of a proposal's voting period, the face value of Denim Smocks is increased by one if it was adopted, or decreased by one if it met quorum but was rejected with a Voting Index less than half its Adoption Index. 6) Flannel Smocks are a currency. When a rule is created, the face value of Flannel Smocks is increased by twice its power. When a rule is amended, the face value of Flannel Smocks is increased by its power. When a rule is repealed, the face value of Flannel Smocks is decreased by three times its power. 7) Linen Smocks are a currency. When an inquiry case is initiated, the face value of Linen Smocks is increased by one. When an equity case is initiated, the face value of Linen Smocks is increased by two. When a criminal case is initiated, the face value of Linen Smocks is increased by three. 8) Any party to this contract CAN, with party support, label a change in face value as spam. That type of Smock's face value thereby decreases (increases) by twice the amount that it originally increased (decreased) due to that change. Parties SHALL NOT do this unless the change was caused by one of a large number of similar frivolous actions, or was itself an ILLEGAL spam labeling. 9) At the end of each month, each type of Smock's face value decreases by 50. 99) When this contract is created: a) Each active first-class player gains ~3,000 and one of each type of Smock. b) The ASE gains ten of each type of Smock. c) The face value of each type of Smock is initialized to 500. d) name becomes the Broker. e) This clause is repealed. Wouldn't it be best then to always buy Linen Smocks and Cotton Smocks, and sell them at the end of the month, and repeat?
DIS: Re: BUS: Beyond the grave (not really)
On 19/11/2008, Nick Vanderweit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because people have been bugging me, I agree to the following contract:
{ehird can act on behalf of avpx to choose a target for lynching in
Werewolves.}
avpx
Oh, stuff you.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Beyond the grave (not really)
On 20/11/2008, Elliott Hird [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19/11/2008, Nick Vanderweit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because people have been bugging me, I agree to the following contract:
{ehird can act on behalf of avpx to choose a target for lynching in
Werewolves.}
avpx
Oh, stuff you.
Nevermind. Misread. Thanks.
Re: DIS: Proto: Agora Smock Exchange
Sgeo wrote: Wouldn't it be best then to always buy Linen Smocks and Cotton Smocks, and sell them at the end of the month, and repeat? Blah, you're right. Maybe smock - shekel conversion should only be allowed during the first week of each month?
Re: DIS: Proto: Agora Smock Exchange
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 18:31, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sgeo wrote: Wouldn't it be best then to always buy Linen Smocks and Cotton Smocks, and sell them at the end of the month, and repeat? Blah, you're right. Maybe smock - shekel conversion should only be allowed during the first week of each month? Charge an approx. (day of month)/(days in month)*50 shekel exchange fee? - woggle
DIS: Some pianos
Just a quick thing I hacked up: http://agora.qoid.us/notes
Re: DIS: Some pianos
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 7:57 PM, comex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Just a quick thing I hacked up: http://agora.qoid.us/notes Yay, a view I don't have to write. If you don't want to scrape the text report, there's a dump of most of the database available at http://agora.periware.org/dumpdata/json/ or http://agora.periware.org/dumpdata/xml/ Presently it's uncached, so please don't hit it too hard. -root
Re: DIS: Proto: Agora Smock Exchange
woggle wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 18:31, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sgeo wrote: Wouldn't it be best then to always buy Linen Smocks and Cotton Smocks, and sell them at the end of the month, and repeat? Blah, you're right. Maybe smock - shekel conversion should only be allowed during the first week of each month? Charge an approx. (day of month)/(days in month)*50 shekel exchange fee? In addition to the -50 per month, or instead of? Might want to make that -50 floating as well, too, in case things slow down again (ha!).
Re: DIS: Some pianos
comex wrote: http://agora.qoid.us/notes Cute. How about ditching the detailed tables and just labeling the keys instead?
Re: DIS: Proto: Agora Smock Exchange
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 20:35, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: woggle wrote: On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 18:31, Ed Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sgeo wrote: Wouldn't it be best then to always buy Linen Smocks and Cotton Smocks, and sell them at the end of the month, and repeat? Blah, you're right. Maybe smock - shekel conversion should only be allowed during the first week of each month? Charge an approx. (day of month)/(days in month)*50 shekel exchange fee? In addition to the -50 per month, or instead of? Might want to make that -50 floating as well, too, in case things slow down again (ha!). That would be in addition to -- the assumption is, basically, that you'd be getting about fair money at the time you sold if the net gain/month was 0. Alternately, you could adjust have the -50/month be assessed daily or on some other sufficiently small time period. -woggle
